Nikon 100-400 S or 180-600?

[macwalter]

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?

You can always want more reach in these situations otherwise you would not be working with the TC. But the flip side for me at least is being realistic in terms of how far away the subject is and if it is a realistic opportunity. I find I can get good results with the 1.4tc and am happy with the sharpness even though I realize it is not as ideal as a dedicated 600mm lens. I find 400mm is often adequate if perhaps not ideal, the same goes for f5.6 vs f4.

 

[SeanT]

I've never understood why the XX-400 lenses are so expensive vs the longer siblings from any of the big 3. I don't have the 100-400 and while it's certainly better than my 70-200 (money maker lens) + 2x TC, I'll take the 180-600 I've been waiting on for years! Oh, and now that I'm getting my much-loved 500 PF back, I can do a direct comparison and keep only the one I want to keep!

 

[macwalter]

My issue with the 180-600 is the size. I mainly handhold and like to be mobile and while you can handhold the 180-600 it is a beast for a 75 year old guy like me. I tried the 200-500 out and found it to be too heavy and slow overall. The new lens will be better I’ve no doubt but it is close in size and weight. The 100-400 on the z8 is very balanced and feels great in the hands. I will likley check it out at some point. But I’m in no hurry. The 400 f4.5 is more to my liking As I already have the 500of and both 1.4tcs.

 

[Photographer_Bill]

I've never understood why the XX-400 lenses are so expensive vs the longer siblings from any of the big 3.

Do you mean why a 100-400 is more expensive than a 180-600/200-600 for example? If that is the case the "smaller" 100-400 lenses are in the manufacturers "pro" lineup with arguably better glass and better electronics, ergonomic layout, etc. The 180/200-600 style lenses are more geared to the prosumer market and have a number of features stripped out in order to reduce cost. Then why do so many pros get the 180/200-600 lenses one could argue, likely because of convenience and weight, while having a 180-200 f/4 might be within a pros budget and/or needs, the sheer size of the lens is a limiting factor in certain situations. With advancements in lens designs over the past couple of decades the prosumer class of products continues to encroach on the "pro" series to the point that manufacturers have to figure out how to limit such lenses so sales don't effect their pro line as much as possible. If Nikon (or another manufacturer) were to make a 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 S lens that was in the $4k class how many who are interested in the 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 "non-S" would pay the additional $2k for it? Granted, the verdict is still out on the current 180-600 but early reports from reputable reviewers like Steve (Perry) show promise, the big question is whether or not there might be a QC issue like with the 200-500 lens of yesteryear that required sometimes multiple purchases to find the "ideal" copy, or will the majority of the new 180-600 be very close in IQ that many early adopters report back with excitement. Sony certainly showed that a prosumer class 200-600 could deliver the goods optically and many are hoping that Nikon can match or even better the Sony in overall performance, if this is indeed the case I think Nikon will have another supply issue on their hands as this lens will be sure to be a top seller for pros and advanced amateur's alike. Time will tell if the 180-600 will be "the lens" that many are hoping for or if it will leave many "wanting" for something better.

I don't have the 100-400 and while it's certainly better than my 70-200 (money maker lens) + 2x TC,

Maybe somewhat better but I don't know about "certainly" better. My copy of the 70-200 f/2.8 S with 2.0 TC was very impressive especially once I paired it with my Z8 and noticed vast improvement in AF over my Z6. I was an early adopter with the 100-400 and wasn't overly impressed with the AF performance, but that was with my Z6 and now that I've "seen the light" with the Z8, I'm not sure I could go back to Z6/Z7 unless it was a dedicated landscape tool.

I'll take the 180-600 I've been waiting on for years! Oh, and now that I'm getting my much-loved 500 PF back, I can do a direct comparison and keep only the one I want to keep!

I think a lot of photog's will be doing comparisons to the 500 PF and 200-500 F mount lenses, having never owned either of these two lenses it is only a minor curiosity for me, the biggest question will be how well does the 180-600 perform for me with both IQ and AF performance and hopefully I'll know that within the first two weeks of September

 

[Calson]

I look at the numbers of shots at various focal lengths taken over the years on trips to get a good idea of what focal lengths are most useful and where a shorter or longer focal length would have helped. Primes are great for faster glass and image quality but are extremely limiting in dealing with what are often fixed camera to subject distances and often needing their weight to be supported on a tripod.

Twenty years ago the IQ from zoom lenses was marginal and one took a hit in IQ when using them. The loss of two stops of light also hurt when using ISO 160 or slower film. These limitations are no longer present with the top zoom telephoto lenses. The 100-400mm with a 2x TC provides remarkable image quality when used with good technique in a great many situations.

If I had to choose between taking the 600mm TC or the 100-400mm with both teleconverters for a trip it would be the 600mm that I would leave behind.

 

[macwalter]

I have the 100-400 with the 1.4TC. It worked quite well overall. Im thinking I will go for the 400 f4.5 also a bird lens for two reasons. First to get a bit better low light performance and also 560 at 6.3 vs f8. Very close to the 180-600mm long spec. Reviews say the IQ of this lens is very close to the 500of which I find to be very sharp with the added low light spec. The 500pf with the 1.4tc at f8 on the z8 worked great for longer shots and I wonder how well the 400 f4.5 would do with a 2xTC at 800mm f9. I gen don’t need this long glass but find myself wishing for faster glass in low light than f5.6. The 180-600 is too heavy for me.

 

[Abinoone]

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.

Although there’s plenty of overlap between the two, I’d buy and use both, depending on the circumstances. For example, I was recently in Alaska to photograph coastal brown bears, and we were often so close that the 180-600 would have been a bit long (my 200-500 and 500PF were). A friend was shooting Canon with a 100-400 attached, and he reported that it was perfect for our situation. On the other hand, having the extra reach of the 180-600 would be ideal for an upcoming trip I have to Yellowstone. So, if money allows, I’d get both.

 

[macwalter]

To me it’s always a toss up. I have the 100-400 and used it in Brazil. Overall it did fine with my main issues of wanting more light. as so much action for birds is in the early morning having an f4 is an advantage. Reviews of the 400 f4.5 are excellent and for me this lens also does very well with the 1.4tc at 560 at f6.3. it is very light and smaller to travel with so I doubt I will go for the 180-600. I will continue to use the 100-400 for a zoom. So 100-400 for mammals and insects etc and general subjects. and 400 f4.5 for birds Amd low light. I handhold so I don’t want big heavy glass. I would still love to see a 300pf 2.8 but I suspect it would be out of my price range If even possible to make.

 

[Anjin San]

I know I said I was considering selling my 100-400 when the longer one gets here…but it’s going to depend on usage and I can envision taking either of the zooms or perhaps the 400/4.5 depending on goals for the day and how much I’m interested in carrying. The 400 and TC and the 24-120 would give me about the lightest more all purpose commando kit and cover me up to 180 if I cropped in camera or post to DX as well as 400 and 560. Less flexibility obviously…and some length coverage missing but of light is the goal today but I might see everything from birds to street performers it’s a consideration…and the 100-400 would restore the flexibility at the expense of more weight. At least for me…it isn’t a matter of ‘which one can I afford to keep’…it’s a matter of does keeping all 3 provide enough gain to offset the cash I would get from selling one…on most outings I have 2 bodies on a BR double strap anyway so as not to need as much lens swapping.

 

[Patrick M]

I rented the 100-400 last month for two weeks in Svalbard on an expedition. Using a 1.4 times teleconverter. It was fine. I really disliked the front extending when zooming out. Same as the 200-500, but not as heavy. And the AF was superb on the Z8. The z 180-600 zooms internally. I should have it sometime next week. Most reviews appear good. Like any lens, it has weak spots and strong ones, it really depends on why, and how you use it.

 

[Len Shepherd]

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

From what I have seen there are some indications that pre-production copies of the 180-600 are not quite as sharp as the Sony at 600 mm wide open - yet are as sharp or sharper by f8.

Whether the difference is less than 10% seems not quantified.
I have seen no comparison "with pretty much any other lens".

There are indications the Sony breathes a lot more at closer focus distances compared to the Nikon - with the Nikon seeming to have around 20% more image magnification "for birding".
It might be that locked down on a good tripod using a pro grade test target that the Nikon is equal at f6.3 to Sony with higher resolution by f8.
As I am sure you know the effect of camera shake increase with greater subject magnifications.

When comparing lens resolution between systems the result is part dependent on sensor MP – and as yet there is no 60MP Nikon body.

I do not think there is enough information available as of now to reach any firm conclusion.