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: 31 40.3%

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

    Votes: 14 18.2%

  • Keep both

    Votes: 32 41.6%
  • Total voters
    77
Member's gallery
I have had the z 100-400mm for a couple weeks now and have tested it on BIF and also small birds in by backyard. I have used it with a 1.4TC as well. The basic lens without the TC works great for BIF. I’m talking small fast birds like shore birds, terns,peeps, willets etc, not just bigger birds like herons etc. with the z8 the AF is super, I’m still adjusting to mirrorless vs my old D850. I have several AF settings programmed into the camera and a button to turn subject detection on and off. I don’t use 3d much in these situations. With the 1.4tc it stil works quite well for BIF but will sometimes fail to keep up with faster birds coming in close. The image quality and quick AF with the TC was better than I expected. I also have the 500pf and with a 1.4tc on the z8 it works very well. This lens is tack sharp. Personally I love the 500pf but having a lens that can close focus to around 4 feet for insects etc and with the TC go to 560mm is pretty darn useful I find. I am very picky about detail and so far I find there is enough for me. I mainly handhold as I walk long distances and Im not as interested in super long glass as I can’t hand hold anything longer than what I have. I’m sure the 180-600 will be just fine and probably better than the 100-400mm with a TC, but by how much I wonder. As for bokeh, I can deal with that in post. But the 180-600 is heavier and I suspect the AF won’t be as fast as the 100-400. If your a tripod shooter than the 180-600 makes more sense to me. The other thing, I’ve heard that it doesn’t have a manual focus ring on it. If so this is a deal breaker for me. Mirrorless cameras seem to need more help getting on point in certain situations and the focus ring on the 100-400 is perfect and the fact you can adjust the throw is great. I guess it also depends on where you photograph but I try to avoid situations where I have to photograph birds from more than say 50 yards for smaller stuff and maybe a 100 yards for bigger stuff. Not always possible of course.
 
Member's gallery
The 180-600 does have one ring that you can program to manual focus. So you CAN have a manual focus ring on the 180-600.

Comments by others had me concerned as well.......
 
Member's gallery
macwalter said:
Good to know So you can manually focus it. Very important. For me it comes down to weight but I will check it out at some point.
Click to expand...
I mentioned it had one control ring and no dedicated focus ring. I was not intending to mislead anyone...the control ring can be assigned for focus. But 'my problem' is then I cannot assign exposure comp to it. If the lens had a dedicated focus ring and a control ring then I would find its ergonomics more acceptable to me.
 
Member's gallery
Geoff_G said:
I mentioned it had one control ring and no dedicated focus ring. I was not intending to mislead anyone...the control ring can be assigned for focus. But 'my problem' is then I cannot assign exposure comp to it. If the lens had a dedicated focus ring and a control ring then I would find its ergonomics more acceptable to me.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
The z8 has exp comp right on the camera. I just use release button to turn dial and it works fine for me. Also I’m not sure how the ring on the 180-600 will be in terms of ease of use. Balance will be critical. On the 100-400 it’s perfect for me. That being said I’ve never had exposure comp on a lens so I may be missing out.
 
Member's gallery
macwalter said:
The z8 has exp comp right on the camera. I just use release button to turn dial and it works fine for me. Also I’m not sure how the ring on the 180-600 will be in terms of ease of use. Balance will be critical. On the 100-400 it’s perfect for me. That being said I’ve never had exposure comp on a lens so I may be missing out.
Click to expand...
Hope it works for you.
 
Member's gallery
I’ve changed my vote and am ordering the 180-600 but am going to keep the 100-400 for a couple of reasons in addition to the 400/4.5. The latter is lighter and better with or without the TC and there are situations where size and weight are at a premium. Same with the 100-400 of the extra reach isn’t as needed, but the longer reach also is attractive in other situations. Fortunately…I’m in a position where I don’t need to sell one to get another and the 1200ish trade in for the shorter zoo just isn’t worth it for me. I can see most situations where I can reduce my lens carry to just the 24-120 and any of the other 3 options depending on reach needed, weight, length of hike, am I getting on a plane and other considerations. My Z7II and 24-70 are definitely going along with the 24-200…the first doesn’t work nearly as well for wildlife as the Z8 and Z9 and the 24-200 which was bought as an all in one travel lens got used exactly once and is like new…the 24-120 easily supplanted it with reach in DX to 180 and DX is fine for travel lens images…on my recent trip to the UK the 100-400 never came out of the bag and I used the 14-30 for 3 situations where I needed wider but well over 90% of the shots were 24-120. Going to put in an order for the 180-600 both with Nikon direct and B&H and will cancel the one that doesn’t ship first…would check local but decent camera stores don’t exist down here that I can find.
 
Member's gallery
macwalter said:
The z8 has exp comp right on the camera. I just use release button to turn dial and it works fine for me. Also I’m not sure how the ring on the 180-600 will be in terms of ease of use. Balance will be critical. On the 100-400 it’s perfect for me. That being said I’ve never had exposure comp on a lens so I may be missing out.
Click to expand...
I tried it and gave up on it…my normal carry is on Black Rapid straps and with EC on the lens it was forever getting bumped and me not noticing it until I wondered why my exposure was so messed up…I need to try readjusting the strap for hanging position and see if that helps I guess.
 
Member's gallery
Photographer_Bill said:
Curious, for those with the 100-400 and 1.4x TC, when you use the 1.4x TC, how often are your shots at 560mm and maybe wishing you had a little more reach?
Click to expand...
Way too often. I like the 100-400 but is the main reason I went for the 400/4.5 w/1.4 tc while I waited for the 800pf to arrive. I perceive the 400/4.5 to be notably better than the zoom at 400. Perhaps I don’t have the best copy.
 
Member's gallery
DsD said:
Way too often. I like the 100-400 but is the main reason I went for the 400/4.5 w/1.4 tc while I waited for the 800pf to arrive. I perceive the 400/4.5 to be notably better than the zoom at 400. Perhaps I don’t have the best copy.
Click to expand...
I have both and the prime is better at 1:1…but for screen output it gets downsampled anyway and the difference there just isn’t noticeable...or more precisely there might be some slight difference in the two screen images but it’s more just different than better and worse. I have the 180-600 on order…and if it’s as good as Steve , Ricci and others have said the 100-400 won’t get much use and will either be sold or kept as a light but flexible alternative…although TBH the 24-120, 400/4.5 and the TC is about as light as you can get and still have decent length coverage. Maybe the 100-400 ge5 s kept for longer hikes with a single body…but if I’m going that way the extra reach may be wirth the extra weight of the 180-600 depending on where I’m at.
 
Member's gallery
Photographer_Bill said:
Curious, for those with the 100-400 and 1.4x TC, when you use the 1.4x TC, how often are your shots at 560mm and maybe wishing you had a little more reach?
Click to expand...
Down here in FL I put the 400 with the TC on one body and the 100-400 on the other…when I get the 180-600 I haven’t decided what combo to carry yet…might just carry a single body at that point on a days outing with the 24-120 in the backpack for shorter range stuff. I mostly used the 1.x with the 100-400 until I got the 400…but these da6s the Tc mostly lives on the prime and the zoom on the other body. For me…the 800 is too inflexible and heavy (thereby limiting whatever else I would carry) and would be too much reach for a lot of shots…so the bang for t(r buck just isn’t there for me.
 
Member's gallery
When I owned the 200-500mm lens I also took along a 70-200mm as 200mm provides too narrow a field of view in many situations. I would go with the 100-400mm and buy the 1.4x teleconverter.

I am waiting as I have mentioned before, for the Sigma 60-600mm to be available in a Z mount. Not light at 5 lbs but great focal length range for wildlife photography.
 
Member's gallery
Calson said:
When I owned the 200-500mm lens I also took along a 70-200mm as 200mm provides too narrow a field of view in many situations. I would go with the 100-400mm and buy the 1.4x teleconverter.

I am waiting as I have mentioned before, for the Sigma 60-600mm to be available in a Z mount. Not light at 5 lbs but great focal length range for wildlife photography.
Click to expand...

What's the reason that the F mount version is not adequate for your needs?
 
Member's gallery
philippe said:
For me the big negative of the 100-400 is the external zoom. I have ordered the 180-600 because it has internal zoom and it offers a convenient long focal distance alternative for airplane travel.
Click to expand...
I'm not too happy with the external zoom either, but it's not a complete deal breaker; however, a 100-400 f/4-5.6 S2 lens with built in 1.4x TC and internal zoom would certainly be an interesting proposition from Nikon, but that's fantasy and the 180-600 is reality so I'm anxious to get that lens and see if it works for me. I have a 70-200 to supplement, but I think even the 24-120 is a good range as I'm not sure missing 120-180mm is going to make a huge difference.
 
Member's gallery
KevCan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I definitely wouldn’t hold your breath with this one!🫣🫣
Is the 600mm PF even on Nikons roadmap?
 
Member's gallery
philippe said:
For me the big negative of the 100-400 is the external zoom. I have ordered the 180-600 because it has internal zoom and it offers a convenient long focal distance alternative for airplane travel.
Click to expand...
Totally agree.
I had the 200-500 with had an external zoom & became really paranoid with using it in the lightest of showers. I couldn’t get on using rain covers as always found it clumsy trying to operate the lens & camera.
One of the reasons (not the main one) why I pre ordered a 180-600mm was it’s internal zoom & weather sealing.
 
Member's gallery
I have just spent 2 weeks in Brazil using the z8 wth the 100-400z lens mostly without the the 1.4tc. Admittedly it is a bit short at times but t had no issues with the performance overall. I also used it in good light with the 1.4tc also with little problem photographIng BIF amd birds perched a ways off. I was mostly at 400mm as most subjects were small.
I have no doubt the 400 f4.5 is a bit sharper and better with the TC but I have to say I was very pleased. I handhold and was able to get on very fast subjects with little difficulty especially if I prefocused a bit closer than the the subject to prevent the lens doing it’s dreaded infinity thing. Also in dense cover using the manual override would become a necessity. Nothing new here.
For me the 180-600 would have to be significantly better on the long end and fast enough to get on fast subjects for me to consider the extra weight which is quit a bit. I used the 200-500 a few times but the weight, balance and general slowness put me off. The 100-400 on the z8 is a joy to use, very fast and perfectly balanced. The tc does little to affect this for me.
The f4.5 also is lousy for close subjects which I like to do as well like insects. I am on the fence about this lens to replace my 500pf and I wonder how well it does with the 2x tc. The 500pf with a 1.4 works well on still subjects giving me more reach but having the better low light and overall better optics of z lenses in general makes me wonder. Big lenses like the 800of etc. will not be in my travel kit. Too big heavy and limited in use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top