Size: Z 180-600 vs 600PF

[MrFotoFool]

I did a quick search this moring to see if anyone had posted a side-by-side size comparison of the Nikon Z 180-600 and the Z 600 PF. I could not find one so I made one myself, using the small silver mount at the base to make them to scale (in relation to each other). Here it is in case this helps anyone.

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

 

[Anjin San]

Size wise…not much difference. Weight wise…considerable difference there. I had the 600 and the 100-400…and added the 180-600because for me it provides an optimized focal length combo as long as I’m not hiking too far…the 600 with the 1.4 installed so I’m pretty much covered 180-840…which for down here in FL is pretty optimum IMo.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Here is a nice video comparing the two:

 

[Woodpecker]

Size wise…not much difference. Weight wise…considerable difference there. I had the 600 and the 100-400…and added the 180-600because for me it provides an optimized focal length combo as long as I’m not hiking too far…the 600 with the 1.4 installed so I’m pretty much covered 180-840…which for down here in FL is pretty optimum IMo.

To have them all three seems cool, if I forget about the money for a while. If IQ is in focus I run the 100-400 up to about 350 because it takes a dip a 400, where the 180-600 is on par in tthe center and midrange, but has a slight edge in the corners. At the long end I just live with what the 180-600 provides when I need to be mobile and flexible, if I need more quality/light/reach I have to hope for a good day to carry my 500 f4 G plus some support, because I can't handhold this thing very well. It gives me 500 f4, 700 f5.6 and 850 f 6.7 .
Seeing that the 600PF with the TC at 840 even beats the 180-600 naked at 600 in resolution - and probably in contrast too - is a clear statement. What holds me back is that I end with f9 at 84mmm and 1,3 stops is a lot in low light. But having 600/840mm in the pocket with this kind of IQ and agility is still quite tempting .

 

[Anjin San]

To have them all three seems cool, if I forget about the money for a while. If IQ is in focus I run the 100-400 up to about 350 because it takes a dip a 400, where the 180-600 is on par in tthe center and midrange, but has a slight edge in the corners. At the long end I just live with what the 180-600 provides when I need to be mobile and flexible, if I need more quality/light/reach I have to hope for a good day to carry my 500 f4 G plus some support, because I can't handhold this thing very well. It gives me 500 f4, 700 f5.6 and 850 f 6.7 .
Seeing that the 600PF with the TC at 840 even beats the 180-600 naked at 600 in resolution - and probably in contrast too - is a clear statement. What holds me back is that I end with f9 at 84mmm and 1,3 stops is a lot in low light. But having 600/840mm in the pocket with this kind of IQ and agility is still quite tempting .

Yeh…f9 isn’t ideal…but for screen output and medium print output (at least for me)…the noise software we have available today makes the ISO not much of an issue as long as the subject is relatively large in the frame…but I’m an amateur albeit an experienced one and so far I’m not willing to carry the weight of the exotics. However…I am intrigued by the possibilities of the 400TC. With the internal TC and adding the external you’re up to 800/5.6 with little to no image degradation from what I’ve read and using the 2x adds a little Iq loss but it’s 1120 for the times you absolutely need it albeit at 3 stops total of light loss…not something I would routinely use but not unusable either. The 400TC, 100-400 and 2x Z8 bodies would be a nice car or close to the car combo…but I would have to convince myself to spend that much…for me currently it’s a won’t spend rather than a can’t spend thing. I wouldn’t hike very far with that combo though…would take just the 400 and a single body in that situation.

I do like the 180-600 better from about 350 on…but the difference is very slight and really only noticeable at 1:1 or 2:1…at screen size or downsampled for the blog I don’t really see any better/worse, just different based on aperture and bokeh but as I said not better/worse. Which I will carry along with the 600PF depends on where I’m at, if 400-600 is something I need for the outing and losing the 100-180 is ok…and how far from t(ex car I’m going to go. And TBH it isn’t that I can’t carry the weight, even as an old guy I bike 1800-2000 miles a year and exercise as well…it’s more of a carry that much that far isn’t fun and while not fun is fine for some shots…another GBH isn’t going to get me to do it. If I’m only carrying a single lens…likely it will be the 180-600 unless it’s one of those I’m going xxx to see yyy situations and yyy is rare so I want the best 840 and 600 I can get and would be the 600PF and 100-400 in the backpack just in case…I’m much more a ‘what do I find’ shooter than an ‘ I only want zzz’ one so a single long prime isn’t going to be the selection very often.

 

[GrandNagus50]

I have found myself joining the ranks of those who maintain that "sharpness" is overrated and overemphasized when people evaluate lenses. I own both the 600 PF and the 180-600mm zoom. I took the latter on my recent trip to Churchill to complement the 800mm Pf that I used for most of my bird photos. The photos I took with the zoom wide open are for practical purposes indistinguishable from those I took with the 800. If I blow up the images and engage in extreme pixel peeping I can see a tiny difference. But given the realities that most people are now creating images for the Web and are also using very good post-processing software, these tiny differences in "sharpness" are not all that important. Modern lenses made by top manufacturers are plenty sharp; the differences are small.

Truth be told, people all too often blame their lens' "lack of sharpness" for problems with technique, settings, or physical conditions (e.g., heat haze). Or with bird photos, the images show birds way too small in the frame, so that ridiculous levels are cropping are necessary to come up with decent compositions.

 

[Woodpecker]

I do like the 180-600 better from about 350 on…but the difference is very slight and really only noticeable at 1:1 or 2:1…at screen size or downsampled for the blog I don’t really see any better/worse, just different based on aperture and bokeh but as I said not better/worse.

350 is the split bwetween 100-400 and 180-600 for me also if quality matters, but IMHO between 100 and 350 the 100-400 is really doing a different job, especially close to MFD there is a considerable difference. But yes, if going light I can pretty much live with the results with the 180-600.

If I’m only carrying a single lens…likely it will be the 180-600 unless it’s one of those I’m going xxx to see yyy situations and yyy is rare so I want the best 840 and 600 I can get and would be the 600PF and 100-400 in the backpack just in case…I’m much more a ‘what do I find’ shooter than an ‘ I only want zzz’ one so a single long prime isn’t going to be the selection very often.

I like your shooter categories , but yes, I am a bit of both. At home it's mostly type 1 ("what do I find") and ther it could well be that I am doing close-up's and then someone passes by so I change to wildlife ... If I am going to dedicated places for photography, e.g. visiting my friend living in a NP with lots of prepared places for stationary shooting I prefer the bigger and faster glass, because most of the time you are in a hide or blind shotting stationary.

What I like with this lens that might stay a dream is the combination of how fast and how flexible it is.
This friend (retired pro, now fulltime into nature and wildlife) I am going to visit soon has got this lens and it absolutely amazing. Of course you have degradation when using a TC like with every lens. You see it in the test lab results. It's physics, so there is no way around it. But you start on such a high level that you have so much leeway that it simply doesn't matter in practical terms. What I find pretty amazing is also that there is even a slight edge for using the internal TC and an extermal TC-1,4x combined compared to using an external TC-2,0x, so you can flick with your finger either between 400 f2.8 and 560 f4 or betwenn 560 f4 and 800 f5.6. He is using it this way and is blown away by the results - knowing what good IQ is, because he had one of these 800 f5.6 FL for a long time.

I haven't had it in my hands on ly for a moment last time, but wasn't able to shoot with it yet. But after being used to my 500 f4 G being slightly over 4kg including a TC and FTZ and front-heavy I am sure the "big Z" will handle like a breeze in comparison. It's just about 800g heavier than the 180-600 and recently I did a check for another post here, because there was a Flexshooter question. The Z400 TC with an additional TC and a Z8 takes less than 50% of the load capacity of my Flexshooter Mini and only 25% of the load capacity of my carbon travel tripod.

Let's see. What would life be without dreams