Nikon Z 400/4.5 vs. Z 180-600mm real (wild)life comparison

[ElenaH]

See my previous post for Z 400/4.5 vs. zoom Z 100-400 comparison - now I compare Z 400/4.5 with Z 180-600mm

I had the following set up during my last Africa trip: Z9+100-400mm and Z8+180-600mm. I used Z9 also for video. I had D850 as a backup camera. My partner had Z9+800mm and Z8+400/4.5.
Often we shoot the same animals in the same time. I thought it could be interesting to see how the pictures compare to each other.
The images were processed by DXO PureRaw. I also made basic changes in LR like exposure, shadow and highlights but I didn't apply any LR sharpness, texture or clarity. Why I show the processed photos? Because normally we present the processed photos and not the unprocessed and therefore, it is important to know what you can do with what you have.
I also tried to match the WB but it didn't always work...
The time of cameras doesn't match.
The screenshots are made from 4K monitor. I posted also my pictures (not the screenshots) in Wildlife Presentation Sub-Forum.

Now I needed to crop the pictures made with 400/4.5 more! So, lets see the results...

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

It looks like the lioness made two steps more toward me and I had more luck with the light.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Here I zoomed out to 370mm. The lioness is almost on the same position. Unfortunately, I didn't manage to match the WB..

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

again I lower my shutter speed but my partner still has a better ISO !

Here the crop of 400/4.5 is bigger than by 180-600mm:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

but the sharpness of 400/4.5 is excellent! by that crop! I even didn't notice it when I was making the screenshots... But do we inspect all pixels when watching the picture? Not.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[ajrmd]

No quibbles with this at all though I've found that the 186 was sharper than the 100-400. In the two sets of images that you've presented (186 v 400, 104 v 400) I think your 100-400 images were closer to the 400 f/4.5 than the 186. Also, I could be mistaken though in some mages the 186 appears to be sharper than the 400. In any event, I think these exercises demonstrate that the differences between today's high quality zooms and the 400 f/4.5 are slight. If you compared these lenses against the 400 f/2.8 I think you would notice a difference.

 

[ElenaH]

Also, I could be mistaken though in some mages the 186 appears to be sharper than the 400. In any event, I think these exercises demonstrate that the differences between today's high quality zooms and the 400 f/4.5 are slight. If you compared these lenses against the 400 f/2.8 I think you would notice a difference.

Yes, I also had such a feeling. In any case 180-600 is a very sharp lens but 400/4.5 let more light and for the last image I must crop the 400/4.5 to match the 180-600. So, it is quite a crop of 400/4.5 and it cuts a fine figure! 400/4.5 is really good!
I also noticed that 180-600 has nice reproduction of colours, they are saturated but not over saturated. The less "colourful" is 100-400, it has less saturated colours.
My partner has 400/2.8 but it is F-mount. But sometimes I can compare the two.

 

[frdjohns]

Another excellent comparison and presentation Elena! If nothing else, you have proven that it is a very good time to be a wildlife photographer as we have such wonderful equipment available to us. Thanks for this and your other comparison.

 

[wotan1]

Another interesting comparison. I am less sure of what I make of it.

It does tell me the 180-600 is a serious lens, and it is one I have not used.

I wonder how much different light gathering ability affected the results. I focused mainly on the last image, which is as I understand it where you shot the 400 at f4.5 then cropped substantially to get the equivalent size to the image shot at 600 with the 186.

The 400 at f4.5 let more light in and the image both appears brighter and is shot at a lower ISO. So I don't know what conclusions I would draw from that.

What it does show is that the 400mm f4.5 crops really well. The sharpness of this image shot at 400mm yet cropped to 600mm size shows excellent sharpness.

That is consistent with my experience with the 400 4.5. I have been able to crop quite extensively with this lens such that it is very effective beyond its 400mm focal length and without having to use a TC.

To me the choice between prime and zoom has a lot to do with whether you compose in the viewfinder or later in post processing. In this respect this particular comparison set is very interesting.

If you seek to compose in post you would tend to prefer primes. Primes usually have higher IQ and can crop farther. The eventual cropped image could be taken at a wider aperture and will have lower ISO. All of that affects the image quality. On the other hand, if you prefer to fill the frame in camera to get the best composition you are going to prefer a zoom to get maximum flexibility in focal length to aid in composition. You don't need to worry about cropping and can rely on the lens' resolution power with a full sensor which on a 40 something megapixel sensor is quite sharp enough thank you.

I have always preferred primes. I think I am beginning to see the value of the super prime lenses which can always shoot at the widest aperture and lowest comparative ISO and can carry the wide aperture and beautiful shallow depth of field far into cropped images because they are so sharp.

One day I am going to have to work with the 186 to see if it influences my bias.

 

[StefanSC]

Very nice comparison!

I wonder how much different light gathering ability affected the results.

Over time, by doing a few comparisons of faster primes vs slower zooms, I've come to a rule of thumb like this:
With super-telephotos, at anything over ISO800, a stop of aperture gets you back about 100mm of focal length in crop ability.

Meaning that between the prime lenses usually being sharper and the lower ISO, I can crop it and still maintain comparable image quality to the zoom.

It also helps that "consumer" super-tele zooms tend to focus breath and tend to break down IQ-wise faster at longer distances to subject.

 

[pomkiwi]

Thanks for this. My take home is that in the real world with great technique the difference between these lens are now so small as to be indistinguishable in the usual way we look at images - on screen, social media and occasionally in fairly small sized prints.
I would be happy with either of the setups (and indeed I am very comfortable with my Z9 / 180-600) and would comment that the differences in lighting/colour may not all be down to the lenses, in any event they are largely a matter of taste and can be easily adjusted in post-processing.
Thanks again.

 

[ElenaH]

f you seek to compose in post you would tend to prefer primes. Primes usually have higher IQ and can crop farther. The eventual cropped image could be taken at a wider aperture and will have lower ISO. All of that affects the image quality. On the other hand, if you prefer to fill the frame in camera to get the best composition you are going to prefer a zoom to get maximum flexibility in focal length to aid in composition. You don't need to worry about cropping and can rely on the lens' resolution power with a full sensor which on a 40 something megapixel sensor is quite sharp enough thank you.

I have always preferred primes. I think I am beginning to see the value of the super prime lenses which can always shoot at the widest aperture and lowest comparative ISO and can carry the wide aperture and beautiful shallow depth of field far into cropped images because they are so sharp.

One day I am going to have to work with the 186 to see if it influences my bias.

Oh, I just wanted to show that 186 is not so bad for its price and the fact that it is a zoom lens. There are some wildlife photographers who are using only this lens. I have zooms on both cameras because I shoot video as well.
So when lions going towards me I take 180-600 and switch to video 4K/120fps. I don't really need 120fps but it gives me an option to use 2,3x crop! So, I have more than 1200mm and record the video. During that time my partner either shooting with 800mm or does nothing
When the lion comes closer than I switch to photo and use FX on 600mm. Then I can again take some video shots or phots.
The other camera I have for the case when there is no time to change the battery or the animals are closer and bigger or just for comparison. The AF is faster on 100-400 zoom, of course. 100-400 is on Z9 and somehow it became my working horse. I shoot a lot of video with it and don't take care about the battery life. 180-600 sits on Z8 and it is much heavier lens. But who knows, maybe next time I take 180-600 on Z9 for a working horse!

 

[ElenaH]

Over time, by doing a few comparisons of faster primes vs slower zooms, I've come to a rule of thumb like this:
With super-telephotos, at anything over ISO800, a stop of aperture gets you back about 100mm of focal length in crop ability.

Meaning that between the prime lenses usually being sharper and the lower ISO, I can crop it and still maintain comparable image quality to the zoom.

It also helps that "consumer" super-tele zooms tend to focus breath and tend to break down IQ-wise faster at longer distances to subject.

It is a very interesting conclusion!!
Thank you, Stefan!

 

[ElenaH]

hanks for this. My take home is that in the real world with great technique the difference between these lens are now so small as to be indistinguishable in the usual way we look at images - on screen, social media and occasionally in fairly small sized prints.

Exactly!!
However for f6,3 you need to watch background sometimes. ;-). With primes you rather need to watch DoF and control that both eyes are in focus ;-) At least this rule applies for me. I often missed DoF with 400/2.8 FL
On zooms I never change the aperture ;-) , it is always the minimum so, I don't care. Sometimes I put f8, but not often.