I own a Z8 and the 400mm 4.5 1.4 combo. Would it make sense to own both. The weigh difference is so slight and the extra reach w/o a convertor never hurts. According to what I have read the AF on the 600 is a little better than the 4.5 1.4x combo.I have no interest in the 180-600 due to the weight.
Personally I feel the 800pf makes a better companion to the Z400/4.5 although it is as heavy as the 180-600. Otherwise 100-400 plus 600pf plus 1.4x would be a killer lightweight combo if 800mm is not a focal length you would use that much.
I like the 600 and 100-400 idea. I sold my Sony A1 for the lighter glass. Owned the 600f4 and 200-600 but just not willing to carry them. The 800 would be nice but I walk around and handhold for the weight doesn't suit my style Thanks for your input.
i have 400/2.8s, 600pf and 800pf. Having own 400/2.8 and 800pf first, initially I did not think that 600pf is necessary. While I can handhold 800pf quite well, the weight of 600pf makes a big different. If 600pf is 2kg+, I think I would skip it. I think 600pf +tcx1.4 would be quite a bit better than 400/4.5 with tcx2 for longer reach as well.
It all depends on what you are trying to achieve - the weight you want to carry, the money you want to spend and the compromises you want to make. The 400 f4.5 is sharp but the 1.4x TC does take the edge off so, is it sharp enough for you with the 1.4x TC attached? The 600 pf is quite a bit sharper itself according to the tests I have seen. Are you happy to carry both in a backpack? Are you happy to buy the 600 pf as well as having the 400 f4.5 + 1.4x TC?
After much hesitation, I opted for the 180-600 instead of the 600PF. Ultimately, price/flexibility was the deciding factor. The 600PF is €5800 overhere ($6300). I keep the 400 4.5 as a lightweight travel alternative.
sparadise wrote:
I own a Z8 and the 400mm 4.5 1.4 combo. Would it make sense to own both. The weigh difference is so slight and the extra reach w/o a convertor never hurts. According to what I have read the AF on the 600 is a little better than the 4.5 1.4x combo.I have no interest in the 180-600 due to the weight.
I had the 400 f4.5 and sold it to get the 600 f6.3 because I was shooting more at that distance. I also have the 1.4tc that I use sometime with it and it holds up well. For my interest, BIF, the 400 did not make sense. I do have the Sony A1 and 200-600 also, so running to systems for now.
Are you shooting the 400 with the 1.4 TC a majority of the time? If so, and you have the money to spend, 600PF makes more sense. If a majority of the time you’re using the 400 at 400mm, with occasional use with TC, then no, the 600PF doesn’t make sense.
I have a very hard time understanding this rationale; ruling out the 180-600 because of the weight, but willing to carry two lenses to cover the focal lengths ?? If someone offered me a straight up trade right now - 180-600 for 600 PF I'd pass. If there is any difference in IQ, if, it's nowhere near enough to make up for the loss of flexibility. I thought I'd never get rid of my 400 4.5, it's so good, but I see no need for it anymore. This will be an unpopular opinion here, but if Nikon would have put an S designation on the 180-600, charged an additional $1000 for it, and changed nothing else, okay, maybe a decent tripod collar and add a control ring we wouldn't be having these types of discussions.
Gary
If you always have the TC on the 400 , then I would just sell it and go for the 600 and keep the TC . If you often use 400mm , and are happy with the performance with the TC then the 800 makes more sense. I don't think it focuses any faster or is any sharper than the 400 4.5 . My winning combo is the 180-600 , and the 800 PF , although some days I wish I kept the 400 for low light, and the weight or lack of.
I don't think IQ is the deciding factor here , they are all excellent lenses. Handling , controls, versatility, and light gathering abilities are all that matters. Bravo Nikon , Bravo !
I love my 600mm PF and do have his bigger brother (600mm f/4 S TC) and the 180-600mm tele zoom.
The PF found his match on the Z8 and makes it a killer combo for hiking, BIF (when there is enough light) and cases where you not have a tripod available.
Image quality:
1. 600mm f/4 S TC
2. 600mm f/6.3 PF
3. 180-600mm
The 600mm PF is going with me on business trips where I have other hand luggage to take with me and will be my only lens for wildlife on that trip. Possibly also the 24-120mm f/4 but that is more for business use.
For dedicated wildlife trips to Africa will I take the 600mm f/4 and the 100-400mm tele zoom lens.
Where does the 180-600mm fit? Difficult as it still has to convince me.,
Well, it convinced this guy https://www.stevemattheis.com/about
Get back to us when you also have a print hanging in the Natures Best Photography display at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Well, it convinced this guy https://www.stevemattheis.com/about
Get back to us when you also have a print hanging in the Natures Best Photography display at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC.
Gary
Thank you but all good, not after fame and prefer to make my own assessment on the gear I use, that's all. So, you mean his prints that are on display are taken with the 180-600mm?
Vinnie_VdB wrote:
Thank you but all good, not after fame and prefer to make my own assessment on the gear I use, that's all. So, you mean his prints that are on display are taken with the 180-600mm?
sparadise wrote:
I own a Z8 and the 400mm 4.5 1.4 combo. Would it make sense to own both. The weigh difference is so slight and the extra reach w/o a convertor never hurts. According to what I have read the AF on the 600 is a little better than the 4.5 1.4x combo.I have no interest in the 180-600 due to the weight.
no, it would not make sense to own both.
I've owned the 400 4.5, 600 PF, 800PF, and 400TC all at the same time.
The 600PF ended up being sold.
For me, the discussion between 400 4.5 and 600PF is which is more valuable - 400 f4.5 or 840 f9? both of the lenses get you a great "600mm" f6.3.
The 600PF is an amazing lens, but I didn't feel it provided $2,000+ value over the 400 4.5, especially when I would often use my 400 4.5 with a 1.4x TC, and would almost never use the 600PF with one. (f9 is a bear to use when you're accustomed to f2.8 - f6.3)
I agree with others that the 800PF is a much better partner to the 400 4.5, than the 600PF.
Given that you aren't interested in the "heavy" 180-600, you also wouldn't be interested in the 800PF - so the 600PF is your best bet to get the most focal length possible. I'd do as someone else said and go with the 100-400 and 600PF in your shoes.
I've owned the 400 4.5, 600 PF, 800PF, and 400TC all at the same time.
The 600PF ended up being sold.
For me, the discussion between 400 4.5 and 600PF is which is more valuable - 400 f4.5 or 840 f9? both of the lenses get you a great "600mm" f6.3.
The 600PF is an amazing lens, but I didn't feel it provided $2,000+ value over the 400 4.5, especially when I would often use my 400 4.5 with a 1.4x TC, and would almost never use the 600PF with one. (f9 is a bear to use when you're accustomed to f2.8 - f6.3)
I agree with others that the 800PF is a much better partner to the 400 4.5, than the 600PF.
Given that you aren't interested in the "heavy" 180-600, you also wouldn't be interested in the 800PF - so the 600PF is your best bet to get the most focal length possible. I'd do as someone else said and go with the 100-400 and 600PF in your shoes.
I should have noted my previous system was the Sony A1 Sony 600mm f4 and the 200-600. I owned the 1.4 and used it some on the 600 f4 initially but I found lower iso allowed more cropping so wasn't much point in using it. The 600f4 was very nice but I am not a gimbal head guy. I just prefer hand held. the 2-6 was OK to carry. The F4 got to be a bit much.
I have owned several 100-400's but found I never used them much due to a lack of reach.
Would you vote for a 600mm pf and 180-600 ?? There are times when I could use the zoom. If you check my profile you will see many shots I posted in the Sony forum with the 2-6 . With that package in certain situations I would use the prime and in other situations the zoom . Or would you go with the 180-600 and keep the 400 4.5 for low light ?
No one’s asked, nor have you provided, an answer to the question that gets asked in all threads such as this: what is it that you are trying to photograph?
As an owner of both the 180-600 and 600PF, these lenses cause a quarterback controversy at times because both are exceptional at 600 + 6.3. The zoom makes a ton more sense in a majority of applications, while the prime’s raison d'être is being used handheld, on its own, no supporting gear/lenses. I never take them out together, there’s really no point.
I find myself using the 600PF more than my 186/800PF at the moment because the smaller/lighter kit is just more fun to shoot with. Not surprising, since as a former D500/500PF acolyte I grew quite accustomed to using only 1-lens/1-camera. I’m ok with the limitation and missing occasional shots in exchange for not dealing with more weight and the irritation of switching lenses or the quandary of having to choose which lens to use. Some may not care about such things, but I find it liberating not needing to.
On the flip side, I’m completely happy also using my 186(w/ 800PF) on outings where I want to be ready for everything, or the environment demands either more reach or a lens that can handle close-up work (think: tight quarters along a forest trail, a boardwalk, or shooting from a blind). Right tools for the job. Since you are all too familiar with employing a 600 prime and similar zoom over in Sonyland, you’d best know whether or not you’d get justifiable use out of having overlapping gear.
As for the 400 4.5: seems the bare lens isn’t as much use for you now, so I don’t see how adding the 186 would suddenly make it more useful. I think if you got the 186, like Gary experienced, I bet you’d seldom use the 400 again. It’d be a “solution looking for a problem”.
MatthewK wrote:
No one’s asked, nor have you provided, an answer to the question that gets asked in all threads such as this: what is it that you are trying to photograph?
As an owner of both the 180-600 and 600PF, these lenses cause a quarterback controversy at times because both are exceptional at 600 + 6.3. The zoom makes a ton more sense in a majority of applications, while the prime’s raison d'être is being used handheld, on its own, no supporting gear/lenses. I never take them out together, there’s really no point.
I find myself using the 600PF more than my 186/800PF at the moment because the smaller/lighter kit is just more fun to shoot with. Not surprising, since as a former D500/500PF acolyte I grew quite accustomed to using only 1-lens/1-camera. I’m ok with the limitation and missing occasional shots in exchange for not dealing with more weight and the irritation of switching lenses or the quandary of having to choose which lens to use. Some may not care about such things, but I find it liberating not needing to.
On the flip side, I’m completely happy also using my 186(w/ 800PF) on outings where I want to be ready for everything, or the environment demands either more reach or a lens that can handle close-up work (think: tight quarters along a forest trail, a boardwalk, or shooting from a blind). Right tools for the job. Since you are all too familiar with employing a 600 prime and similar zoom over in Sonyland, you’d best know whether or not you’d get justifiable use out of having overlapping gear.
As for the 400 4.5: seems the bare lens isn’t as much use for you now, so I don’t see how adding the 186 would suddenly make it more useful. I think if you got the 186, like Gary experienced, I bet you’d seldom use the 400 again. It’d be a “solution looking for a problem”.
Birds are the only thing I shoot as in songbirds to ducks and hawks in flight.etc
Here are a few shots from the A1 mostly with the 2-6 .Every shot at 600mm .In fact almost all of my posted shots are at 600 so I guess that tells me where I need to be
