Nikon 800mm PF and 180-600mm vs 100-400mm questions

[PhilG]

Until I moved to Colorado my primary photographic subject was landscapes, now its wildlife. Wildlife is primarily birds, but I also photograph elk, moose, buffalo, deer, coyotes, and other smaller mammals. The Nikon 500mm with 1.4x TC lives on my Nikon Z8, but I’m still cropping and am forced to be at F8. I’m planning on trading it (and some other stuff identified below) and replace it with the Nikon 800mm PF since I want to go longer and be able to utilize a more desirable f-stop. The replacement might happen as early as this weekend.

I have the following questions for those who have made a similar transition or have experience with the Nikon 800mm PF.

• I don’t feel like the extra two pounds is going to be a problem, but I realize hand holding the Nikon is going to be a totally different experience given the size and weight difference. Given I can handhold the 500mm with 1.4 TC for long periods and carry it outside my bag on 4-mile hikes without any issue, would you expect me to have any issues handholding or carrying the 800mm PF lens?
• I’m already shooting at 700mm with the 500mm + 1.4x TC. How much different is shooting at 800mm from a bird in flight perspective? I realize the size and weight are also factors since the 800mm is larger and heavier.
• I’m going to keep the Nikon AF-S 80-400 and my Nikon D850 initially, so I can have two lenses ready for use. I will eventually trade them both. I’m looking at either the Nikon Z 100-400mm or 180-600mm lenses as that replacement. Having read posts on this and other forums, people’s opinion on each lens varies, but given that I don’t seem to be in the 400-600mm range much, is the 100-400mm the better choice even though right now the 180-600mm is $600 less?

Thanks in advance for your replies.

My current equipment follows.

Nikon D850	I still love this camera, but the Z8 and the Z system lenses are better.
Sigma 14mm 1.8	I use this for astrophotography and when I need to go very wide. It’s a great lens and I don’t have any plans to replace it with a Z equivalent.
Nikon AF-S 16-35 F4	This isn’t a focal range I operate in much, but I wanted to have something to cover the range if I needed it. Eventually I plan to get the Z 20mm 1.8 and use it and the Sigma 14mm to cover the ultra wide range recognizing I will have to crop more in some cases where neither lens is exactly what I need. I’m going to trade it during my next lens purchase.
Nikon 60mm	I bought this just to use with the ES-2 slide adapter. I have already converted numerous slides and negatives. I need to convert any other slides and negatives I identify and then I can sell / trade it.
Nikon AF-S 70-200 f4	I really like this lens and my copy is very sharp, but I’m not in this focal range much. I’m going to trade it during my next lens purchase and use the 80-400 to cover its range.
Nikon AF-S 80-400 G VR F4.5-5.6	I put this on my D850 when I’m shooting wildlife and use it when I’m too close to use the Z8 and 500mm PF w 1.4x TC.
Nikon AF-S 500mm PF F5.6	I love this lens. Even with the TC, my photos are extremely sharp.
Nikon TC-14e iii
Nikon Z8	The D850 wasn’t bad for birds, but the Z8 is better and kills it for birds in flight. The viewfinder, no shutter and being able to change lenses without exposing the sensor, and Z system lenses being better are some of its other advantages.
Nikon Z 24-70 2.8	This was the focal range I shoot most landscapes in. This lens blows away my previous Nikon lenses in this range and renders things with a quality I never saw before with any other lens I have used.

 

[Warren D]

I can't address how easy the 800pf will be for you to handle. I usually suggest borrowing or renting one. The 500 pf even with a tc is night and day different WRT weight. The 800 does come with handling issues, the longer FL requires the best camera handling techniques. I like a heavier lens as I feel that it dampens any small twitches I may have and for me gives me smoother pans. I've also used gyrostabilizers so I'm accustomed to smooth pans. (I never liked the 500pf as it's too light for me, coming from a 600 f4 EFL)
As for the 180-600, I find mine to be fine, though it does like to be stopped down 1/3-2/3 stop for max sharpness. Not an issue as I'm usually at f8-f9 anyway for the subject matter I use the lens for. Longer FL's have a tendancy to make us think we can be farther away from our subject but the more distance there is, the more we are subject to atmospherics.
I'm 68 and last week walked 5 miles with my z9/800pf. I've spent 5+ hrs shooting with that combo hand held. YMMV!

 

[PhilG]

I can't address how easy the 800pf will be for you to handle. I usually suggest borrowing or renting one. The 500 pf even with a tc is night and day different WRT weight. The 800 does come with handling issues, the longer FL requires the best camera handling techniques. I like a heavier lens as I feel that it dampens any small twitches I may have and for me gives me smoother pans. I've also used gyrostabilizers so I'm accustomed to smooth pans. (I never liked the 500pf as it's too light for me, coming from a 600 f4 EFL)
As for the 180-600, I find mine to be fine, though it does like to be stopped down 1/3-2/3 stop for max sharpness. Not an issue as I'm usually at f8-f9 anyway for the subject matter I use the lens for. Longer FL's have a tendancy to make us think we can be farther away from our subject but the more distance there is, the more we are subject to atmospherics.
I'm 68 and last week walked 5 miles with my z9/800pf. I've spent 5+ hrs shooting with that combo hand held. YMMV!

Thanks Warren. It's hard for you or anyone to address whether I can handle the 800mm PF without problem (your first sentence), but I expected some who had the 500 PF and upgraded to the 800mm might offer opinions. Since you were using a heavier lens, I would have expected it to be no problem for you. I don't anticipate any problems, but I could be surprised. I should probably rent one, but I intend to play with it in the store quite a bit before purchasing it.

 

[Gov]

I made the same switch and haven't had any problems handholding the 800. I haven't even used it on a tripod and only occasionally on a monopod. It Is heavier, however, and you have to be ready for that. It has been too heavy for some who have commented on this board.
It is somewhat harder to catch birds in flight (700-800, 14% harder?). I once switched from it to the 180-600 to catch switfts in flight, but with practice haven't had a lot of trouble with BIF.
Since you are rarely in the 400-600 range, sounds like the 100-400 is for you. I chose the 180-600 because I'm often shooting birds. You could hang on to the 80-400 and try the 180-600 to see if you would like it better.

 

[Charles Loy]

My gut wrenching opinion, no offence intended Sir, all but the last two 'your equipment' needs swapped off and done with.

Then you can buy Z lens and move forward. I use the tele 14x on my 600PF and am very happy with it. The 800mm will be a touch faster, but I have not been able to convince myself I need it. On the used market they are selling in the 4800 dollar range. Should be worth that. I have the 180-600 also, and must have gotten very lucky as mine is sharp, period, at 6.3 through the full zoom range. I usually use f7.1, old habit of a little step down. For that reason, I suggest the 180-600 lens. Easy to handle, too. Good luck and enjoy what ya get.

 

[ajrmd]

I have the following questions for those who have made a similar transition or have experience with the Nikon 800mm PF.

• I don’t feel like the extra two pounds is going to be a problem, but I realize hand holding the Nikon is going to be a totally different experience given the size and weight difference. Given I can handhold the 500mm with 1.4 TC for long periods and carry it outside my bag on 4-mile hikes without any issue, would you expect me to have any issues handholding or carrying the 800mm PF lens?

Yes, it will be noticeably different. I hike miles (5-10) with my 800 on a Magpul MS4 Gen 2 sling or when carrying it with a 180-600 (186), I do so with an Optech dual sling. I don't notice the weight as much when I carry it with the dual sling because it's balanced. The other day I was hiking in the fields (about 4 miles and several hours) with the 800 alone and the one sided weight left me aching at end of the day. The 800 is fine to handhold for short periods especially if you use good technique with a sling, though if you are planning on observing a subject for a while then some sort of rest will be needed. Whether you deploy a monopod, bag on a rock, or some other technique is up to you.

• I’m already shooting at 700mm with the 500mm + 1.4x TC. How much different is shooting at 800mm from a bird in flight perspective? I realize the size and weight are also factors since the 800mm is larger and heavier.

It is. Personally, I find shooting the 800 relatively easy for BIF though I use a technique similar to acquiring a clay in flight, namely aiming over the barrel, keeping both eyes open as I track the target, and bringing the camera up to the eye. Again, the weight is fine for short flight sequences and it pans well.

• I’m going to keep the Nikon AF-S 80-400 and my Nikon D850 initially, so I can have two lenses ready for use. I will eventually trade them both. I’m looking at either the Nikon Z 100-400mm or 180-600mm lenses as that replacement. Having read posts on this and other forums, people’s opinion on each lens varies, but given that I don’t seem to be in the 400-600mm range much, is the 100-400mm the better choice even though right now the 180-600mm is $600 less?

Unfortunately, I can't answer that question because the solution is up to you. If I shot mostly in the 400 and less FL range then the 100-400 would be the obvious choice because of the size and weight. For my subjects the 186 makes more sense and that's why I purchased it instead of the 104. The 186 is no slouch in terms of AF and sharpness. Here is a link to a couple of images that I shot just yesterday - of note they could have just as easily been shot with the 104...

https://bcgforums.com/threads/red-head-wp-flying-though-the-forest.40448/

Congrats on the move and I'm sure you'll have a lot to photograph in CO!

 

[PhilG]

I have the following questions for those who have made a similar transition or have experience with the Nikon 800mm PF.

• I don’t feel like the extra two pounds is going to be a problem, but I realize hand holding the Nikon is going to be a totally different experience given the size and weight difference. Given I can handhold the 500mm with 1.4 TC for long periods and carry it outside my bag on 4-mile hikes without any issue, would you expect me to have any issues handholding or carrying the 800mm PF lens?

Yes, it will be noticeably different. I hike miles (5-10) with my 800 on a Magpul MS4 Gen 2 sling or when carrying it with a 180-600 (186), I do so with an Optech dual sling. I don't notice the weight as much when I carry it with the dual sling because it's balanced. The other day I was hiking in the fields (about 4 miles and several hours) with the 800 alone and the one sided weight left me aching at end of the day. The 800 is fine to handhold for short periods especially if you use good technique with a sling, though if you are planning on observing a subject for a while then some sort of rest will be needed. Whether you deploy a monopod, bag on a rock, or some other technique is up to you.

• I’m already shooting at 700mm with the 500mm + 1.4x TC. How much different is shooting at 800mm from a bird in flight perspective? I realize the size and weight are also factors since the 800mm is larger and heavier.

It is. Personally, I find shooting the 800 relatively easy for BIF though I use a technique similar to acquiring a clay in flight, namely aiming over the barrel, keeping both eyes open as I track the target, and bringing the camera up to the eye. Again, the weight is fine for short flight sequences and it pans well.

• I’m going to keep the Nikon AF-S 80-400 and my Nikon D850 initially, so I can have two lenses ready for use. I will eventually trade them both. I’m looking at either the Nikon Z 100-400mm or 180-600mm lenses as that replacement. Having read posts on this and other forums, people’s opinion on each lens varies, but given that I don’t seem to be in the 400-600mm range much, is the 100-400mm the better choice even though right now the 180-600mm is $600 less?

Unfortunately, I can't answer that question because the solution is up to you. If I shot mostly in the 400 and less FL range then the 100-400 would be the obvious choice because of the size and weight. For my subjects the 186 makes more sense and that's why I purchased it instead of the 104. The 186 is no slouch in terms of AF and sharpness. Here is a link to a couple of images that I shot just yesterday - of note they could have just as easily been shot with the 104...

https://bcgforums.com/threads/red-head-wp-flying-though-the-forest.40448/

Congrats on the move and I'm sure you'll have a lot to photograph in CO!

Thanks very much for your responses and I like you red head shots.

 

[PhilG]

My gut wrenching opinion, no offence intended Sir, all but the last two 'your equipment' needs swapped off and done with.

Then you can buy Z lens and move forward. I use the tele 14x on my 600PF and am very happy with it. The 800mm will be a touch faster, but I have not been able to convince myself I need it. On the used market they are selling in the 4800 dollar range. Should be worth that. I have the 180-600 also, and must have gotten very lucky as mine is sharp, period, at 6.3 through the full zoom range. I usually use f7.1, old habit of a little step down. For that reason, I suggest the 180-600 lens. Easy to handle, too. Good luck and enjoy what ya get.

I don't disagree with your first sentence. If money was no object it would be done with already.

 

[nmerc_photos]

• Weight is different for everybody. I feel a noticeable difference between a 500PF weighted (300GM, 400 4.5, 600PF, 100-400) and an 800PF weighted (180-600, 800PF) lens. That being said, I still find the 800PF relatively easy to handhold - especially for such a long focal length lens. I've never hiked with it specifically, but I have hiked miles with the heavier 400/600TC on a peak design sling, and it's relatively fatigue free. I don't find the carrying to be tiring when considering lens weights, I consider the actual handholding to be.

• I don't know that many people would be able to tell a difference between shooting at 700mm and 800mm focal lengths. A lot of people have trouble following subjects at those lengths, and other people don't. I used to shoot 1200mm up to 2240mm often and the only times I'd have problems was if the subject got too close, too fast.

• This is a tough choice. I personally think the 180-600 + 800PF is a better pairing in general, but if you truly only would use 100-400 and then 800, that could be good. I find the 180-600 IQ to be better at every focal length than the 100-400, and especially so if you ever add a TC to the 100-400. but the weight also makes a significant difference. If I didn't have a use for 400-600 focal range, I'd pick the 100-400 every time based on size and weight alone.

 

[Calson]

I was delighted to find that shooting hand held with the 800mm PF presented no problems. The fast eye detect of the Z9 made it possible to forego manual focusing as I often needed to do with my DSLR cameras. My first outing involved photographing small hairy woodpeckers as they moved from branch to branch and tree to tree. My other telephoto setup is the 100-400mm with the 1.4x TC to have 560mm. I find 560mm to be on the short end for very small birds.

When I have owned a 600mm f/4 lens I used them most of the time with the TC-14 teleconverter for 840mm focal length. With the 800mm I have sufficient reach for small animals and adequate camera to subject distances for dangerous large mammals.

Great deal more freedom with no need for a tripod. I change my shooting height or move to have a different spot to alter the background much as I would with a normal lens on a camera.

 

[PhilG]

• Weight is different for everybody. I feel a noticeable difference between a 500PF weighted (300GM, 400 4.5, 600PF, 100-400) and an 800PF weighted (180-600, 800PF) lens. That being said, I still find the 800PF relatively easy to handhold - especially for such a long focal length lens. I've never hiked with it specifically, but I have hiked miles with the heavier 400/600TC on a peak design sling, and it's relatively fatigue free. I don't find the carrying to be tiring when considering lens weights, I consider the actual handholding to be.

• I don't know that many people would be able to tell a difference between shooting at 700mm and 800mm focal lengths. A lot of people have trouble following subjects at those lengths, and other people don't. I used to shoot 1200mm up to 2240mm often and the only times I'd have problems was if the subject got too close, too fast.

• This is a tough choice. I personally think the 180-600 + 800PF is a better pairing in general, but if you truly only would use 100-400 and then 800, that could be good. I find the 180-600 IQ to be better at every focal length than the 100-400, and especially so if you ever add a TC to the 100-400. but the weight also makes a significant difference. If I didn't have a use for 400-600 focal range, I'd pick the 100-400 every time based on size and weight alone.

I appreciate your comments. I agree the weight is more noticeable when handholding for longer periods than when carrying it during a hike.

I am struggling a little with the 180-600 vs 100-400 decision. I like that the 100-400 is smaller, lighter and closer focusing, but I really want to maximize sharpness. I am seeing differing statements on the sharpness between the two lenses, and I am wondering if it is just sample variation or how the lenses are being used. For example, in Steve's testing I believe he said the 100-400 was sharper at 200mm, almost as good at 300mm, and at 400mm the 100-600 was better. I'm not wanting to use teleconverters which is also to the advantage of the 180-600 if I ever wanted to be between 400 and 600mm. The 180-600 is also $600 cheaper which is to its advantage.

 

[IainD]

Thanks Warren. It's hard for you or anyone to address whether I can handle the 800mm PF without problem (your first sentence), but I expected some who had the 500 PF and upgraded to the 800mm might offer opinions. Since you were using a heavier lens, I would have expected it to be no problem for you. I don't anticipate any problems, but I could be surprised. I should probably rent one, but I intend to play with it in the store quite a bit before purchasing it.

I still have the 500 pf and the Z 800. I use a Z9 and can manage the 800 comfortably for a walk around the lake. I might need to rest my arms every 15 minutes of shooting but I don’t find it very different from my 500 pf.

 

[nmerc_photos]

I appreciate your comments. I agree the weight is more noticeable when handholding for longer periods than when carrying it during a hike.

I am struggling a little with the 180-600 vs 100-400 decision. I like that the 100-400 is smaller, lighter and closer focusing, but I really want to maximize sharpness. I am seeing differing statements on the sharpness between the two lenses, and I am wondering if it is just sample variation or how the lenses are being used. For example, in Steve's testing I believe he said the 100-400 was sharper at 200mm, almost as good at 300mm, and at 400mm the 100-600 was better. I'm not wanting to use teleconverters which is also to the advantage of the 180-600 if I ever wanted to be between 400 and 600mm. The 180-600 is also $600 cheaper which is to its advantage.

I don't think you'll find a concise answer about sharpness between the 100-400 and 180-600. Both of them are extremely sharp and very good for what they are. You could spend hundreds of hours reviewing samples from both and see excellent images, and crap images (like with any lens).

Sharpness is usually one of the last things I consider when evaluating a lens these days, because they're all so good - and the majority of any imperfections can easily be fixed in post.

I'd look at it as a shorter, lighter weight mammal/landscape lens vs a longer, heavier, more bird oriented lens. Gotta decide what you value more - size/weight or extended reach.

I've owned both (at the same time), and I preferred my 180-600 + 800PF setup, but I like the 100-400 + 600TC as well. And the 100-400 has always been my dedicated travel lens since it's so easy to pack in a carryon or personal item.

 

[fcotterill]

An important factor in handholding and tracking subjects is how long one keeps the rig on the subject, and if it's tracking versus fixed handholding. A 800 PF and Z9 is easy for snap shots and following a subject for a couple of minutes as it moves about.

Holding the rig rock steady on a subject awaiting the critical moment...as the minutes clock up....is quite another affair. This is when a monopod becomes useful.

Balance is the another important factor. I found the 3.8kg 400 f2.8E easier to handhold on a Pro DSLR compared to the 3kg 300 f2.8G VR II, because the smaller lens is "end heavy". A general rule is IME Nikon's recent E type F-mount and Z telephotos are much better balanced in their design.

 

[Dollar]

Overall I don't have too much to add. I particularly agree with @ajrmd on pretty much all points.

• I don’t feel like the extra two pounds is going to be a problem, but I realize hand holding the Nikon is going to be a totally different experience given the size and weight difference. Given I can handhold the 500mm with 1.4 TC for long periods and carry it outside my bag on 4-mile hikes without any issue, would you expect me to have any issues handholding or carrying the 800mm PF lens?

Do you by chance have any experience with the Nikon 200-500mm? Because the 800PF is in about the same weight, despite being a fair bit larger. So, it's remarkably light for what it is. That said, it is still a decently hefty lens. I have carried it on 7-8 mile hikes without too much issue, but I'm under 30 and in Michigan so the terrain is pretty flat; those may not translate to your situation. Having a good strap setup will be important as I do agree that carrying the 800 with just a strap around the neck/shoulder can get uncomfortable after a while.

• I’m already shooting at 700mm with the 500mm + 1.4x TC. How much different is shooting at 800mm from a bird in flight perspective? I realize the size and weight are also factors since the 800mm is larger and heavier.

It's challenging but it's a skill that you develop. If you're already shooting at 700mm I don't think you'll have much of a harder time from a focal length perspective. The size and weight will be more obnoxious but again, remarkably reasonable for 800mm f/6.3.

• I’m going to keep the Nikon AF-S 80-400 and my Nikon D850 initially, so I can have two lenses ready for use. I will eventually trade them both. I’m looking at either the Nikon Z 100-400mm or 180-600mm lenses as that replacement. Having read posts on this and other forums, people’s opinion on each lens varies, but given that I don’t seem to be in the 400-600mm range much, is the 100-400mm the better choice even though right now the 180-600mm is $600 less?

That's what I did; I only shoot with one body and whichever lens I'm not using goes in my backpack. The 100-400 being so much smaller and lighter is a huge incentive, and I also actually am hoping to utilize the close focus range for plants/insects/etc. If you're a two-body shooter then it's a little bit of a different situation but I do personally still think that the size and weight are factors, and I'd assume you'd use 100-180mm more than 400-600mm if you're also doing landscapes.

 

[wotan1]

First I really like the 800mm pf it is by far my favorite wildlife lens.
I do a mix of handheld and tripod/gimbal depending on the location.
The 800 pf is about the best there is when shooting at 800mm. It is max 6.3 while the most expensive primes can do slightly better at f5.6 but cost three times the price of the 800 pf.
I use a Holdfast strap when carrying it handheld. I use it on a Z9. With that setup I lift the lens and use it then dangle it on the strap until the next shot.

The lens is really easy to use on a tripod and gimbal and if I don't have to walk too far I often prefer to use it that way.

if I were in your shoes I would consider holding on to the 500mm pf for the time being while you get used to the 800.

I have personally found combining the 800 pf with the 400mm f4.5 works well. You can crop the 400 quite a bit to get greater range so the combination works well.

I also go to the 70-200mm f2.8 for shorter stuff.

I can work two of those three lenses at the same time handheld with a Holdfast dual strap and using two bodies.

 

[ElenaH]

I've been to Africa on 5-weeks trip with my partner and we had all mentioned combinations. I shoot with D850+500PF, Z9+Z100-400 and Z8+180-600 (70-200) . I also shoot video. My parner had Z9+Z800 amd Z8+Z400/4.5. I process all photos now and all of them are going in front of to my eyes. So, I see the same objects shoot with different lenses.

400/4.5 had amazing results because it is sharp and has a beutiful bokeh. Z100-400 has better bokeh than 180-600 but it seems to me (according to the photos) that Z180-600 is sharper, has very good IQ and colours but the bokeh is better on Z100-400.
Z800 has amazing results if the focus is right. There are many photos of Z800 where either heat distortion present or the focus is not right.

I tried to shoot birds with Z800 around the camps in Botswana but the problem was not (only) that you need to keep them in a view finder (that you will master after some training) but the problem was that the birds were too close!! So, I changed to Z100-400 becasue it had the best minimal distance to the subject (even 400/4.5 has longer distance). I didn't expect that I would take care about minimal distance to the subject in my Africa trip but it was the case! And not only for birds but also for other small animals at camps (squrrels, mangooses, jackals and of course, birds). But if you are not going to Africa you shoud not take care about the minimal focusing distance.
Z800 was a bit heavy for me shooting a long time but I was able to hold it and shoot with it. If I could I would better choose Z600PF.

The performace of Z-combinations (Z9+Z100-400 or Z8+400/4.5) had exceed D850+500PF - as I can see it on the pictures. Z-combinations have better mastered backlight situations - the sharpness, details and colours were better. 400/4.5 pictures look better than Z100-400, however the difference is not so big (but I cann see it!!). Z180-600 performs also very good but as I said I needed to watch the background to get betterreslts. Z180-600 is heavy and I often preferred Z100-400 becasue of that, too. Actally my favourite lens for Africa trip was Z100-400 - because of the minimal focusing distance (what a surprise!!!), weight and flexibility of zooming (especially if you are shooting video, too) If I'd only take photos and no video I'd better change to Z400/4.5, I wouldn't need zoom (I can always stitch the subject in panorama if the focal lenght is loo long or the subject is too close)

I took D850 as a backup because for me it was clear that video shooting will empty my batteries very quickly and I always kept an eye on Z9 battries so, that I have still power for video shoting. We were staying 3 days without power in one place and 5 days in the other and it is difficult to charge all cameras if you don't drive too much. The fuel was also restricted. It is not like we didn't have it but you always need to think about emergency issues when you are alone in nowhere. So, I often changed to D850 for photography keeping Z9 and Z8 for video shooting. D850 is a very robust camera with neverending batteries and no overheating issues.

So, this is why I have a direct comparison of D850 and Z-combinations. Perhaps, I shall make a post of those comparisons with photos? The real life wilfdlife shooting so to say? So that you can see how the different systems (D and Z with different lenses) perform under the same conditions photographing the same subjects.

 

[PhilG]

I've been to Africa on 5-weeks trip with my partner and we had all mentioned combinations. I shoot with D850+500PF, Z9+Z100-400 and Z8+180-600 (70-200) . I also shoot video. My parner had Z9+Z800 amd Z8+Z400/4.5. I process all photos now and all of them are going in front of to my eyes. So, I see the same objects shoot with different lenses.

400/4.5 had amazing results because it is sharp and has a beutiful bokeh. Z100-400 has better bokeh than 180-600 but it seems to me (according to the photos) that Z180-600 is sharper, has very good IQ and colours but the bokeh is better on Z100-400.
Z800 has amazing results if the focus is right. There are many photos of Z800 where either heat distortion present or the focus is not right.

I tried to shoot birds with Z800 around the camps in Botswana but the problem was not (only) that you need to keep them in a view finder (that you will master after some training) but the problem was that the birds were too close!! So, I changed to Z100-400 becasue it had the best minimal distance to the subject (even 400/4.5 has longer distance). I didn't expect that I would take care about minimal distance to the subject in my Africa trip but it was the case! And not only for birds but also for other small animals at camps (squrrels, mangooses, jackals and of course, birds). But if you are not going to Africa you shoud not take care about the minimal focusing distance.
Z800 was a bit heavy for me shooting a long time but I was able to hold it and shoot with it. If I could I would better choose Z600PF.

The performace of Z-combinations (Z9+Z100-400 or Z8+400/4.5) had exceed D850+500PF - as I can see it on the pictures. Z-combinations have better mastered backlight situations - the sharpness, details and colours were better. 400/4.5 pictures look better than Z100-400, however the difference is not so big (but I cann see it!!). Z180-600 performs also very good but as I said I needed to watch the background to get betterreslts. Z180-600 is heavy and I often preferred Z100-400 becasue of that, too. Actally my favourite lens for Africa trip was Z100-400 - because of the minimal focusing distance (what a surprise!!!), weight and flexibility of zooming (especially if you are shooting video, too) If I'd only take photos and no video I'd better change to Z400/4.5, I wouldn't need zoom (I can always stitch the subject in panorama if the focal lenght is loo long or the subject is too close)

I took D850 as a backup because for me it was clear that video shooting will empty my batteries very quickly and I always kept an eye on Z9 battries so, that I have still power for video shoting. We were staying 3 days without power in one place and 5 days in the other and it is difficult to charge all cameras if you don't drive too much. The fuel was also restricted. It is not like we didn't have it but you always need to think about emergency issues when you are alone in nowhere. So, I often changed to D850 for photography keeping Z9 and Z8 for video shooting. D850 is a very robust camera with neverending batteries and no overheating issues.

So, this is why I have a direct comparison of D850 and Z-combinations. Perhaps, I shall make a post of those comparisons with photos? The real life wilfdlife shooting so to say? So that you can see how the different systems (D and Z with different lenses) perform under the same conditions photographing the same subjects.

I want to thank everyone for responding. I read some of these quickly this morning, but don't have time to respond right now because I'm busy all today. Tonight expect some more questions.

 

[Calson]

I owned the 180-600mm and the 100-400mm and sold the 180-600mm lens. The 180-600mm is much like the f-mount 200-500mm lens in terms of performance that was excellent for the price of the lens. But overall I get more use from the 100-400mm + the 1.4x TC and a zoom range from 100mm to 560mmm. Far less need to have the 70-200mm lens along to gain its wider view angle than a 200mm or 180mm minimum focal length.

For me the 800mm with the 100-400mm and 1.4x TC provides the most options for my subjects. This amounts to a much greater investment than buying a 180-600mm lens so not an apples to apples comparison. The 600mm f/4 TC is a great lens but more weight than I can use hand held and I came to realize with the 500mm PF lens how much I gain in not needing to use a tripod and gimbal head.

There is also the aspect of shooting video where a zoom lens provides significant advantages. In addition to the 100-400mm lens I use the new Nikon 28-400mm lens that appears to have been designed in part for video shooters.

 

[cchuck]

Here is a quick screenshot of Nikkor lens stats to help sort it.

 

[PhilG]

Feedback concerning my 100-400 vs 180-600 dilemma was helpful. After rechecking the distances I’m at with my current 80-400mm when I’m photographing wildlife a high percentage of them are shot at less than 400mm. The suggestion that the 100-400 fits better with my landscape photography was a good observation. From a close focusing perspective as multiple people pointed out, I can see how it would benefit me. I photographed hummingbirds at a location where they were an arm’s length away and the 100-400 would have been great in that situation. I think the 100-400 would also be great for butterflies. I knew I liked the 100-400 from a travel perspective and I have a lot of 77mm filters. Given the above, I think the 100-400 is what I will go with.

A few more questions:

I’ve already ordered the Zemlin V2 lens cap for protection. I presume that it would eliminate the need to use the sock that covers the lens when packing it in a camera bag. For those people using the Zemlin, do you continue to use or not use the sock in your camera bag and why?

I currently hold the Nikon 500mm PF with the lens foot when photographing. The 800 PF is an entirely different animal, and I will have to use it to determine what works best for me, but I would be interested to know whether people carry it with their hand at the front of the barrel, using the foot, or in some other manner and why.

I have a Wimberly Sidekick that sits on a Kirk BH-1 ball head I bought to use with my Nikon 500mm PF. I am almost always handholding the Nikon 500mm PF and have only used the Sidekick on a few occasions. I could foresee using the Sidekick a little more with the Nikon Z 800mm PF. I found multiple posts on DPREVIEW that indicate the Nikon Z 800mm PF will work with the Wimberley Sidekick. Has anyone used that combination and if so, can they provide their opinion on its use?

 

[Dollar]

I’ve already ordered the Zemlin V2 lens cap for protection. I presume that it would eliminate the need to use the sock that covers the lens when packing it in a camera bag. For those people using the Zemlin, do you continue to use or not use the sock in your camera bag and why?

For the 800PF, I transport with the Zemlin lens cap in place and a Zemlin hood reversed on the mount.
I cannot use the OEM hood or the soft cap that comes with the lens as they are too large in diameter for the depth of my backpack.
If it wasn't for the depth issue I would use the OEM hood but would still not use the soft cap since I have the Zemlin cap.

I currently hold the Nikon 500mm PF with the lens foot when photographing. The 800 PF is an entirely different animal, and I will have to use it to determine what works best for me, but I would be interested to know whether people carry it with their hand at the front of the barrel, using the foot, or in some other manner and why.

I hold the 800 with my left hand out on the barrel, usually somewhere around the bell-shaped section where the lens diameter increases. This is a bit far from the function and focus rings but I personally struggle a bit more to hold the lens steady if I'm using my support hand towards the center of the lens where those controls are.

 

[PhilG]

For the 800PF, I transport with the Zemlin lens cap in place and a Zemlin hood reversed on the mount.
I cannot use the OEM hood or the soft cap that comes with the lens as they are too large in diameter for the depth of my backpack.
If it wasn't for the depth issue I would use the OEM hood but would still not use the soft cap since I have the Zemlin cap.
View attachment 101497


I hold the 800 with my left hand out on the barrel, usually somewhere around the bell-shaped section where the lens diameter increases. This is a bit far from the function and focus rings but I personally struggle a bit more to hold the lens steady if I'm using my support hand towards the center of the lens where those controls are.

Thanks for your response.

What bag are you using? I've got a Mindshift 36L and Lance B posted a photo on DPREVIEW of him packing the 800PF with the sock and body attached to the 800PF and it is fitting on one side of the bag, leaving room for a 500PF, 24-70, and another small slot on the other side. I should therefore be able to fit the 800, a 100-400 and my 24-70 without an issue. I was wondering whether people still used the sock for protection - you aren't and I'm not sure what benefit it would provide except for a little more cushion.

 

[Dollar]

Thanks for your response.

What bag are you using? I've got a Mindshift 36L and Lance B posted a photo on DPREVIEW of him packing the 800PF with the sock and body attached to the 800PF and it is fitting on one side of the bag, leaving room for a 500PF, 24-70, and another small slot on the other side. I should therefore be able to fit the 800, a 100-400 and my 24-70 without an issue. I was wondering whether people still used the sock for protection - you aren't and I'm not sure what benefit it would provide except for a little more cushion.

I use a Backlight 26L. The 36L is a significant increase in space (depth included) and you should have no problem fitting those lenses. I just prefer the smaller size of the 26L and love that I can fit the 800PF and a 100-400mm in such a reasonably-sized bag.