Nikon 100-400 S or 180-600?

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).

Nikon 100-400 S or 180-600?

  • Keep the 100-400 S

    Votes: 30 40.0%

  • Sell the 100-400 S for the 180-600

    Votes: 13 17.3%

  • Keep both

    Votes: 32 42.7%
  • Total voters
    75
Member's gallery
Photographer_Bill said:
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.
Click to expand...
Supposedly it's about even with the Sony 200-600, based on what info we have now.

Ricci also said it was approximately as good as the 100-400 at 400, and 600 (so tc on the 100-400)

Of course, that's one copy both ways, etc. But I expect this to be a solid lens.
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
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
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is all a thought experiment at this point, thankfully!

I do have the 1.4 TC for those 1-lens outings/trips, but how I shoot normally is that I lead with the 800, and will try to to make it work for everything that I can in a setting. I feel that I could probably get by with just the 800 by working the scene more and setting up shots to work within its limitations (did it for years with the 500PF), yet it's fun having the 100-400 for those under-MFD friendly birds, and also non-birding macro-ish shots.

With the 180-600, I invariably know I'd be relying on more cropping/DX mode shooting. 600 is good, better than 400 for sure, but in the past I've found it still just a little short for birding. But, my fieldcraft has improved quite a lot since my last time using a 600, so who knows, it may be all I need now :)

It's not too often that I'm caught out at the wrong length and missing shots because of the gap. More so, I'll miss shots due to needing to switch lenses, which I could solve by adding a 2nd Z8.
 
Member's gallery
Photographer_Bill said:
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.
Click to expand...
Part of me is hoping it's noticeably worse, so it makes the ultimate decision a little easier 😇 What doesn't help is that Nikon made the price so low, it just makes it easier to be OK with the purchase.
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
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 😅
Click to expand...
I think I mentioned this above but the 180-600 has one control ring and no dedicated focus ring. That alone is a huge negative for me. The 100-400 and 1.4TC gets to 560 which is close enough to 600 to not be of a concern (IMO). It's certainly not as convenient and supposedly the 180-600 is a bit sharper that the 100-400+ TC. Another factor is AF speed between the two approaches but I don't think that'll be known until the 180-600 is out. I know I'm sticking with the 100-400...good luck with your decision!
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
Part of me is hoping it's noticeably worse, so it makes the ultimate decision a little easier 😇 What doesn't help is that Nikon made the price so low, it just makes it easier to be OK with the purchase.
Click to expand...
yah, i'm getting a little tired of nikon producing lenses that i can't say no to :ROFLMAO:

here's to hoping they won't announce the 35 1.2 and 135 1.8 soon! :ROFLMAO:

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Member's gallery
John_DE said:
I’ll be keeping both. The 100-400 for travel/landscapes and to complement the 800pf. The 180-600 will be my wildlife zoom lens, complementing the long fixed length lenses (800pf, 400 TC). However, I’m selling my 500pf. My wife uses the 300pf w and w/o 1.4tc on her Z50.
Click to expand...
I would hesitate to sell the 500pf. Maybe I’m lucky but this is the sharpest lens I own. With the new z8-9 it is awesome and with the 1.4tc it works so much better than with the d850. I have the 100-400z and love it as well. It works quite well with the z 1. 4 tc. And I wonder how it would compare to the 180-600. Not much difference between 560 and 600mm and f8 isn’t that bad in good light. For me the 180-600 is a bit too heavy and I suspect it is slower AF. More like a Tamron 150-600 G2? If so my old 500pf blows it away. I also love the 300pf. I mainly handhold so maybe that’s why I’m not so big on the 180-600. Guess I’ll eventually rent and try one.
 
Member's gallery
I would hesitate to sell the 500pf. Maybe I’m lucky but this is the sharpest lens I own. With the new z8-9 it is awesome and with the 1.4tc it works so much better than with the d850. I have the 100-400z and love it as well. It works quite well with the z 1. 4 tc. And I wonder how it would compare to the 180-600. Not much difference between 560 and 600mm and f8 isn’t that bad in good light. For me the 180-600 is a bit too heavy and I suspect it is slower AF. More like a Tamron 150-600 G2? If so my old 500pf blows it away. I also love the 300pf. I mainly handhold so maybe that’s why I’m not so big on the 180-600. Guess I’ll eventually rent and try one.
 
Member's gallery
I’m reading along 3 pages worth of research.
I have a question that I would love to find the answer.

We are all talking about the 100-400 vs 180-600
But I’m concerned, about the 100 vs. 180
If zooming is a need, isn’t the 180 too much lens compared to 100mm?

In a zoo, or walking around nature, being limited to 180mm is limiting. Unless whatever we are shooting, 200mm is wide enough. In a Zoo the 100-400 is bread n butter, or a 70-200 with a TC on and off.
Would you take the 180-600 in a zoo?

Which brings me to the conclusion, the 180-600 is meant to be used at its longer focal lengths rather then wider.
Its a budget lens meant to substitute the 400/4.5, 500pf, and 600.


If someone can effort the 100-400, they could effort the 400/4.5
Add a TC and you’re all set.
 
Member's gallery
philippe said:
A 600mm pf would be a dream come true
Click to expand...
Correct, but this poll would have ben much more intense.
The reason for the 180-600 is the price. People really want it, but they are looking for an excuse…
Just buy it! Let it collect dust and sleep at peace lol..

The 85/1.2 costs more
 
Member's gallery
I love the 100-400z on the z8. The balance and feel is terrific. Also in good light the tc 1.4 works really well. In action the lens with the tc is not always able to keep up with fast subjects but otherwise it is still quite sharp. 560 vs 600, not much differen. F8 vs f6.3 some low light loss. To be fair I haven’t used the 180-600 but I do have the Tamron 150-600G2. But for me the 180-600 is a bit heavy to handhold all day. On a tripod I would say the 180-600 would be better. Neither lens is as sharp as my old 500pf. The 500of also works so much better with the 1.4tc on the z8 vs my d850. Even handheld I can get tack sharp shots.
 
Member's gallery
JoelKlein said:
Basically no one really need the 180 side, or Zoom. just buying it for the 600mm long end as a stop gap until the 600pf shows up.
The 180-600 is not a light weight lens though.
Click to expand...
I'm buying it for the zoom, though I'd honestly prefer a 300-800 or similar.

I don't like shooting with primes, as I only have one body and can't swap lenses instantly to account for wildlife moving.
 
Member's gallery
JoelKlein said:
Basically no one really need the 180 side, or Zoom. just buying it for the 600mm long end as a stop gap until the 600pf shows up.
The 180-600 is not a light weight lens though.
Click to expand...
I think the zoom will be a huge seller for Nikon at the price. The 600 PF, if it comes, will cost considerably more I'd expect - somewhere in the 'pricey neighborhood' of the 800pf.
In any event I'm covered and won't be buying the 180-600. Now, if a 600 PF comes along I'd likely get in line and sell my 500/4E FL VR lens.
 
Member's gallery
I have the 100-400 with the 1.4 TC. I'm adding the 180-600 for the reach without TC, better bokeh at 6.3 vs 8.0, and having the option to get to 840mm or 1200mm. I have both Z TC's. The 180-600 is strictly a birding/wildlife lens for me. The 100-400 would be used in all other applications being lighter, more compact, and having a much better MFD
It would be disappointing if the AF speed of the 180-600 is not able to keep up for birding as that is clearly one of the main applications. We'll find out very soon. On paper it looks like Nikon will sell many of these. Especially if they roll out a high end DX body eventually.
 
Member's gallery
I just got back from a trip to the Arctic, having rented the z100-400 and the 1.4 times converter. I was happy with the lens’s performance overall, though I was at 560mm almost all the time. I’m waiting for the 180-600 before committing to buying something.
 
Member's gallery
I have both the 400mm f4.5 and the 100-400mm. I was only going to keep one of them but I enjoy using them both for different reasons. The 400 is perfect for photographing mammals, such as elk and bear in the Smokies. I really like the flexibility and minimum focus distance of the 100-400mm. I’m also hopeful that Nikon will create a Z 600 mm f5.6. I’m really on the fence on whether to purchase the 180-600mm. The extra reach would be nice, but I’m not in a rush to buy it. Once a few photographers have the lens in their hands and I find out how happy folks are with it will help with my decision. I’m just beginning to shoot birds and this would be a great lens for that. It’s wonderful to have so many z telephoto lens options for wildlife (and other types of photography)!
 
Member's gallery
I have my pre-order in for the 180-600 because it is a zoom and it goes out to 600mm.

The 100-400 is a good lens for landscapes and mammal wildlife photography, but is short for birds. The big super-tels (400TC, 600TC and 800pf) are wonderful for wildlife, but sometimes can be too long (you can’t back up from a large mammal in the wild w/o missing the shot). Having something like the 800pf on one body and the 100-400 on another is a good solution, but not if you are walking any distance. Switching lenses in the field takes time and can introduce dust on the sensor. Etc, etc.

It’s nice to have so many choices in Z-mount lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top