Sell or keep z186 (after acquiring z600 pf)?

[nmerc_photos]

Thank you for sharing your experience and personal preference for using photo gears. I also have z6ii, 24-120, MC105, and 20f1.8 (I like to explore other photo genre, e.g., landscape, night sky, Macro, etc.). I do value Zoom's flexibility but don't miss it much when shooting Prime. Very much do I care about and consider weight for it to be either handholding or tripod? This is a dilemma for me as I agree that 600pf and 186 overlap over focus length when 90%+ using 186 at 600mm. Still pondering...

It sounds to me like it's a no brainer. sell the 180-600 and get a 100-400. the 100-400 is much better for landscape, macro, etc. and it is significantly smaller and lighter

you can always throw a 1.4x on the 100-400 to get closer to the 180-600, although IQ and aperture will not be as good

 

[Fiat]

It sounds to me like it's a no brainer. sell the 180-600 and get a 100-400. the 100-400 is much better for landscape, macro, etc. and it is significantly smaller and lighter

you can always throw a 1.4x on the 100-400 to get closer to the 180-600, although IQ and aperture will not be as good

No sir. I may sell the 186, but no plan to add 100-400, at least in a short while. Thanks for suggesting.

 

[SCoombs]

Well said, Shane. Appreciate your sharing of thoughts on my similar (not quite the same) decision to make. You provided quite a near-complete evaluation info for the z186 (zoom) vs z600pf (prime) matter. Based on that and another member's sharing of his useful case of both lenses (in another thread), my decision is now pending... Now looking back, my initial main issue is about the weight of z186 (too much for me). Somehow I managed to set it up with a gimbal tripod so I could comfortably and effectively handle the system with good results. But losing the joy and tackling special scenes by handholding made me acquire the z600pf. Now I feel your view of some advantages of the z186 is quite agreeable with my experience and other's usefulness view of z186 over z600 (in some cases) together may alter my eventual decision. Let's see.

BTW, what is your decision? keep prime, zoom, or both?

Honestly I haven't decided yet. I keep going back and forth from one day out to the next.

Truthfully, right now I'm leaning towards the prime but for a reason I'd never have really expected: it's more and more weighing on me that I just find the Z8 to be very noisy. That's a whole other debate and I've read and participated in various discussions about this. According to the numbers and charts it's got good noise performance, but when I shoot with it I just get results that are way noisier than I ever remember getting on past cameras and it's sometimes bad enough that even LR's denoise is leaving much less smooth results than I'm used to seeing. It's to the point that sometimes noise levels at f 7.1 are rendering a photo a lot less usable while at 5.6 it's not - so right now that's the difference for me. We'll see what it is tomorrow.

 

[Fiat]

Honestly I haven't decided yet. I keep going back and forth from one day out to the next.

Truthfully, right now I'm leaning towards the prime but for a reason I'd never have really expected: it's more and more weighing on me that I just find the Z8 to be very noisy. That's a whole other debate and I've read and participated in various discussions about this. According to the numbers and charts it's got good noise performance, but when I shoot with it I just get results that are way noisier than I ever remember getting on past cameras and it's sometimes bad enough that even LR's denoise is leaving much less smooth results than I'm used to seeing. It's to the point that sometimes noise levels at f 7.1 are rendering a photo a lot less usable while at 5.6 it's not - so right now that's the difference for me. We'll see what it is tomorrow.

Same as you as of undecisive now. However the noisy effect of your prime happens, I have not yet noticed the issue with z600 pf. So let's see how we go from here.

 

[Activert]

I received the z186 in Dec 2023 and used it with a gimbal tripod and Z TC1.4 for about 5 months. The results were satisfying but the difficulty was the weight (for me). That's why I had to use a tripod and forgo handholding. There were some occasions when I missed taking shots because of inadequate tripod handling for the situation (e.g., aircraft in the high sky) and I couldn't take handhold shooting. So after reading all the positive and commendable sharing and discussion on the Z600 pf in a thread here, I plunged in and purchased the z600 pf in May for a good sale price. Use experience has confirmed the great performance with top IQ and now I can enjoy all shooting by handholding this combo: z8+z600+TC1.4 all the time. I even set up a nice shoulder strap for carrying and using the combo for distance sitings. And now my z186 stays on my gimbal tripod all the time without my z8. Hence I am pondering whether should I sell or keep my z186 now. Could I miss the point that I may need the z186 for better (operational) performance than the z600 in some specific situations (e.g., shoot from blind)? Or I could just keep the z186 for the sake of covering the focus range (I only have another zoom: 24-120)? I like and appreciate hearing your opinions, reasoning, and suggestions. P.S. If to sell, what price do you reckon for?

I have the 600 tc, the 400 4.5, the 70-200 and the 24-70. I use to take them all with for any shoot even for a weekend because I wanted to be able to cover most of the focal range. Even with two body camera, I found that it was difficult to be ready for some situations when something interesting showed up too close and did not have time to have the correct focal lens on the camera body. Last Summer, I was in Newfounland and I missed a lot of shots because of not having a big zoom. when it was announced, I ordered it even I was sceptical about the quality of the lens. I have being using it a lot. I go every weekend to shoot birds and I always carry with me the 600 tc attached to my Z9 and the 180-600 attached to my Z8. With this combo, I have not felt the need to reach to my bag for another lens and dont feel the need to change lens. Now I don’t regret buying it.
I am going back to Newfounland this Summer, leaving in a week. I am organizing my photo bags. Definitely, the 600 tc and the 180-600 are going with me. Since I am going by car I will take the 24-70 and the 70-200, for the low light situation, landscape and environnemental photos. I am still not sure about the 400 4.5 that I like a lot.
That is me, the way I feel about this lens which I am going to keep until Nikon comes with a better quality zoom, or a 300 2.8 tc (hopefully) and then maybe I will keep it. I take it with me on hike and I found it very useful when I get rewarded in the wild with an interesting subject.
But, for me weight is not a problem, I always shoot handheld with all my lenses except when I want to take a video, or doing long exposition. We are all different and this lens suit my need.
I can give you a small advice, if you feel your subjects are always at some distance and you don’t need at all less than 600 mm, in this case there is no need for you to keep this lens. But if you shoot videos ( in your case on tripod) and you do some landscape which I found this lens so good in some landscape composition, then maybe it is worth keeping it, specially this lens is quite a good deal in price for what it offers.
Lina

 

[Fiat]

I have the 600 tc, the 400 4.5, the 70-200 and the 24-70. I use to take them all with for any shoot even for a weekend because I wanted to be able to cover most of the focal range. Even with two body camera, I found that it was difficult to be ready for some situations when something interesting showed up too close and did not have time to have the correct focal lens on the camera body. Last Summer, I was in Newfounland and I missed a lot of shots because of not having a big zoom. when it was announced, I ordered it even I was sceptical about the quality of the lens. I have being using it a lot. I go every weekend to shoot birds and I always carry with me the 600 tc attached to my Z9 and the 180-600 attached to my Z8. With this combo, I have not felt the need to reach to my bag for another lens and dont feel the need to change lens. Now I don’t regret buying it.
I am going back to Newfounland this Summer, leaving in a week. I am organizing my photo bags. Definitely, the 600 tc and the 180-600 are going with me. Since I am going by car I will take the 24-70 and the 70-200, for the low light situation, landscape and environnemental photos. I am still not sure about the 400 4.5 that I like a lot.
That is me, the way I feel about this lens which I am going to keep until Nikon comes with a better quality zoom, or a 300 2.8 tc (hopefully) and then maybe I will keep it. I take it with me on hike and I found it very useful when I get rewarded in the wild with an interesting subject.
But, for me weight is not a problem, I always shoot handheld with all my lenses except when I want to take a video, or doing long exposition. We are all different and this lens suit my need.
I can give you a small advice, if you feel your subjects are always at some distance and you don’t need at all less than 600 mm, in this case there is no need for you to keep this lens. But if you shoot videos ( in your case on tripod) and you do some landscape which I found this lens so good in some landscape composition, then maybe it is worth keeping it, specially this lens is quite a good deal in price for what it offers.
Lina

Thanks. Good inspiration for me except for the weight issue.

 

[SCoombs]

Well said, Shane. Appreciate your sharing of thoughts on my similar (not quite the same) decision to make. You provided quite a near-complete evaluation info for the z186 (zoom) vs z600pf (prime) matter. Based on that and another member's sharing of his useful case of both lenses (in another thread), my decision is now pending... Now looking back, my initial main issue is about the weight of z186 (too much for me). Somehow I managed to set it up with a gimbal tripod so I could comfortably and effectively handle the system with good results. But losing the joy and tackling special scenes by handholding made me acquire the z600pf. Now I feel your view of some advantages of the z186 is quite agreeable with my experience and other's usefulness view of z186 over z600 (in some cases) together may alter my eventual decision. Let's see.

BTW, what is your decision? keep prime, zoom, or both?

It's been a while, but I wanted to come in and update that while I'm still undecided I've made what I consider a pretty solid conclusion: the biggest difference between them for me comes down to camera shake.

The 180-600 is much harder to handhold, and somehow it feels harder to handhold than my 200-500 was. Maybe it's the weight distribution? - or maybe it's my imagination. Regardless, I am finding that when I can steady the 180-600 I cam get very similar results to the 500pf. When I have to purely handhold it, I am getting much softer images unless I really crank the shutter speed up.

The VR is definitely working and helps, but it feels less effective than the VR on the 500pf or the 200-500.

So, sharpness-wise the 180-600 is worse than the 500pf but not by enough to matter to me most of the time. The issue is that unless I am very selective about how I use it, I'm going to be getting shots that are much less sharp not because of the optics, but because of the weight.

 

[Fiat]

It's been a while, but I wanted to come in and update that while I'm still undecided I've made what I consider a pretty solid conclusion: the biggest difference between them for me comes down to camera shake.

The 180-600 is much harder to handhold, and somehow it feels harder to handhold than my 200-500 was. Maybe it's the weight distribution? - or maybe it's my imagination. Regardless, I am finding that when I can steady the 180-600 I cam get very similar results to the 500pf. When I have to purely handhold it, I am getting much softer images unless I really crank the shutter speed up.

The VR is definitely working and helps, but it feels less effective than the VR on the 500pf or the 200-500.

So, sharpness-wise the 180-600 is worse than the 500pf but not by enough to matter to me most of the time. The issue is that unless I am very selective about how I use it, I'm going to be getting shots that are much less sharp not because of the optics, but because of the weight.

Thank you for your update, Shane. My decision is still pending, however, if a good private offer (for the z186) hits the door I may just let it go...

 

[wotan1]

There is always a conflict between weight and capability, The more capable lenses tend to be heavier and hard to hand Hold.

This is mainly because wider apertures mean greater capability. They shoot well in low light and they can shoot with narrower depth of field which usuallly means better backgrounds. Because they are so desirable more care and technology is used on these better lenses so they usually are much sharper and also much more expensive. But they mainly are heavier because they have large lens elements to let the light in which adds to the weight and cost.

If you want light you have to compromise. The PF lenses do cheat the system coming up with lenses that are smaller and lighter than you would expect. In this respect the PF lenses are all both lighter and less expensive for the focal length. The 600 pf is much smaller and lighter than the 600mm f4 tc vr s.

But you do give up some capability. the 600mm pf is F6.3. It means that when you add a 1.4 tc you jump to f9 or with the 2x tc f13. You lose something there.

I prefer a high IQ prime telephoto lens to a telephoto zoom. I currently work with the 400mm f4.5 and the 800mm pf. The 400mm f4.5 is really light and compact although it is not a PF lens. The 800 pf is heavier and more cumbersome but it can be hand held for short periods.

The high IQ lenses can crop better so you can forgo the use of a tc and rely on cropping or dx to gain reach.

I owned both the 600 pf and 800 pf at one point. I decided the 800 works better for me because I can shoot at f6.3 with the 800 instead of f9 with the 600 and tc. I then still have room to crop even further with the 800. the 800 is a really sharp lens and it crops very well.

I settled on the 70-200 f2.8 for shorter range, the 400 f4.5 for next level and 800 when I really have to reach. I sold the 600.

I use the Holdfast straps to carry the lens. With that I can have the 800 and z9 dangling by my side, pick it up to shoot handheld and let it down to rest. I can go for hours that way.

I tend to carry two lenses on a shoot where I am not near a vehicle. I will use the 400 with the 800 or the 70-200 with the 400.

 

[Fiat]

There is always a conflict between weight and capability, The more capable lenses tend to be heavier and hard to hand Hold.

This is mainly because wider apertures mean greater capability. They shoot well in low light and they can shoot with narrower depth of field which usuallly means better backgrounds. Because they are so desirable more care and technology is used on these better lenses so they usually are much sharper and also much more expensive. But they mainly are heavier because they have large lens elements to let the light in which adds to the weight and cost.

If you want light you have to compromise. The PF lenses do cheat the system coming up with lenses that are smaller and lighter than you would expect. In this respect the PF lenses are all both lighter and less expensive for the focal length. The 600 pf is much smaller and lighter than the 600mm f4 tc vr s.

But you do give up some capability. the 600mm pf is F6.3. It means that when you add a 1.4 tc you jump to f9 or with the 2x tc f13. You lose something there.

I prefer a high IQ prime telephoto lens to a telephoto zoom. I currently work with the 400mm f4.5 and the 800mm pf. The 400mm f4.5 is really light and compact although it is not a PF lens. The 800 pf is heavier and more cumbersome but it can be hand held for short periods.

The high IQ lenses can crop better so you can forgo the use of a tc and rely on cropping or dx to gain reach.

I owned both the 600 pf and 800 pf at one point. I decided the 800 works better for me because I can shoot at f6.3 with the 800 instead of f9 with the 600 and tc. I then still have room to crop even further with the 800. the 800 is a really sharp lens and it crops very well.

I settled on the 70-200 f2.8 for shorter range, the 400 f4.5 for next level and 800 when I really have to reach. I sold the 600.

I use the Holdfast straps to carry the lens. With that I can have the 800 and z9 dangling by my side, pick it up to shoot handheld and let it down to rest. I can go for hours that way.

I tend to carry two lenses on a shoot where I am not near a vehicle. I will use the 400 with the 800 or the 70-200 with the 400.

Man, you are a strong guy (like that Wotan?) and probably young too! If I had your might, I wouldn't have the question posted here. Thank you.

 

[JamesFarrell]

First I’ve seen it. Back under my rock now…..

Steve: A sincere thank you for asking what a z186 is. I’ve never seen that either. I was going to ask the same question as well but was too shy to do so. Also climbing back under my rock too.

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

I sold mine immediately, but I have the 100 to 400. I don’t regret it as it’s one of my favorite lenses

 

[Anjin San]

I have both the 100-400 and 180-600 in addition to the 600PF and am keeping all 3 (the 180-600 was purchased last). Which gets carried depends on assorted factors…car vs hike and expected focal lengths needed as well as do I want to carry 2 bodies today. I’m a ‘I shoot what 8 get’ guy, not. ‘I’m only shooting xxx today’ guy. If I’m taking 2 bodies to be either on straps or in the car, generally I take the prime and the lighter zoom. If only taking one body then I’m probably not going to want to switch lenses so the flexibility of the 180-600 comes into play. As far as IQ goes…sure, the prime is better than the other two of you look at 2;1 in LR…but once processing is done and the images are downsampled for the blog differences re pretty much negligible for the 3 lenses if shot at the same aperture and distance And any of them are fine for my output.

 

[Imago]

Since I got the z600 late in May, I have been using it almost all the time with my z8. But I also used my z6ii with z24-120 and z105. About 95% of I shot with z8+z186(+TC1.4) are at 600 (840). Of course 100% for z600 (+TC1.4). Now I just lack info about what situations make z186 more useful or mandated vs z600. But still have to consider the weight and tripod factors.

I got a Sirui Monopod and it has been serving me well. The monopod makes it easier to deal with any heavy lenses. If the wind was not too strong, my monopod can stand tall by its three strong adjustable legs (Landscape or Seascape.) I took many BIFs with it without any issues.

Needless to say, I have been using it on many other occasions as well, especially in the crowded areas. It makes people judged me differently e.g. no tripod, not professional, therefore, people leave me alone

Summary, I love my Z 180-600mm lens and shall keep it forever as I can take photographs of BIF, butterflies nearby, flowers in front of me etc. No way any 600mm Prime lenses could match that sort of enjoyment

Take a look if interested.

SIRUI SVM Rapid System One-Step Height Adjustment Modular Monopod

Enter your email to get Free Gift-SIRUI SVM Rapid System Monopod:one-step height adjustment with the patented system. Lightweight carbon fiber for fast,flexible shooting.Modular design transforms into a monopod,extension rod,or tabletop tripod. Durable,tested for extreme conditions...

store.sirui.com

Have fun

 

[Fiat]

Thank you for your suggestions, opinions, and comments, everyone. It's time to close this discussion and conclude with the last happy (yet sad to let go) event: I have sold my copy (z180-600) to a fellow member here.

 

[jcgamble]

What other lenses do you have? What are your main use cases? How much do you value zoom flexibility? How much do you care about weight?

In my personal use, I very rarely care for zooms. Only when traveling on vacation - as I may encounter situations where I cannot setup properly (zoom with my feet), I am constrained by size and weight, and I may not return to that place soon, if ever. In those situations - a zoom is handy to ensure I can get a shot.

When I'm shooting locally - it's a prime 99% of the time.

The 600PF + 186 overlap too much for my use case. I found the IQ of the 186 to be as good as the 600PF, so the only advantage was the weight savings. If the 600PF was going to be my "best" lens (IE no 400TC, 600TC, or 800PF) I would pair it with a 100-400 to cover the zoom range. then I would have two lightweight options with different purposes.

FWIW - I handhold all of my gear, 99% of the time. I consider the 186 to be one of the "heavier" lenses in the lineup, which takes away a bit of the element of "fun" when shooting. I generally break up my lenses into categories of light vs heavy and then decide what I need based on the activities surrounding the shooting.

I agree with the above. I went to Africa with a z600 pf and a z100-400. I thought it was the perfect combination, 600 for distance and small birds, 100-400 for close up game and landscapes. It was about 50 50 for use on that trip.