I need help re:Help with Telephoto analysis paralysis to compliment Nikon Z 100-400 post

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

E

Evcarter82

Member
Member's gallery
I’ve read the responses to this post and now I have my own question. I currently shoot z8 with Nikon 200-500. I’m 5’1’ 65 yo with not huge upper body strength so this combo is about max for what I can hand hold. I really want a little more reach lol but am definitely on a smaller budget. I shoot a lot of birds at our water hole which is quite poorly lighted so I’m struggling with routine very high ISO. Most of my shots are at 500 mm and rarely less. I’m really torn between the 600 and the 180-600 both for weight and light. I’d really appreciate input. Thanks!
 
Member's gallery
The 600 PF is lighter, 3.25 lbs, and shorter, 11 inches. It’s a fixed focal length, so there’s no flexibility of a zoom lens.

The 180-600 is heavier, 4.3 lbs, and longer, 12.5 inches. And, there’s the flexibility of a zoom, which you’re used to with the 200-500. Also, the 180-600 is an internal zoom lens, so there isn't the telescoping lens barrel of the 200-500. And, the zoom ring requires much less of a turn to change from minimum to maximum focal length.

Both the 600 PF and 180-600 have f/6.3 aperture at 600mm, so light gathering potential is identical. A loss of one third of a stop from your 200-500 is minimal. I think the acuity of the 600 PF and focus speed are superior to the 180-600, but it’s more than twice as expensive.

So, you have a decision. Both lenses are longer than what you currently have, but lighter (200-500 is 10.5 inches & 5 lbs). One is less expensive, and has zoom flexibility. The other is more expensive, but with better acuity and focus speed.

Which of those factors are most important to you? If it’s cost, the 180-600 seems to me to be the best choice. Either way, you’ll have upgraded your kit. 😊
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Evcarter82 said:
Thank you. I was kind of wondering if anyone who shoots these 2 had any thoughts also. I think I would love the 600 but it is probably out of my budget right now. Might need to just keep saving. 😊
Click to expand...
You're welcome. From time to time, Nikon sells refurbished 600 PF lenses at a discount from the price as new, but with a 90 day warranty. Also, some retailers sell open box products, usually floor models or used for demo purposes. Those have the full one year warranty, but are sold at a small discount from the price as new. Occasionally you may find a used one in good condition for sale here at BCG, Fred Miranda, mpb, or KEH.
 
Member's gallery
I had the 180-600 and sold it a few months ago when I got a 600PF from someone on this forum. Both are very sharp and well built lenses with same maximum aperture. I loved the 180-600 but sold it due to weight. It is not unbearable, but walking around after an hour or so it got uncomfortable. I am more than a foot taller than you and a few years younger, so I suspect if the weight was an issue for me it would be for you as well. The 600PF is much more comfortable and about the most weight I would want to carry. The inch and a half savings in length is also much better for my camera bag. I have not tested it yet, but I assume the fixed lens would also take teleconverters better than the zoom.
 
Member's gallery
If you are satisfied with the reach of your 200-500 then you might want to consider the 500pf. It would be 1/3 stop faster and lighter than your 200-500. My wife shoots the 500pf with the 1.4 ll tc and gets very good to excellent results, she does shoot from a tripod though, and is 4’9’’. Down side is used it is probably going to be more expensive than the 180-600. I recently purchased the 180-600 and so far all is good. I have found it to be hand hold able, but if I have the time and a patient subject I prefer to use a tripod. Also gives me the opportunity to get a couple of shots then get the 600F4 up on the tripod.
 
Member's gallery
You'll never have enough reach. :) At some point you need to accept that reality and simply come up with the optimum solutions for what and where you make photographs.

The 100-400 is a tough call. It covers a very nice range, has excellent close focus, and provides lots of flexibility. But 400mm is not very long and the 600mm PF is probably the next level to complement the 100-400.

I have the 800mm PF, and it is too long for many situations. It's ideal for birds - especially small birds. It's hard to have much environmental context with large mammals.

My main kit is the 70-200, 400mm f/4.5, and 800mm PF. I've chosen to have gaps and clear choices. For long lens choice, it's often a choice between mammals and birds. Large wading birds fall into the mammal category and usually can be photographed with the 400mm lens, but small birds or jumpy subjects always require something longer.

The 180-600 is probably your answer. Depending on what you are shooting, you'll either take the 100-400 or the 180-600. The price is reasonable and optics are good. The 600mm PF is likely the preferred choice, but as you point out, it is much more expensive. The 180-600 is light enough that you can handhold it or use it with a monopod/tripod. It may not be your choice for travel, for butterflies and dragonflies, or for modest hiking, but it covers everything else pretty well. You could also consider a 1.4 TC for occasional use, but you will have a slight drop in sharpness.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
You'll never have enough reach. :) At some point you need to accept that reality and simply come up with the optimum solutions for what and where you make photographs.

The 100-400 is a tough call. It covers a very nice range, has excellent close focus, and provides lots of flexibility. But 400mm is not very long and the 600mm PF is probably the next level to complement the 100-400.

I have the 800mm PF, and it is too long for many situations. It's ideal for birds - especially small birds. It's hard to have much environmental context with large mammals.

My main kit is the 70-200, 400mm f/4.5, and 800mm PF. I've chosen to have gaps and clear choices. For long lens choice, it's often a choice between mammals and birds. Large wading birds fall into the mammal category and usually can be photographed with the 400mm lens, but small birds or jumpy subjects always require something longer.

The 180-600 is probably your answer. Depending on what you are shooting, you'll either take the 100-400 or the 180-600. The price is reasonable and optics are good. The 600mm PF is likely the preferred choice, but as you point out, it is much more expensive. The 180-600 is light enough that you can handhold it or use it with a monopod/tripod. It may not be your choice for travel, for butterflies and dragonflies, or for modest hiking, but it covers everything else pretty well. You could also consider a 1.4 TC for occasional use, but you will have a slight drop in sharpness.
Click to expand...
Thank you! I have tried backing off and shooting at 400mm for a day with the 200-500 and I just can’t stand it😂 I’m always going back to full out 500mm before the day is out. I’m very afraid I won’t be happy going shorter. I appreciate all the input and it has helped in my leaning towards the 180-600. Again, thx much!
 
Member's gallery
I just spent 3 days in the Smokies photographing wildlife - bears, deer, elk, wild turkeys, etc. I used my 400mm f/4.5 and the 70-200 f/2.8. The 400mm lens was too long at times but it was usually my first choice. I'd switch to vertical compositions when subjects were too close. I had a lot of light rain so low light was a factor. I knew the forecast and subject matter in advance so the 800mm lens did not make the trip - only a 1.4 TC - which I never used.

The week before I was in the Okefenokee - in a canoe most of the time. I shot landscapes and the wildlife was with the 400mm f/4.5 or 70-200 f/2.8. At times I wanted something longer for small birds, but the 800mm PF would have probably not been enough for the songbirds we were seeing. Bird activity was sparse so many photos were environmental images with the bird intentionally small in the frame.

Two weeks ago I was photographing birds. I only used the 800mm PF - the only lens I carried. It was usually the right choice - and at times I needed something longer.

It's a matter of subject matter, location, and how you like to photograph subjects. But think about your entire kit when you are making decisions.
 
Member's gallery
If you are working with a tight budget, then I don't think spending a lot of money to go from 500mm is 600mm is worth it. You certainly can't stay in budget if you are trying to find a brighter lens, because then you are looking at one of the big primes which are $$$$. If you are serious on spending some money on upgrading your lens, then I think the recommendation to go for the 180-600 is a good option. Although it's extra reach over your 200-500 is minimal and the aperture isn't any brighter, you will certainly gain a faster focus, lose 0.65 pounds (difference in weight between the lenses + FTZ adapter) , and improved image quality – not that the 200-500 is bad by any means. I have not used that lens, but I do have the 600pf which is a great telephoto for hiking with spectacular image quality. But it is much more expensive than the 180-600 as others have already mentioned.
 
Member's gallery
Evcarter82 said:
I’ve read the responses to this post and now I have my own question. I currently shoot z8 with Nikon 200-500. I’m 5’1’ 65 yo with not huge upper body strength so this combo is about max for what I can hand hold. I really want a little more reach lol but am definitely on a smaller budget. I shoot a lot of birds at our water hole which is quite poorly lighted so I’m struggling with routine very high ISO. Most of my shots are at 500 mm and rarely less. I’m really torn between the 600 and the 180-600 both for weight and light. I’d really appreciate input. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Although I usually carry 2x Z8 with 600PF and 100-400…along with the 1.4TC…if you forced me to choose and only have one of them…the 600PF would win hands down for size, IQ, and weight. A 500PF and FTZ are also good if budget is an issue…but the Z PF is better and more importantly longer…and even more important takes the TC better than the F version.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
I just spent 3 days in the Smokies photographing wildlife - bears, deer, elk, wild turkeys, etc. I used my 400mm f/4.5 and the 70-200 f/2.8. The 400mm lens was too long at times but it was usually my first choice. I'd switch to vertical compositions when subjects were too close. I had a lot of light rain so low light was a factor. I knew the forecast and subject matter in advance so the 800mm lens did not make the trip - only a 1.4 TC - which I never used.
Click to expand...
Off topic, but I hope the communities surrounding the eastern side of the park are recovering. I hope to make a trip there again in 2025. I didn’t see any deer or bears when I was there in September but there were plenty of Elk and Wild Turkeys.
 
Member's gallery
Tim Karels said:
If you are working with a tight budget, then I don't think spending a lot of money to go from 500mm is 600mm is worth it. You certainly can't stay in budget if you are trying to find a brighter lens, because then you are looking at one of the big primes which are $$$$. If you are serious on spending some money on upgrading your lens, then I think the recommendation to go for the 180-600 is a good option. Although it's extra reach over your 200-500 is minimal and the aperture isn't any brighter, you will certainly gain a faster focus, lose 0.65 pounds (difference in weight between the lenses + FTZ adapter) , and improved image quality – not that the 200-500 is bad by any means. I have not used that lens, but I do have the 600pf which is a great telephoto for hiking with spectacular image quality. But it is much more expensive than the 180-600 as others have already mentioned.
Click to expand...
Thank you! Yes I’m afraid after comparing the suggested options I’m probably best to stay with what I have or go with the 180-600 because it is a Z lens. If I had unlimited budget it would be different. I truly appreciate everyone who weighed in!
 
Member's gallery
My initial long Z mount lens for my z9 was the 100-400mm S lens with the 1.4x tc. I needed more focal length so I got the 600mm f6.3 pf z mount lens. I am 81, and I can handle the 600mm f6.3. I use it mostly with a monopod and the wimberley monopod head. My advice is to get one of the three Nikon Z mount 600mm lenses: the zoom; the 600mm f4 + tc or the 600mm f6.3.

Buy a book or do an internet search and look for exercises that strengthen your core muscles, upper body and arm strength. Make sure you learn exercises for balance, flexibility and strength. Do not wait until you are 80. If your legs are weak, look for hip abductor and adductor exercises; then squats, clam shells, etc.
 
Member's gallery
JAJohnson said:
Off topic, but I hope the communities surrounding the eastern side of the park are recovering. I hope to make a trip there again in 2025. I didn’t see any deer or bears when I was there in September but there were plenty of Elk and Wild Turkeys.
Click to expand...
I saw 26 elk in a field near the park entrance near Cherokee (Oconoluftee). Cataloochee is still closed and had extensive flooding as well as tree damage along both entries. It's very likely it will be back to normal by spring. Cataloochee normally is closed in winter due to ice and snow on an old road over the mountains into the valley. I saw lots of bears in Cades Cove as well as near Chimneys and in Roaring Fork.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top