I'm not sure if I have anything to contribute to this thread, but here it goes.
In the last 24 months I have owned &/or continue to own the following: 400 f4.5, 400 f2.8TC, 100-400S, 800PF, and 180-600.
In terms of usefulness for general wildlife photography, I'd rank the order: 400 f2.8TC > 180-600 > 100-400S > 400 f4.5 > 800PF
In terms of raw sharpness and appealing bokeh, I'd rank the order: 400 f2.8TC > 400 f4.5 > 800PF = 100-600 > 100-400S
While I realize that last line will be controversial, I only found the 800PF to be useful when shooting small birds up close and that it wins on bokeh and sharpness for this. I did a side-by-side comparison of my 800PF w/Z9 and 180-600 w/ Z8. This was not test chart shooting, but live action of chipmunks that I baited with bird seed on a natural log. I put two tripods together shot the 800PF w/ one and the 180-600 w/ the other. I would shoot straight up at about 20'. I also compared the 800PF FX against the 180-600 in DX.
My findings were clear... the 800PF is sharper and faster to AF but not so much that it impacted image quality after post. The 800PF is slightly sharper at distant shooting, but the impact of heat distortion seemed worse with the 800PF than the 180-600... this makes it a wash. In my opinion, the 180-600 was so versatile that this versatility made it a "better" lens than the 800PF.
Months later, you may be surprised to know that my bag consists of the 400TC and 100-400S. I have sold the rest recognizing that I gave up my most versatile and useable lens. My reason... I am very committed to the 400 f2.8 and want to use it for as much of my wildlife photography I can. I am also a landscape photographer and find that the pairing of the 24-120 and 100-400 makes more sense than using the 180-600. I also shoot birds and otter from a kayak, and wanted a lens that could be handheld more easily.
In the end, I opted for a "worse" zoom in terms of raw optics because of my needs.
The last sentence is the key... define your shooting needs / desires first... if you do so, your choice in lenses will be made obvious.
regards,
bruce
I'm not sure if I have anything to contribute to this thread, but here it goes.
In the last 24 months I have owned &/or continue to own the following: 400 f4.5, 400 f2.8TC, 100-400S, 800PF, and 180-600.
In terms of usefulness for general wildlife photography, I'd rank the order: 400 f2.8TC > 180-600 > 100-400S > 400 f4.5 > 800PF
In terms of raw sharpness and appealing bokeh, I'd rank the order: 400 f2.8TC > 400 f4.5 > 800PF = 100-600 > 100-400S
While I realize that last line will be controversial, I only found the 800PF to be useful when shooting small birds up close and that it wins on bokeh and sharpness for this. I did a side-by-side comparison of my 800PF w/Z9 and 180-600 w/ Z8. This was not test chart shooting, but life action of chipmunks that I baited with bird seed on a natural log. I put two tripods together shot the 800PF w/ one and the 180-600 w/ the other. I would shoot straight up at about 20'. I also compared the 800PF FX against the 180-600 in DX.
My findings were clear... the 800PF is sharper and faster to AF but not so much that it impacted image quality after post. The 800PF is slightly sharper at distant shooting, but the impact of heat distortion seemed worse with the 800PF than the 180-600... this makes it a wash. In my opinion, the 180-600 was so versatile that this versatility made it a "better" lens than the 800PF.
Months later, you may be surprised to know that my bag consists of the 400TC and 100-400S. I have sold the rest recognizing that I gave up my most versatile and useable lens. My reason... I am very committed to the 400 f2.8 and want to use it for as much of my wildlife photography I can. I am also a landscape photographer and find that the pairing of the 24-120 and 100-400 makes more sense than using the 180-600. I also shoot birds and otter from a kayak, and wanted a lens that could be handheld more easily.
In the end, I opted for a "worse" zoom in terms of raw optics because of my needs.
The last sentence is the key... define your shooting needs / desires first... if you do so, your choice in lenses will be made obvious.
regards,
bruce
I'm not sure if I have anything to contribute to this thread, but here it goes.
In the last 24 months I have owned &/or continue to own the following: 400 f4.5, 400 f2.8TC, 100-400S, 800PF, and 180-600.
In terms of usefulness for general wildlife photography, I'd rank the order: 400 f2.8TC > 180-600 > 100-400S > 400 f4.5 > 800PF
In terms of raw sharpness and appealing bokeh, I'd rank the order: 400 f2.8TC > 400 f4.5 > 800PF = 100-600 > 100-400S
While I realize that last line will be controversial, I only found the 800PF to be useful when shooting small birds up close and that it winds on bokeh and sharpness for this. I did a side-by-side comparison of my 800PF w/Z9 and 180-600 w/ Z8. This was not test chart shooting, but life action of chipmunks that I baited with bird seed on a natural log. I put two tripods together shot the 800PF w/ one and the 180-600 w/ the other. I would shoot straight up at about 20'. I also compared the 800PF FX against the 180-600 in DX.
My findings were clear... the 800PF is sharper and faster to AF but not so much that it impacted image quality after post. The 800PF is slightly sharper at distant shooting, but the impact of heat distortion seemed worse with the 800PF than the 180-600... this makes it a wash. In my opinion, the 180-600 was so versatile that this versatility made it a "better" lens than the 800PF.
Months later, you may be surprised to know that my bag consists of the 400TC and 100-400S. I have sold the rest recognizing that I gave up my most versatile and useable lens. My reason... I am very committed to the 400 f2.8 and want to use it for as much of my wildlife photography I can. I am also a landscape photographer and find that the pairing of the 24-120 and 100-400 makes more sense than using the 180-600. I also shoot birds and otter from a kayak, and wanted a lens that could be handheld more easily.
In the end, I opted for a "worse" zoom in terms of raw optics because of my needs.
The last sentence is the key... define your shooting needs / desires first... if you do so, your choice in lenses will be made obvious.
regards,
bruce
Apr 09, 2024 at 09:52 AM
Previous versions of OwlsEyes's message #16519881 « Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ?? »
