Nikon 100-400 S or 180-600?

[joe43]

I voted to keep both, but so far I have no intention of getting the new 180mm-600mm. My decision is based on the lenses I now use with my Z9 and that I need a focal length greater than 400mm:
24-120mm f4 S
100-400mm S
500mm f5.6 pf F mount
70-200mm f4 F mount
F and Z mount 1.4x tcs.

For me, a Z mount 70-200mm f2.8 was not needed. I opted for the 100-400mm S to cover that range. And since I have and use the F mount 500mm f5.6 pf I cannot justify getting the new 180mm-600mm.

And if I owned the S mount 400mm lens, my vote may have been different.

For my kind of shooting, often the prime tele is my first choice over a zoom tele.

 

[MrFotoFool]

A year and a half ago I got the Sony 200-600 (even though the rest of my gear was Nikon F). I have never had a lens that went to 600mm but now that I have it I can't imagine life without it. Since the 100-400 is not a large aperture lens, I think the 180-600 is more useful, so I voted to sell the former and get the latter. The advantage to the 100-400 of course is weight, but if you don't mind a small amount of heft I think you will find the 180-600 beneficial. I have a Z8 (and 70-200) on order and once it arrives I plan to sell my Sony setup and order the Nikon 180-600.

 

[Cameron T]

Some reviewers show that the 180-600 is not as sharp as pretty much any other glass in that focal range. Check utube.

I'd hesitate to make this claim, but even if it's true... Stacked against the 600 f4 (and other much more expensive primes) most lenses are going to be less sharp.

I expect it'll be akin to Sonys 200-600 in quality, maybe a little better. I'll be perfectly happy with that

 

[Photographer_Bill]

Some reviewers show that the 180-600 is not as sharp as pretty much any other glass in that focal range. Check utube.

I think we need to wait until production units get into the hands of trusted reviewers. Sounds like Steve P will get a production unit and I look forward to his comparisons with the Sony 200-600 as well as with some of the other Nikon S lenses. One thing to keep in mind, the 180-600 is not an S lens and therefore I do not expect S quality overall, but if it's close, that may be good enough for many photographers given the price point.

 

[Rick Kibbey]

Some reviewers show that the 180-600 is not as sharp as pretty much any other glass in that focal range. Check utube.

Thanx, only one I've seen is Ricci and he seemed to put the nod to 180-600 but my 100-400 is really good and I get great results from it. I'm interested in reviewing the other YouTube reviews.

 

[John Navitsky]

i haven’t seen anything suggesting it compares to anything poorly this side of >$10k exotic glass

 

[Cameron T]

i haven’t seen anything suggesting it compares to anything poorly this side of >$10k exotic glass

And if that's the worst we can say about it, it's going to be a lot more impressive than I thought it would be. I'm going to enjoy getting my hands on one, and seeing all the tests done by people who have the expensive glass to compare it to (I do not).

 

[Calson]

I have been using the 100-400mm lens roughly 90% of the time with the 1.4x TC attached. As a 140-560mm f/6.3~f/9 lens on my Z9 the performance has been very good in all respects. I would gain one f-stop with the 180-600mm lens and with film cameras that would be a very big deal, but it is far less important with digital cameras with their high ISO capabilties. However the 200-600mm sells for $1700 and the 100-400mm plus 1.4x TC sells for $3,044 or nearly 80% more.

I am still of the view that the coming Sigma 60-600mm for the S-mount is going to provide more substantial gains for my own still and video shooting.

 

[Geoff_G]

Thanx, only one I've seen is Ricci and he seemed to put the nod to 180-600 but my 100-400 is really good and I get great results from it. I'm interested in reviewing the other YouTube reviews.

I'm still waiting on the ZTC1.4 but my plan is to use that and my 100-400 bypassing the 180-600. After all I've heard about how well the 1.4 works with the 100-400 the appearance of the 180-600 doesn't change that fact. There will be proper reviews of both I am sure and it'll be interesting to see how well they compete.

 

[Cameron T]

I'm still waiting on the ZTC1.4 but my plan is to use that and my 100-400 bypassing the 180-600. After all I've heard about how well the 1.4 works with the 100-400 the appearance of the 180-600 doesn't change that fact. There will be proper reviews of both I am sure and it'll be interesting to see how well they compete.

Per ricci, the 180-600 looked (to him, based on his copies of said gear) like it had a slight advantage at 600 (vs 560), but it was close.

Once we get more thorough reviews I'm sure we'll see which are better and which are worse (or if they're the same).

The main advantage to me with the 180-600 is the extra light vs the 100-400 with tc, assuming the image quality is the same (or close to). Every bit helps.

 

[sinewsworn]

Can you provide some links? Because the couple reviews I have seen both show it is sharp, and even sharper than 100-400 with 1.4x (even though that is an S lens). Someone said it is not as sharp as the 600 f4 TC, but that is to be expected because the lens is at least seven times the price.

Search utube.

 

[Anjin San]

That's pretty much where I'm at. I got the 100-400 when it was released and I like the lens and have no intention of selling it. Maybe I would have opted for the 180-600 had both choices been available at the time. Very very doubtful tho.....it's over a pound heavier and 3.5" longer. Ugh, just ugh. Ricci states in his video that the 180-600 is sharper than the 100-400 w/1.4Tc but by how much? If it's pixel peeper time I'm really okay with the 100-400/TC combo. Up till now everyone has been happy with the 100-400/TC combo, raving about it in fact, so I fail to see how that suddenly changes with the new 180-600.
Now I will caveat this - I also own the super sharp 500/4E lens which I will be keeping. If I buy another lens it'd likely be the 800PF but my hope and preference is Nikon releases a 600/5.6 PF (in which case it'll replace my 500/4E).. Not holding my breath of that tho...

Eh…whether the 100-400 amd TC is a bit worse than the 180-600 is the wrong question…although TBH Ricci said it is a bit worse but that it’s really minuscule. The real or perhaps better question is whether the shorter lens at 560 pr the longer one at 840 is better…apples to apples. Based on Ricci’s comments, the longer one will still be a bit better...and then it depends on whether 840 is something you need. Having the 24-70 that I will likely sell, the 24-120 that is outstanding for a walk around lens, the 70-200 which for me gets little to no use, the 100-400 and the 400/4.5…I pick the lens that makes sense for todays outing…and tha5 takes both reach and weight into account. The expensive primes aren’t worth the weight and flexibility penalties for what I do and where my output goes…and I could trade the now will almost never be used 24-70 and the almost never used 70-200 for the 180-600 and get change back…and I would have a much more useful to me lens selection. I can easily afford it…heck, I could easily afford the expensive TC primes if I was willing to accept the sacrifices they require for the benefit of what they add…but I’m not really interested because of the weight and loss of flexibility plus I’m not making money with them…but cost isn’t one of the drivers for decid for me. And the 180-600 becomes a 900 /6.3 if one goes to DX mode…or even longer albeit slower with the TC…but it really comes down to flexibility…and the more I think about it and the more reviews of pre prod lenses we see the more I think that the price is really small for the flexibility it provides in some situations for me...there are times here in SW FL the extra reach would be an advantage. But…I’m waiting for some production lens reviews before making up my mind.

 

[JAS]

I love my 100-400 with or without the TC. I do shoot a bunch of closeup work from 100-200. So I am covered from 100-560 now plus I have the 500pf plus TC14iii to 700 and the 800pf to get out to 1120 with TC.When looking at what focal lengths I use, I am covered for now. It looks like a great option, but I am covered for the foreseeable future. That should fee up one lens for somebody somewhere. Haha.

 

[Calson]

When the Z9 was announced I ordered the EN-EL18 batteries and CFexpress cards long before placing my order for the camera. I did the same for the 1.4x teleconverter ordering mine in January of 2022. I knew I would want these items when the Z9 did arrive and that others would wait to get their new camera before ordering these items so the odds were that they would be out of stock.

The 500mm PF is a great lens but I found I needed to use a monopod to stead it when using it with the TC-14 teleconverter. I sold the 500mm PF as I did not want to need to carry two sets of teleconverters and the FTZ adapter to use in the field. I only need the FTZ to use my tilt shift lenses and with these I can operate at a slower speed with my subjects.

 

[Geoff_G]

Eh…whether the 100-400 amd TC is a bit worse than the 180-600 is the wrong question…although TBH Ricci said it is a bit worse but that it’s really minuscule. The real or perhaps better question is whether the shorter lens at 560 pr the longer one at 840 is better…apples to apples. Based on Ricci’s comments, the longer one will still be a bit better...and then it depends on whether 840 is something you need. Having the 24-70 that I will likely sell, the 24-120 that is outstanding for a walk around lens, the 70-200 which for me gets little to no use, the 100-400 and the 400/4.5…I pick the lens that makes sense for todays outing…and tha5 takes both reach and weight into account. The expensive primes aren’t worth the weight and flexibility penalties for what I do and where my output goes…and I could trade the now will almost never be used 24-70 and the almost never used 70-200 for the 180-600 and get change back…and I would have a much more useful to me lens selection. I can easily afford it…heck, I could easily afford the expensive TC primes if I was willing to accept the sacrifices they require for the benefit of what they add…but I’m not really interested because of the weight and loss of flexibility plus I’m not making money with them…but cost isn’t one of the drivers for decid for me. And the 180-600 becomes a 900 /6.3 if one goes to DX mode…or even longer albeit slower with the TC…but it really comes down to flexibility…and the more I think about it and the more reviews of pre prod lenses we see the more I think that the price is really small for the flexibility it provides in some situations for me...there are times here in SW FL the extra reach would be an advantage. But…I’m waiting for some production lens reviews before making up my mind.

Well obviously it's the wrong question for you but it's not the wrong question for me.
Right now I've got 24-120, 100-400, 500, 700, and 850 covered and that's without a TC on the 100-400.
I've since decided I don't need to add a 180-600 lens that lacks a dedicated focus ring, mem set button, or LFn2 button. I sure everyone who gets one will like it, but it isn't for me.

 

[Ado Wolf]

I have neither.. back in the day, I sold my 200-500 mm to make the upgrade to the 500 PF. Since then I only use primes for the improved IQ and compact / lightweight PF design. That’s why I still use my 300 and 500 PF adapted on my Z cameras.

I will be tempted however to buy a 600 PF Z should Nikon produce it!

 

[Roy]

There is another thread on the 400 f/4.5 and whether or not photographers may sell that lens to get the new 180-600 but I think another good question is how valid is the 100-400 S vs. the 180-600? Granted the 100-400 is an "S" lens so one would assume has the better glass and therefore better IQ, but it seems Nikon appears to be using some pixy dust with their non-S lens counterparts and they are showing surprising promise. Given the fact that some of us likely have the 24-120 f/4 S lens and maybe even a 70-200 (or even the new 70-180 f/2.8 is on the radar) the question is whether or not the 100-400 even makes sense with a 24-120 and 180-600 combo, will that gap between 120-180 make that big of a difference? Will the 100-400 S be "that much better" than the 180-600 IQ wise or AF (speed) wise? Granted we don't even have production units out, but I'm really liking the specs of the 180-600 thus far and it's making me think the 100-400 may be the lens that could be dropped more than others. I had the 100-400 when it was first released and I have the 70-200 f/2.8 S with 2x TC as a stop gap until something else piqued my interest as I could not see a big enough difference between 100-400 and the 70-200 with 2x TC, maybe I wasn't critical enough or maybe it was because all I had was the Z6 at the time, now I have the Z8 so maybe I would start seeing a difference with the 100-400? Curious if others agree and/or what you're thinking.

I've briefly played with the 180-600 and the IQ certainly doesn't seem less than the 100-400.
The 200-600 seems about 25% longer but perhaps lighter.
AF speed seems much improved.
I love the internal focus and internal Zoom.
If anything the focus throw seems a little too short.
I may be a little biased because I have the old 80-400 AFS and I hate it ...

 

[Anjin San]

Well obviously it's the wrong question for you but it's not the wrong question for me.
Right now I've got 24-120, 100-400, 500, 700, and 850 covered and that's without a TC on the 100-400.
I've since decided I don't need to add a 180-600 lens that lacks a dedicated focus ring, mem set button, or LFn2 button. I sure everyone who gets one will like it, but it isn't for me.

Ok…but my wrong question was because it’s more of an apples to oranges comparison when one has a TC on since the TC may affect IQ although the Z 1.4 one really has no effect that I can see at normal viewing or printing resolutions…something you can see at 1:1 doesn’t necessarily mean much. Bokeh and background issues might be there…but thats a different thing than sharpness.

 

[Geoff_G]

Ok…but my wrong question was because it’s more of an apples to oranges comparison when one has a TC on since the TC may affect IQ although the Z 1.4 one really has no effect that I can see at normal viewing or printing resolutions…something you can see at 1:1 doesn’t necessarily mean much. Bokeh and background issues might be there…but thats a different thing than sharpness.

Since I do not yet have a zTC I can only go by what I've read on the 100-400/TC combo. Most folks are happy and pleased with the results, some are not. I'll see when I get the TC.

I don't buy a lens knowing I will need to use a TC. I'm quite happy with the 100-400 but if the 1.4 Z TC works well with it I'll have the option of extending it's reach to 560mm.
That's not something I would make frequent use of as I have a very good 500/4 prime. But if I'm out and about with the 100-400 I'll take the TC along.
I don't want the 180-600 - it's over a pound heavier and 3.5" longer than the 100-400 and (this is me) I do not care for the 180-600 ergonomics (no dedicated focus ring, no mem set, no LFn2) (and yes, these are cost cutting things, I understand, but the lens is just too dumbed down for my tastes). I'd have to change my button assignments to regain some 'lost' functionality but with only one control ring it limits options that exist for me with the 100-400. It's not going to happen. But I'm sure those who buy one will be pleased with the results.

In the end, I suspect no one is going to tell me that I should have used the 180-600 instead of the 100-400/TC1.4

 

[MatthewK]

Since I do not yet have a zTC I can only go by what I've read on the 100-400/TC combo. Most folks are happy and pleased with the results, some are not. I'll see when I get the TC.

I don't buy a lens knowing I will need to use a TC. I'm quite happy with the 100-400 but if the 1.4 Z TC works well with it I'll have the option of extending it's reach to 560mm.
That's not something I would make frequent use of as I have a very good 500/4 prime. But if I'm out and about with the 100-400 I'll take the TC along.

That’s how I knew the 400 4.5 wasn’t the right lens for my uses, I had to go out of my way to use it without the 1.4 TC. Tells me I need a 600mm FL, and the 180-600 is a means to get there cleanly (aka no TC). Wish more of what I shot was at 400mm so I could make the 400 4.5 my sole lens.

The Z 1.4TC works great on the 100-400, and aside from leaving you at f/8, I’ve found that there’s really not many drawbacks.

On the topic of the missing buttons on the 180-600: at first I was cool with it, but thinking more on it now, needing to set the missing Memory Set button to another button on the camera is going to mess with things a bit. As we all know, ML cameras can’t resist a background, and being able to recall a closer focus distance is almost vital to current operations.

(When are they going to fix this issue? This is the single thing that annoys the hell out of me about ML, and that’s putting it lightly)

 

[KevCan]

I used to have 200-500 F mount. It was heavy, bulky, and I could not handheld it for more than a few minutes. Now I use 100-400 Z mount with TC 1.4 and I like it a lot. Smaller, lighter, easy to carry around, and can handhold for long time, and it is versatile. So I will choose 100-400 over 180-600. If Nikon will come up with 600mm PF, that will be perfect for small birds, and I will use 100-400 for large mamals and other stuff. Hope it comes soon.

 

[Geoff_G]

That’s how I knew the 400 4.5 wasn’t the right lens for my uses, I had to go out of my way to use it without the 1.4 TC. Tells me I need a 600mm FL, and the 180-600 is a means to get there cleanly (aka no TC). Wish more of what I shot was at 400mm so I could make the 400 4.5 my sole lens.

The Z 1.4TC works great on the 100-400, and aside from leaving you at f/8, I’ve found that there’s really not many drawbacks.

On the topic of the missing buttons on the 180-600: at first I was cool with it, but thinking more on it now, needing to set the missing Memory Set button to another button on the camera is going to mess with things a bit. As we all know, ML cameras can’t resist a background, and being able to recall a closer focus distance is almost vital to current operations.

(When are they going to fix this issue? This is the single thing that annoys the hell out of me about ML, and that’s putting it lightly)

Yeah, not thrilled with f/8 but my 500/4 to the rescue. Now if I didn't have the 500/4 I may have made a different decision. Good to hear you like the 100-400/TC combo.
I have a Mem set button on my camera but I use LFn2 to recall saved focus and that doesn't work to well if there is no LFN2 button (I use the joystick center to save focus). But the deal beaker for me is the lone control ring with no dedicated focus ring. Yes, one can switch the lens to MF for focussing but I want my cake and eat it too (focus ring and exposure comp on control ring). IMO a dedicated focus ring is must for that kinda lens.
Yeah, if Nikon cams would lock onto the closest subject instead of the background it would be a nice change of pace....lol...

 

[MatthewK]

As the weeks go by and the 180-600 release gets closer, my mindset on this lens choice conundrum is starting to distill down to one question alone: do I keep a two lens system in the 100-400 + 800PF, or do I go down to one lens in the 180-600?

In a vacuum, just comparing the 100-400 vs. 180-600, there's no question that the 180-600 is the clear choice for my birding use cases. If this was an episode of choosing one lens, this would be a simple answer. But, I have the 800PF, and I think the 100-400 makes for a better side-kick lens due to it being lighter and smaller; I'm already carrying the big prime, no need to carry another big zoom, when the smaller zoom does what I need perfectly.

So yeah, it'll be fun to see how this shakes out after having all three in hand, and which setup I ended up going with for the long run. Or, I could just end it all right now with a 600 TC, but yeah, still waiting for that money tree to sprout

 

[John Navitsky]

i certainly wouldn’t sell the 800pf.
do you mean:
100-400 + 800pf
vs
100-400+1.4 + 800pf
vs
180-600 + 800pf
?
it does seem that there’s a pretty big gap between 400 and 800

 

[Photographer_Bill]

As the weeks go by and the 180-600 release gets closer, my mindset on this lens choice conundrum is starting to distill down to one question alone: do I keep a two lens system in the 100-400 + 800PF, or do I go down to one lens in the 180-600?

In a vacuum, just comparing the 100-400 vs. 180-600, there's no question that the 180-600 is the clear choice for my birding use cases. If this was an episode of choosing one lens, this would be a simple answer. But, I have the 800PF, and I think the 100-400 makes for a better side-kick lens due to it being lighter and smaller; I'm already carrying the big prime, no need to carry another big zoom, when the smaller zoom does what I need perfectly.

So yeah, it'll be fun to see how this shakes out after having all three in hand, and which setup I ended up going with for the long run. Or, I could just end it all right now with a 600 TC, but yeah, still waiting for that money tree to sprout

I understand your conundrum and do not think you are alone. For me the big question on the 180-600 is IQ and AF performance, as a non-S lens I would assume this would suffer compared to the S lenses you mention. As a prosumer grade lens I am trying to set my expectations accordingly, but there's a part of me that is really hoping I will be nicely surprised at the performance of the production lens, but tempering with the expectation that the lens may not meet my expectations. I would have been willing to pay quite a bit more for this to be a 180-600 S lens, but I understand why Nikon chose to not do this because at its current price point it opens up a whole other market.