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).
I agree about being cautious when buying used gear. Thankfully, there are a number of dealers that will warrant their gear from three to six months, so there are good choices for buying used.
No apologies needed. My budget, however, puts me in one "car class" down from the gear you mentioned. I am using a Z6iii body, and the 600PF is out of budget range. That leaves me with options like a used 500PF, a used 400/4.5 or the 180-600. Until this 400/4.5 became available, I never really gave much thought to a walkabout sized lens. I pretty much wanted as much focal length as I could get and use of a monopod or tripod was expected. I do like the size and weight of the 400.4.5 so now I have to decide how much size/weight I want to gain in exchange for reach.
I think that philosophically many people(myself included) believe that keeping things as simple as possible is always best. It's not just about IQ. Less points of failure/error, etc. But life is full of compromises. If the 400 4.5/TC combo fits your budget I wouldn't hesitate. And of course there's the benefit of shoot at 400mm with the wider aperture when the situation calls for it. I shot that combo for a while and my plan was to do so indefinitely when I need that FL. I wouldn't hesitate to do so. I did end up getting a 600PF but only because a financially attractive opportunity came up that made it reasonable.
Query - can you be more specific?
Heya Len, I think he was comparing the 186 vs the 400 prime - it has a MFD of 8.2 feet, so slightly worse off vs the 186. As you know, the 100-400 is great though in that respect. I often use it as a ‘macro lens’ if I don’t have one with me
Yes, I was comparing the 400 f/4.5 vs the 186 which was the focus of the discussion. The 104 v. 186 merits an entirely different conversation.
I had a chance to go out today and shoot with the 400/4.5, and I think that your summary is spot on. I absolutely loved it compact size and weight, but it was definitely shy of focal length and needing the TC for BIF. And it was a bit too long for some of the landscape shots I saw (e.g. old barns), and that was frustrating. But the AF speed was quite fast, the IQ when I nailed focus seemed great, and all in all, it was more fun to use than the 200-500. But it did get me to thinking that a zoom like the 100-400 or the 180-600 would be a more flexible solution. The focal range and physical size of the 100-400 is great, but I suspect this is not the best lens to use with a 1.4TC, and I would still be lacking for BIF. The 180-600 would be better for birding, but it is not as compact, and I would probably need to use it with a monopod as I did with the 200-500. Lots of choices, lots of trade-offs and never enough funds to do what I would ideally like to do. I have a few more days to think about what is the best approach to an upgrade from the 200-500, but I suspect that the ideal solution will require more funds than I wish to spend.
If I were to do it again, I'd probably go 180-600, but it didn't exist when I bought my 400/4.5.
The utility is less for shooting small objects far away, rather its strength lies in zooming in/out on small objects nearby. Alternatively, having the ability to zoom out when these small objects take off and fly towards you as these photos of a red headed woodpecker which flew out of the tree illustrate: https://bcgforums.com/threads/red-head-wp-flying-though-the-forest.40448/. With a 400 f/4.5, the bird would have been clipped or possibly OOF due to the MFD.
I agree generally with this analysis.
This is exactly what I do too. Works good.
Correct. Getting above 500mm in a compact design is not an affordable option, with the exception of using a TC with the 400/4.5. The 186 offers a range of focal lengths, 600mm, and affordability, but at the expense of size/weight. Granted, it is an improvement over the 200-500 in most ways, but it is not what I would call a compact lens.
You describe an ideal BIF setup, but alas, much of it is beyond my budget. I think my choices will probably be focused on a used 500PF or 400/4.5, or a new 180-600. The 100-400 is a possibility as well as it is on a good sale and used copies do pop up from time to time.
Personally, I wouldn't consider the 100-400. You'll almost never use it between 100-300 unless it's a landscape, or big critter relatively close.
I had thought that as well. But I also have a gap in native lenses above 120mm, and I often shoot some casual landscape shots when I am out shooting BIF. So I need to decide if I want something more versatile, or dedicated to BIF. The 186 is definitely more of a dedicated lens for BIF for me given its size and the need for something like a monopod or tripod if I am taking more than a shot or two. I need to start testing some of my older F-mount glass to see how well it can fill this gap.
As I mentioned, this all started when a well priced 500PF came up for sale but was sold before I could have it pulled. I do not have a Z50ii, but I still have my D500. I can use it with that or trade it in and that would get me closer to the price of a new Z50ii.
