p.29 #2 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
sum1sgrampa wrote:
If someone offered me a straight up trade right now, 180-600 for 600 PF, I would have to politely decline. To give up 180mm, 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm for a barely perceptible difference in IQ does not seem like a fair trade. And one pound difference in weight is certainly not a deal breaker for me. YMMV
Gary
I have them both sitting next to me , if you are happy with the 180-600 then there's really no reason to spend the almost triple the money. I only paid 3200 for the 600PF , so the difference in cost between the two is a bit closer. I bought it used , but am still in my return period , so I'm trying to decide which fits me better. I find myself at 600 the majority of the time , so maybe the prime makes a little more sense for me. The Zoom is the same length as the 600 pf with the ZF attached , and as you said a little more than a pound lighter. Hopefully I will get a chance this weekend to give the prime a proper test and make a decision.
p.29 #4 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
I noticed in your last post that you also had the 600. I was about to say then that that is the comparison I would have liked to have seen but I wasn't about to ask you to jump through hoops for me All this boils down to is personal usage. I had a 500 f4 for a number of years and while I loved the IQ from that lens I found myself using it less and less over my Sigma 150-600 S I had at the time because it was too limiting. I would no doubt find the 600 too limiting also. I guess what I'm saying is these zooms are so good these days that there's very little compromise and many more advantages. When I go out I want one body and one lens. I don't want another body and lens dangling from some strap and if you have it packed away the moment will most likely be gone before you can use it if we're talking wildlife. The days of complaining about long zooms being soft at their longest FL's are over. So yes, I guess you could say I'm happy with the output from the 180-600. This in DX mode.
If someone wants to tell me they'd rather spend another $3000, give up 180-599mm, because they feel they're getting better IQ, I'm all ears
Gary
And sometimes you get a bird that doesn't care how close you are
Greater Roadrunner
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens600mmf/8.01/1250s1250 ISO-2.3 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens600mmf/8.01/1250s1250 ISO-2.3 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens290mmf/6.31/12800s1000 ISO-2.3 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens600mmf/6.31/12800s1000 ISO-2.3 EV
p.29 #5 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I noticed in your last post that you also had the 600. I was about to say then that that is the comparison I would have liked to have seen but I wasn't about to ask you to jump through hoops for me All this boils down to is personal usage. I had a 500 f4 for a number of years and while I loved the IQ from that lens I found myself using it less and less over my Sigma 150-600 S I had at the time because it was too limiting. I would no doubt find the 600 too limiting also. I guess what I'm saying is these zooms are so good these days that there's very little compromise and many more advantages. When I go out I want one body and one lens. I don't want another body and lens dangling from some strap and if you have it packed away the moment will most likely be gone before you can use it if we're talking wildlife. The days of complaining about long zooms being soft at their longest FL's are over. So yes, I guess you could say I'm happy with the output from the 180-600. This in DX mode.
If someone wants to tell me they'd rather spend another $3000, give up 180-599mm, because they feel they're getting better IQ, I'm all ears
Gary...Show more →
If I can get a bird to cooperate long enough I will try to compare the two. I'm with you , I'm a one camera / 1 Lens person as I am out on the trails with the dogs and need to be able to wrangle them as well. That's why to me , size , and weight matter , I don't know that 1 pound and 1.5 inches is really enough of a difference to justify the cost. The saving grace for the 600 PF , is because I bought it at a great price , I wouldn't lose anything if I were to sell it in the future.
Yes we are spoiled with many exceptional choices, long lens life is good on the Nikon side of things.
p.29 #9 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
Hey Robert, I had to delete my response to your Loon photos with the clipped wings. I realized I was posting in the wrong Forum This was my response if you're interested.
That's my whole point Robert. I'm in no way arguing the 180-600 matches the 600 PF in IQ. But, but, it's considerably more expensive. It's still a 6.3 lens. And most importantly, so often you hear people saying they would pair it with a 70-200 or 100-400. So that negates any weight savings because now you're carrying another lens and probably another body. Unless you're going to be switching lenses which to me would be a huge downside. Not to mention the added cost of the additional body and lens. And if you're pairing it with say a 100-400 you're now using a lens that doesn't even perform as well as the 180-600. All for an advantage in IQ that very few would even notice ?? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.
And you're right, Your Loon photo is gorgeous but I would much rather have all the wings exposed and that would have been easily done
I came upon this scene at the LA Arboretum one morning on my way to photographing Mergansers. Impossible to get at 600mm. I had to back up all the way to the very bank of the lake. It's no prize winner but it's nice to have these memories.
So I'm not begrudging anyone for picking the 600 PF. Everyone has different standards and uses. But as you can tell I love my choice
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens180mmf/5.61/800s1000 ISO-2.3 EV
p.29 #11 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Hey Robert, I had to delete my response to your Loon photos with the clipped wings. I realized I was posting in the wrong Forum This was my response if you're interested.
That's my whole point Robert. I'm in no way arguing the 180-600 matches the 600 PF in IQ. But, but, it's considerably more expensive. It's still a 6.3 lens. And most importantly, so often you hear people saying they would pair it with a 70-200 or 100-400. So that negates any weight savings because now you're carrying another lens and probably another body. Unless you're going to be switching lenses which to me would be a huge downside. Not to mention the added cost of the additional body and lens. And if you're pairing it with say a 100-400 you're now using a lens that doesn't even perform as well as the 180-600. All for an advantage in IQ that very few would even notice ?? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.
And you're right, Your Loon photo is gorgeous but I would much rather have all the wings exposed and that would have been easily done
I came upon this scene at the LA Arboretum one morning on my way to photographing Mergansers. Impossible to get at 600mm. I had to back up all the way to the very bank of the lake. It's no prize winner but it's nice to have these memories.
So I'm not begrudging anyone for picking the 600 PF. Everyone has different standards and uses. But as you can tell I love my choice ...Show more →
p.29 #12 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Hey Robert, I had to delete my response to your Loon photos with the clipped wings. I realized I was posting in the wrong Forum This was my response if you're interested.
That's my whole point Robert. I'm in no way arguing the 180-600 matches the 600 PF in IQ. But, but, it's considerably more expensive. It's still a 6.3 lens. And most importantly, so often you hear people saying they would pair it with a 70-200 or 100-400. So that negates any weight savings because now you're carrying another lens and probably another body. Unless you're going to be switching lenses which to me would be a huge downside. Not to mention the added cost of the additional body and lens. And if you're pairing it with say a 100-400 you're now using a lens that doesn't even perform as well as the 180-600. All for an advantage in IQ that very few would even notice ?? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.
And you're right, Your Loon photo is gorgeous but I would much rather have all the wings exposed and that would have been easily done
I came upon this scene at the LA Arboretum one morning on my way to photographing Mergansers. Impossible to get at 600mm. I had to back up all the way to the very bank of the lake. It's no prize winner but it's nice to have these memories.
So I'm not begrudging anyone for picking the 600 PF. Everyone has different standards and uses. But as you can tell I love my choice ...Show more →
Hi Gary and thanks for responding....
Nobody wants to carry less gear than me. .
I had decided to buy the 180-600 months ago. I need it for my video. So I thought I would be happy with the 500PF for stills and 180-600 for videos.
Then, just recently it hit me that *if I am ok with the weight of this 180-600 everyday in my canoe*, then I am down to this one long lens and my 24-120. I can handle that . Two items will be hanging off me:
A new Lowepro bag and the zoom.
I am not sure about my 500Pf. I may decide to take it with me. It is so light and so short. Either way I am keeping it.
So you have already answered all the questions. Thank you
Gorgeous tree!
You said that your picture is no prize winner. Well probably not. But if they had constant contests, it would surely place. Fact: Most images you post on FM would place or win. Everyone knows that.
p.29 #13 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Hey Robert, I had to delete my response to your Loon photos with the clipped wings. I realized I was posting in the wrong Forum This was my response if you're interested.
That's my whole point Robert. I'm in no way arguing the 180-600 matches the 600 PF in IQ. But, but, it's considerably more expensive. It's still a 6.3 lens. And most importantly, so often you hear people saying they would pair it with a 70-200 or 100-400. So that negates any weight savings because now you're carrying another lens and probably another body. Unless you're going to be switching lenses which to me would be a huge downside. Not to mention the added cost of the additional body and lens. And if you're pairing it with say a 100-400 you're now using a lens that doesn't even perform as well as the 180-600. All for an advantage in IQ that very few would even notice ?? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.
And you're right, Your Loon photo is gorgeous but I would much rather have all the wings exposed and that would have been easily done
I came upon this scene at the LA Arboretum one morning on my way to photographing Mergansers. Impossible to get at 600mm. I had to back up all the way to the very bank of the lake. It's no prize winner but it's nice to have these memories.
So I'm not begrudging anyone for picking the 600 PF. Everyone has different standards and uses. But as you can tell I love my choice ...Show more →
I think the decision points are predicated on the photographer's style, subject matter, and perceived needs. For example, for the type of WL photography that I do, 600mm is frequently inadequate as a FL. When I owned 600 f/4 lenses they were always mated to a 1.4x TC. As such, the 800 f/6.3 made better sense for me and my intended subjects than a 600 f/6.3. Along with that, the 186 is the perfect companion on a second body for zoom work. In my case, the 600 f/6.3 as fine as a lens as it is, made little sense. Now, if I tended to shoot subjects which were tame and could be approached, a 600 f/6.3, 400 f/4.5, 100-400, etc. would make a whole lot more sense. And yes, if I were on the Galapagos or on Safari, those other lenses might be better suited for that application. In my mind, it's less a question of which lens is better, rather which one(s) are better for the intended purpose. I am thankful that Nikon has provided so many good options for a wide array of situations.
p.29 #14 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
armd wrote:
I think the decision points are predicated on the photographer's style, subject matter, and perceived needs. For example, for the type of WL photography that I do, 600mm is frequently inadequate as a FL. When I owned 600 f/4 lenses they were always mated to a 1.4x TC. As such, the 800 f/6.3 made better sense for me and my intended subjects than a 600 f/6.3. Along with that, the 186 is the perfect companion on a second body for zoom work. In my case, the 600 f/6.3 as fine as a lens as it is, made little sense. Now, if I tended to shoot subjects which were tame and could be approached, a 600 f/6.3, 400 f/4.5, 100-400, etc. would make a whole lot more sense. And yes, if I were on the Galapagos or on Safari, those other lenses might be better suited for that application. In my mind, it's less a question of which lens is better, rather which one(s) are better for the intended purpose. I am thankful that Nikon has provided so many good options for a wide array of situations....Show more →
Very well said, especially your first and last few lines. Attempting to determine which piece of gear is "better" is as futile as it gets. One could argue that the 600 PF is a "better" lens than the 600 F4 TC simply because it's cheaper. And around and around we'd go To your point about the 800 6.3, that's a whole different animal because there's really nothing that competes with that lens. It's in a class by itself. I've said more than enough on the subject. Everyone has their own reasons for their choices.
p.29 #15 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
bs kite wrote:
Hi Gary and thanks for responding....
Nobody wants to carry less gear than me. .
I had decided to buy the 180-600 months ago. I need it for my video. So I thought I would be happy with the 500PF for stills and 180-600 for videos.
Then, just recently it hit me that *if I am ok with the weight of this 180-600 everyday in my canoe*, then I am down to this one long lens and my 24-120. I can handle that . Two items will be hanging off me:
A new Lowepro bag and the zoom.
I am not sure about my 500Pf. I may decide to take it with me. It is so light and so short. Either way I am keeping it.
So you have already answered all the questions. Thank you
Gorgeous tree!
You said that your picture is no prize winner. Well probably not. But if they had constant contests, it would surely place. Fact: Most images you post on FM would place or win. Everyone knows that.
You're way too kind Robert Seems you feel the same way about your 500 as I do about my Z400 4.5. It doesn't get much use these days but it's just so good when I do use it I can't part with it.
p.29 #17 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
Where did you find the 600PF for $3200 used? Are there any other differences? Stabilization? AF? Is the 180-600mm unwieldly on the ZF?
JustShootMe wrote:
I have them both sitting next to me , if you are happy with the 180-600 then there's really no reason to spend the almost triple the money. I only paid 3200 for the 600PF , so the difference in cost between the two is a bit closer. I bought it used , but am still in my return period , so I'm trying to decide which fits me better. I find myself at 600 the majority of the time , so maybe the prime makes a little more sense for me. The Zoom is the same length as the 600 pf with the ZF attached , and as you said a little more than a pound lighter. Hopefully I will get a chance this weekend to give the prime a proper test and make a decision. ...Show more →
p.29 #18 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
if i order one of these from Nikon, how fast is their shipping even though it's back order? Would love to have it before a trip at the end of this month
