Z50ii vs R7

[abc123brian]

To me there is more to a lens than the maximum aperture, but I sure agree that is part of it. I think most Canon shooters that don't want the expense, size, and weight of the 600 f4 agree the 100-500 earns it's $3000 price tag. Also worth considering is the build quality and optical performance, also the design and the number and type of coated elements, how well the stabilization performs. The size and weight is also a trade off, usually faster means bigger and heavier, which is important in my kit. And weatherproofing and focusing speed and accuracy (the 100-500 has two 'motors'). Also I like that it focuses at 3 feet and has a high maximum magnification. Not saying the Nikon isn't fine, I'm sure it is fine. I just saying there is more to consider than the difference between f6.3 and f7.1. Isn't that just a third of a stop?

I agree there is more to a lens than maximum aperture. Weight and size is certainly a big one for anyone who does a lot of hiking or traveling where space is an issue. The 100-500 is a clear winner here. MFD can be more important for some use cases and less for others. I rarely hit the MFD on my telephoto lenses but if you want to use for Macro work it does. I think the 180-600 is relatively close to the 100-500 here. When it comes to maximum aperture I try to find a good balance and there is only a third stop difference here but that is also a third stop less and 100mm less. I often am shooting in heavy tree cover and 5.6 of the 500pf was already pushing what I could use at reasonable iso so 180-600 is only one third less and the 100-500 is two third stop less. It just depends on where you are coming from when comparing. I understand the 100-500 is a premium lens in Canon’s lineup and the 180-600 is a budget lens in Nikon’s lineup so there is a premium to pay over the budget lenses. It comes down to where we all need to decide the most important factors for our own situation.

MFD
Nikon 180-600 4.27 feet
Canon 100-500 2.95 feet

 

[nmerc_photos]

Where can you get a 100-500 for $1800? On the third party camera websites like MPB they're like 2k.

FredMiranda and Facebook have had a few lately. 3rd party used sellers are usually more expensive.

Anytime you look on one of the "big sites" you can expect to save another 15% minimum buying from an individual. That's the arbitrage opportunity when considering a direct seller doesn't have to get destroyed by fees from eBay, B&H, Adorama, etc.

The extra 100mm in focal length is very meaningful!

I agree it's very meaningful. but for me (and most people), it's not as meaningful as the enhanced IQ, size and weight reduction, MFD, and superior versatility of the 100-500.

If cost and ecosystem were no concern and you could pick the 100-500, 180-600, or 200-600 to use - I foresee the vast majority of people picking the 100-500.

The most attractive aspects of the 200-600 and 180-600 are the reduced prices, which are meaningful when buying new and negligible when buying used.

20% more reach, and more light coming in. It's a pretty significant difference

20% more reach and 5% more light coming in at the cost of being 57% heavier, 52% longer, and having 44% further MFD. not to mention reduced IQ and build quality, which aren't nearly as easy to quantify.

when looking at the pros on their own, they look good. when considering the cons - not so good.