Nah. It's all rounded to the nearest actual focal length (i.e, 800 covers 800 and 840).So......the 800mm in over just a few years has equaled the usage of the 600mm over 10 years?
Lenses/Focal Lengths for Wildlife Shooting
- Thread starter stlsailor
- Start date
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).
Gov
Active member
Ten years ago you would have had to manually add the TC to get to 840. Now you can just flip a switch on you 600 TC. Do you find that with the 600 TC you are shooting more at 840 than you were before you were using that lens? Another way to ask is, what are your 600/840 percentages with just the 600 TC lens?
For you and other wildlife photographers, 600 has long been the sweet spot. We all lusted for a 600 f4 lens. But I am wondering if because of the ease we now can get to 800/840, either by a 600 TC or 800 PF, is 800/840 gaining on 600 as the sweet spot for those who mainly shoot birds?
Last edited:
Calson
Well-known member
I have owned 3 of the Nikon 600mm f/4 telephoto lenses over the years and the majority of the time I had a 1.4x teleconverter attached. I would guess this is common and why Nikon decided to produce the 600mm f/4 Z lens with the 1.4x teleconverter built in. That is why I chose to get the 800mm PF that is much lighter and I can use hand held.
If I had a 600mm lens attached to my camera and mounted on a tripod then any situation where the subject was too close or too far away or too large or too small would not be photographed. My percentage of shots would be distorted as a result and not reflect the best focal lengths for these locations and these animals but rather the focal lengths that were available.
When the percentage of shots at various focal lengths can be useful to examine when deciding which focal length to get with a prime lens. If a 180-600mm shooting profile showed most shots clustered around 400mm the choice of a prime to add would be different than if the shots were clustered at 600mm or the end of the zoom lens focal length range.
This is even more true when shooting from a boat where a tripod is impractical and I have used the 80-400mm, 100-400mm, and 500mm PF lenses for 100% of my images. The 600mm would be left behind. On my last trip to Costa Rica the 600mm lens was used for fewer than 10% of my images with 90% taken with either the 200mm micro, the 80-400mm zoom or the 500mm PF.
I have shot with 100mm to 840mm focal lengths and have found it best to use two cameras and mount a zoom lens on one and a prime lens on the other. It could be the 80-400mm along with a 600mm (with or without the TC-14) or now with the 100-400mm or the 180-600mm on one camera and the 800mm lens on the second camera.
Zoom lenses lend themselves to use when shooting video and the greater the zoom range the more useful they become. IQ also becomes far less important other than not wanting focus breathing with the lens.
If I had a 600mm lens attached to my camera and mounted on a tripod then any situation where the subject was too close or too far away or too large or too small would not be photographed. My percentage of shots would be distorted as a result and not reflect the best focal lengths for these locations and these animals but rather the focal lengths that were available.
When the percentage of shots at various focal lengths can be useful to examine when deciding which focal length to get with a prime lens. If a 180-600mm shooting profile showed most shots clustered around 400mm the choice of a prime to add would be different than if the shots were clustered at 600mm or the end of the zoom lens focal length range.
This is even more true when shooting from a boat where a tripod is impractical and I have used the 80-400mm, 100-400mm, and 500mm PF lenses for 100% of my images. The 600mm would be left behind. On my last trip to Costa Rica the 600mm lens was used for fewer than 10% of my images with 90% taken with either the 200mm micro, the 80-400mm zoom or the 500mm PF.
I have shot with 100mm to 840mm focal lengths and have found it best to use two cameras and mount a zoom lens on one and a prime lens on the other. It could be the 80-400mm along with a 600mm (with or without the TC-14) or now with the 100-400mm or the 180-600mm on one camera and the 800mm lens on the second camera.
Zoom lenses lend themselves to use when shooting video and the greater the zoom range the more useful they become. IQ also becomes far less important other than not wanting focus breathing with the lens.
I have the 3 Z lenses you mention in your original post. And a few more.
You note that you have done occasional wildlife photography with your Z 70-200, and sometimes a TC, and you want to get more into wildlife photography.
Given that situation, I'd recommend the Z 180-600. Reasonable in price. Very good performance, especially given the price. It would pair well with your 70-200. Having zoom flexibility is very nice. Later, as you see what you like to photograph and where, you can consider adding another long lens (or two) as desirable.
In comparing the lenses you mentioned: I'd say the Z 100-400 and Z 180-600 are pretty similar optically at equivalent focal lengths. Might give a slight nod in sharpness to the Z 180-600 at 300 mm and 400 mm. The Z 100-400 will get you to 100 and has a very nice close focus ability, useful for small, but not tiny subjects. The Z 180-600 will get you out to 600. Very useful in many wildlife situations. The Z 100-400 is lighter and a bit faster; it takes the 1.4x TC well (although that leaves you at 560 mm f8 at the long end). The Z 180-600 has an internal zoom, which is nice. I bought the Z 100-400 when it first came out and have liked the lens a lot. I added the Z 180-600 last fall and also like it a lot. It's possible that I would not have bought the Z 100-400 if the Z 180-600 had been available first.
At this point, I've shot both of these zooms a lot. If I want one lens and the most versatile wildlife coverage, I usually take the Z 180-600 over the Z 100-400. If I'm going to take two lens on an outing, I might choose the Z 100-400 and a longer lens, say the Z 600 mm PF or Z 800 mm PF. It depends on what I am going to shoot, where I am going to shoot, how I am going to shoot and how I will get there.
I also have the Z 400 f4.5. I like it a lot. It's light and of very good optical quality. The only lens better than it at 400 mm is the Z 400 mm TC lens, an exceptional lens, but an expensive beast. So the Z 400 mm f4.5 is better at 400 mm than either of the two zooms and also better at 400 mm than your Z 70-200 with a 2x TC. It is a very good 560 mm f6.3 with the 1.4x TC; but use of a TC narrows the difference with respect to the Z 180-600. The Z 400 f4.5 also takes the 2x TC quite well, giving you a lightweight 800 mm f9 lens. If you go this route, I would recommend having both Z TCs.
But I don't think I'd make my choice between these lenses solely based on pure optical quality. Each of them is good enough to give you very good results with good post-processing. I'd think more about flexibility, cost and weight (not all of which point in the same direction) at this point. As many of us have found, you can always add another lens later; and if you get more into wildlife photography and budget allows, you almost certainly will.
You note that you have done occasional wildlife photography with your Z 70-200, and sometimes a TC, and you want to get more into wildlife photography.
Given that situation, I'd recommend the Z 180-600. Reasonable in price. Very good performance, especially given the price. It would pair well with your 70-200. Having zoom flexibility is very nice. Later, as you see what you like to photograph and where, you can consider adding another long lens (or two) as desirable.
In comparing the lenses you mentioned: I'd say the Z 100-400 and Z 180-600 are pretty similar optically at equivalent focal lengths. Might give a slight nod in sharpness to the Z 180-600 at 300 mm and 400 mm. The Z 100-400 will get you to 100 and has a very nice close focus ability, useful for small, but not tiny subjects. The Z 180-600 will get you out to 600. Very useful in many wildlife situations. The Z 100-400 is lighter and a bit faster; it takes the 1.4x TC well (although that leaves you at 560 mm f8 at the long end). The Z 180-600 has an internal zoom, which is nice. I bought the Z 100-400 when it first came out and have liked the lens a lot. I added the Z 180-600 last fall and also like it a lot. It's possible that I would not have bought the Z 100-400 if the Z 180-600 had been available first.
At this point, I've shot both of these zooms a lot. If I want one lens and the most versatile wildlife coverage, I usually take the Z 180-600 over the Z 100-400. If I'm going to take two lens on an outing, I might choose the Z 100-400 and a longer lens, say the Z 600 mm PF or Z 800 mm PF. It depends on what I am going to shoot, where I am going to shoot, how I am going to shoot and how I will get there.
I also have the Z 400 f4.5. I like it a lot. It's light and of very good optical quality. The only lens better than it at 400 mm is the Z 400 mm TC lens, an exceptional lens, but an expensive beast. So the Z 400 mm f4.5 is better at 400 mm than either of the two zooms and also better at 400 mm than your Z 70-200 with a 2x TC. It is a very good 560 mm f6.3 with the 1.4x TC; but use of a TC narrows the difference with respect to the Z 180-600. The Z 400 f4.5 also takes the 2x TC quite well, giving you a lightweight 800 mm f9 lens. If you go this route, I would recommend having both Z TCs.
But I don't think I'd make my choice between these lenses solely based on pure optical quality. Each of them is good enough to give you very good results with good post-processing. I'd think more about flexibility, cost and weight (not all of which point in the same direction) at this point. As many of us have found, you can always add another lens later; and if you get more into wildlife photography and budget allows, you almost certainly will.
nmerc_photos
Well-known member
I have owned and used every Nikon Z telephoto from 70-200 to 800PF. if you want more details about any, I'm happy to PM them rather than clog up the thread.
Of your 3 choices, and knowing you already have the 70-200 - I would go with either the 400 4.5 or the 180-600.
The 100-400 is the least impressive lens in the line up, from my own use. It is most useful as a landscape or quasi macro lens, rather than a wildlife lens. I find the 180-600 has better IQ all the way through the range than the 100-400. The 180-600 certainly takes TC's better. The 100-400 also can easily be replaced by your current 70-200 with TC's.
Others have beaten the horse to death about focal length, subjects, etc.
I would say that just starting out - a 2 zoom combo would be good. 70-200, 180-600. done. They compliment each other well, with minimal overlap.
I think you may find the 400 4.5 too short unless you are experienced with that focal length, and you may just end up gluing a 1.4x to it as a quasi-600PF.
Of your 3 choices, and knowing you already have the 70-200 - I would go with either the 400 4.5 or the 180-600.
The 100-400 is the least impressive lens in the line up, from my own use. It is most useful as a landscape or quasi macro lens, rather than a wildlife lens. I find the 180-600 has better IQ all the way through the range than the 100-400. The 180-600 certainly takes TC's better. The 100-400 also can easily be replaced by your current 70-200 with TC's.
Others have beaten the horse to death about focal length, subjects, etc.
I would say that just starting out - a 2 zoom combo would be good. 70-200, 180-600. done. They compliment each other well, with minimal overlap.
I think you may find the 400 4.5 too short unless you are experienced with that focal length, and you may just end up gluing a 1.4x to it as a quasi-600PF.
joe43
Well-known member
I have a Z9, D850 and D500. My most used lenses are my Nikon 500mm f5.6pf with and without a 1.4x tc. My second most used lens is the Z mount 100-400mm S lens, sometimes with the Z mount 1.4x tc. For most wildlife, the 100-400mm is usually long enough especially if you are showcasing habitat as well as the animal. For birds, I hope to get the Z mount 600mm pf. I am tempted to check out the 800mm pf too. If I were to get the Zmount 180-600mm I would likely sell my 100-400 S and buy the 70-180mm f2.8 Z mount. I still use the 500mm pf on my D500 for birds. That is equivalent to 750mm and why I need to check out the 800mm pf. My only other Z mount lens right now is the 24-120mm.
A friend of mine has a Z9 and the 800mm pf and the 180-600mm. I am awaiting his observations.
A friend of mine has a Z9 and the 800mm pf and the 180-600mm. I am awaiting his observations.
Usually when I get questions about gear, I hem-and-haw a lot, with lots of “it depends” - but based on what you’re considering and what you’ve said, I honestly don’t think the choice is even close. The 180-600 has at least as good IQ as the 100-400 and has more reach. I’d rule the 100-400 out (note that I own both of those lenses). The 400 f4.5 is sharper, and would take the TC better, but a 400+2TC vs a 180-600+1.4TC for getting further out …. I’d take the 180-600. And I’m a firm believer in ”the shot you got is infinitely better than the one you didn’t”. If you’re fumbling with a TC and missing shots as a result, your overall keeper rate is going to be lower.
For someone who‘s just starting out, not entirely sure what they want to shoot and how to shoot it …. you’d be awfully hard pressed to beat the 180-600 for its flexibility and overall value proposition. It’s a very versatile lens at a killer price.
As you learn shooting at longer focal lengths and all of the issues that come with it, starting out by keeping things easy is going to benefit you WAY more than a marginal improvement in IQ. Being able to zoom out, get your lens on something, then zoom in, is going to be very helpful and lower your overall frustration levels. And you can slowly build up your muscle memory for how and where to point your lens when at the longer end of the range. If you start out with a 400 and do a lot of fumbling with TCs, or start out with a 600 and have to instantly learn how to get the darned animal in view, and how to track it, and when to look out for thermal distortions, and all of the other things that come with long lens work …. You’re as likely as not to just get frustrated and/or not find it as enjoyable as you thought.
Start out easy and find your way from there. I can’t think of a better choice than the 180-600. In fact, today I was actually thinking about how complicated I’ve made my photography. Today was one of my maintenance days - I went through all of my lenses, cleaned the ones that needed cleaning, checked the FW updates to see if any needed updates, etc. I have way too many lenses now. I found myself specifically looking at my 180-600 and thinking that in some ways things were nicer when it was simpler, and I only had 3 lenses: 24-70, 70-200, 150-600. I was still trying to figure out what I wanted to shoot and how I wanted to shoot it. Those 3 lenses let me do almost everything I needed, and gave me a ton of flexibility to see where my journey would take me. Nowadays I spend most of my time with prime lenses. The 400TC and 600TC sure have made life easier to live with primes, but there are still days I wistfully look at my zooms. And don’t get me started about preparing to pack for a trip, regardless of how short or long …. I spend an inordinate amount of time fretting over which lenses to bring and which to leave. On the one hand, it’s really a good problem to have. I am super fortunate that I have a lot of choices and I know a lot of people would probably be angry to hear someone complain of having such a “problem” and offer to make things much easier for me by relieving me of some of my gear. On the other hand, I could really use less stress in my life, and sometimes simpler is better.
Just my $0.02
For someone who‘s just starting out, not entirely sure what they want to shoot and how to shoot it …. you’d be awfully hard pressed to beat the 180-600 for its flexibility and overall value proposition. It’s a very versatile lens at a killer price.
As you learn shooting at longer focal lengths and all of the issues that come with it, starting out by keeping things easy is going to benefit you WAY more than a marginal improvement in IQ. Being able to zoom out, get your lens on something, then zoom in, is going to be very helpful and lower your overall frustration levels. And you can slowly build up your muscle memory for how and where to point your lens when at the longer end of the range. If you start out with a 400 and do a lot of fumbling with TCs, or start out with a 600 and have to instantly learn how to get the darned animal in view, and how to track it, and when to look out for thermal distortions, and all of the other things that come with long lens work …. You’re as likely as not to just get frustrated and/or not find it as enjoyable as you thought.
Start out easy and find your way from there. I can’t think of a better choice than the 180-600. In fact, today I was actually thinking about how complicated I’ve made my photography. Today was one of my maintenance days - I went through all of my lenses, cleaned the ones that needed cleaning, checked the FW updates to see if any needed updates, etc. I have way too many lenses now. I found myself specifically looking at my 180-600 and thinking that in some ways things were nicer when it was simpler, and I only had 3 lenses: 24-70, 70-200, 150-600. I was still trying to figure out what I wanted to shoot and how I wanted to shoot it. Those 3 lenses let me do almost everything I needed, and gave me a ton of flexibility to see where my journey would take me. Nowadays I spend most of my time with prime lenses. The 400TC and 600TC sure have made life easier to live with primes, but there are still days I wistfully look at my zooms. And don’t get me started about preparing to pack for a trip, regardless of how short or long …. I spend an inordinate amount of time fretting over which lenses to bring and which to leave. On the one hand, it’s really a good problem to have. I am super fortunate that I have a lot of choices and I know a lot of people would probably be angry to hear someone complain of having such a “problem” and offer to make things much easier for me by relieving me of some of my gear. On the other hand, I could really use less stress in my life, and sometimes simpler is better.
Just my $0.02
My experience is that you need 800mm (ff equ.) for birds most of the time. If you are OK shooting DX mode then the 600pf is a no brainer.
fcotterill
Well-known member
All's been said about sharpness and rendering of the many telephotos of different focal lengths. The Greater Nikon Ecosystem no longer has serious gaps, at least in the Telephoto options, including heavier lenses for a Destination Kit or lighter optics in your Commando Kit.
The important factor is they all deliver high quality images used correctly; such that it's very tricky to discriminate between the role of the particular lens looking at an attention grabbing photograph.
It's more important to think out what compositions and content you aspire to capture of wildlife and their habitats.... which @BLev65 summarized better than I can
The important factor is they all deliver high quality images used correctly; such that it's very tricky to discriminate between the role of the particular lens looking at an attention grabbing photograph.
It's more important to think out what compositions and content you aspire to capture of wildlife and their habitats.... which @BLev65 summarized better than I can
Last edited:
Roybon
Member
If you're starting in wildlife, my recommandation would be for a zoom, as you'll learned which focal is best according to :
- Your ability/knowledge to be close to wildlife without disturbing
- Kind of wildlife you're looking for (Bird, big or small Mammal, predator or not)
- Your region, are these wildlife hunt where you plan to take pictures ? implies they will avoid human being at all cost, etc ...
If you're already with Z mount, I guess the 180-600 is an honest choice and avoid big spending to start with.
my 2 cents ...
- Your ability/knowledge to be close to wildlife without disturbing
- Kind of wildlife you're looking for (Bird, big or small Mammal, predator or not)
- Your region, are these wildlife hunt where you plan to take pictures ? implies they will avoid human being at all cost, etc ...
If you're already with Z mount, I guess the 180-600 is an honest choice and avoid big spending to start with.
my 2 cents ...
Marsha Jane
Active member
The 100 to 400 can be programmed with a function button to be cropped to give you a reach of more than 500 mm. I have used this, both as a temporary way to zoom in and also as a way to crop in camera.
Calson
Well-known member
I have found the 100-400mm lens useful with eye detection on the Z9. The eye detection would fail at 300mm but be successful at 400mm and so I would focus at 400mm and then adjust the lens to 300mm for the subject framing I wanted. I can crop an image in post but I cannot add to the area around a subject if the cropping was the result of having too narrow a view angle with the lens I was using. This is why with the 600mm lens, with or without a teleconverter, was used always with a 80-400mm lens on a second body that I carried as well.
Shooting from a hide/blind a zoom lens is invaluable. With a prime I would find I needed to try to not spook a subject as it moved in my direction and reduced the camera to subject distance. The 180-600mm would be my first choice in such a situation.
Shooting from a hide/blind a zoom lens is invaluable. With a prime I would find I needed to try to not spook a subject as it moved in my direction and reduced the camera to subject distance. The 180-600mm would be my first choice in such a situation.
eaj101
Well-known member
One has to be careful with testimonials on the internet.... my experience runs counter to some of the assertions here, but generally for image quality you can cover the differences between most options with a handkerchief. Except for the absolute low end (TCs on a consumer lens) and the absolute high end (spend $15K on a 400f2.8 or 600f4) most of us would have to do extreme pixel peeping to tell the differences.
One thing that hasn't been noted is that there is such a thing as *too much lens*. Extreme focal lengths have limitations, and shooting from further away is a poor compromise - too much air ruins a lot of shots. This is one of the things that inclines many to zooms, or using teleconverters. Yes, you need a 800mm lens for warblers, but you probably don't need one for waterfowl, for example. For what it's worth, I sold my 600f4 and don't lust after an 800mm. (I suppose it's possible that if 800mm was an option I might shoot differently). Currently using the 100-400 and 500PF, sometimes with TCs (looked at the 600PF but right now there's not enough benefit over the 500PF to pull the trigger).
If you haven't found him yet, Thom Hogan is one of the most reliable sources for Nikon information, and he's been doing it for years. Two relevant articles:
My advice? Start with the 100-400.
One thing that hasn't been noted is that there is such a thing as *too much lens*. Extreme focal lengths have limitations, and shooting from further away is a poor compromise - too much air ruins a lot of shots. This is one of the things that inclines many to zooms, or using teleconverters. Yes, you need a 800mm lens for warblers, but you probably don't need one for waterfowl, for example. For what it's worth, I sold my 600f4 and don't lust after an 800mm. (I suppose it's possible that if 800mm was an option I might shoot differently). Currently using the 100-400 and 500PF, sometimes with TCs (looked at the 600PF but right now there's not enough benefit over the 500PF to pull the trigger).
If you haven't found him yet, Thom Hogan is one of the most reliable sources for Nikon information, and he's been doing it for years. Two relevant articles:
Best Telephoto Options in the Z Mount | Thom Hogan
What's the best telephoto option for a Z camera at 200-800mm?
www.zsystemuser.com
Nikon 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR Lens Review | Thom Hogan
Review of the Nikon 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR Z-mount lens
www.zsystemuser.com
My advice? Start with the 100-400.
+1
100-400
Kjellis
Well-known member
My experience differs from others it seems. I had both the 100-400 and the 400/4.5 at the same time. When I made the decision to buy the 600/4 TC I had to sell one of them to put the money towards the big prime. After studying my Lightroom catalogue and with the experience I had with both lenses I sold the 400/4.5. As I found there was not a big difference in sharpness and I really had to pixel peep to se a difference. The 100-400 has really amazed me how good it is, in good light I have even found it acceptable sharp with the 1,4 converter. And since it focuses so close it makes it the most versatile lens in my bag.
So why did I buy the 400/4.5 you might be wondering? Well the 100-400 and I didn‘t start our relationship in a great way. I had to wait 8 months for my Z9 to be delivered. I bought the 100-400 in january and it performed poorly on my Z6ii. I was just not able to get a sharp image from this combo no matter what I tried. So when the 400/4.5 was announced I placed an order for it to replace my 100-400. While waiting for the 400/4.5 I recieved my Z9. I mounted the 100-400 on the Z9 to save weight on a hike and to my surprise the images was razor sharp! And ever since the100-400 has really grown on me! So I really hope the Z6ii was the bad apple in the basket and the lens will perform great with my future cameras also, not just this Z9 I have. LOL
So why did I buy the 400/4.5 you might be wondering? Well the 100-400 and I didn‘t start our relationship in a great way. I had to wait 8 months for my Z9 to be delivered. I bought the 100-400 in january and it performed poorly on my Z6ii. I was just not able to get a sharp image from this combo no matter what I tried. So when the 400/4.5 was announced I placed an order for it to replace my 100-400. While waiting for the 400/4.5 I recieved my Z9. I mounted the 100-400 on the Z9 to save weight on a hike and to my surprise the images was razor sharp! And ever since the100-400 has really grown on me! So I really hope the Z6ii was the bad apple in the basket and the lens will perform great with my future cameras also, not just this Z9 I have. LOL
Last edited: