Nikon long glass question...

[TheObserver]

Hi all,

I am Frank, from Switzerland, and this is my first post here. Have been reading for a lot longer, but i like some feedback on a question i am pondering.

My current equipment for wildlife is:

Z9 + Zf + 135mm + 100-400mm + 800mm. Also own the TCs.

I had good results with this (no surprise here). But the 100-400 shows weakness in this chain. For one, i mostly use it at 400mm or 560mm (with the 1.4, i only use the 2x on a 70-200mm). The picture quality is fine, but the AF speed/tracking is noticeably not as good as the other lenses.

So i am thinking to replace this. If i need 0... 400mm i could use the 70-200mm with a converter.

Now I am thinking about 2 different approaches, both start with selling the 100-400mm.

a) get the 400 f4.5 and the 600 f6.3. Together with the 800mm i should have a decent setup.
b) sell also the 800mm and just get the 400mm 2.8 as the one and only.

What speaks in my mind against this b) is that, when on Safari, e.g., i always have a backup body (either a Z8 on loan or my Zf) with a lens. so i could mount 600 + 400 easily. Also, i don't look forward to the nearly 6 pounds with the 400 2.8.

Anyone else pondered this? Anyone (outside of Jared Polin) who can hand held the 400 2.8 for long periods of time (i notice the 800mm after a few hours, and i can not hold that for more than 10min in a row)? Or is this "get a tripod always with you" solution? Anyone has the 3 lighter lenses and how is that working out?

And, if you have the 400 f4.5, how would that compare to the 70-200mm with a 2x converter?

If there is a thread that already ponders this, i have not really found it (outside of some very old ones about a part of the problem). And note, I do not take the financial aspect into consideration - i assume if i go either route that this will last me a very long time, so it's worth it either way.

Frank

 

[Cameron T]

I'd dump the 100-400 for the 180-600. It's heavier, but better iq.

As for going for the 400 2.8, it's an amazing lens, but heavy, and unless you really need the extra light and thinner dof you can get 85%+ of the iq (especially downsized for web) other ways.

My ideal setup is the 180-600 and 800 pf, so you're ahead of me there.

 

[BillW]

A few thoughts. All based on my experience and personal copies of these lenses and TCs.

I used the Z 70-200 with the 1.4x TC and 2x TC before the Z 100-400 was released.

The Z 100-400 is better at 400 mm than the Z 70-200 with the 2x TC. But the Z 70-200 and the 2x TC is useable. And the Z 70-200 gets you to 70 mm at the short end and f2.8, when not using a TC and is probably the best zoom you can find between 70 and 200 mm. (Of course, it looks like you have the Plena.) One other thing I like about the Z 100-400 is its close minimum focus distance. It’s almost a macro, great for butterflies, dragonflies and frogs.

The Z 400 f4.5 is better at 400 mm than either the Z 100-400 or the Z 70-200 with the 2x TC. It’s almost as good as the Z 400 mm TC, but lighter, less expensive and 1 1/3 of a stop slower. A great lens. It takes the Z TCs well, especially the 1.4x TC. Of course you lose one or two stops of aperture and light.

The Z 600 mm PF is also great. I’ve been using it in my kayak this summer (often with the 1.4x TC). Nice and small (for 600 mm). But f6.3 (or 840 mm f9 with the 1.4x TC), which means a higher ISO in low light (recent noise reduction software helps a lot) and less subject isolation, depending on the situation. My Z 800 mm PF is a bit too big for my kayak, so I like the Z 600 mm PF a lot.

Some might choose the Z 180-600 over the Z 100-400 if you want zoom flexibilty. It’s a bit better at 400 mm than the Z 100-400, and gets you to 500 mm and 600 mm. Surprisingly good for the price (and an internal zoom). A bit heavier, a bit slower, and only gets to 180 mm at the short end, when compared to the Z 100-400.

I bought the Z 400 mm TC this year for a 3 1/2 week trip to Botswana. It’s fairly big (although a lot lighter than its predecessor). I thought it was perfect for my Botswana trip. I really liked having f2.8 for low light and subject isolation. And the ability to flip a switch and instantly have 560 mm f4 was terrific. I used it handheld for a few weeks before leaving for Botswana, including doing a few 4-5 mile hikes with it, to get used to the size and weight. Not a hiking lens for most people (including me). In Botswana we mostly shot from vehicles or boats. I used it handheld, but you could often rest against a window frame or the roof openings of the vehicle. I did not used the monopod I brought. I used a beanbag a few times. I’m 66 so it will be easier to use this lens now than in 9 or 10 years. My wife said, just buy it and use it, instead of talking about it, and if you don’t like it in Africa, sell it when you get back. I’m going to keep it. It will also be perfect for a trip to the Great Bear Rain Forest in British Columbia this fall.

The Z 400 mm TC also makes a very good 800 mm f5.6 lens with the 2x TC (I have not tested the 1.4x TC with the internal TC, but one of the leaders on my Botswana trip used that combination and liked it). I think that the Z 400 mm TC with the 2x TC was good enough that I am happy either with that or the Z 800 mm PF at 800 mm. And if you need 400 mm f2.8 or 560 mm f4 as well as 800 mm f5.6 or 6.3, it’s easier to throw a 2x TC in the bag than carry both the Z 400 mm TC and Z 800 mm PF.

If you occasionally want 1120 mm (as I do), I prefer the Z 800 mm PFwith the 1.4x TC to using the Z 400 mm TC with both the internal TC and the 2x TC.

I think both the a) and b) approaches are reasonable and give you great lenses. They involve different advantages and compromises. Hard to go wrong either way. Good luck.

[Edited to improve wording in one spot and correct the error in my comparison of the apertures of the Z 400 mm f4.5 and Z 400 mm TC pointed out by ajrmd below.]

 

[JAJohnson]

A few thoughts. All based on my experience and personal copies of these lenses and TCs.

I used the Z 70-200 with the 1.4x TC and 2x TC before the Z 100-400 was released.

The Z 100-400 is better at 400 mm than the Z 70-200 with the 2x TC. But the Z 70-200 and the 2x TC is useable. And the Z 70-200 gets you to 70 mm at the short end and f2.8, when not using a TC and is probably the best zoom you can find between 70 and 200 mm. (Of course, it looks like you have the Plena.) One other thing I like about the Z 100-400 is its close minimum focus distance. It’s almost a macro, great for butterflies, dragonflies and frogs.

The Z 400 f4.5 is better at 400 mm than either the Z 100-400 or the Z 70-200 with the 2x TC. It’s almost as good as the Z 400 mm TC, but lighter, less expensive and 2/3s of a stop slower. A great lens. It takes the Z TCs well, especially the 1.4x TC. Of course you lose one or two stops of aperture and light.

The Z 600 mm PF is also great. I’ve been using it in my kayak this summer (often with the 1.4x TC). Nice and small (for 600 mm). But f6.3 (or 840 mm f9 with the 1.4x TC), which means a higher ISO in low light (recent noise reduction software helps a lot) and less subject isolation, depending on the situation. My Z 800 mm PF is a bit too big for my kayak, so I like the Z 600 mm PF a lot.

Some might choose the Z 180-600 over the Z 100-400 if you want zoom flexibilty. It’s a bit better at 400 mm than the Z 100-400, but gets you to 500 mm and 600 mm. Surprisingly good for the price (and an internal zoom). A bit heavier, a bit slower, and only gets to 180 mm at the short end, when compared to the Z 100-400.

I bought the Z 400 mm TC this year for a 3 1/2 week trip to Botswana. It’s fairly big (although a lot lighter than its predecessor). I thought it was perfect for my Botswana trip. I really liked having f2.8 for low light and subject isolation. And the ability to flip a switch and instantly have 560 mm f4 was terrific. I used it handheld for a few weeks before leaving for Botswana, including doing a few 4-5 mile hikes with it, to get used to the size and weight. Not a hiking lens for most people (including me). In Botswana we mostly shot from vehicles or boats. I used it handheld, but you could often rest against a window frame or the roof openings of the vehicle. I did not used the monopod I brought. I used a beanbag a few times. I’m 66 so it will be easier to use this lens now than in 9 or 10 years. My wife said, just buy it and use it, instead of talking about it, and if you don’t like it in Africa, sell it when you get back. I’m going to keep it. It will also be perfect for a trip to the Great Bear Rain Forest in British Columbia this fall.

The Z 400 mm TC also makes a very good 800 mm f5.6 lens with the 2x TC (I have not tested the 1.4x TC with the internal TC, but one of the leaders on my Botswana trip used that combination and liked it). I think that the Z 400 mm TC with the 2x TC was good enough that I am happy either with that or the Z 800 mm PF at 800 mm. And if you need 400 mm f2.8 or 560 mm f4 as well as 800 mm f5.6 or 6.3, it’s easier to throw a 2x TC in the bag than carry both the Z 400 mm TC and Z 800 mm PF.

If you occasionally want 1120 mm (as I do), I prefer the Z 800 mm PFwith the 1.4x TC to using the Z 400 mm TC with both the internal TC and the 2x TC.

I think both the a) and b) approaches are reasonable and give you great lenses. They involve different advantages and compromises. Hard to go wrong either way. Good luck.

I was typing a reply but then I saw yours, Bill. Well said!

 

[SoCalRick]

There are a lot of options for choosing lenses to cover any desired range of focal lengths for wildlife photography. They all have their pros and cons as well, from cost, flexibility, weight, sharpness, subject isolation capabilities, low light performance, etc.

Here is a useful webpage that Thom Hogan put together that I often refer to a lot, which may help you out with your decision: Best Telephoto Options in the Z Mount. Especially note the table about two-thirds of the way down the page, which gives a comparison of the best lenses/solutions to get to various focal lengths.

I have the 600 TC, which works best for me in my main pursuit of BIF photography, but it also works well for wildlife at places like Yellowstone NP, which is a vast and expansive National Park. Yes, the 600 TC (like the 400 TC) is heavy, and I can only handhold it for short periods of time (like minutes), so I often have a monopod, or tripod with a gimbal head along with me. However, the tradeoff of the extra weight and bulk is worth it to me for the edge-to-edge sharpness, the ability to instantly drop in the 1.4 TC and get to 840 f/5.6, and the potential for better subject isolation (from the alternatives).

A lot of folks here do use the 100-400, as well as the 180-600, where you get the flexibility of a zoom range, but suffer slightly with the IQ as compared to a prime. The 400 f/4.5 has very good IQ, but you are limited to 400 mm as the minimum focal range. That may not be short enough for closer encounters with wildlife.

You will need to decide for yourself what factors you value the most (e.g., focal range, aperture range, weight, low light ability, subject isolation, etc.).

Good luck with your analysis.

 

[ajrmd]

A few thoughts. All based on my experience and personal copies of these lenses and TCs.

I used the Z 70-200 with the 1.4x TC and 2x TC before the Z 100-400 was released.

The Z 100-400 is better at 400 mm than the Z 70-200 with the 2x TC. But the Z 70-200 and the 2x TC is useable. And the Z 70-200 gets you to 70 mm at the short end and f2.8, when not using a TC and is probably the best zoom you can find between 70 and 200 mm. (Of course, it looks like you have the Plena.) One other thing I like about the Z 100-400 is its close minimum focus distance. It’s almost a macro, great for butterflies, dragonflies and frogs.

The Z 400 f4.5 is better at 400 mm than either the Z 100-400 or the Z 70-200 with the 2x TC. It’s almost as good as the Z 400 mm TC, but lighter, less expensive and 2/3s of a stop slower. A great lens. It takes the Z TCs well, especially the 1.4x TC. Of course you lose one or two stops of aperture and light.

The Z 600 mm PF is also great. I’ve been using it in my kayak this summer (often with the 1.4x TC). Nice and small (for 600 mm). But f6.3 (or 840 mm f9 with the 1.4x TC), which means a higher ISO in low light (recent noise reduction software helps a lot) and less subject isolation, depending on the situation. My Z 800 mm PF is a bit too big for my kayak, so I like the Z 600 mm PF a lot.

Some might choose the Z 180-600 over the Z 100-400 if you want zoom flexibilty. It’s a bit better at 400 mm than the Z 100-400, but gets you to 500 mm and 600 mm. Surprisingly good for the price (and an internal zoom). A bit heavier, a bit slower, and only gets to 180 mm at the short end, when compared to the Z 100-400.

I bought the Z 400 mm TC this year for a 3 1/2 week trip to Botswana. It’s fairly big (although a lot lighter than its predecessor). I thought it was perfect for my Botswana trip. I really liked having f2.8 for low light and subject isolation. And the ability to flip a switch and instantly have 560 mm f4 was terrific. I used it handheld for a few weeks before leaving for Botswana, including doing a few 4-5 mile hikes with it, to get used to the size and weight. Not a hiking lens for most people (including me). In Botswana we mostly shot from vehicles or boats. I used it handheld, but you could often rest against a window frame or the roof openings of the vehicle. I did not used the monopod I brought. I used a beanbag a few times. I’m 66 so it will be easier to use this lens now than in 9 or 10 years. My wife said, just buy it and use it, instead of talking about it, and if you don’t like it in Africa, sell it when you get back. I’m going to keep it. It will also be perfect for a trip to the Great Bear Rain Forest in British Columbia this fall.

The Z 400 mm TC also makes a very good 800 mm f5.6 lens with the 2x TC (I have not tested the 1.4x TC with the internal TC, but one of the leaders on my Botswana trip used that combination and liked it). I think that the Z 400 mm TC with the 2x TC was good enough that I am happy either with that or the Z 800 mm PF at 800 mm. And if you need 400 mm f2.8 or 560 mm f4 as well as 800 mm f5.6 or 6.3, it’s easier to throw a 2x TC in the bag than carry both the Z 400 mm TC and Z 800 mm PF.

If you occasionally want 1120 mm (as I do), I prefer the Z 800 mm PFwith the 1.4x TC to using the Z 400 mm TC with both the internal TC and the 2x TC.

I think both the a) and b) approaches are reasonable and give you great lenses. They involve different advantages and compromises. Hard to go wrong either way. Good luck.

Really good summary though I would add a couple of points. The difference between the Z 400 f/2.8 TC and Z 400 f/4.5 is 1 1/3rd stops rather than 2/3rd's. As you observed, the (sharpness) and isolation of the f/2.8 is incredible though it is a larger/heavier lens. Having rented the lens, I was bowled over by it and if I had the $ would buy it preferentially over the Z 600 f/4 TC. The 400 f/4.5 is really a solid performer, small and lightweight though in a dark forest or at dusk it may or may not work. I do like the 186 with some caveats. First, I appreciate the performance/value and relatively short MFD, though there are many situations where I wish it were wider. In spite of the issues with the 100-400, it is smaller, lighter, and offers a greater magnification ratio along with an MFD which is 1/2 that of the 186.

IMHO, it really depends on where and what one shoots. Here in the MW, I'm always shooting longer FL's, so the 186/800 combination are a better fit than say a 100-400/600 or something else. If I purchased a 400 f/2.8 it would sit on the shelf for most of the year (no I don't shoot sports anymore, either) and likewise the 100-400 would be used as a paperweight. In FL, Safari, CR, etc. other lenses are better suited and my base system is largely inadequate. That's where renting fits in for me. So, my best advice is buy lenses for those areas you shoot in most often and rent for those special occasions, unless you have $ or CHF's to spare. YMMV.

 

[BillW]

Really good summary though I would add a couple of points. The difference between the Z 400 f/2.8 TC and Z 400 f/4.5 is 1 1/3rd stops rather than 2/3rd's. As you observed, the (sharpness) and isolation of the f/2.8 is incredible though it is a larger/heavier lens. Having rented the lens, I was bowled over by it and if I had the $ would buy it preferentially over the Z 600 f/4 TC. The 400 f/4.5 is really a solid performer, small and lightweight though in a dark forest or at dusk it may or may not work. I do like the 186 with some caveats. First, I appreciate the performance/value and relatively short MFD, though there are many situations where I wish it were wider. In spite of the issues with the 100-400, it is smaller, lighter, and offers a greater magnification ratio along with an MFD which is 1/2 that of the 186.

IMHO, it really depends on where and what one shoots. Here in the MW, I'm always shooting longer FL's, so the 186/800 combination are a better fit than say a 100-400/600 or something else. If I purchased a 400 f/2.8 it would sit on the shelf for most of the year (no I don't shoot sports anymore, either) and likewise the 100-400 would be used as a paperweight. In FL, Safari, CR, etc. other lenses are better suited and my base system is largely inadequate. That's where renting fits in for me. So, my best advice is buy lenses for those areas you shoot in most often and rent for those special occasions, unless you have $ or CHF's to spare. YMMV.

You’re right. Thanks for correcting my error. I need another cup of coffee this morning (was up at 5 am).

 

[ElenaH]

I do not take the financial aspect into consideration - i assume if i go either route that this will last me a very long time, so it's worth it either wa

I looked at Geizhals.at :
400/4.5 = 2883€
600/6,3 =4762€
400/2.8 TC = 14499€ (and will never drop)
so, 7645€ vs. 14499€
hm, I don't know if I am practical but I was also looking at 400TC ... mainly becasue of its ability to convert to 560mm and of course, the quality!
I inherited 400/2.8 FL from my partner who is now using 400/4.5 and I must say that 400 FL is amazing lens but very heavy if you are running with it! Last year I was in Chitake Springs, Zimbabwe running / walking with that lens . On the second day I was out of power and switched to 500 PF. 400FL has quite a good VR but after hand-holding it and simply carrying it for two days .. ufff.. the hands are shaking and muscles are in pain. and the tempererature +43C so, I was done.
So, you should keep in mind that you need to use 1/800 at least and mostly you use 1/1000-1/1600sec anyway and probably don't need a tripod. The problem is to get it to position, to get a subject in IVF and to hold a few minutes (even seconds!) It is not the problem of shaken photos becasue with high shutter speed you will probably even will not use VR but the problem is of shaken hands - conmose, recompose, follow the subject etc..

But if I had money I would probably buy 400TC.

I have also 100-400 and 180-600 and was shooting with both. Why not 400/4.5? Because I am taking video footage as well and need to zoom it out! So, 400mm is often too long! And when I was changing from photo to video it was a bit longer (or cropped) so, I always needed to zoom out.
I bought 180-600 also becasue I shoot video. You just need to have a zoom! And I zoomed a lot in my videos.

If you don't shoot video than go for primes! All three lens 400/4.5 , 600/6.3 and 800/6.3 are definitelly excellent! My partner has 400/4.5 adn 800/.6.3. The quality is stunnning.
I must say also a very interestning thing: I noticed that f2.8 was not enough in many ocasions! However, I love to separate my object from background. I need just all the time to keep in mind a DoF table while shooting with 400/2.8 !
Instead with f4.5-5.6 I don't even need to think about it!
The other disadvantage of 400/2.8 is missing shots! It is big, heavy and until I will get into position the animal is gone or the situation is changed.

I am preparing for my next Africa trip and knowing the locations I just made a plan what I will be shooting and where. I would recommend to do the same. For example, if you are on the Chobe river shooting birds then it will be z8+600 (and not 800 becasue it wil be difficult to hold it for a long time, with 600 you are just better - also to get flying subject into IVF) . If you are in the national park where no off-road permitted than it will be z8+800. If you go for sun-downer than 70-200/2.8 and so on ...
If you are not a self-driver than you need to take in account that there are other people in vehicle and it will be difficult to use 400/2.8 ... you will just turn it and somebody will drop out of the car to the lions ...
So, well.. if you ask me than go for 400/4.5 , 70-200, TCs, 600 and 800. You will see, on Safari you will be using 70-200 and 400 at most ;-)

 

[TheObserver]

....
So, well.. if you ask me than go for 400/4.5 , 70-200, TCs, 600 and 800. You will see, on Safari you will be using 70-200 and 400 at most ;-)

First of, thanks for all the thoughts so far from all of you. The link to the comparison was also very helpful.

Elena, that depends very much on where you go and what your circumstances are. SouthAfrica, with a 12 people super jeep that can go off roads. You are right. But, as a different experience, if you to the serengeti where offroading is normally strictly forbidden, you can work wonders with 800mm, assuming you control the car, or are pretty much in charge of the driver. See https://www.observer.photos/?p=213 or other africa pages there. All shot with the 800mm. So it very much depends on the safari you are taking, where you are taking it and how many people are in the car. In the serengeti i had a private car shared just with my wife (who happens to agree with my observation choices), so we could easily stay further away, but even when we closed up to other cars - with no offroading, 800mm was pretty much never to long.

And i just read your text again and noticed that you are saying the same thing, just missed this the first time reading it.

I will probably rent the 400 2.8 for a weekend and see how terrible it is too hold this. Thank god i started the weight training beginning of the year, if i take that lens, i can probably stop paying for the gym

Frank

 

[DRM]

For me, even the 600 f/4 TC is surprisingly handholdable when carrying it around and lifting it to shoot for periods of time. I have a nice tripod and monopod, but they are not requirements for that lens. Only when I will need the lens to point in the direction of a subject for long periods of time (and I will not be able to brace it on my knee or such) do I utilize a monopod or tripod. So given the 400 f/2.8 TC is a bit lighter, I think you would be pleasantly surprised when first using it.

And to your question regarding the 70-200 f/2.8 with 2X TC vs the 400 f/4.5, I would never substitute the 70-200 with the 2x TC for the bare 400 f/4.5. I always choose the 400 f/4.5 over the 70-200 f/2.8 if I need more than 200 mm.

Frankly, I think the best kit would be the 600 f/4 TC, 400 f/4.5, and the 70-200 f/2.8. The 600 f/4 TC weighs 3260 grams. The 600 f/6.3 (1470 g) + 800 PF (2385 g) weigh 3855 grams, more than the 600 TC.

I was like you, inclined to get the 400 f/2.8 TC. Then I used the 600 f/4 TC and saw the light so to speak.

 

[Woodpecker]

FWIW ...

I know there are always deiscussion about lab versus field, but it might be worht to take a closer look to lens reviews and comparisons at Photographylife .
They do a real good job on this. Of course there are different approaches to this question.

If you are a fan of flexibility when doing walkaround shooting, it is a good idea to take zooms in consideration.
Because this is also part of my profile I started in my Z life with a complete zoom setup with overlapping folcal ranges.
Within the ovelapping zones I try to use the lens with the better performance.
The 100-400 tkes a slight hit in resolution at the long end. Comparing the 100-400 and the 180-600 at 400mm shoes that the latter provides better values.
Thus, if can take a larger setup with me I use the 100-400 up to app. 350mm and the 180-600 above that.

On both zooms TC's are a no-go for me, not only because of the degradation in terms of rfesolution, but foremost because of the loss of light.
IMHO 840mm f9 is nothing I would call a wildlife lens.

When looking for ultimate quality at the long end there's no alternative to primes and these also have the resolution headroom to provide excellent results with TC's.
For finacial reasons I still use my old AF-S 500 f4G VR solo and with TC's on a Z8 giving me 500mm f4 and 700mm f5.6 on high quality level.

My personal dream solution would indeed be the Z 400 f2.8 TC in combination with an additional external TC.
One of the reasons is that my friend - a retired pro photographer now full time in nature - owns this combo and is getting stunning results.
Looking at the above mentiond reviews you can see that the Z400 TC with internal TC plus an external TC 1,4x provides 800mm f5.6 with a resolution that is still sligghtly better than the 180-600 solo at 600mm - and this is a lens that even @Steve as a prime'aniac considers perfeclty usable.

Something that might be an alternative worth considering is using top level F-mount glass like the 500 f4 FL on a Z camera. You can get top quality on a price level much lower than the Z super primes with little to no visible loss of quality in rela life. On of the guys at Photographylife (Libor Vaicenbacher) has published an article there about just that:

Is Now the Time to Buy Used Nikon DSLR Lenses?

I think it's worth thinking about. Yes, you wouldn't have a built-in TC, but if you get something like the AF-S 500 f4 FL including a proper TC for a little more than 1/3 of what you would pay for a Z 400 TC, this is quite something.

That said, one of the arguments for the Z primes is there extraordinary weight. Because I wanted to streamline my backpack a bit, I did some calculations and found out that my high end travel tripod with a Flexshhooter Mini would be is easily able to support a Z8 with a Z 400 TC, so the mammut tripod days could be over for me.

It all comes down to the question what you want and what you really need to get the job done .

Another aspect is, that if you get the "junior" 400 and 600 in combination with your 800, you have - and perhaps carry - three lenses that give you top quality used solo.
But as you have two bodies you could get a certain level of flexibility with having two of the lenses mounted to a body to allow quick swapping.

In the past I did this quite often with one body (D4s) combined with the 500 f4 with or without TC sitting on the big tripod ready for the primary target and the second body (D850) combined with the 300PF with or without TC sitting on ly lap or on the small tripod for the murphies coming along while waiting for the primary target.

Even if I got my dream solution (a Z super prime with integrated TC ) I most likely would go for this twin setup by having a second body with the 180-600 beside me - justi n case .

All the best for your decision ! And if you think of going the way with an F-mount super prime, send me a private message. I am a bit reluctant to using the Buy & Sell thread as the vast majority of the community in on the other side of the big pond ...

 

[DavidT]

If you can afford the 400f2.8 and don’t mind losing the ability to zoom it’s the way I’d go or buy a 600f4. There is never anything better than the big primes!

 

[Tiny Birder]

I also am considering the 600pf. I have the 400 f4.5 and absolutely love it with the 1.4tc at 560. I rarely use the 180-600 anymore since getting the 400. Just takes better shots. But the prime is obviously less flexible. I did recently pick up a used 100-400, which I’m hoping will come in handy and be lighter than the 180-600. You got a lot of great advice above but wanted to share my thoughts about the 400 f4.5. Easy to handhold and walk about with.

 

[Charles Loy]

I use the 600pf (some with the 1.4) and 180-600. Happy man here

 

[Fiat]

I use the 600pf (some with the 1.4) and 180-600. Happy man here

Hi Charles, Curious to hear some happy man uses both 600pf AND z186. I own both too, but am pondering to rid of z186. Do you use them for different aims? When go out to shoot, do you bring one (which one) or both for what reason? How do you distinguish your personal use of the two lenses? Thanks

 

[Charles Loy]

Hi Charles, Curious to hear some happy man uses both 600pf AND z186. I own both too, but am pondering to rid of z186. Do you use them for different aims? When go out to shoot, do you bring one (which one) or both for what reason? How do you distinguish your personal use of the two lenses? Thanks

I bought the 600 do to needing a long lens (was using the 200-500). Later they announced the 180-600, price was very right, so I ordered it directly from Nikon and they shipped it the next day! Darn lucky, I received it as many were on the wait list. I use the 600pf on the Z9 and the big zoom on the Z8, but I've used it some on the Z9 too. The 600PF will do well with the 14x, not so well on the zoom, but the naked big zoom is spectacular.

 

[Fiat]

I bought the 600 do to needing a long lens (was using the 200-500). Later they announced the 180-600, price was very right, so I ordered it directly from Nikon and they shipped it the next day! Darn lucky, I received it as many were on the wait list. I use the 600pf on the Z9 and the big zoom on the Z8, but I've used it some on the Z9 too. The 600PF will do well with the 14x, not so well on the zoom, but the naked big zoom is spectacular.

Thank you, Charles. Your sharing of info makes me want to hit break on my intention to sell the z186. Decision pending now.

 

[Charles Loy]

Thank you, Charles. Your sharing of info makes me want to hit break on my intention to sell the z186. Decision pending now.

Sorry that you ponder the sale of the 180-600. Honestly, I would not sell mine at any price, I really really like that lens. I've mentioned this before: Nikon truly blessed us with the wonderful, priced right 180-600 internal zoom lens

 

[nmerc_photos]

I think it depends what and how you shoot... you have not mentioned your main use cases. African safaris? Birding in the backyard? Retirement travel for birds around the world? Local wildlife only? Hiking and backpacking for days? Only shooting from a vehicle?

With enough justification, someone could easily demonstrate why every single Nikon Z telephoto has a right in a lineup. I have owned all of them, and you can see in my signature the ones I decided to keep.

Since you are mainly using your 100-400 at the long end, I take it that you are more of a wildlife photographer. If that is the case, I find the 100-400 is not very useful. It is a lens that shines as a jack of all trades, master of none. The value is in using it for telephoto landscapes, quasi-macro, or for small/lightweight vacation packing. I own the lens and only use it 1-2x a year when I go to Iceland or Yellowstone via airplane.

I think you could swap the 100-400 for the 180-600 and you would have a killer setup and be very happy. The 180-600 + 800PF is a great combo, and many people love it. I find the 180-600 to be sharper at every single focal length throughout the range than the 100-400.

If you want to splurge and get one of the exotics, you cannot go wrong with either the 400TC or 600TC. The 400TC is a lot more versatile. It is significantly shorter, lighter, and can cover all the "main" wildlife focal lengths (400-800mm) very well.

Regarding the options you poised:

A) I would never own the 400 4.5, 600PF, and 800PF at the same time. I've owned all 3 separately, but there is not a use case in my mind to keep all 3. Granted - I do know someone who does this and is very happy with it. For me, the 400 4.5 + 1.4x is close enough to the 600PF that it is not worth the extra $2K USD, if 600mm is as far as you need to go. The 600PF + 1.4x puts you at F9, which for me is a nonstarter. if anything, I would choose the 400 4.5 + 800PF. or the 100-400 + 600PF.

B) This is a good option. The 100-400 + 400TC make a great travel combo. Very easy to pack, offers lots of options for coverage from 100mm - 1120mm.

Some of the most common combos I see, and would use are:

"light" and "cheap"
100-400
600PF

"heavy" and "cheap"
180-600
800PF

"heavy" and "expensive"
70-200 or 100-400
400TC
800PF

"heavy" and "expensive"
70-200
400 4.5
600TC

FWIW, with either the 400TC or 600TC I handhold 90% of the time. I really don't like monopods, and I only use tripods if I know I'll be sitting in one spot for an hour or longer without moving.

RE: the 70-200 + 2x, I find it to be just about on par with the 100-400, but noticeably worse than the 400 4.5. Not significantly worse, but noticeably.

 

[Fiat]

... I've mentioned this before: Nikon truly blessed us with the wonderful, priced right 180-600 internal zoom lens

I agree with you. But owning both 600pf and 186 has become a bit burdensome for me recently... Are you suggesting I let the 600pf go? That would make no sense as "weight" is the critical criterion in my gear selection. Well, I am in no hurry now.

 

[Charles Loy]

I agree with you. But owning both 600pf and 186 has become a bit burdensome for me recently... Are you suggesting I let the 600pf go? That would make no sense as "weight" is the critical criterion in my gear selection. Well, I am in no hurry now.

No Sir, just expressing my pleasure for both lenses. If I was willing to let one go, it would be the fixed 600. The zoom lens is more practical, useful. I'm not concerned about the weight or size. Me, we, can't decide what to do for you Sir, best to ya with your quandary.

 

[Calson]

Even for local travel I limit myself to one prime and one tele zoom lens. I have two bodies and one is used for each lens which makes changes in the field easy to do.
I recently sold my 400mm f/4.5 as I found that I seldom used it and instead would grab the 100-400mm to have its range of view angles.

There is very little to be gained with a 600mm lens over a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter providing 560mm. In the past with a 600mm f/4 my shooting in the field was with a 1.4x teleconverter attached to the lens. The 600mm f/4TC would be appealing but for its weight that would require carrying around a 10 lb tripod and gimbal head in the field as well. The 500mm PF gave me my first taste of being able to freely move around and shoot when not tied to a tripod.

I have the 180-600mm lens but also tend to grab the 100-400mm plus 1.4x most of the time in actual use. The 100-400mm feels much lighter than the 180-600mm and I know this is mostly subjective. There is however a great deal of difference between the maximum view angle of the two lenses.

I added the 28-400mm as my primary lens for video with its design for video by Nikon and its great zoom range. It is a very light lens with synchro VR so it can be used hand held even for video. The zoom range is great for shooting from a vehicle or from a boat. It is an f/8 max aperture at focal lengths greater than 200mm but that is not a problem at all for wildlife videos.

 

[Anjin San]

I've got all of the lenses discussed in this thread except the exotics…70-200, 100-400, 180-600, 400/4.5, 600PF and while I'm not likely to get rid of any of them since they all serve different needs…the 70-200 is the only one I would really consider selling as I don't really need 2.8 often at the focal lengths it offers…with the 400/4.5 next to go. The 100-400 has excellent quasi-macro MFD and is smaller and lighter, and while the other lenses are 'better' than it is at 2:1 in LR…at final output resolution for the screen the differences on screen are bokeh related rather than sharpness related (at least to me looking at them on my Mac Studio display). The biggest problem for me is what to carry as the second lens on an outing…the 600PF is almost always going to go and mostly it comes down to weight, distance I'm hiking, backpack space, and do I need a shorter lens which affects the weight and backpack space. If I'm sure that landscape isn't going to be needed and 180 is short enough and I'm not hiking 6 miles, then that's a good choice. Longer or needing a bit shorter reach or the MFD…the 100-400 gets the nod. I am actually sorry I bought the 702-200 as it's only been used a few times but it was the only Z tele when I got it and I wanted to move a bit more aggressively into Z lenses even though I had a 500PF already. I keep going back and forth on selling those two (as well as my Z7II)…don't really need the money but why keep things that aren't getting used.

If I was going to get an exotic…it would be the 400/2.8 as it's smaller and lighter than the 600TC…and with it's built in TC and the two externals it gets up to 1120mm although with some degradation in IQ but it's so good to begin with that if you really need 1120 because you can't get closer then it is going to be good enough. Carrying that and then either the 100-400 or 24-120 on the second body with no other lenses along still gives a pretty decent coverage over what one might see. Hudson did that on his recent trip to CR and said on the video that although he had a couple more lenses he shot just about everything with the 400TC and assorted TC combinations.

 

[gdecamp]

I have the 400TC (since the day it came out) and it's an amazing lens, best lens I've ever had. I also confess to having the 100-400, 180-600 and 800pf. Each has it's own strengths but if I could only have one of those lenses it would be the 400TC but thankfully I don't need to make that decision. I use each one in different situations and that works for me. Also I'm 74 and hand hold the 400TC all day if I need to, of course hitting the gym 3-4 mornings a week before I go out shooting helps a LOT. I use the other lenses actually more than the 400TC the 800pf being the go to lens for most mornings where I go several days a week because I know i need 800mm and it is lighter. When I was in Florida in February I took the 400TC and used both internal and an external TC1.4X to get me to 800mm. In Florida the birds were much closer than here at home so the 400TC works awesome.

So all I can say is try the lenses if you can and see how they work for you. It's a LOT of money to spend on a lens but that 400TC is still way less money than a Harley or a boat!!

 

[Marcelo_R]

The Z180/600 is unbeatable in terms of range, handling and price but... I still prefer the 180/400TC FL as the "base lens" for any kind of travel. Yes, it's an F mount, weighs a ton, cost is higher and needs the FTZ on top, but the overall quality beats all those setbacks when compared to the 186.

As supplement to this 180/400 f/4 (covering 180-560mm f/4-f/5.6), on another body, I'd say the Z800 is the best option, regardless of having a gap in between 560/800mm, there's no need to cover each and every mm of the FL ranges in my opinion.

Another combination could be the 180/600 and the Z600 f/4 TC but for different approaches: the 180/600 would be for bigger mammals at closer ranges that can be covered with a range up to 400-450mm and for everything else from 600 to 840mm the fixed prime. I wouldn't use the 180/600 for everything, specially for feathers and fine detail. I found it produces more "floffy" images than not.

However, if you are looking for the best possible combination of price, weight and focal length into 1 single lens, there's no doubt in my mind that the 186 is by far the best lens out there (combined with a Z8/Z9).

400mm: I owned 2x 400/2.8 (G and FL), amazing lenses, but it didn´t cover my personal choice (or needs) of focal lenght as a prime, always longing for a TC14 at least (or a TC20).

I've read more than once (and I agree): if you are thinking of using any lens with the TC engaged (or coupled) most of the time, it's not your lens.