Prime or Zoom Nikon Z Telephoto Lens Addition

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

M

MLB01

Member
Member's gallery
I currently have the Nikon Z 24-120 and Nikon Z 400/f4.5 and 1.4x teleconverter. I primarily photograph mammals in thier environment, larger birds and on occasion smaller birds. I am considering both the Nikon 180-600 and Tamaron 150-500. I hike allot to get to my destinations and weight and size are big consideration. The size and weight of the Tamaron have me leaning toward that lens, but the extra 100 mm reach would be nice. Any advice would be appreciated. Anyone own the Tamaron 150-500?
Have also considered the Nikon PF 600 mm but can get to 560 with the 400 and 1.4x and again weight becomes a consideration on long hikes.
 
Member's gallery
MLB01 said:
I currently have the Nikon Z 24-120 and Nikon Z 400/f4.5 and 1.4x teleconverter. I primarily photograph mammals in thier environment, larger birds and on occasion smaller birds. I am considering both the Nikon 180-600 and Tamaron 150-500. I hike allot to get to my destinations and weight and size are big consideration. The size and weight of the Tamaron have me leaning toward that lens, but the extra 100 mm reach would be nice. Any advice would be appreciated. Anyone own the Tamaron 150-500?
Have also considered the Nikon PF 600 mm but can get to 560 with the 400 and 1.4x and again weight becomes a consideration on long hikes.
Click to expand...
If mammals and larger birds you can reliably approach fairly closely are your most common subjects then I'd stick with what you have or add one of the zoom lenses you mention though neither are great for long hikes IMO. If smaller birds or large birds you cannot get reliably close to are of increasing interest and you'll hike a fair amount I'd strongly suggest the 600mm PF or even the 500mm PF if you don't mind shooting F glass via an FTZ adapter.

If you'll include the TC in your comparisons then compare a 400 + 1.4x TC at 560mm to the 500 or better yet 600mm PF lenses with their associated 1.4x TCs at 700mm and 840mm respectively. Either yields a lot narrower field of view than what you're carrying now or increased optical reach. For weight to focal length for smaller subjects it's really hard to beat the PF lenses and they're a joy to use.

If you're getting close enough for your favorite subjects with the 400mm or 400mm plus TC and don't have to frequently rely on super deep cropping then sure any of the combos you mention sound great but personally I don't like going into the field for wildlife work with less than 500mm and 600mm with a TC handy is better for much of my work.
 
Member's gallery
I favor zoom lenses as they allow for a wide range of camera to subject distances. I owned the 400mm f/4.5 but sold as I quickly realized that I usually grabbed the 100-400mm lens instead. The 100-400mm works reasonably well with the 1.4x teleconverter. I also briefly owned the 180-600mm but its bulk and weight meant leaving it behind and taking the 100-400mm and 1.4x TC instead.

In terms of bang for the buck the 180-600mm as with the 200-500mm AF-S lens are at the top. As you already have the 1.4x TC, I would suggest replacing the 400mm f/4.5 with the 100-400mm lens that can be used as a 140-560mm f/8 telephoto lens.
 
Member's gallery
I owned the Z 180-600 for less than a year and sold it due to weight. While it is not THAT heavy (compared to large aperture telephotos), I did find it got heavier than I expected after walking around with it for an hour (not even long hikes, just walking around a local flat preserve). I sold it when I found a used 600PF on this site. The Tamron I looked at and it could be a good compromise, but it weighs halfway between the lens I sold and the one I now have, the one I have being the most I would want to carry. Another alternative that weighs the same as what I have is the Z 100-400. Honestly, if you do large mammals and large birds mostly, that might be the way to go.
 
Member's gallery
Is it the 120-400mm you're lacking? I would think for bigger game, the 400 + 1.4TC should be plenty.

If it's that 120-400mm range that you're longing for, replace the 400 4.5 with the 100-400, ezpz. If it's more reach you're looking for, I'm not sure the 180-600 would be really that much better than your 400 + 1.4TC. It certainly would weigh more.
 
Member's gallery
I think you are ideally situated with the 24-120 and 400mm f4.5 for most wildlife photography.

I think it depends a lot on lens quality and philosophy when dealign with primes versus zooms.

My personal preference is to seek out the highest quality lens I can afford in the range I am seeking.

In this respect the 400mm f4.5 is a pretty sweet lens very compact and very sharp. With this lens, working with a 45mp sensor, and with the option of adding a tc, you can get pretty far out, certainly 600mm and perhaps a bit more.

As far as covering the range between 120 and 400mm I would NOT recommend selling the 400mm f4.5 and getting the 100-400. I think the 400mm prime has better IQ and works Well with TC's and DX/crop to extend range.

As far as zooms are concerned, I have generally been happy with the quality of the "magic trinity" of f2.8 zooms. The 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 all produce quite impressive images.

If you are considering getting something to help between 120 and 400 I would suggest you take a look at the 135mm Plena. This lens maxes at 1.8 and is one of the most highly regarded lenses ever made by anyone. This lens is so incredibly sharp you can easily use DX and cropping to extend the range quite a bit and can get pretty close to 400 and still have quality results. It is by far the best lens I have ever used. You cannot use a TC with the Plena however.

The 70-200mm f2.8 is another highly regarded zoom lens, it has DXOMARK ratings well above most primary lenses in that focal length range. I personally work with the 70-200 in combination with the 400mm f4.5 and the two lenses work well together. I have found generally it pays to limit your feature lens choices to two lenses, with two bodies and two lenses it is a great way to work.

If you eventually find tne need for longer reach, which usually means birds, the 800mm PF will get you really excellent quality out at 800mm.

I much prefer the 70-200, 400mm f4.5 and 800mm f6.3 combination. I assess the situation and will usually start with two of them at a time. They all work with TC's and allow for significant cropping to extend range. The combination is nearly perfect for me and I can easily cover almost anything in terms of wildlife with this trio. In fact I almost never have to use a teleconverter Further all three of these lenses can be wormed handheld.

Quality if image is really important to me. I will frequently compare results using NX studio. The Plena in particular is quite remarkable because I have zoomed as high as 400 percent before I notice any reduction in sharpness.

The Nikon Z lenses are truly remarkable. there is a lot to chose from.
 
Member's gallery
The trade off between size, weight and aperture will have different values for every photographer. The 400 mm focal length is certainly a good choice for mammals. It may be on the shorter side for birds. At 400 mm focal length the choices include:

3.0 lbs at f/4.5 (Z 400 4.5)
3.6 lbs at f/5.6 (Z 100-400)
4.2 lbs at f/6.3 (Tamron 150–500)
4.4 lbs at f/6.0 (Z 180-600)
6.5 lbs at f/2.8 (Z 400 TC)

I owned the 100-400 lens, now sold. I have the Z 400 TC 2.8 and Tamron 150-500. The Tamron lens does not have the best image quality of the zooms available. It was selected for size when I need to pack a carry on for airline travel and need the flexibility of a zoom with acceptable image quality. The maximum aperture limits when I use it. The 400 TC was added because I live in the cloudy Pacific Northwest. Mornings and evenings are very low light. The weight is the obvious drawback. The built in TC gives me a little more flexibility than a prime. The image quality is outstanding. If I always traveled by automobile and lived in a sunnier location, I would likely have made different choices. Nikon had provided a pretty wide range of choices. I wish there was a zoom lens covering the range from 120 to 400 mm with an aperture of f/2.8 or even f/4. Until then, I have made my selections and am enjoying the experiences.
 
Member's gallery
I was wondering if you won’t find significantly better value (and equivalent FL) going for the Z50ii ASP-C body to go with your kit? That will take you 840 with the 1.4TC on the 400 4.5 /z50ii combo. Just looking at this from another angle, and considering the total cost.
 
Member's gallery
I just wanted to echo what wotan1 said. The 400mm F4.5 + 24-120mm + 70-200mm is a killer combination. I had a 100-400 but sold it for the 400mm since I was often disappointed in the results with the 100 - 400.

If you keep finding yourself on the shorter side, you could add the 800mm, or sell the 400mm and go for the 600mm PF. Since I mostly shoot mammals, I prefer the 400mm and I add the TC when necessary. The 400mm f4.5 takes the TC very well, from my experience. I also find the 400mm a little more versatile and lighter than the 600mm PF.
 
Member's gallery
Brad Hill has done extensive tests on various lens combos for wildlife. He sold his 100-400mm for the Tamron 150-500mm. Check out his blog entries around Nov and Dec 2023.

Natural Art Images: Voice: Brad Hill Blog

The Blog of Brad Hill, wildlife photographer. Cameras, lenses, camera gear, field tests, conservation, photo tours, and other bits of questionable wisdom from a young-at-heart nature photographer!
www.naturalart.ca www.naturalart.ca


For my Z9 I use the 100-400m and the 600mm pf and the 24-120mm. . Most of my shots with the 100-400m are at 400mm and that is why I added more reach with the 600mm pf prime. Only you can decide what lenses you need for your nature/hiking photography. There are tradeoffs with costs, weight, flexibility of a zoom, etc.
 
Member's gallery
Have you considered a 2x TC? Z-mount TCs are sharp enough, especially with a prime. The main downside to this route would be the maximum aperture. If you already tend to stop down your lenses, f/9 may not that much of an issue for you. The TC will also help you bridge that gap with a 140-400 f/5.6. Speaking for myself, I'm far more likely to bring a TC than an extra lens when I'm out. Especially if the extra lens is a long heavy zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top