I currently have the Nikon 180-600 lens and I have it paired with the Z8. So far I do like it. It seems pretty sharp although somewhat soft at 600. The only issue i have is size and coming from the Canon system and having the 100-500 i did notice how nice it was to have the 100-200 range as well as a pseudo macro. So I am contemplating selling the 180-600 and opting for the 100-400. The obvious drawback is losing out on the 400-600 range. But the size seems nice, focuses super fast, and may be sharper? Any thoughts?
I've gone back and forth myself. For a long time I shot a 100-400mm and then added a 1.4x extender when I needed more reach. It's a nice combo. Ultimately I settled on the 180-600mm as longer reach is mostly what I need.
Depends on your primary use case. If you're using it for everyday telephoto needs with good reach, the 100-400 is phenomenal. If you're using it for wildlife, and often birds, the 100-400 is too short overall, and the 180-600 is a far more useful lens.
I have both. I can say that the 100-400 is better than the 180-600 at 100-179, while the 180-600 is better than the 100-400 at 401-600. The 100-400 is also a much better lens when I'm travelling, and superb for landscape use as well as close-up/near macro stuff and may be slightly sharper through the 200-350 range. That said, the 180-600 is simply too good to give up. Sure, it may be slightly soft at 600, but, as I said, it's much better than the 100-400 is at 600. So, it's my birding, wildlife lens, and is too much of a bargain for me to sell.
I'd say wait until you see the 100-400 on the Nikon refurb sale, pick it up, all while continuing to use the 180-600.
I am more torn between PF 300mm F4 and Z 180-600 when packing my camera bag.
300mm is a pseudo macro with ridiculous jaw dropping sharpness wide open, fast AF and prime lens rendering of-course. It's the size and weight of 24-70 F2.8 lens.
180-600 gives me versatility but at times I do not use this for weeks and months and stick to my 300mm. I only need 600mm for birds, for everything else 300mm F4 on Z8 suffices.
I do love 180-600 for video work, stabilization on this lens is just amazing, and it gives me a good workout. I find 'use it or lose it' true for heavy camera setups, stay fit and don't complain about weight.
When I bought my Z8, I also purchased the 100-400. Then when the 600 PF was announced, it was a no brainer purchase as it compliments the 100-400 so well. Having these two lenses, I saw no need for the 180-600. YMMV.
Todd Warnke wrote:
I have both. I can say that the 100-400 is better than the 180-600 at 100-179, while the 180-600 is better than the 100-400 at 401-600. The 100-400 is also a much better lens when I'm travelling, and superb for landscape use as well as close-up/near macro stuff and may be slightly sharper through the 200-350 range. That said, the 180-600 is simply too good to give up. Sure, it may be slightly soft at 600, but, as I said, it's much better than the 100-400 is at 600. So, it's my birding, wildlife lens, and is too much of a bargain for me to sell.
I'd say wait until you see the 100-400 on the Nikon refurb sale, pick it up, all while continuing to use the 180-600....Show more →
Own both and have the same thoughts as Todd - my 180-600 is just too good for birding to give up. I use the 100-400 for my grandsons' sports events.
If you're going to be pegged at 600mm, I can see the PF being the better option. However, if you need the zoom range, the IQ of the extra reach is considerably better than the equivalent focal lengths on the 100-400 with a TC.
Ya i think my problem is i want it to be both versatile and somewhat travel friendly while still getting the reach when i need it. I'm not sure I need the 600mm reach all the time. I could probably get by with 400mm. Maybe a TC is what i need then. Here are some shots I took with the 180-600.
You've got a lot of good input here,... but will offer my take on the lenses.
1. If you are wanting to focus on wildlife photography and are constrained by your budget, the 180-600 is the way to go. In fact, I often recommend to my clients starting out in nature photography that they buy a Z6III or Z8, 24-200, and 180-600. This is the most budget friendly quality nature kit I can think of.
2. If you are into landscapes and travel photography, I suggest the 100-400mm lens. For those seeking versatility, but not wanting an ultralong prime (ie 600mm), then the 100-400 is great and the 1.4x increases your range. Here your two lens travel kit could be the 24-70 f4S or 24-120 f4S paired with the 100-400. I recommend the Z8 if that's your only body so you have room to crop.
3. My typical bag is the 24-120 f4S, 100-400S, 400mm f2.8TC, and external 1.4x. This kit covers me for everything but when shooting from kayaks or whale boats.
I still have a 180-600, and I bring this lens either when I'm on a long hike and want to keep it simple, or when I shoot from a kayak, canoe, or other watercraft. The lens is great, but it's not in my "top 3."
Adding a bit, I have a Tamron 50-400, the Nikon 180-600, and just picked up a 400 4.5. The 180-600 is an amazing budget sports lens. I find it significantly lighter than the 200-500 that I used to have. Still, for me, it is strictly a 'trunk' lens, in that I'm not going to lug it around. I'm going to walk around with it within a certain radius of my car's trunk.
The 50-400's or 100-400's are much more hike-able.
I sold my 200-500 and figured I would upgrade to the 180-600 but haven't yet because I own the 100-400 which I refer to as my swiss army knife (travel-friendly lens for wildlife, sports, near-macro, distant landscapes and even solid for portraits when shooting from further back). With that said, one big advantage of the 180-600 aside from what others mention......the internal zoom. Depending on your conditions, this can be pretty important.
I do miss the 500mm on a zoom, but I have the 500pf with an ftz adapter and find that works really well. Used prices for the 500mm pf are getting pretty cheap now and it's a stellar lens still. If money isn't a worry, the 600pf would be the way to go of course.
