Z 180-600 vs 400 4.5/1.4x TC

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).

Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
Glad you found it useful.

I think the people that will be super happy with this lens are those coming from the 200-500mm who are used to the weight. It's lighter, faster, internal zoom, 90 degree stop to stop zoom, and has the benefits of native Z controls. That particular upgrade is a no brainer other than spending the $$.

On the other hand, I wouldn't sell my 500PF nor 400 4.5. I'd supplement those two with this one for when zoom is needed but certainly don't consider it a replacement.
Click to expand...
Although I was happy with the results of the 200-500mm combined with the FTZ II adapter on the Z9, after I received my copy of the 180-600mm and taking it for the proverbial 'spin around the block', for me the 180-600mm demonstrated better performance in every regard. The 200-500mm has since been sold. And, thanks for your initial post and the side-by-side comparison. The differences are subtle, and goes to show just how far zoom technology has come, especially in this focal range.
 
Member's gallery
jfwright1955 said:
Although I was happy with the results of the 200-500mm combined with the FTZ II adapter on the Z9, after I received my copy of the 180-600mm and taking it for the proverbial 'spin around the block', for me the 180-600mm demonstrated better performance in every regard. The 200-500mm has since been sold. And, thanks for your initial post and the side-by-side comparison. The differences are subtle, and goes to show just how far zoom technology has come, especially in this focal range.
Click to expand...
Yes the technology has come a long way. Looks like Nikon knew what they were doing by going to the larger flange diameter of the Z mount. It's been a painful/expensive transition but proving to be well worth it.
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
Yes the technology has come a long way. Looks like Nikon knew what they were doing by going to the larger flange diameter of the Z mount. It's been a painful/expensive transition but proving to be well worth it.
Click to expand...
Same here. I was reluctant to buy all Z lenses, but after experiencing the differences between their DSLR Nikkor counterparts, I've converted completely, bar a couple of lenses I rarely use that I'll keep along with the FTZ II... at least for now. Famous last words. ;)
 
Member's gallery
When I am evaluating a lens I always use a three dimensional subject and one where any CA will be apparent. A very sharp lens with high contrast rendition will result in an image that feels like one is looking at the subject first hand and not a two dimensional picture.

When I compared the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 with the Nikon 24-120mm lens the difference was stark in the 24mm to 70mm focal length range and I got rid of the 24-120mm lens (which was an old design meant as a kit lens).

I have been photographing song birds using the 400mm f/4.5 and the 100-400mm lens and the differences without a teleconverter are very minor and the zoom lens is surprisingly sharp.
 
Member's gallery
ricardo00 said:
Thanks for the comparison! Clearly zoom lenses have come a long way. My first long lens was the Sigma 120-400mm and I was not too happy with it, especially after I had bought a prime lens. The 180-600mm clearly wins on ability to accommodate different subjects at different distances. And a much lower price. However it is "substantially" heavier, by slightly over a pound (about 30% more). And the 400mm can be shot when it gets darker at f/4.5 by removing the TC. For me, one of the critical questions is whether you feel that the 180-600mm grabs focus faster, slower or the same as the 400mm plus 1.4TC. This is much harder to test. But based on your tests, it would have been tempting to get the zoom if I hadn't already bought the 400mm lens.
Click to expand...
I love the 400 f4.5 and love the better low light capabilities. Also the weight is an issue for me. I’ll stick with the 400 f4.5. Also I have the 100-400 for other things. Good all rounder lens.
 
Member's gallery
After watching Steve’s video, I learned that the 180-600 is a very sharp lens in the center. Going out to the corners its not so so…

But when I saw the comparison with the 400/4.5+1.4TC, the 180-600 was better. I was not expecting that. The 400/4.5+1.4TC had artifacts around the text.
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
You discerned that from images on YouTube? Wow.
Click to expand...

Using a decent screen (I used my Ipad Pro), clicking on the gear icon on youtube and selecting the highest quality option (2160p) you can actually see the differences, especially chromatic aberations (slight purple fringing on some black on white lines) and the texture of the target (e.g: at 17:02 in the clip).

But the differences are so small that sample variation will definately come into play and also, somebody without perfect eyesight can easily miss them.
 
Member's gallery
I feel that those tests at almost MFD, isn’t real world scenarios.
When I put on a 1.4 TC on the 400/4.5 I need more reach, and focus closer to infinity. The performance might be completely different.

Steve wrote he needed a longer warehouse.
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
See page 3 for comparisons

photographylife.com

Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S Review - Page 3 of 5

A hands-on review of the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S, Nikon's lightest 400mm lens and a great choice for sports and wildlife photographers.
photographylife.com photographylife.com
Click to expand...
Nice, they just published that 400 4.5 review. Taking a read now, it sorta confirms my own experiences w/ the 400 4.5: great lens when used at 400mm, just "OK" with the 1.4TC, which is why I ended up selling mine. As Libor states: it's completely useable with the 1.4, but frequent 560mm+ photographers should get the 600PF instead", which I eventually did.

Interesting how close the 400 4.5 + 1.4 is to the 180-600 though, and that's a lens I currently own and have shot alongside the 600PF. I think I have a great copy of the zoom, as most times I can't see a sharpness difference between the two. Kinda wish I still had my 400 4.5 so that I could do some comparisons, as it makes me wonder (and suspect) if I possibly have a duff copy of the 1.4TC. At the end of the day, 400mm isn't a focal length I need all that often, and I won't use it with the 1.4 TC, so I don't feel I get adequate value from the 400 4.5.

However... :cool: I can see myself getting the lens again someday for its 4.5 aperture, and it would pair nicely with the 600PF for travel.
 
Member's gallery
Corner sharpness is important for landscape and architectural subjects but not for wildlife. Quite the contrary as I commonly will select the outer areas around a subject and apply Gaussian blurring so as to separate a person or animal from a cluttered and distracting background.

I think that for those shooting with a 600mm or 800mm prime lens the 180-600mm is the better choice to use.

There is a difference of $1300 between the 400mm f/4.5 and the 180-600mm which is not trivial. There is also the question of when the 180-600mm will be made in sufficient numbers to be able to buy one.
 
Member's gallery
The 500 PF remains a formidable optic in a commando kit for wildlife. A Used copy is a wise investment, particularly on a budget.

MTF data for the 500 f5.6E PF (including TC's)

Photography Life have updated their review of the 500mm f5.6E PF with Imatest data. These include both Teleconverters. The results with TC14 III corroborate the high quality of the images obtainable with this combination. And the review compares the older 500 f4G...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com

The Z AF gives its a new lease of life, particularly with the TC14 III as a 700 f8. For my needs, the 400 f4.5S is better for larger mammals than smaller birds. Besides backup and for DSLRs, I keep my 500 PF on hikes, and with a TC14 for birds.

The other advantage of the Z telephoto Nikkors is their improved on barrel functions, particularly Recall Focus Position (although Fn1 button is in the wrong position when handholding on all these lens ).

Recalling Focus Position with a 500 PF, and its kin, one has to change the 3-position switch from AFL to Memory. The Lens-Fn buttons do not work in this configuration.
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
The 500 PF remains a formidable optic in a commando kit for wildlife. A Used copy is a wise investment, particularly on a budget.

MTF data for the 500 f5.6E PF (including TC's)

Photography Life have updated their review of the 500mm f5.6E PF with Imatest data. These include both Teleconverters. The results with TC14 III corroborate the high quality of the images obtainable with this combination. And the review compares the older 500 f4G...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com

The Z AF gives its a new lease of life, particularly with the TC14 III as a 700 f8. For my needs, the 400 f4.5S is better for larger mammals than smaller birds. Besides backup and for DSLRs, I keep my 500 PF on hikes, and with a TC14 for birds.

The other advantage of the Z telephoto Nikkors is their improved on barrel functions, particularly Recall Focus Position (although Fn1 button is in the wrong position when handholding on all these lens ).

Recalling Focus Position with a 500 PF, and its kin, one has to change the 3-position switch from AFL to Memory. The Lens-Fn buttons do not work in this configuration.
Click to expand...
One thing unique about the 500PF vs other 500mm options is that it is sharpest when used wide open at f5.6.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top