Nikon one lens for Wildlife?

[Gov]

Ken, like you, the Z800 and 180-600 are the lenses in my bag for wildlife and birds. I don't have the 24-120 f4 yet, but I may just get it for my travels and along with the 180-600 and 14-24 or 14-30 could be the perfect travel lens system - for me anyway.

Ken (and Lance and Eric), I like birds and use the 800PF most of the time. When I travel I take it and either the 500PF or 80-400 (new version) as my second lens along with a second camera for safari, bears, whales, etc. Except for weight, it seems the new 180-600 would be a good, and obvious, second lens to the 800. When traveling by air, do you think it would be too much to take with the 800? I'm on the list for the 180-600, but the 400 4.5 and new 600PF are lightweight and tempting (I like primes). I used to lug the 600F4 around so I am used to a little weight. My Kibitz 30L should be able to hold both.

 

[BarkingBeans Coffee]

Ken, like you, the Z800 and 180-600 are the lenses in my bag for wildlife and birds. I don't have the 24-120 f4 yet, but I may just get it for my travels and along with the 180-600 and 14-24 or 14-30 could be the perfect travel lens system - for me anyway.

@lanceb have you considered the Tamron 35-150 instead of the 24-120 for the faster aperture?

 

[Lance B]

Ken (and Lance and Eric), I like birds and use the 800PF most of the time. When I travel I take it and either the 500PF or 80-400 (new version) as my second lens along with a second camera for safari, bears, whales, etc. Except for weight, it seems the new 180-600 would be a good, and obvious, second lens to the 800. When traveling by air, do you think it would be too much to take with the 800? I'm on the list for the 180-600, but the 400 4.5 and new 600PF are lightweight and tempting (I like primes). I used to lug the 600F4 around so I am used to a little weight. My Kibitz 30L should be able to hold both.

The Z800 is a big lens, even though it is relatively light. For travel and money no object, I would buy a 600 pf and use a 1.4x TC if you need longer. I would then take the 100-400 as well. As I have the 180-600, that would be my choice, but it all depends on what you are shooting, how close you can get, how far you have to go carrying the gear and what light is available. If it is always low light, you may want to get the primes, otherwise the zooms will do.

Possible combinations:
A Z800 is 2.40kg and a 180-600 is 2.15kg = 4.55kg. Covering from 180-600, then 800mm.
A 100-400 is 1.45kg and a 600 pf is 1.47kg = 2.92kg - add the 1.4x TC @ .22kg = 3.14kg. Covering from 100-400, 100-560 with TC, 600mm and 840mm.
A 400 f4.5 is 1.25kg and a 600 pf is 1.47kg = 2.72kg - add the 1.4x TC @ .22kg = 2.94kg. Covering 400mm, 560 with TC, 600mm, 840 with TC
A 400 f4.5 is 1.25kg and an 800 pf is 2.40kg = 3.65kg - add the 1.4x TC @ .22kg = 3.79kg. Covering 400mm, 560mm with TC, 800mm, 1120mm with TC.

So, with the combos above, you would have to make the decision of how much weight you can and are allowed to carry, not to mention bag sizes.

 

[Lance B]

@lanceb have you considered the Tamron 35-150 instead of the 24-120 for the faster aperture?

Yes, it is also something I have considered but not sure at this stage as it is a heavier lens than the 24-120 and if I have the 180-600 in the bag, it then becomes 550gms extra weight.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Ken (and Lance and Eric), I like birds and use the 800PF most of the time. When I travel I take it and either the 500PF or 80-400 (new version) as my second lens along with a second camera for safari, bears, whales, etc. Except for weight, it seems the new 180-600 would be a good, and obvious, second lens to the 800. When traveling by air, do you think it would be too much to take with the 800? I'm on the list for the 180-600, but the 400 4.5 and new 600PF are lightweight and tempting (I like primes). I used to lug the 600F4 around so I am used to a little weight. My Kibitz 30L should be able to hold both.

It would depend on your destination. Biggest issue I used to run into when still flying about was weight besides size of carry on. Why traveling to South Africa I had to leave my newly arrived Sigma 150-600 Sport behind and take the recently repaired Nikon 200-500 instead. Two bodies D4s and D500 and a Nikon 28-300 (highly underrated). Now it would probably be 2 Z9's, Z180-600 and Z24-120.

My wife uses the Z400 f/4.5 on a Z7II and to her that is right at her weight limit. Z8 and new 600 pf if way over her limit.

 

[RichF]

The Z800 is a big lens, even though it is relatively light. For travel and money no object, I would buy a 600 pf and use a 1.4x TC if you need longer. I would then take the 100-400 as well. As I have the 180-600, that would be my choice, but it all depends on what you are shooting, how close you can get, how far you have to go carrying the gear and what light is available. If it is always low light, you may want to get the primes, otherwise the zooms will do.

Possible combinations:
A Z800 is 2.40kg and a 180-600 is 2.15kg = 3.55kg. Covering from 180-600, then 800mm.
A 100-400 is 1.45kg and a 600 pf is 1.47kg = 2.92kg - add the 1.4x TC @ .22kg = 3.14kg. Covering from 100-400, 100-560 with TC, 600mm and 840mm.
A 400 f4.5 is 1.25kg and a 600 pf is 1.47kg = 2.72kg - add the 1.4x TC @ .22kg = 2.94kg. Covering 400mm, 560 with TC, 600mm, 840 with TC
A 400 f4.5 is 1.25kg and an 800 pf is 2.40kg = 2.65kg - add the 1.4x TC @ .22kg = 2.79kg. Covering 400mm, 560mm with TC, 800mm, 1120mm with TC.

So, with the combos above, you would have to make the decision of how much weight you can and are allowed to carry, not to mention bag sizes.

as well as the challenges (time it takes) to change lens on a body or carrying multiple bodies. Weight of the lenses is one dimension. The number of bodies another dimension A third is will you need to add a TC or switch lenses on a body. If you a willing use DX mode, you can gain another factor of 1.5

 

[Ken Miracle]

Yes, it is also something I have considered but not sure at this stage as it is a heavier lens than the 24-120 and if I have the 180-600 in the bag, it then becomes 550gms extra weight.

@BarkingBeansCoffee Marc the Tamron Rocky Mountain regional rep who I have known for many years made sure I was aware that while the the 35-150 is an very special lens it is 2.5 lbs. Then he realized I was considering it for me not my wife. As he said for someone that used to hand hold a 600f.4E that 2.5 lbs is no issue It is supposed to arrive Monday. That will give me a couple of weeks to play with it before my next indoor gig at church.

 

[Charlie Lasswell]

The Z800 is a big lens, even though it is relatively light. For travel and money no object, I would buy a 600 pf and use a 1.4x TC if you need longer. I would then take the 100-400 as well. As I have the 180-600, that would be my choice, but it all depends on what you are shooting, how close you can get, how far you have to go carrying the gear and what light is available. If it is always low light, you may want to get the primes, otherwise the zooms will do.

Possible combinations:
A Z800 is 2.40kg and a 180-600 is 2.15kg = 3.55kg. Covering from 180-600, then 800mm.
A 100-400 is 1.45kg and a 600 pf is 1.47kg = 2.92kg - add the 1.4x TC @ .22kg = 3.14kg. Covering from 100-400, 100-560 with TC, 600mm and 840mm.
A 400 f4.5 is 1.25kg and a 600 pf is 1.47kg = 2.72kg - add the 1.4x TC @ .22kg = 2.94kg. Covering 400mm, 560 with TC, 600mm, 840 with TC
A 400 f4.5 is 1.25kg and an 800 pf is 2.40kg = 2.65kg - add the 1.4x TC @ .22kg = 2.79kg. Covering 400mm, 560mm with TC, 800mm, 1120mm with TC.

So, with the combos above, you would have to make the decision of how much weight you can and are allowed to carry, not to mention bag sizes.

Lance, you might double check your math. A couple of the totals dropped 1kg.

 

[Lance B]

Lance, you might double check your math. A couple of the totals dropped 1kg.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think it's right now.

 

[Rene]

I have the combination 180-600 and 400 F2.8 Z. Over here in Europe we intend to photograph a lot from hides whereas that’s not the case (I believe) in the USA. Fir me the combination is ideal. A 600 or 800mm would simply be too much lens.

If I’m out and abd about and for example use the car as a mobile hide, I stick a 2x converter on the 400mm giving me ample reach (plus if needed be I still have the internal 1.4 at my disposal)

 

[EricBowles]

I agree that the 800mm PF can be too long. My first trip with the lens was to the Badlands NP. I got some great images of birds, but for mammals it was too much lens to include any environmental context. That's where the 400mm f/4.5 comes in - it's great for environmental wildlife photos of mammals. For example, I could not get a photo of a bison calf with it's mother - I was too close at 800mm. I could only get the calf in the frame.

On the other hand, for close ups of mammals, a friend was using the 500 f/4 along side, and he generally wanted to get closer but knew it would make the pronghorn uncomfortable. I was there with 800mm and the pronghorn was completely indifferent to me for over 20 minutes.

 

[Gov]

I agree that the 800mm PF can be too long. My first trip with the lens was to the Badlands NP. I got some great images of birds, but for mammals it was too much lens to include any environmental context. That's where the 400mm f/4.5 comes in - it's great for environmental wildlife photos of mammals. For example, I could not get a photo of a bison calf with it's mother - I was too close at 800mm. I could only get the calf in the frame.

On the other hand, for close ups of mammals, a friend was using the 500 f/4 along side, and he generally wanted to get closer but knew it would make the pronghorn uncomfortable. I was there with 800mm and the pronghorn was completely indifferent to me for over 20 minutes.

Eric, do you find the 400 short enough in most situations? I am usually going to take my 800 as my primary lens because of my interest in birds. The question I'm struggling with is what should be my second Z lens be for my second camera on wildlife trips when traveling by air. I discovered that the 500PF was too long for whales in Puerto Vallarta. Fortunately I also took a 50, which, although too short, allowed me to capture the action. The 180-600 (or 100-400) would cover most situations, but I like the idea of a lightweight prime, and it would split the difference between the 800 and 50. I could continue using the 500PF or 80-400 but would like to have one Z lens for each of my Z cameras.

 

[BarkingBeans Coffee]

Eric, do you find the 400 short enough in most situations? I am usually going to take my 800 as my primary lens because of my interest in birds. The question I'm struggling with is what should be my second Z lens be for my second camera on wildlife trips when traveling by air. I discovered that the 500PF was too long for whales in Puerto Vallarta. Fortunately I also took a 50, which, although too short, allowed me to capture the action. The 180-600 (or 100-400) would cover most situations, but I like the idea of a lightweight prime, and it would split the difference between the 800 and 50. I could continue using the 500PF or 80-400 but would like to have one Z lens for each of my Z cameras.

I think the 500pf plus FTZ is similar to the 100-400 plus 1.4 tc. Lots of flexibility there. The 180-600 is not as nimble.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I think the 500pf plus FTZ is similar to the 100-400 plus 1.4 tc. Lots of flexibility there. The 180-600 is not as nimble.

I have owned all 3. I sold the 500pf after having used the Z100-400 with and without the 1.4TC and getting the Z800. Now I have the Z180-600 and so far from what I have seen it will keep my Z100-400 in the dry cabinet most of the time. I still like the Z100-400 for near macro but for everything else I prefer the Z180-600. The Z180-600 is the most nimble and versatile 1 lens for wildlife I have. But it will not replace my Z800 for birding.