jhorsch
Active member
I welcome any advice or comments on something I'm sure many of you have dealt with.
I use a Z7 and have a Z9 on order. For wildlife (birds to large mammals), which is 75% plus of my photography, I have a Z-mount 70-200mm f2.8 and an F-mount 200-500mm f5.6. I want to replace the 200-500 with either the forthcoming Z100-400 or the 500 PF prime but am having difficulty deciding which.
Pros for the 100-400 seem to be 1) native Z mount, 2) 4.5/5.6 aperture, and 3) zoom capability. For the 500 PF its benefits are 1) PF technology, 2) as a prime is more compatible with TCs, and 3) it's proven to be an excellent lens, based on everything I've read. Also, the Z100-400 costs $600 less than the 500 PF.
What I'm having the most difficulty with is deciding on the importance of zoom capability. The gap between 200mm and 500mm is pretty significant but with my 200-500 I find myself at 500mm the great majority of the time. This has me wondering how much benefit I'll get from having a zoom.
Thoughts?
I use a Z7 and have a Z9 on order. For wildlife (birds to large mammals), which is 75% plus of my photography, I have a Z-mount 70-200mm f2.8 and an F-mount 200-500mm f5.6. I want to replace the 200-500 with either the forthcoming Z100-400 or the 500 PF prime but am having difficulty deciding which.
Pros for the 100-400 seem to be 1) native Z mount, 2) 4.5/5.6 aperture, and 3) zoom capability. For the 500 PF its benefits are 1) PF technology, 2) as a prime is more compatible with TCs, and 3) it's proven to be an excellent lens, based on everything I've read. Also, the Z100-400 costs $600 less than the 500 PF.
What I'm having the most difficulty with is deciding on the importance of zoom capability. The gap between 200mm and 500mm is pretty significant but with my 200-500 I find myself at 500mm the great majority of the time. This has me wondering how much benefit I'll get from having a zoom.
Thoughts?