I am by no means an expert, just a bird photographer who has and uses both lenses. Like you I would give the 400 f4.5 a slight edge in sharpness, but the 180-600 is no slouch in that department, and has the benefit a zoom brings. It is a bit heavier than the 400, so that might be a consideration for you.
For me, I use the 180-600 a fair amount more than my 400 because of the flexibility it gives me for my type of shooting. When I use the 400 I also pair it with the 1.4TC and am happy with the results I get. Good luck with whatever you decide.
afm901 wrote:
I am looking at the Z 400mm f4.5 VR S and the Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR. It seems to me that the Z 400mm f4.5 VR S is sharper and has better color and contrast. The photos in this thread seem so much sharper and more alive. Even with the Z TC 1.4. Am I wrong? I think I can live with 560mm if I get the what it seems the prime offers over the zoom.
Here are tests showing that the 400/4.5 S is better than the 180-600 @ 400 mm.
At 560 mm the performance of the two lenses is similar, with the 400+TC a little bit better (just).
The zoom is more versatile for sure; the prime (without TC) is faster, smaller and lighter.
I wouldn't focus so much on the differences in resolution between these lenses.
Those differences probably exist, at least at 400mm, where the prime lens simply performs a bit better and lets in more light at f/4.5, but other aspects are more important here.
Ultimately, especially at 560mm, there’s little difference between them—especially since post-processing is still a far more significant factor in the end.
The question is rather this: Do you need focal length flexibility and are willing to accept the significantly greater weight, dimensions, and pack size in exchange, or do you want the lightest, most compact solution possible, forgoing focal length flexibility and dealing with the hassle of an external converter?
The 400/4.5 VR S makes the most sense if you plan to work frequently at 400mm.
It can, of course, be extended nicely—particularly with the Z TC-1.4x—but then the lens does lose some of its ultimate bite.
It’s nothing you can’t compensate for in post-processing, but external converters are simply much more of a hassle than a zoom ring.
If you almost always need the long end, I’d lean toward choosing between the 180-600 and the 600/6.3.
Vento wrote:
I wouldn't focus so much on the differences in resolution between these lenses.
Those differences probably exist, at least at 400mm, where the prime lens simply performs a bit better and lets in more light at f/4.5, but other aspects are more important here.
Ultimately, especially at 560mm, there’s little difference between them—especially since post-processing is still a far more significant factor in the end.
The question is rather this: Do you need focal length flexibility and are willing to accept the significantly greater weight, dimensions, and pack size in exchange, or do you want the lightest, most compact solution possible, forgoing focal length flexibility and dealing with the hassle of an external converter?
The 400/4.5 VR S makes the most sense if you plan to work frequently at 400mm.
It can, of course, be extended nicely—particularly with the Z TC-1.4x—but then the lens does lose some of its ultimate bite.
It’s nothing you can’t compensate for in post-processing, but external converters are simply much more of a hassle than a zoom ring.
If you almost always need the long end, I’d lean toward choosing between the 180-600 and the 600/6.3....Show more →
Thank you for the reply!
Focal length flexibility is always nice to have. But, I am more inclined to prefer the more compact and lighter lens with more resolution and better contrast and color. The images the big zoom produces, based on the photos I see published on this forum, are noticeably softer, show less depth, and are less compelling. They seem to just sit there while the Z 400mm f4.5 photos, even with the Z TC 1.4, just pop off the screen.
I don't know what focal length I am going to prefer for my photography. I think the 400mm would be more used than 600mm. If I find that I am using the Z TC 1.4 all the time, then I will need to figure out what I am going to do a 600mm lens. The f6.3 speed of the Z 600mm PF is a little concerning but I don't see a 600 f4 in my future.
Unfortunately my "easy" access to birds is from a position that puts them quite far away, in this case 78 feet. So, at 400mm it doesn't fill the frame nicely without some extreme cropping - in this case all the way down to 2MB. But it still came out OK. My shutter speed was too low as he was moving slightly and only a few frames were more or less sharp.
Sadly, this is my last exposure with the lens because I re-purchased a 100-400 for more flexibility. I will miss the quality of the 400 f4.5 a lot I know!
Dave
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S lens400mmf/5.61/160s64 ISO+0.3 EV
Is this lens still worth buying today? I'm thinking about this paired with the 180-600 at some point since you can basically get both for the price of a 600PF.
JadedWriter wrote:
Is this lens still worth buying today? I'm thinking about this paired with the 180-600 at some point since you can basically get both for the price of a 600PF.
I certainly think it is, but what I shoot and you typically shoot are vastly different, so take my endorsement lightly.
JadedWriter wrote:
Is this lens still worth buying today? I'm thinking about this paired with the 180-600 at some point since you can basically get both for the price of a 600PF.
I have not used 400 S, but I have paired my 18600 with Nikkor 300mm f4 PF and recently added1.4x III tele.
300 is extremely sharp both bare and with tele. 420mm f5.6 with 1.4x tele. 20mm more reach at expense of 2/3rd of a stop.
300's strength is it's size and very short minimum focus distance, it's a pseudo macro lens.
300mm with 1.4 III tele and FTZII weighs just 1070g, which is 175g lesser than 1245g 400 S.
In Canada, a used 300 PF goes for 1/5th of new 400 S price. I am thinking of adding a used 500 PF as well.
JadedWriter wrote:
Is this lens still worth buying today? I'm thinking about this paired with the 180-600 at some point since you can basically get both for the price of a 600PF.
The lens itself—optically, technically, in terms of handling and weight—is definitely a winner.
The question is more: Is a fixed focal length of 400mm right for me?
Is f/4.5 sufficient? How much do I value the light weight and relatively compact design?
If that’s the case, then the Z 400/4.5 VR S is absolutely worth the money.
So it makes sense to me if 400mm is the primary focus and/or if weight and compactness are the absolute top priorities.
I mean, this lens doesn't weigh much more than a Z 50/1.2 S—or about 900g less than a Z 180-600—and it's still relatively compact.
That makes it a real pleasure to use, especially when you're not primarily shooting from a stationary position.
A 2/3-stop advantage over a 180-600 at 400mm or a 100-400 at 400mm isn’t the world’s biggest difference, but it’s the best you can get if a 400/2.8 isn’t an option.
The Z 400/4.5 VR S does pair well with the Z TC-1.4x, but then—just like with the 180-600/5-6.6.3—you end up at f/6.3, and the advantage in terms of acuity, which is definitely present at 400mm/shared apertures, is mostly negated.
The weight advantage is also reduced by another 220g, and the overall length naturally increases slightly as well.
Where the Z 400/4.5 VR S really shines—assuming, of course, that the focal length suits your intended use—is in its weight, dimensions, handheld handling, great balance in the hand, while maintaining very high image quality.
The lens hood is the only thing that adds a fair bit of bulk, but that's standard for lenses with this focal length.
Without the hood, it's almost cute.
You can easily carry it around your neck with a Peak Design Slide Lite Strap, even on a bike tour.
Or on longer hikes or wildlife sightings—it’s not bulky, heavy, or a burden and doesn’t really get in the way.
Also perfect for trips in small boats, kayaking...
Together with a Z8 body, it weighs no more than the Z 180-600/5.6-6.3 VR without a body.
