In my 35 yrs photographing wildlife and other subjects I've learnt that many, many times having the ability to zoom can literally be a deal breaker. When confronted in the field with a wild animal there are so many times we literally can't move through fear of spooking the subject and the only way to frame the image as we want is by using a zoom, if using a fixed focal length lens many times the lens chooses our composition for us because we can't move back or forth to get the ideal framing, a zoom gives us this ability back! Great comparison Scott ! Cheers
This type of comparison is very useful Scott. The 180-600 wins for me due to its versatility and value. I'm considering making the switch from my D500 200-500 f5.6 setup to mirrorless. The combo of the 180-600 lens and the Z6iii is very appealing from both cost and quality perspectives.
@jackstutts I was planning to replace my D500 200-500 combo with the Z8 180-600. But I am planning a bunch of African safaris and I'm planning to keep two Z bodies with 180-600 and either 100-400 or 400 4.5 but I realised that the D500 will be a perfect backup. So keeping that. If you can, keep it as well.
I read a lot of complaints about the 180-600 not being sharp at 600mm, but when comparing mine vs my 800 PF, equalizing the subject size by moving closer with the 180-600, I honestly couldn't tell a difference in the centre of the frame. There may be some bad copies, but unless you get a lemon, this is a very sharp lens and I'd absolutely recommend it.
I wish they made all primes worth over a couple $$$1000 with built in teleconverters a 400mm f/4 with a built in teleconverter would sweeten the deal for the primes or maybe something like a 200-400 f/4 with a built in. Currently the only lenses with built in teleconverters cost about as much as cars.
They do make a 200-400 f/4 for Nikon f-mount with a built-in x1.4 teleconverter. But you are correct, it's like 15 grand brand new... Been able to find some "like new" versions used on places like KEH or MPB for around 4 grand. Still expensive though!
I bought the 180 600mm and I am happy. For versatility for me the 180 600mm wins. I dont want nor do I need a 600mm zoom unless i am out in the bush. There are times when I dont need a 600mm focal point at all. Therefore, get what you like and don't listen to the noise about how the Savior of photography is a focal point that you may rarely use like myself. This is a very good comparison video, and the whiner who spent more on a better lens needs to chill. Photography Life has a chart comparison of all lenses Nikon has best go there to see what is what.
Love your reviews where practical aspects take precedence over technical aspects. Not that technical aspects don't matter, but how we use them is way more important
Scott, you sum up these lenses perfectly! I had both for about 8 months, extensively used and tested side-by-side before making my decision to keep the 600PF. You cannot go wrong with either, they're both brilliant; where the 600PF primarily won out for me is the smaller size/weight,, plus its IQ holds together a bit better as distance from subject increases. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot either, but I had to choose one, unfortunately. In regards to MFD: you state 10.9' for the 600PF, while the spec sheets show 13.1'. Currently have the 400 4.5 and the aforementioned 600PF, and I prefer the 600PF by a good margin because I have found there is a marked fall-off in IQ when you mount that TC to the 400 4.5. It lacks the bite that the 600PF has. Additionally, I found that the AF isn't quite as surefooted as the 600PF. The MFD/Magnification of the 400+1.4 is a major benefit over the 600PF though, so in certain situations I'll choose that combo. Needless to say, all of these modern lenses from Nikon are superb, you can't go wrong with any of them.
A good review. I love my Z600pf. I purchased it for the weight, build, and sharpness (all the things you identified), which are important to me. Have not been disappointed at all. Thanks
Had my 180-600 for nearly a year now, used it yesterday at Abberton reservoir photographing Cattle Egrets and Grey Herons at 150 yards and spoonbills at 350 yards.1.4 extender and switching DX in and out on my Z9. Looked at results last night and found the feather detail amazing. I also own the 400 /4.5 which is stupendous. Used the 400/2.8 in Scotland for a week and fell in love with it but way out of my price range. Nice video Scott looking forward to the next one,
As someone who shoots a lot of bird photography alongside sports, concerts, and portrait work, I elected into the 800 f/6.3 PF along with my 70-200 f/2.8. But I found that I need something between those. I was tossing up the 100-400, the 400 f/4.5, and the 180-600 for camera 2, and after eyeballing a few of your recent videos, I think the 400 f/4.5 is gonna be it, if for no other reasons, having the f/4.5 aperture available, and the fact that it'll fit in my Think Tank belt pouch. :D I have to say, Scott, your videos are among my favorite because you're not afraid to share fact AND opinion, and you make very good points. Definitely appreciate the time and effort you put into your channel here.
I got the 180-600 and traded in my 200-400 f4. I didn't shoot them side by side but the 200-400f4 looks better from my memories but not too much. But the 180-600 is lighter and longer and iq is good enough. The AF for the n180-600 was faster than the old 200-400 f4 vr2 so you get more keeper for bif. With topaz lab ai sharpener, denoise and up scaling can make the image look way better than the small differences between the lenses.
This is by far the most helpful comparison vid I’ve seen. And even as a standalone review for each. For my use case, I’m super excited to get the 180-600 🥳👏🏻
An excellent review Scott, one of the best practical reviews that I have seen on Nikon lenses. I have the 70-200 2.8, 400 4.5, the 180-600 and the 800 PF and I find that I am pretty well covered with the lenses that I have. I have found that with the 1.4 TC, and all of the lenses seem to work really well with the TC there isn't much that I can't photograph. I have also found that the 70-200 also takes the 2XTC very well eliminating the need for the 100-400 lens. Again a great video and thanks for all your hard work.
What an excellent review and summary of options, great comparisons. Thoroughly enjoyed this video. I have the 500mm PF it’s such a great lens and it’s a keeper esp when I can use it on both systems. Yes the 400mm is tempting lens for sure. But for mirrorless I think the 180-600 plus the 800mm PF would be a great combo.
Scott that was awesome. Thanks a lot for that detailed comparison. Very well presented and convinced me that buying 180-600 was a right decision. It’s a beast of a lens and one of the best value deals out there.
I have the 180-600 and love it, really enjoyed the comparison. Especially the end which you mentioned the 400 f4.5! I just picked up the 400 to ad some walkability. I ve got the best of both now!
Great comparison. I own the 400 4.5 and the 180-600 with frequent comparisons. The speed and size of the 400.4.5 (with TC) are unmatched for tracking birds. Optically, the only lens that matches or beats the 400 4.5 is my beloved 400 2.8 TC. That said, the 180 - 600 is on my Z9 60% of the time. The rest of the time it is the 400 2.8 TC, and only use the 400 4.5 or the 100-400 for travel. For Alaska I took the 100-400 and the 400 2.8 TC (and some TCs). Along with the 24-120 F4. Nikon is making only great lenses this days. I have followed your reviews for most of my lenses and tripod. Your work is phenomenal, thank you!
I have the 180 to 600 and I love it because it has a very short throw so you can zoom out see the subject and quickly zoom in and get the shot. Not sure I would want to be at 600 all the time. Also the 180 to 600 works extremely well with the 1.4 teleconverter. I also have the 2x teleconverter however I think that one is not as great as using the 180 to 600 with the 1.4.
Great videos, just a couple thoughts/suggestions for future comparisons. Your comparison used for Chromatic Aberration isnt very good because its an easy situation. CA is most dramatic when in high contrast backlit situations. Doing the same example but with a softbox directly behind the subject would give you a more extreme example that might differentiate these lenses better. The other one that it is often difficult to compare sharpness because modern lenses tend to outresolve the sensor. The prime may actually be much sharper but you can’t see it because the camera is the limiting factor. One of the most relevant ways to test further would be to compare them both using the same telecoonverter. If one lenses is only barely outresolving the sensor while the other is significantly outresolving the sensor you will see that difference when the image circle is magnified by a TC. I suspect that the prime in this example handles a 2x TC far better because of this but thats just a hunch, I haven’t tested them myself cheers!
Great review and I appreciate your content. I have the z180-600 and agree with your assessment on the lens. My only issue is AF when panning with bird inside the small/large focus box with AF-C. Even with a custom C1 some of the frames were sharp and others were off. I bought the lens for Airshows to get the 4 planes together and able to zoom in on the pilot as needed. Great option for song, shore birds Eagles or other birds!! Agree with the comment on 400 with a 1.4TC as another option to have lightness, sharpness, and value in a similar range for the money!
Love using my 180-600mm for wildlife photography. The versatility of the zoom allows me to compose my photos to my liking. And I value the $2,600 savings over the 600pf.
I love my 180-600. Yes, the 600mm prime is faster and a bit sharper. But to me the slightly increased sharpness doesn't really justify the higher price. The 180-600 just has SUCH good value! Personally I love having more flexibility, too and in that regard the zoom lens has the advantage by default. I was shooting a magpie the other day that sat a couple meters away from me and I could just switch between close-ups and the whole bird in the frame by turning the zoom ring a little. Can't do that with a prime! Weight also isn't an issue for me. Yes, the prime is lighter. But I also had no issues with the 200-500 when it comes to weight. It's an all day lens for me. Tamron really did design an amazing lens for Nikon.
This is a great comparison; however, I think 25% lighter should give weight at least 2 stars. Also, your versatility conversation ignored adding 1.4x TC's to 600 vs 180-600 (or a 2x to 400mm f4.5) to reach >800mm--at least for photographing birds, I'd consider it more common to worry about extra reach vs. magnification at minimum focus distance. But overall, this video should make people comfortable knowing the 180-600 is a very impressive lens, and one that probably wont lose much value, if considering a first big lens or stepping up.
Great video Scott, Liked & Subscribed. I don't have any of these yet, I'm using the 500mm f/4 FL ED VR lens with the FTZii adapter on my Z8. I will get a Z mount lens at some point and this video answered a lot of questions. I'm leaning towards the 400mm f/4.5 due to the weight savings but would love the 180-600mm as well for the zoom ability & when subjects are super close. I can carry the 500mm no problem but so many times I spot eagles & hawks from the car and trying to wrangle that thing into position without hitting the rearview mirror is no easy task especially when in a hurry. Thanks again for a great video.
thanks for tossing in the 200-500mF5.6 for comparison. I was kinda annoyed the 180-600 was only 6.3 thinking the bokeh wasn't comparable to the F5.6. Boy was I wrong.
Great comparison Scott, and one of a couple of similar ones with both of these lens that I've viewed. I sum the comparison up with any prime vs zoom in this way, and also from my own experience..." A prime lens will offer sharpness at the cost of flexibility, where a zoom lens will offer flexibility at the cost on sharpness".. The sharpness comparison too with the 400mm + 1.4 = 560mm vs the 600pf is interesting, but in my own shooting habits of bif, 560mm is nowhere near enough for these targets, and i find that my 600pf + 1.4 = 840mm is at times a minimal requirement.. No doubt though, the 180-600 is brilliant bang for buck, and probably best suited for people who regularly use its convenient zoom range, but most birders/bif want a long focal length 99.9% of the time..Cheers
If you need it, the PF 600 is a very nice lens However it's fixed focal range may be suited for certain situations. The 180 600mm lens works for me for versatile focus range use applications "for me" and cost as an amateur enthusiasts.
Well Scott I'm glad that your copy of the Nikkor 180-600 does not have any chromatic aberration. The truth is that this lens has a lot of chromatic aberration. Mostly blue an some yellow fringing and some times you can see it even in a scene that has not that much of a contrast. Mine is sharp yes but only with close or relatively close subjects. If something is far away, and I don't mean in those times of the day that you can experience atmospheric turbulence or the subject is miles away, this lens can not focus properly at all no matter what AF mode I try with my Z8. But this last one it might be related to the Z8 autofocus capabilities. Robert May has the same experience with the Nikkor 180~600 . Video link: th-cam.com/video/WgpqC9stpTc/w-d-xo.html
Intreresting that there is a variance . In comments on the 180-600, have heard that you need to stop it down to f8 to get the best out of it . Maybe the quality varies from sample to sample ,
Thanks so much for another great review video!! And totally agree with you. Last September, I bought Z8 with 400/4.5 S lens &1.4 TC due to 180-600 had a long wait, now I have 180-600 for about 2 month now... really like both lens. And yes, 400+1.4 TC is almost the same with 600PF, it's also a 400 itself 🤣🤣
@@WildlifeInspired I absolutely love the 400mm but dislike the loose fit of their teleconverter with it I tried a couple copies, I think of getting the 600mm and keep the 400mm as my two primes and probably will get stickier and faster focus.
Another great video!!! I have the 180-600 and the 100-400 and would be very interested in seeing a comparison of those. I left the 180-600 at home for my recent Panama trip and took the 100-400 w 1.4TC mainly because of the weight & size difference but also because I was unable to use focus set / recall with the 180-600 on my Z7II. I now have a Z8 and that issue is resolved but I still find the 100-400 w TC far easier to move around with, even when on my monopod. Granted that combo gives one stop less light but still I was mostly able to still get good shots while not exceeding my own ISO limit of 8,000. Some shots of birds deep in the bush at 1/60th and ISO 8,000 were more than acceptable after post processing and having said that, of the 4300 keepers I have, only 240 of them required that high ISO. Price wise the 100-400 w TC cost about $2,000 CND more than my 180-600 so currently the 180-600 is used when I have my tripod w gimbal & the 100-400 w TC is either shot hand held, or on my monopod w gimbal. I should say I guess that I'm 77 and lighter is getting to be a major deal especially if travelling. Cheers
I've the zoom but my last safari 50% was at 600mm and 25% at 180mm so I was wondering if I should trade in the zoom and get that prime. I have also rented the z400mm f4.5 which was great for image quality, but I simply felt constrained as a zoom offers more flexibility ... this was a year ago, and I compared to the z70-200 with the 2x. Later I rented the z100-400 but I really didn't like that extending tube when zooming out. It was a no go for me. The ONLY issues I have with the z180-600 is that awful collar, now replaced and the weight. I can live with that.
The 600PF seems to hold back the Highlights a little better, blue or white. The inside of the tube might have better light dampening (controlling reflective light). The slight difference in sharpness might be due to a touch better contrast.
I have the Z 180-600 (on a Z9) and the f mount 500mm PF. The 500 is vastly superior in image quality. While I do not have the 600PF, my real world results with the 180-600 are VERY different from the material presented here.
thanks for your thoughts, I can only judge by my comparison of what I have and tried to present it as objectively as possible. Id like to compare the 500pf to the 600pf and see the difference
I have been using the 400 f/4.5 with 1.4TC with my Z50 for several months now. Very happy with that lens TC combo. Now, just waiting for the D500 replacement.
Totally I'm gonna agree when you toggled side by side , the photo of the dummy jay to compare 180-600mm vs 600mm pf Very close but huge price difference
I own both 180-600mm zoom (Z8) -. 600mm PF (Z9). I photo Polo - horses running with a person on it's back to hit the ball. Boring as heck game, very fun photography. For this 600PF is the winner, the 180-600 gets use but I shoot many more with the 600. Focus speed it the deal, period. Today, 7-21-24, I had only the 180-600 as I only used one camera, Z9. My keeper rate dropped, I very much like the 600 best. I usually use two cameras, but the Z8 was traded for a Z9 and that camera has not arrived.
The 180-600 is great value. Its flexibility makes more a more sensible choice than my old prime 500 for most situations. That alone justifies its purchase. Minimum focus is actually a very big deal quite often I find.
Огромное спасибо за обзор, очень полезная информация. У меня нет фикса 600 s f6.3, но есть 400 s f4.5, который вместе с конвертером 1.4 дает 560мм. Именно эту связку я тестировал. И скажу одну неприятную вещь для 180-600 f6.3 - в контровом свете хроматические абберации ну очень сильные, а вот у а 400 s f4.5 даже с конвертером полный порядок. В общем и целом, объектив 180-600 f6.3 хорошее стекло, если знать его недостатки. Но я люблю снимать в контровом свете, поэтому данные недостатки для меня довольно критичны.
180-600.. Focuses closer, at 180mm good for butterflies, at 300-500 mammals and 600 for birds. $2600 cheaper compared to the 600mm PF. For the 600mm PF to justify that price it should have been 600mm f5.6
I feel like this video was made for me. I am considering picking up a Z8 with the 180-600. In particular, the comment that the 180-600 is your "first great lens" really spoke to me, having shot on a used Sigma 150-600 for the past several years. I wonder what that would look like side-by-side. I imagine the Nikon glass is substantially better than a 10 year old Sigma lens.
I do not have the sigma but I have the tamron 150 600 gen2 which is very similar to each other. I compared the tamron with the nikon. My finding is that the nikon is significantly better in every aspects: ergonomics (light and internal zoom), focus speed, and sharpness.
I'm starting to think either save money with the zoom or go ahead and blow it out with a 600mm f4 lens. I fear the in between lens (600mm PF) would always leave me feeling like I spent too much and still didn't get all I wanted.
Exactly!! Absolutely not worth the money. If you are going to invest in a lens that performs well in poor light then go for 600 f4. Who shoots with 6.3 in poor light conditions?
@WildlifeInspired Scratch the TC's. Compare the bare lenses and crop the shorter ones to the same image size. My own testing and others I have read show this to be as good for IQ as using a TC without the sacrifice of light or focus speed.
At f/6.3 I would take the 800 PF but it's too special for my usage. ( and pricey ! ) The question is more 180-600 f/6.3 VS 400 f/4.5 actually. The value and versatility of the zoom is really hard to beat
I don't know how Nikon lenses perform with extenders but in the Canon ecosystem AF slows by 25% with the 1.4x and 50% with the 2x - so depending on if you are shooting fast action (and what you compare it with e.g. a zoom or a prime at the equivalent focal length) maybe not a good solution.
Just so people know you can adapt a Nikon d lens f mount with a $15 f to xf adapter. You seem to imply that you are getting something more with your d lens on the ZF, you don’t non AF (FTZ adapter only does af with af-s lenses the lenses with motors) I shot fuji xf and GFX for fours year professionally and just switched back to Nikon with the Z8) the D lenses work the same on both. That’s not to say I would stay with Fuji, no way.
I am not convinced about the 600mm pf. Don't get me wrong it is an awesome lens but the price is waaaaay overkill. As from an enthusiast point of view I simply cannot justify the pf over the 180-600. In my country I could buy a brand new Z8 with a 180-600 for almost the same price as the bare 600mm pf. Not to mention you can find an F mount 500mm F4e or 600mm f4e for the same price as the 600pf on the used market. I am talking about lenses in mint condition. I know the size and weight are different but that F4 vs F6.3 can be a dealbreaker at dusk \ dawn, when the action happens.
The lower price, flexibility of a zoom, great sharpness, internall zooming and focusing, makes the Z180-600 the BEST option! for the price and small aperture the 600PF simply doesn't worth, just to get a little bit more of sharpness that most people won't even notice and a 300 grams less in your arms? NOPE!
I have had the Z 180-600 since October 2023, and the Z 600 PF since early May 2024. I have shot them both extensively under all sorts of real world circumstances along with my usual test battery. I can say that the difference between these two lenses is pretty large. It's not just a little lighter. Its 3/4 the weight, but its a heck of a lot better balanced than the Z 180-600 so it feels like it weighs even less. That's 3 stars to the Z 600 PF. "Ever so slightly sharper," you say? Did you even test the lenses? I mean, honestly, they are not close, especially in less than good light and at distance. The Z 180-600 sharpness/IQ turns to mush when the light falls off and/or if your subject is a bit a ways out. No difference in VR? Yeah, then you did not test these lenses. The Z 600 PF has far superior VR and it is immediately apparent. There is really no arguing on this one. The Z 180-600 does have a closer MFD and slightly better repro ratio, but it's of little practical value because its not good enough. We're not talking Z 100-400 level MFD/repro ratio. I actually think in terms of versatility, they are even but I look at it in terms of genre. The Z 180-600 does not give you more or less access to various genre's. Again, we are not talking the Z 100-400 here, which is a zoom lens that is highly versatile from macro to landscapes to portraits to wildlife. You are giving way too much credit to the Z 180-600 on this. Its not good for macro, not good for landscapes, not good for portraits. Its really just for wildlife, and its a lot less good for that genre than the Z 600 PF. There is also something to say about the role of size and weight in the versatility, or rather, usability of a lens. The Z 600 PF is much easier to bring with you, so it will come with you in more situations. As for value, the Z 100-400 is a better value over the Z 180-600 and it pairs nicely with the Z 600 PF. The Z 180-600 pairs with nothing. I am probably going to sell mine soon. I just don't use it anymore. If you can only afford one lens around $2k, get the F 500 PF instead. They can be gotten in the used market in 10/10 condition with a 6 month warranty for under $2200. Blows that Z 180-600 away.
@@WildBirdRanch I have all the PF's, the 300, 500, 600, and 800. I also have the Z 100-400 and Z 180-600. Of all of those, if I were to sell one its the Z 180-600 without any hesitation. The Z 100-400 with a 1.4x TC at the long end provides essentially the same real world images as the Z 180-600 despite any differences you may find in the lab, but its a heck of a lot more versatile, lighter, smaller, and really not that much more money. If you were to insist on a super tele zoom for Z, the Z 100-400 is the one to get. Otherwise, but at around the same budget, a used F 500 PF is a far better choice than the Z 180-600 for sports action/wildlife. This is why I do not consider the Z 180-600 to be a good value. The Z 100-400 and F 500 PF are far better choices that are in the same ballpark on price. The Z 800 PF, which this guy also talked down a bit in a prior video, is an insanely good lens in the real world, BTW. However, its really more for birds/BIF's, and no so much for general sports action/wildlife.
Pretty good analysis and would agree. The 500 pf is a killer lens (although I have only used it on f-mount cameras), and gives you all the benefits of a compact prime wildlife lens for for nearly the same cost as the 180-600. Gets my vote too!
@@KungPowEnterFist Your assuming I already don't have a majority of those lenses which I do along with my Z9, Z8, ZF, DLSR'S and SLR'S going back to my Nikon FE. For versatility it's a great lens and works fine in most low light conditions. My 100-400 is to short quite a bit and I do not want to add 1-2 stop penalty using my 2 teleconverters. Quite honestly I am getting ready to buy the 400 TC 2.8 best of all worlds.
@@jamesburk3959 The F 500 PF and the Z 600 PF are essentially optically equivalent in lab tests. On a test chart, you cannot tell the difference. I have them both (I have all the PF lenses). The Z 600 PF obviously has the extra 100mm. The VR is also better (Z8/Z9), however, that is due to the synchro VR which the F 500 PF does not get via the FTZ. The only real knock against the F 500 PF on a Z camera is that the AF tends to get stuck on foregrounds. You can work around this, but it is something worth noting. Oddly, I do not notice this happening nearly as much on the F 300 PF.
Focus speed isn't fair to compare 2.4m to infinity and 4m to infinity. Especially because the first meters take the longest. You should have limited the distance from 4m or 6m to infinity on both so they have the same distance to travel. I guess that this would equal the field more
In my 35 yrs photographing wildlife and other subjects I've learnt that many, many times having the ability to zoom can literally be a deal breaker. When confronted in the field with a wild animal there are so many times we literally can't move through fear of spooking the subject and the only way to frame the image as we want is by using a zoom, if using a fixed focal length lens many times the lens chooses our composition for us because we can't move back or forth to get the ideal framing, a zoom gives us this ability back! Great comparison Scott ! Cheers
This type of comparison is very useful Scott. The 180-600 wins for me due to its versatility and value. I'm considering making the switch from my D500 200-500 f5.6 setup to mirrorless. The combo of the 180-600 lens and the Z6iii is very appealing from both cost and quality perspectives.
@jackstutts I was planning to replace my D500 200-500 combo with the Z8 180-600. But I am planning a bunch of African safaris and I'm planning to keep two Z bodies with 180-600 and either 100-400 or 400 4.5 but I realised that the D500 will be a perfect backup. So keeping that. If you can, keep it as well.
I read a lot of complaints about the 180-600 not being sharp at 600mm, but when comparing mine vs my 800 PF, equalizing the subject size by moving closer with the 180-600, I honestly couldn't tell a difference in the centre of the frame. There may be some bad copies, but unless you get a lemon, this is a very sharp lens and I'd absolutely recommend it.
Just got my 180-600 a few days ago. So much fun.
I wish they made all primes worth over a couple $$$1000 with built in teleconverters a 400mm f/4 with a built in teleconverter would sweeten the deal for the primes or maybe something like a 200-400 f/4 with a built in.
Currently the only lenses with built in teleconverters cost about as much as cars.
They do make a 200-400 f/4 for Nikon f-mount with a built-in x1.4 teleconverter. But you are correct, it's like 15 grand brand new... Been able to find some "like new" versions used on places like KEH or MPB for around 4 grand. Still expensive though!
I got he 180-600 a year ago for my Z6.
Now I have the Z8 and it is the combo I use all the time.
I bought the 180 600mm and I am happy. For versatility for me the 180 600mm wins. I dont want nor do I need a 600mm zoom unless i am out in the bush.
There are times when I dont need a 600mm focal point at all. Therefore, get what you like and don't listen to the noise about how the Savior of photography is a focal point that you may rarely use like myself.
This is a very good comparison video, and the whiner who spent more on a better lens needs to chill.
Photography Life has a chart comparison of all lenses Nikon has best go there to see what is what.
Love your reviews where practical aspects take precedence over technical aspects. Not that technical aspects don't matter, but how we use them is way more important
Scott, you sum up these lenses perfectly! I had both for about 8 months, extensively used and tested side-by-side before making my decision to keep the 600PF. You cannot go wrong with either, they're both brilliant; where the 600PF primarily won out for me is the smaller size/weight,, plus its IQ holds together a bit better as distance from subject increases. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot either, but I had to choose one, unfortunately.
In regards to MFD: you state 10.9' for the 600PF, while the spec sheets show 13.1'.
Currently have the 400 4.5 and the aforementioned 600PF, and I prefer the 600PF by a good margin because I have found there is a marked fall-off in IQ when you mount that TC to the 400 4.5. It lacks the bite that the 600PF has. Additionally, I found that the AF isn't quite as surefooted as the 600PF. The MFD/Magnification of the 400+1.4 is a major benefit over the 600PF though, so in certain situations I'll choose that combo.
Needless to say, all of these modern lenses from Nikon are superb, you can't go wrong with any of them.
You are correct on the MFD of of 13' Ill make a comment. Not sure how I missed that as it;s something I know !
A good review. I love my Z600pf. I purchased it for the weight, build, and sharpness (all the things you identified), which are important to me. Have not been disappointed at all. Thanks
Thanks for sharing
Had my 180-600 for nearly a year now, used it yesterday at Abberton reservoir photographing Cattle Egrets and Grey Herons at 150 yards and spoonbills at 350 yards.1.4 extender and switching DX in and out on my Z9. Looked at results last night and found the feather detail amazing. I also own the 400 /4.5 which is stupendous. Used the 400/2.8 in Scotland for a week and fell in love with it but way out of my price range. Nice video Scott looking forward to the next one,
As someone who shoots a lot of bird photography alongside sports, concerts, and portrait work, I elected into the 800 f/6.3 PF along with my 70-200 f/2.8. But I found that I need something between those. I was tossing up the 100-400, the 400 f/4.5, and the 180-600 for camera 2, and after eyeballing a few of your recent videos, I think the 400 f/4.5 is gonna be it, if for no other reasons, having the f/4.5 aperture available, and the fact that it'll fit in my Think Tank belt pouch. :D
I have to say, Scott, your videos are among my favorite because you're not afraid to share fact AND opinion, and you make very good points. Definitely appreciate the time and effort you put into your channel here.
I got the 180-600 and traded in my 200-400 f4. I didn't shoot them side by side but the 200-400f4 looks better from my memories but not too much. But the 180-600 is lighter and longer and iq is good enough. The AF for the n180-600 was faster than the old 200-400 f4 vr2 so you get more keeper for bif. With topaz lab ai sharpener, denoise and up scaling can make the image look way better than the small differences between the lenses.
The video I've been waiting for.
This is by far the most helpful comparison vid I’ve seen. And even as a standalone review for each. For my use case, I’m super excited to get the 180-600 🥳👏🏻
Fantastically helpful Scott, thank you for the time and effort put into making this comparison
An excellent review Scott, one of the best practical reviews that I have seen on Nikon lenses. I have the 70-200 2.8, 400 4.5, the 180-600 and the 800 PF and I find that I am pretty well covered with the lenses that I have. I have found that with the 1.4 TC, and all of the lenses seem to work really well with the TC there isn't much that I can't photograph. I have also found that the 70-200 also takes the 2XTC very well eliminating the need for the 100-400 lens. Again a great video and thanks for all your hard work.
You covered ALLLLL the bases! I especially like the 400 and 800 primes (it almost eliminates the need for the 600)
What an excellent review and summary of options, great comparisons. Thoroughly enjoyed this video. I have the 500mm PF it’s such a great lens and it’s a keeper esp when I can use it on both systems. Yes the 400mm is tempting lens for sure. But for mirrorless I think the 180-600 plus the 800mm PF would be a great combo.
Scott that was awesome. Thanks a lot for that detailed comparison. Very well presented and convinced me that buying 180-600 was a right decision. It’s a beast of a lens and one of the best value deals out there.
I have the 180-600 and love it, really enjoyed the comparison. Especially the end which you mentioned the 400 f4.5! I just picked up the 400 to ad some walkability. I ve got the best of both now!
I´m very pleased with my 180-600mm and it works great with TC1.4. Also have the 500mm PF and this lens is slightly shaper, but very close.
Great video as always. You do the best lens and everything camera reviews!
I appreciate that!
Great comparison. I own the 400 4.5 and the 180-600 with frequent comparisons. The speed and size of the 400.4.5 (with TC) are unmatched for tracking birds. Optically, the only lens that matches or beats the 400 4.5 is my beloved 400 2.8 TC. That said, the 180 - 600 is on my Z9 60% of the time. The rest of the time it is the 400 2.8 TC, and only use the 400 4.5 or the 100-400 for travel. For Alaska I took the 100-400 and the 400 2.8 TC (and some TCs). Along with the 24-120 F4. Nikon is making only great lenses this days. I have followed your reviews for most of my lenses and tripod. Your work is phenomenal, thank you!
thanks so much! Im glad I make the point that at some point a lens may be sharper but it might not matter to 95% of the work done when it's so close.
I have the 180 to 600 and I love it because it has a very short throw so you can zoom out see the subject and quickly zoom in and get the shot. Not sure I would want to be at 600 all the time. Also the 180 to 600 works extremely well with the 1.4 teleconverter. I also have the 2x teleconverter however I think that one is not as great as using the 180 to 600 with the 1.4.
Great videos, just a couple thoughts/suggestions for future comparisons.
Your comparison used for Chromatic Aberration isnt very good because its an easy situation. CA is most dramatic when in high contrast backlit situations. Doing the same example but with a softbox directly behind the subject would give you a more extreme example that might differentiate these lenses better.
The other one that it is often difficult to compare sharpness because modern lenses tend to outresolve the sensor. The prime may actually be much sharper but you can’t see it because the camera is the limiting factor. One of the most relevant ways to test further would be to compare them both using the same telecoonverter. If one lenses is only barely outresolving the sensor while the other is significantly outresolving the sensor you will see that difference when the image circle is magnified by a TC. I suspect that the prime in this example handles a 2x TC far better because of this but thats just a hunch, I haven’t tested them myself
cheers!
Great video. It's good to have so many choices for wildlife.
of course, nikon is the best
I love my 180-600 on my Z8. Another thought on the 400 f4.5 - in theory, you can shoot it in DX mode and have field of view equivalent of 600mm f4.5
Great review and I appreciate your content. I have the z180-600 and agree with your assessment on the lens. My only issue is AF when panning with bird inside the small/large focus box with AF-C. Even with a custom C1 some of the frames were sharp and others were off.
I bought the lens for Airshows to get the 4 planes together and able to zoom in on the pilot as needed. Great option for song, shore birds Eagles or other birds!!
Agree with the comment on 400 with a 1.4TC as another option to have lightness, sharpness, and value in a similar range for the money!
Love using my 180-600mm for wildlife photography. The versatility of the zoom allows me to compose my photos to my liking. And I value the $2,600 savings over the 600pf.
I love my 180-600.
Yes, the 600mm prime is faster and a bit sharper. But to me the slightly increased sharpness doesn't really justify the higher price. The 180-600 just has SUCH good value!
Personally I love having more flexibility, too and in that regard the zoom lens has the advantage by default. I was shooting a magpie the other day that sat a couple meters away from me and I could just switch between close-ups and the whole bird in the frame by turning the zoom ring a little. Can't do that with a prime!
Weight also isn't an issue for me. Yes, the prime is lighter. But I also had no issues with the 200-500 when it comes to weight. It's an all day lens for me.
Tamron really did design an amazing lens for Nikon.
This is a great comparison; however, I think 25% lighter should give weight at least 2 stars. Also, your versatility conversation ignored adding 1.4x TC's to 600 vs 180-600 (or a 2x to 400mm f4.5) to reach >800mm--at least for photographing birds, I'd consider it more common to worry about extra reach vs. magnification at minimum focus distance. But overall, this video should make people comfortable knowing the 180-600 is a very impressive lens, and one that probably wont lose much value, if considering a first big lens or stepping up.
Great point
Great video I also own both lenses and honestly I use the 180-600 more and really don't need the prime.
I purchased the 600mm prime after being a bit disappointed in the 180-600mm with the z9.love the 600mm prime with the z8.
what were the disappointments?
Great video Scott, Liked & Subscribed. I don't have any of these yet, I'm using the 500mm f/4 FL ED VR lens with the FTZii adapter on my Z8. I will get a Z mount lens at some point and this video answered a lot of questions. I'm leaning towards the 400mm f/4.5 due to the weight savings but would love the 180-600mm as well for the zoom ability & when subjects are super close. I can carry the 500mm no problem but so many times I spot eagles & hawks from the car and trying to wrangle that thing into position without hitting the rearview mirror is no easy task especially when in a hurry. Thanks again for a great video.
The 500 f4 will feel even more clunky if you get a PF lens
thanks for tossing in the 200-500mF5.6 for comparison.
I was kinda annoyed the 180-600 was only 6.3 thinking the bokeh wasn't comparable to the F5.6.
Boy was I wrong.
Great comparison Scott, and one of a couple of similar ones with both of these lens that I've viewed. I sum the comparison up with any prime vs zoom in this way, and also from my own experience..." A prime lens will offer sharpness at the cost of flexibility, where a zoom lens will offer flexibility at the cost on sharpness"..
The sharpness comparison too with the 400mm + 1.4 = 560mm vs the 600pf is interesting, but in my own shooting habits of bif, 560mm is nowhere near enough for these targets, and i find that my 600pf + 1.4 = 840mm is at times a minimal requirement..
No doubt though, the 180-600 is brilliant bang for buck, and probably best suited for people who regularly use its convenient zoom range, but most birders/bif want a long focal length 99.9% of the time..Cheers
Id like to do a better comparison of the 400 (naked, 1.4 and 2x) vs the 600 naked and 1.4.
If you need it, the PF 600 is a very nice lens However it's fixed focal range may be suited for certain situations.
The 180 600mm lens works for me for versatile focus range use applications "for me" and cost as an amateur enthusiasts.
Well Scott I'm glad that your copy of the Nikkor 180-600 does not have any chromatic aberration. The truth is that this lens has a lot of chromatic aberration. Mostly blue an some yellow fringing and some times you can see it even in a scene that has not that much of a contrast. Mine is sharp yes but only with close or relatively close subjects. If something is far away, and I don't mean in those times of the day that you can experience atmospheric turbulence or the subject is miles away, this lens can not focus properly at all no matter what AF mode I try with my Z8. But this last one it might be related to the Z8 autofocus capabilities. Robert May has the same experience with the Nikkor 180~600 . Video link: th-cam.com/video/WgpqC9stpTc/w-d-xo.html
Intreresting that there is a variance . In comments on the 180-600, have heard that you need to stop it down to f8 to get the best out of it . Maybe the quality varies from sample to sample ,
Thanks so much for another great review video!! And totally agree with you. Last September, I bought Z8 with 400/4.5 S lens &1.4 TC due to 180-600 had a long wait, now I have 180-600 for about 2 month now... really like both lens. And yes, 400+1.4 TC is almost the same with 600PF, it's also a 400 itself 🤣🤣
I think the 400 could be the way to go.
BTW， when I have 💰in the future, I will replace my 400/4.5 with the 400/2.8 TC 🤤
@@WildlifeInspired I absolutely love the 400mm but dislike the loose fit of their teleconverter with it I tried a couple copies, I think of getting the 600mm and keep the 400mm as my two primes and probably will get stickier and faster focus.
Another great video!!! I have the 180-600 and the 100-400 and would be very interested in seeing a comparison of those. I left the 180-600 at home for my recent Panama trip and took the 100-400 w 1.4TC mainly because of the weight & size difference but also because I was unable to use focus set / recall with the 180-600 on my Z7II. I now have a Z8 and that issue is resolved but I still find the 100-400 w TC far easier to move around with, even when on my monopod. Granted that combo gives one stop less light but still I was mostly able to still get good shots while not exceeding my own ISO limit of 8,000. Some shots of birds deep in the bush at 1/60th and ISO 8,000 were more than acceptable after post processing and having said that, of the 4300 keepers I have, only 240 of them required that high ISO. Price wise the 100-400 w TC cost about $2,000 CND more than my 180-600 so currently the 180-600 is used when I have my tripod w gimbal & the 100-400 w TC is either shot hand held, or on my monopod w gimbal. I should say I guess that I'm 77 and lighter is getting to be a major deal especially if travelling. Cheers
I've the zoom but my last safari 50% was at 600mm and 25% at 180mm so I was wondering if I should trade in the zoom and get that prime. I have also rented the z400mm f4.5 which was great for image quality, but I simply felt constrained as a zoom offers more flexibility ... this was a year ago, and I compared to the z70-200 with the 2x. Later I rented the z100-400 but I really didn't like that extending tube when zooming out. It was a no go for me. The ONLY issues I have with the z180-600 is that awful collar, now replaced and the weight. I can live with that.
Cool video, thank you. What about the size advantage in your chart? That's why I bought the 600pf, it fits in my bag with my camera attached
Good point! Size and weight. In inches, I think you save 2-3 inches overall depending on the hood being on or off (12" vs 10")
The 600PF seems to hold back the Highlights a little better, blue or white. The inside of the tube might have better light dampening (controlling reflective light). The slight difference in sharpness might be due to a touch better contrast.
I have the Z 180-600 (on a Z9) and the f mount 500mm PF. The 500 is vastly superior in image quality. While I do not have the 600PF, my real world results with the 180-600 are VERY different from the material presented here.
thanks for your thoughts, I can only judge by my comparison of what I have and tried to present it as objectively as possible. Id like to compare the 500pf to the 600pf and see the difference
I have been using the 400 f/4.5 with 1.4TC with my Z50 for several months now. Very happy with that lens TC combo. Now, just waiting for the D500 replacement.
Will add, this video has confirmed my thoughts of trading in my Tamron 150-600 G2 for the Nikon 180-600.
Totally I'm gonna agree when you toggled side by side , the photo of the dummy jay to compare 180-600mm vs 600mm pf
Very close but huge price difference
I own both 180-600mm zoom (Z8) -. 600mm PF (Z9). I photo Polo - horses running with a person on it's back to hit the ball. Boring as heck game, very fun photography. For this 600PF is the winner, the 180-600 gets use but I shoot many more with the 600. Focus speed it the deal, period. Today, 7-21-24, I had only the 180-600 as I only used one camera, Z9. My keeper rate dropped, I very much like the 600 best. I usually use two cameras, but the Z8 was traded for a Z9 and that camera has not arrived.
Due to things constantly in motion ?
I have both but the PF is better and sits in my camera most of the time.
The 180-600 is great value. Its flexibility makes more a more sensible choice than my old prime 500 for most situations. That alone justifies its purchase. Minimum focus is actually a very big deal quite often I find.
Огромное спасибо за обзор, очень полезная информация. У меня нет фикса 600 s f6.3, но есть 400 s f4.5, который вместе с конвертером 1.4 дает 560мм. Именно эту связку я тестировал. И скажу одну неприятную вещь для 180-600 f6.3 - в контровом свете хроматические абберации ну очень сильные, а вот у а 400 s f4.5 даже с конвертером полный порядок. В общем и целом, объектив 180-600 f6.3 хорошее стекло, если знать его недостатки. Но я люблю снимать в контровом свете, поэтому данные недостатки для меня довольно критичны.
180-600.. Focuses closer, at 180mm good for butterflies, at 300-500 mammals and 600 for birds. $2600 cheaper compared to the 600mm PF. For the 600mm PF to justify that price it should have been 600mm f5.6
I feel like this video was made for me. I am considering picking up a Z8 with the 180-600. In particular, the comment that the 180-600 is your "first great lens" really spoke to me, having shot on a used Sigma 150-600 for the past several years.
I wonder what that would look like side-by-side. I imagine the Nikon glass is substantially better than a 10 year old Sigma lens.
It will be
I do not have the sigma but I have the tamron 150 600 gen2 which is very similar to each other. I compared the tamron with the nikon. My finding is that the nikon is significantly better in every aspects: ergonomics (light and internal zoom), focus speed, and sharpness.
Excellent vídeo, thanks!.
Really outstanding review.
I'm starting to think either save money with the zoom or go ahead and blow it out with a 600mm f4 lens. I fear the in between lens (600mm PF) would always leave me feeling like I spent too much and still didn't get all I wanted.
well said
Exactly!! Absolutely not worth the money. If you are going to invest in a lens that performs well in poor light then go for 600 f4. Who shoots with 6.3 in poor light conditions?
Most of the outdoor shooting for birds are in woodland… 6.3… and a TC?? I find that it is just not enough light…
I really want to see this comparison done with the 100-400 with a 1.4TC vs the 180-600
I'll see what I can do !
@WildlifeInspired
Scratch the TC's. Compare the bare lenses and crop the shorter ones to the same image size. My own testing and others I have read show this to be as good for IQ as using a TC without the sacrifice of light or focus speed.
Great comparison. Kudos
nice vid. it would be nice to show the sharpness of 180-600 and 600 pf if you add TC on them.
Good point, You will see the zoom lens fall off a bit more, sorry I didn't compare!
At f/6.3 I would take the 800 PF but it's too special for my usage. ( and pricey ! )
The question is more 180-600 f/6.3 VS 400 f/4.5 actually. The value and versatility of the zoom is really hard to beat
agree.... I will try to compare the 400 4.5 to others head to head!
I don't know how Nikon lenses perform with extenders but in the Canon ecosystem AF slows by 25% with the 1.4x and 50% with the 2x - so depending on if you are shooting fast action (and what you compare it with e.g. a zoom or a prime at the equivalent focal length) maybe not a good solution.
13:39 the rendering of the black areas (shadows) is more dominated in 180-600. I do wonder how other vendors are doing here
Just so people know you can adapt a Nikon d lens f mount with a $15 f to xf adapter. You seem to imply that you are getting something more with your d lens on the ZF, you don’t non AF (FTZ adapter only does af with af-s lenses the lenses with motors) I shot fuji xf and GFX for fours year professionally and just switched back to Nikon with the Z8) the D lenses work the same on both. That’s not to say I would stay with Fuji, no way.
I am not convinced about the 600mm pf. Don't get me wrong it is an awesome lens but the price is waaaaay overkill.
As from an enthusiast point of view I simply cannot justify the pf over the 180-600. In my country I could buy a brand new Z8 with a 180-600 for almost the same price as the bare 600mm pf.
Not to mention you can find an F mount 500mm F4e or 600mm f4e for the same price as the 600pf on the used market. I am talking about lenses in mint condition. I know the size and weight are different but that F4 vs F6.3 can be a dealbreaker at dusk \ dawn, when the action happens.
Good point about considering the 400 f4.5 with the 1.4 teleconverter.
Did you compare the lens with a x1.4 teleconverter
I did not. And I'm not happy I forgot.
very informative
My wife and I both shoot, her with 150-600 sigma c, and I with the 200-500 F5.6
the 200-500 focuses really slow.
Agree.... that was my experience also
The lower price, flexibility of a zoom, great sharpness, internall zooming and focusing, makes the Z180-600 the BEST option! for the price and small aperture the 600PF simply doesn't worth, just to get a little bit more of sharpness that most people won't even notice and a 300 grams less in your arms? NOPE!
I Can't see the settings?
I have had the Z 180-600 since October 2023, and the Z 600 PF since early May 2024. I have shot them both extensively under all sorts of real world circumstances along with my usual test battery. I can say that the difference between these two lenses is pretty large. It's not just a little lighter. Its 3/4 the weight, but its a heck of a lot better balanced than the Z 180-600 so it feels like it weighs even less. That's 3 stars to the Z 600 PF. "Ever so slightly sharper," you say? Did you even test the lenses? I mean, honestly, they are not close, especially in less than good light and at distance. The Z 180-600 sharpness/IQ turns to mush when the light falls off and/or if your subject is a bit a ways out. No difference in VR? Yeah, then you did not test these lenses. The Z 600 PF has far superior VR and it is immediately apparent. There is really no arguing on this one. The Z 180-600 does have a closer MFD and slightly better repro ratio, but it's of little practical value because its not good enough. We're not talking Z 100-400 level MFD/repro ratio. I actually think in terms of versatility, they are even but I look at it in terms of genre. The Z 180-600 does not give you more or less access to various genre's. Again, we are not talking the Z 100-400 here, which is a zoom lens that is highly versatile from macro to landscapes to portraits to wildlife. You are giving way too much credit to the Z 180-600 on this. Its not good for macro, not good for landscapes, not good for portraits. Its really just for wildlife, and its a lot less good for that genre than the Z 600 PF. There is also something to say about the role of size and weight in the versatility, or rather, usability of a lens. The Z 600 PF is much easier to bring with you, so it will come with you in more situations. As for value, the Z 100-400 is a better value over the Z 180-600 and it pairs nicely with the Z 600 PF. The Z 180-600 pairs with nothing. I am probably going to sell mine soon. I just don't use it anymore. If you can only afford one lens around $2k, get the F 500 PF instead. They can be gotten in the used market in 10/10 condition with a 6 month warranty for under $2200. Blows that Z 180-600 away.
FYI The 180-600mm pairs just fine with the 800mm PF!
@@WildBirdRanch I have all the PF's, the 300, 500, 600, and 800. I also have the Z 100-400 and Z 180-600. Of all of those, if I were to sell one its the Z 180-600 without any hesitation. The Z 100-400 with a 1.4x TC at the long end provides essentially the same real world images as the Z 180-600 despite any differences you may find in the lab, but its a heck of a lot more versatile, lighter, smaller, and really not that much more money. If you were to insist on a super tele zoom for Z, the Z 100-400 is the one to get. Otherwise, but at around the same budget, a used F 500 PF is a far better choice than the Z 180-600 for sports action/wildlife. This is why I do not consider the Z 180-600 to be a good value. The Z 100-400 and F 500 PF are far better choices that are in the same ballpark on price.
The Z 800 PF, which this guy also talked down a bit in a prior video, is an insanely good lens in the real world, BTW. However, its really more for birds/BIF's, and no so much for general sports action/wildlife.
Pretty good analysis and would agree. The 500 pf is a killer lens (although I have only used it on f-mount cameras), and gives you all the benefits of a compact prime wildlife lens for for nearly the same cost as the 180-600. Gets my vote too!
@@KungPowEnterFist Your assuming I already don't have a majority of those lenses which I do along with my Z9, Z8, ZF, DLSR'S and SLR'S going back to my Nikon FE. For versatility it's a great lens and works fine in most low light conditions. My 100-400 is to short quite a bit and I do not want to add 1-2 stop penalty using my 2 teleconverters. Quite honestly I am getting ready to buy the 400 TC 2.8 best of all worlds.
@@jamesburk3959 The F 500 PF and the Z 600 PF are essentially optically equivalent in lab tests. On a test chart, you cannot tell the difference. I have them both (I have all the PF lenses). The Z 600 PF obviously has the extra 100mm. The VR is also better (Z8/Z9), however, that is due to the synchro VR which the F 500 PF does not get via the FTZ. The only real knock against the F 500 PF on a Z camera is that the AF tends to get stuck on foregrounds. You can work around this, but it is something worth noting. Oddly, I do not notice this happening nearly as much on the F 300 PF.
The nikon z mount 180-600 isn't quite a true 600mm its about 570mm.
Focus speed isn't fair to compare 2.4m to infinity and 4m to infinity. Especially because the first meters take the longest. You should have limited the distance from 4m or 6m to infinity on both so they have the same distance to travel. I guess that this would equal the field more
I tried to make the point that focus speed is much less noticeable when focusing under 30 feet.
Cheaper lighter faster and it is not a Pf lens so better out of focus. 400mm 4.5
At about 19:00 his math is way off in converting feet to meters.
You aren't lying. Not sure but I think I pulled the numbers right off their specs ? I didn't convert them manually myself
Fresnel is pronounced Frennel (fray-NEL)
Thank you !!! I have literally never heard it spoken now that I think of it lesson learned
600pf is clearly sharper
2.5 grand sharper? I don't think so.