I went with the third option, the Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S. It's even lighter than the 100-400mm, noticeably sharper, and faster-which is very helpful for wildlife and sports. It also gives you a creamier and more pleasiing bokeh. I love it.
Excellent suggestion - thanks for that one - although it does mean MORE thinking time, it's probably worth it - possibly the best idea. I have 200mm covered, 400mm isn't so much further that I'd seriously need to cover 300 as well. 2xTC takes it out to 600. Where am I at with that, as far as f stops go? - reduced to F/6.3 at 600mm (with the 2xTC)? That's the same as the 180-600 at 600mm! But I'm only one Fstop in front at 400, with the Z 400, aren't I? Where you gain is weight - and for birding or other wildlife (probably sports at well), better weather proofing than the 100-400 zoom can provide. Also I'm not keen on zooms that breath externally - much prefer one like the 18-600 that only breaths internally.
I think some important differences not mentioned are both related to the internal zoom of the 180-600. I can't imagine the 100-400 is sealed as good in the front as a lens that doesn't contract. Also, the short internal zoom throw of the 180-600 may mean getting shots of fast moving objects when you're still turning the ring on the 100-400. The second one is an ENORMOUS improvement in usability over the external zoom 200-500 or any of the 150-600 offerings.
The 100-400mm is extremely well sealed, more-so than the older 80-400mm G VR, which I used a professional photojournalist for many years and I never had an issue with weather sealing. So while you add a point for the internal zoom on the 180-600mm vs. extending barrel zoom, you should take a point away for the internal lens is made in Thailand and is not a professional grade or S-line lens and it's not made in Japan. I personally would add two points there, because I've always trusted Nikon pro-grade lenses made in Japan. In my 25 years of being with Nikon, I've owned every flagship camera and pro-grade lens and I've had access to both Nikon and Canon pool gear at a couple of my workplace's/newspaper's. I've personally shot Nikon for about 20 out those 25 years, the other years I shot Canon for work reasons. Anyways, I've never once needed a single repair or replacement and I've never had to visit a Nikon service center. Now I'll admit the D850 and Z8, Z9 are all made in Thailand and seem like great cameras. However I've had my D6 now since early 2020 and it still looks and feels new, I've put over 150k on the shutter and it's good as new. Whereas almost all of my colleagues who shoot Z9's and now Z8's have all had to send their bodies in for different reasons. In fact one colleague of mine has had his Z9 in for service or issues now 3x since he got it. I bet most Z8 owner won't come to my aid, but I bet they were none to happy to have to send their beloved brand new camera's back in for service almost immediately after receiving them new in box. I sold a D5 of mine with 887,984 shutter count on it, and it's still going according to the buyer. We'll see how well the Z9 and Z8 do with that many frames on them, sure less moving parts...but I'd bet everything Nikon will see more Z9's and Z8's in for service over or versus Nikon D6's and D850's! I'm certainly not a racist and I love the D850, D810 and other Nikon gear or Apple products which are made in China. Nikon and Apple both have shown they can and do make incredible professional grade products in both China and Thailand. However I will always prefer my gear be made in Japan. The fact that the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S is made in Japan would be a consideration for me, personally. Thankfully I have the 500mm f/4E VR FL and 70-200mm FL with TC-14E III and I can pretty much cover anything with just three lenses and two or three bodies. I may eventually migrate over to mirrorless but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I love my D6's and I sold my Z7 and 24-120mm f/4S, despite liking the combo...because I hated the fact that my fingers would hang off the bottom of the front grip and the MB-N10 was a joke, it felt awkward without the vertical controls. Yes, I know I know the Z7 II fixed that issue and they now have two cards and proper vertical grip. However I just could not bring myself to buy a Z7 II with current prices and because in my opinion a gripped D850 is better for my needs. I lost a little money figuring that out, but in the long run I made the right move. Hopefully Nikon continues to make great products, everywhere. I'm a fan and I am rooting for Nikon, for sure. I can see why so many people were waiting for this lens, but I have to agree with Matt and Joe, here...I'd rather have the 80-400mm!
The look on Joe’s face, after he first pointed the lens out the window, tells the story. That was a pretty big smile. I have a 300mm, the 400mm S and a 600 f4 E. I’m not going to cancel my pre order for the 180-600. It’s a tool that will fit perfectly in my kit. Thanks guys for quenching my thirst for 180-600 content.
I have the 100-400mm. I got it a little over a year ago before I went on some wildlife excursions. I also have the 2x teleconverter. When the 180-600mm came out I thought about the pros of the 100-400mm to make myself feel better. * I can fit the 100-400mm lens in my backpack with the lens hood on (not reversed). I couldn't do that with the 180-600mm. This is important because I hike with it. * The 100-400 has an extra control ring that I use for ISO, not available on the 180-600mm. It also has function buttons. I like to easily control ISO. * I can get down to 100mm on the wide end, which can be important when things get closer up or when wanting to show the subject in a larger context * faster aperture on the low end of course * I guess there is a coating or two that the 100-400mm has that the 180-600mm doesn't I can see though how one might prefer the 180-60mm lens, so it is nice to have choices.
@@berndtsturznickel8548 I haven't seen much decline in sharpness in good bright daylight, but the loss of 2-stops does make it challenging in conditions with poorer light. Bumping up the ISO to compensate erodes sharpness in the image.
Have the 100-400 and the 1.4 Converter. As i also use it for landscanpe and hiking, this is/was the better choise for my use. And as i often go to the zoo, the 400 is mostly enough for my animal shots.
Ordered 180-600 the first day I could. Now only have 24-70/4 and 24-200. Turning 60 in September so 180-600 can be my birthday present. I was thinking of starting with bird photography, let's see if I manage to take some good pictures.❤😊
I have the 100-400. Works great for shooting my grandson’s youth baseball games. But I also would like longer reach for birding. That said, I did not realize there was 1.4x Z tele out. I pre-ordered the 180-600 but now I am re-thinking that. May cancel that, get the 1.4 tele, and try that for a while along with crop mode when needed. Or I may just keep the 180-600 on order. Decisions decisions. Just a hobbyist.
When the 180-600 was announced, I pre-ordered within the first hour. Sold my 200-500 and FTZ (it was my last remaining F lens, bittersweet) so that covered about 1/2 the cost of the 180-600. With its internal zoom, +100 reach, and last but not least - a proper lens hood with a lock button (!) I feel this is a significant upgrade for the price, and worth the wait. This is what we get when companies take their time and do things right 👍🏻
I have the 100-400 currently and most birders will tell you that's not quite enough reach( will elaborate in a bit ). Now if you're in a hide like you are and things are set up to attract birds close to a hide a 100-400 might be all you need. If you are laying on a beach and patient enough, the shore birds will come close enough to you where the 100-400 is enough as well. But there is a reason the almighty 600mm f4 is the gold standard for nature photographers and since the 180-600 get's to 600 it carries the same benefit at a much reduced cost. The longer focal length allows you to fill the frame with animals and birds that may be very wary of people and you just can't get close to them to get a picture, or in some instances the subject may be potentially dangerous so you as a photographer don't want to get too close such as shooting Bison, Bears, Crocs etc. The longer focal length is also a great benefit when trying to capture Birds in flight, with the added reach you can pick up on your subject sooner and have a better chance of ensuring a properly focused subject. Now the Zoom has the added benefit of accommodating you when your subject gets closer which is an advantage over a fixed telephoto, sometimes you just can't back up, and although 180mm isn't 100mm it will accommodate you just fine the majority of the time. I took 10's of thousands of pics with the F mount 200-500 with my D850 in the day and was very happy with that range the 180-600 is even better. As you say Matt, it all depends on your use case. I also don't see myself choosing one lens over the other, they both have there benefits, if you can swing it, get both. One final note , you can lose shots if you have to take off your lens to add a TC, just sayin.
Ricci talks did an excellent comparison of these two lenses. For wildlife I think the 100-400 is definitely inferior. The 180-600 @6.3 is sharper than the 100-400 @f8 w the 1.4 tc (560mm). He also compared them without a tc at 600 vs 400 and the image quality is similar between the two lenses, with the exception of 200 extra millimeters on the 600. If size and weight aren’t a limiting factor ricci came to the conclusion that the 180-600 is superior. Both lenses have their place but for me the 180-600 is a no brainer!
Yes, you failed to mention that the 100-400mm focuses closer than the 180-600mm. As primarily a landscape photographer, I find the 100-400mm great for making abstract images of near-macro scenes. The 100-400mm has basically replaced the 70-200mm in my kit. And for those occasional times when I include wildlife in my images the 100-400mm, and the small 1.4x TC, takes me out to 560mm. Which is a lot of flexibility in a small kit. I recently flew with my 100-400mm and with its compact size, I could easy store the lens attached to a Z6ii, under the seat in front of me...I don't think that could be done with the 180-600mm. I think the 100-400mm is a fantastic all around lens (except for fast action). The key thing is, one has to decide what they will be shooting, and decide if the 100-400mm is better, or the 180-600mm is better. If one isn't shooting wildlife all the time, I think the 100-400mm is a more useful lens, IMO.
I thought they did mention the 100-400 focuses closer but indeed that is a plus for the lens. This said, I would never want to throw a TC on the 100-400 as that brings it to f/8 which is too slow for me
No just get the 80-400mm and 1.4x TC or get the 180-600mm...whichever makes you happy! Or whichever you can afford, or get a used 200-400mm f/4G VRII for the same price and adapt it, I've done so myself and it works quite well. It is heavier, but it's a great lens for an incredible price right now. I skipped getting the 80-400mm S...because I have the 200-400mm VRII and 70-200mm FL, along with the 500mm f/4E VR FL. Mostly I use the 500mm f/4E and 28mm f/1.4E...according to Lightroom it's not even close with my other lenses. They are most used lenses, because they are the two best lenses I've ever used bar-none. I've used all of the Nikon and Canon professional grade gear from 1996-2023 and I've worked at news agencies that had both Canon/Nikon for pool equipment. So I've used pretty much every pro-grade lens and body from both and nothing much compares IQ wise to my 28mm f/1.4E or 500mm FL. The both have WTF charts instead of MTF charts, with flat lines across the top in both red and blue. Sure Nikon's mirrorless lenses are damn sharp too, I get it and for wide angle to normal, the larger mount diameter and flange distance do have advantages...I just can't see them, unless we talk about say 14-24mm? Where there is just no competition, mirrorless rules for wide angle and wide angle zooms. However in real world testing, I've not seen any improvement in image quality...for my needs. Mirrorless doesn't add anything for me IQ wise, so I'll continue to use my D6's and D850/D810.
I have the 100-400mm (and the 1.4x TC), and I think it's great! However that being said spending $1700 for the 180-600mm is not much cash layout in these days of photography. I would consider buying the 180-600mm as well if I knew I was going on a wildlife safari, or similar, where one is primarily shooting wildlife. In this regard, Nikon is spoiling us, as we have so many ways to achieve any particular focal length! Better to have too many choices, rather than too few! Bravo Nikon!😊
Just a detail, to avoid confusion. By 3:30 they say the price difference is just 30% it's not the case, it's 58.6% more expensive, so almost 60%. Another perspective: the difference is pretty close to the difference in price between the price of a Z7 II and a Z8. So for someone that is moving the mirrorless it's the 180-600mm and a Z8, or a 100-400mm and a Z7 II
Yes - and I prefer the first alternative. Too late now anyway, I just paid for the Z8 and I'm going to have more than enough problems hiding THAT from the "woman in the next room"!
Glad you brought this up. Some of these comparisons are nice, but they often minimize the importance of budget. Many of us, especially retired photographers with fixed incomes, are on tight budgets. And I needed a long Z lens, so I bought the 100-400 + 1.4TC and used it on a short wildlife trip. I did enjoy it, but then I realized I could keep that combo on my Z7ii, or sell the Z7ii and upgrade to the Z8 and get the 180-600 for nearly the same cost. I returned the 100-400 and TC, and bought the Z8 and 180-600. Now I have 30 days to play with the new large lens and decide if it's staying. My first impression is that it will.
just wanted to thank you for this video after I watched it I cancelled my 180-600 Nikon z lens and and bought 100-400mm z lens. I think I was also so surprised by the price that I thought I had to have it. I have the 800pf z lens and I love it and I have 400mm f2.8e fl ed vr lens that I use with my Z9. But after watching your video i knew the 100-400mm z lens would better fit my need. thank you I really enjoy your videos you do a great job
One factor not mentioned is respect for wildlife. A 600mm lens will let you give wildlife some respectful distance and not stress them by trying to get too close. I have spent most of my career with a 600mm f/4 lens with a 1.7x teleconverter glued to it. The downside to that is the owl will never open his eyes for you. Now that I am older I am ready to give up the 600mm f/4 F lens for the 180-600. It may be bigger and heavier than the 100-400, but it will be a relief compared to my 600mm. I will be able to hand hold a 600mm again.
f/4.5 and be there! I'm very happy with my 400 f/4.5 and both Z TCs. Sure would be nice to have that 2.8 w/ built-in TC but as an occasional wildlife photographer the 4.5 suits my needs, not to mention budget. I've noted before that the 4.5 w/ 2xTC gets you f/9 , compared to f/11 w/ 100-400.
I saw it in one of the comments, baldy - but I don't have a clue what the difference is, or what it means in practical terms. I've actually read a couple of reviews of the 180-600 suggesting its "perfect" for shooting insects as small as bees and ladybirds. My reaction to that was "bring on the angry horses!" I LOVE it! But that tells me not a thing about how close you can be to the subject. Some of the reviews do, but then they don't produce any photos showing what it means in practical terms, so that's not much help. The insects was best so far - but I haven't seen a comparison on that one between both lenses, so it still doesn't help as much as you'd like.
A year ago I upgraded my D850 to a Z9 and I typically spend most of my time using my 600mm F4E. However I have just sold my 200-500mm zoom which was excellent but the AF was a little slow so I have ordered the new 180-600 as my more portable lens. In the UK, I find that even the 600mm lens is never long enough especially for bird photography so in the future I am hoping to invest in the 800mm F6.3 PF Lens. The 600mm prime lens really is the best but a little heavy for everyday hand held use so I am looking forward to using the 180-600mm. The wait is killing me and I am very jealous that you have access to one already but I should have it in my hands in a few weeks, fingers crossed. Love the channel, please keep up the good work, it was also good to see Joe!.
I bought the Z 100-400 and the Z 800mm. I have both TCs as well. I had ordered the 180-600 but if I take a lens that large I will always be taking the Z 800mm instead. I just love the small size and faster speed of the Z 100-400.
Hello Matt and Joe, I know I have only had my 100-400mm 3 months now should I of just held off. No I happy it dose work well for me with the 1.4TC. Now will I get the 180-600mm not sure. Great videos. ps I am hearing what Joe says about the wight I know when I picked up the older 200-500mm lens, I put it down as it was to heavy for me.
Hi Matt, I have been watching your TH-cam channel for a while now. I thoroughly enjoy the content and have come to rely on it when making Nikon equipment purchasing decisions. As such, I have a suggestion for a new video for you to make. With the release of the new Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 lens many TH-camrs (yourself included) have done introductory videos, but NO ONE (and believe me I have looked and looked) has shown the lens on the Z6ii (or Z5, 6, 7, 7ii) with the lower megapixel sensor and less responsive Auto focus. I can only find videos showing the lens with the Z8 or Z9 (it’s actually spooky, it’s like these are the only Z cameras anymore). A whole huge segment of the market has been ignored. I am sure there are 10’s of thousands of Z6ii owners, many of whom have been waiting for the release of this lens and are looking for some information before spending their hard earned cash (myself included). I’d be interested in a video showing how fast the AF is with this lens compared to the 200-500 with an FTZ, both using the Z6ii (and between the Z6ii and the Z8 or Z9). I’d like to see how sharp the images from this lens are compared to the 200-500, both using the Z6ii. I’d like to see if it makes a difference on the Z6ii with or without the MB-N11 grip (faster to AF or something). I’d like to see what the low light performance is using this lens with the Z6ii. I’d like to see how responsive this combo is for BIF images (better, worse, or the same as with the 200-500, both using the Z6ii). I’d even like to know how the balance is using this lens and camera combo with and without the MB-N11. As a wildlife photographer who uses a Z6ii currently, I am really looking forward to someone providing this kind of information. Thank you again for all your wonderful videos and sharing your knowledge. Thank you also for considering this request. Happy Shooting… Rich
Thanks for the discussion. I have the 100-400 and 1.4 extender. I was wondering if I made the wrong decision to get the 100-400. Of course, I was one of the first in the US to get one. I think the 100-400 is too large. I can't imagine what the 180-600 is like!
Having lugged around a Sigma 150-600 sport for 5 years I can’t wait to get my Nikon 180-600! Third lighter than the sigma. Plus a few hundred quid cheaper than the 100-400 is not to be sneezed at.
If you’re used to the 600mm focal length, it’s probably a better choice. I’m looking forward to lightening my camera bag too. You can’t really go wrong with either of these lenses. It really depends on your use case. Hopefully it’ll be in your hands soon. 📷
I can’t justify selling my Sigma 60-600 as it fits on my d5 and at higher iso it beats the z9 - I have both but above certain. Iso DR and NR is superior on the d5
I use the excellent Z 100-400mm in addition to the z 14-30mm and Z 24-120mm plus four fixed focal lengths from 20mm to 105mm (macro). I had also considered the Z 180-600mm, but then bought the TC 1.4x instead. In addition to the image quality, the mobility and therefore compactness is also very important to me. Instead of the Z 180-600mm, the new Z 6.3/600mm came into focus for me, which is relatively light and compact and should also harmonize well with the TC 1.4x.
I bought the 100-400 whilst waiting for the 180-600 to arrive. I LOVE that lens (find my reasons among the previous posts, lol), but I acquired the 180-600 as soon as it was available for an NPS member. I LOVE that lens. Haha, but I *do* have uses for both. Lately I've been messing with a dot sight (the Oly...couldn't get the Nikon) on the big lens and it's a blast! But If I'm shooting surfing from the Huntington Beach pier, it's the smaller zoom, or for, like, an arboretum shoot. I'm really happy to have both of these lenses.
With the 100-400 and the teleconverter the fstop comes out the same? If you are in inclement weather do really want to take of your lens to add the teleconverter? Wouldn't being internally add an extra layer of weather sealing? Its ~$900 usd less for the 180-600 and if add in the price of the teleconverter you could almost get 2 180-600. The 100-400 is smaller but then again i`m use to carrying the 200200-500mm. Hard decision
I have the 100-400 mm lens and I love it on my Nikon Z8. I also have the 1.4 teleconverter, all of which makes a wonderful combination of gear. Next year during nesting season, I might rent the 180-600 mm lens for a week or so, just to give it a try. But I don't see myself ever buying it.
Yeah if you don’t normally need the extra range or don’t mind the 1.4 and loss of stops on the 100-400, I’m sure you’ll appreciate the lighter smaller lens. I was in that boat having the 200-500 and asking myself if I was ok with the shorter range trading off for lighter and smaller.
@@boostedmaniac I rented the 200-500 lens a few times a few years ago. I loved the photos I got with it. But it was too cumbersome for me. I could not get comfortable carrying or using it.
@@MyAmericanMorning yeah it’s quite big and heavy for sure. My biggest gripe is slow AF and so many turns to zoom from min to max. But it looks like the 180-600 addresses all that. I was going to rent a 100-400 to compare but it was hard to rent because of popularity at the time. I ended up borrowing a Sony 100-400 on a Sony a7r4 to compare. I enjoyed the fast AF, lightweight and smaller factor, but missed the range.
If weight is important and if 4000 USD is not too expansive, then the 400mm 4.5 with a 1.4 tc is the best choice for wildlife photography. There is no compromise on image quality, AF speed or build quality with this lens.
Birding tips: practice on seagulls in flight, they're everywhere and active. I have the 100-400 and its great, but the 180-600 is tempting because its so well priced for what you get.
Jumping onto Amazon after this video , I see Sigma do a much cheaper 100-400 for Nikon F . If I'm on a budget would that be of any use to go with my Z6 and FTZ ? Thanks.
Get a camouflage BURKA in your environment colors and you can photograph birds with any focal length. Is also a portable setup which can be used in the Jungle or city street environments. Have several lenses to photograph birds: Nikon MF 400mm f/3.5 ED IF + TC301 Nikon AF-S 200-400mm f/4.0 (First edition) Nikon AF-S 600mm f/4 (Main bird lens) Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S [have the Z 180-600 on order]
I have never seen a wildlife blind in the USA even remotely as fancy as this one. You are spoiled! I own the 100-400S lens, and it is my go-to versatile telephoto lens. If I were a bird photographer on a budget, the 180-600 would be a no-brainer, especially for the price. Even with the slower aperture, the pros still outweigh the cons, especially since this lens has internal focusing. For me, I would prefer the 400 4.5, using the 1.4x TC, if needed, to compliment my 100-400. The $$$$$ 400 2.8 with the 1.4x TC is way out of my price range.
I love the light tone for this episode. Without much of the usual technical indepths. Get the 100-400 over the 180-600. Life is hard, but sometimes life's simple. I broke my 100-400 last month, I dropped it on concrete. Long story. The 180-600 was introduced while my 100-400 was in repair. I felt miserable already for having dropped glass, and meanwhile Nikon introduced this just as good, cheaper lens with a much larger zoom end? My lens came back from repair today. I'm happy as a clam and sharing your friend's advice gratefully: get the 100-400. So check, I have it. I have it back. There's just one thing that I hate about the 100-400. The tube. The 100-400 is a smackingly good-looking lens. It looks muscular, beefy. It looks a lot better than the 180-600. Until that silly tube comes out. They've managed to keep it quite short. But still. It doesn't look fantastic and it's vulnerable to shock. Let me tell you that. But it's back. With a new tube and a new bayonet. One thing the 100-400 does excellent, is act as a macro lens if you use a couple of extension rings. I tried that today, first thing. It probably even works better with a NISI or Raynox attached. Today I found out that you can use both at the same time; extension tubes together with an enlargement lens. Life is simple. Anyway :). Love your channel. Watch it a lot. Take care.
Watching this video made me think, is it now possible with the help of Ai to put a feature in these cameras where you set the auto focus to prioritise the face which is talking? Not always suitable but for sitations like this it would be perfect.
I've tried to talk myself into a 180-600 being a 100-400S owner. But just can't convince myself it's necessary. So far, with a 1.4x on it the 100-400 has more then met all my needs getting birds at a distance as well. Worst case I found in DX mode on my Z9 it's wonderful. Especially if you run it through Topaz Gigapixel at 1.5x and it will blow you away. The detail is enhanced and there are NO artifacts. A nice (cheap) way to get that effect and reach without a huge $$$ penalty.
And a year later, I sold the 180-600 for the 100-400. 🤷♂😅 Not because I was unhappy with it, but I got the 800 PF, and the 180-600 is too heavy and big to carry along with it.
I’d love to own both, but if I have to pick one, I’d go with the 180-600. I have the Tamron 100-400 on the F mount, and it’s already big enough that I typically don’t just have it on me unless I know I’m going for wildlife, and I’d like the extra reach of the 600. If Tamron ever releases their 100-400 on Z mount for $899, maybe I would pick it up too and sell my f mount copy.
I am absolutely torn! Specifically because I have been offered a 100-400 from a friend (she is moving to Sony) and it’s at the price of a new 180-600.. I need to decide by end of this weekend .. and I am absolutely CONFUSED. By the way I have a Z8 and have been using a z6ii with a 200-500afs. I replaced the z6ii and now I am trying to upgrade that 200-500. Anyone have an opinion?!
Hi Richard, have a look at this video th-cam.com/video/Y_X_LzD0uL8/w-d-xo.html , and hopefully that helps, let me know if you need more info. Cheers Matt :)
Even with the 45mp Z 8/9 sensor, birds are very, very small. I'm currently putting a 1.4x on my 500PF (700mm) and still cropping down to barely get 2048px on the long side. I would not consider even going to shoot birds with a 400mm. Sure you can put a TC on the 100-400, but the 1.4 is going to get to you 560mm f/8 (since you are mostly going to be zooming to 400mm) or 800mm f/11 if you use a 2x. With the 180-600 I can get 600/6.3, 840/9 or 1200/13. I probably wouldn't use the 2X, that's just too much light loss. 600mm is 50% more reach than 400 with no modifications. That bird taking up 1500 px on your 8200px sensor is now going to be 2700px. If I consider my minimum crop of 2048 for online use, with a 600mm lens, I'm getting over 3000px which gets into a printable image range. Yes it's a half a kilo heavier, but it's still lighter than the 200-500 or any of the big primes like the 400/2.8 or 600/4. Yes it takes up more space in the bag. But honestly 400mm is just too short if you are half-way serious about doing this. Your video tends to dismiss this lens too quickly. That 50% more reach is worth the extra size and weight. Yes, you an go in to DX mode and get 50%, but you're still going to be cropping down to something in the 2048px range regardless of if you're full frame or not.
@@MattIrwinPhotography Until I can afford a 600/4, this lens will also help me with my Cricket photography. The field needs around 800mm to catch the bowlers running up to bowl or shoot the batter and catcher head on, but when the ball is hit to a fielder near me, I'd love to be able to zoom back to 200-300mm. The throw on the 200-500 was just too far to quickly change up for sports. Now there is one BIG advantage of the 100-400 that many people miss, and that's it's close focus distance. It has a 0.38x magnification factor with its 0.98 meter focus distance at 400mm. Put a 2X on it and you're doubling that to 0.76x and f/11 which you're likely going to need that close. That's near macro level. I'm tempted to get it just for that use case.
If you already have the holy trinity to take you to 200mm at f/2.8 and don't regularly need longer or in very low light, I think the 180-600mm has got to be a winner.
I have the Tamron G2 150-600mm. Love it but ordered the 180-600 for my Z9. Do to size, focusing, shot throw, no need for the adaptor. For birding I need 600.
Hi Michael, have you received your 180-600? I have a Tamron G2 150-600 too and I'm wondering how the 2 compare. I definitely would love the short throw. Mainly wondering about focus speed on fast moving birds/animals coming towards you. Thanks!
I just picked up the 100-400 for the reasons that you stated. I still have my pf500 on a converter, so I’m good up to that focal length. Maybe I’ll sell off some of my old F lenses to get a down payment for the pf 800😂
Love my current 200-500mm f mount, some of my best bird shots from it. 100-400 is just too expensive for a retiree though perhaps the 180-600 might be a replacement some time in the future. Enjoyed this video
Matt, just my 2p but for anyone who already has an FTZ(ii) then the VRII version of the 80-400 is still a seriously good piece of glass, and 2nd hand they are ridiculously cheap at the moment.
I've had the 100-400 for over a year. Using it with the 2xTC most of the time. Yes, there is a significant drop in sharpness but I have tested with and without TC and with the TC is definitely better overall. My thinking all along was that adding the 2x would have to be half the sharpness to break even. Using Focal software shows about a 20% drop in sharpness so it's a win to use the 2xTC. And, my favorite shot with that combo out of my Z9 is of a Wedegtail Eagle in flight. I never thought muggins me could ever get a shot like that. The detail in the eye of a bird in flight says there's plenty of sharpness left. :) And wait, there's more! That same kit has given me great in-flight shots of Dragonflies too. With the 2xTC it has a reproduction ratio of 0.8. Wedgies in flight right down to serious macro detail of tiny critters. All can be done cos of the number of stops the IBS and lens is amazing. 800mm handheld stills shots under 1/100th. I just can't see any value in either of the 2 built in TC lenses. For a professional, can there ever be a payback? They are each about AU$20,000 more than a 1.4xTC and either the 100-400 or 180-600!
I agree with you on the sharpness part of the conversation, I have the 100-400 and both converters but the other half of the conversation is light gathering and background quality. The 100-400 is useless most of the good shooting times once you add those converters, the required ISO is just too noisy, even with software. Also the backgrounds are horrible with converters, too much in focus and the bokeh that is there is a mess. It’s not just about sharpness.
@@robguyatt9602 I’d said in good shooting times…the F stop is way to high to be able to shoot in even true golden hour or blue hour when the light is choice. No they have they purpose and times, I use them a lot and have some awesome picture. But the light loss to get that reach sucks. Even the 6.3 of the 180-600 is still not great but it’s better. But if it works for you the cool.
Hi Matt thx for another great video. Now a year ago you made a video with the 200-400 f4 VR ii on the V1 and you said you would make a video with it on the Z9 when you get it, but I can't see if you've made that video. Question now that you've had the 180-600 for a while how would you rate those 2 lenses compared to each other. In the future I'll get the Z8 but for now the Z6ii. My focus will be birds and African wildlife on safari with some video use but for photo use the aim is to shoot for fine art print sales. So image quality is most important. thx for your or anyone else's advice. Doug
Originally planned to get the 100-400 as I loved playing with it and the image quality is a huge step up from the terrible 200-500. But I think the 180-600 is a better bet for me and more versatile. Matt - One comment for you on the video overall......the green glow text makes it much harder to read in the last few videos LOL. Just my 2 cents.
Interesting video comparing both lenses. I do more wildlife videogrpahy than photography as i make my own wildlife clips for teacjing about animal behaviour. I used to rely on my Z6ii and 200-500 for filming, had lots of fun but also aches due to the sheer weight of the F lens. When Z 100-400mm came along, it changed everything for me. Due ro its small size and weight, i can now film wildlife without the use of a tripod (especially when i am at the water edge), though i still rely on my tripod for steady clips. I used to rely on the TC1.4 too for closeup shots....now that i have paired the Z100-400 with the Z8, i realised i don't need tbe TC anymore (as one can afford to crop when filming in 4K). I cannot comment too much on photography, but if anyone is thinking of the 100-400 for wildlife videos, it is rhe perfect choice.
I bought the 100-400 as I was tired of waiting for the reported 200-600. Now I have the 180-600 on order supposedly with a mid August delivery date. I ordered these lenses because I’m too old to be shleping around my 400 f/2.8 and wanted (need) something lighter. The 200-500 isn’t that much of a lightweight joy to carry around, either, especially since it lacks belt hooks. For out in nature I normally have three Nikon bodies with battery grips, the 400 f/2.8, a 300 f/4 (light weight, bright enough, very sharp), and a 70-200 f/2.8 (about 5% of my shooting, at best). Sometimes the 200-500. Along with this was either a Linhof tripod with a massive Linhof ball head which ended up becoming Manfrotto carbon legs with a heavy duty Jobu gimbal head. TC-1.4, 1.7, 2. The 400 alone was 10.2 lbs, hence the heavy duty gimbal. So now my setup will be a 24-120 f/4 (maybe; need to travel lighter), the 100-400, and the 180-600 for the extra reach. Tripod, a 105 micro bagged on my belt, and a TC-1.4x in my pocket. I almost bought the 800 f/6.3, but the woman in the next room would have murdered me. Life is like that. I’ll probably give her the 200-500 if she ever again goes out into the woods with me. I’m now Z, she is still F.
Ha ha - the "woman in the next room" is thankfully in Norway, at the moment, photographing the northern lights. Blissfully unaware of the fact I just bought the Z8 and I now circling, looking for a suitable lens for "beyond 200mm"! So far I've found all of these comments delightfully informative, thanks guys, to all of you. But no "killer punch" yet, determining the final cut.
I don’t have the 180-600 but I can tell you that the 100-400 is too soft for proper wildlife work. I’ve been shooting Nikon for on about 3 decades and I’ve never sold a Nikon lens - but - I think I’ll be selling my 100-400. Don’t get me wrong it’s not bad - but unless you shoot at f8 expect soft images from it. I’m looking forward to checking out the 180-600 - I’ll no doubt buy it given the value proposition it delivers. (based on reviews so far)
Odd you say that as I find the 100-400 to be really good, far better than other super telezooms we've had in the past. Is it as good as the 400/2.8, absolutely not, but I've done some gigs using it and find the optical quality excellent.
You may want to get your copy checked out. Ive tried the 100-400 and I was able to to get tac sharp photos at 15th of a second. (maybe lower, I didn't try). I was very impressed.
I swapped my 100-400mm with 1.4tc to 180-600mm...find the 180-600mm focus much better and images as sharp....can even throw on the tc in good.light.....obviously the 100-400mm without tc is better..if the birds are close enough but that rarely happens for me
Matt, I used the 100-440 with a 1.4TC and found it better than my old go to lens of the Sigma 150-600 sports that I have been using for year to shoot action. I am considering the 180-600 purely on the non-bike pump with 70degrees of throw from 180-600 and effectively a sealed lens.. yes its only detraction for me is its not S-Glass.. and with the 70-200/100-400 in my inventory I can see the benefit of the S-Class lens and the roughly 60% of the weight of the Sigma.. Nikon is making is very hard.. the outstanding 85mm and now the 180-600.. hard choices to make. Again keep up the great content, love the real world views.
I have the 500 pf when I want to go light. I ordered the 180-600 for the extra reach for small birds. Will rent the 100-400 on the rare occasion when I need that lower end of the range but I tend to shoot at the long end for birds anyway.
Thanks for this "irritating" video. But I guess I will stay on the 180-600 order. The question would be how it compares the 100-400 with TC14 to the 180-600 ????????😉😉 (Quality, focus speed (no one is really measunring this!!!), handling. - Internal focus is a strong argument for me. For the 70-200 with TC 2 gives me 140-400 and then I will have the 180-600. 🙂
I was frustrated with this video. The bird hive is amazing! After the first 1/2 of the video, I felt things took a nosedive and didn't really prove the difference between the lenses. Instead, it felt more like bragging rights.
Much of this is too premature to conclude anything. Yes, the basic specs are the basic specs. Weight, size, internal vs external zoom, etc. But I think what this is really going to come down to is IQ with and without TC's. The Z 100-400 is good with the 1.4x TC, and usable with the 2.0x TC. It is not a given that the Z 180-600 will perform well with any TC's. In fact, it is unlikely. IMO, the 100mm vs 180mm on the wide end is more valuable than internal vs external zoom. 100mm is a useful focal length for landscape and portraiture. 180mm, not so much. Smaller in a bag is also a big advantage in many scenarios. Lighter is also a big advantage in many scenarios. Better reproduction ratio/shorter minimum focus distance is also a big advantage.
Comparing pears to apples! Much better then the 28-400. It’s lighter, smaller, and half the price. If you already own the 100-400, keep it. But id you are a wildlife photographer you can’t ignore that 600mm is much better than 400. That is the one of the two most important factors for this type of photography
Nikon needs to work on the interview focus AI in the cameras. We need the cameras to know who is talking and who to focus on. They do eye tracking and should be able to see mouth movement if trained.
Sorry, you get a thumb down for this one as I thought I was watching an episode of Laurel and Hardy. Not a single bird photo was taken nor an explanation of the 4 hour limitation for the hide. Would have also been nice to have had a view from the second tier but I suppose there was a limitation on that as well as the number of views allowed out the window. Matt, your night photography videos and photos are wonderful. The thumbnail of the Duck was great. Was it a stock photo?
The duck was shot with 180-600 from the hide at 600. Not stock. I tried something different with this video. A discussion. The pixel and full spec peeping is for the next video which as I mentioned in my previous comment will come.
All good pluses for the 100-400 but it extends 🙁, and it’s several thousands more when purchased with an attachable Z mount TC…which you’ll end up doing….cause you’ll be disappointed with the 400’s lack of reach. The 180-600 isn’t that much bigger and some comparisons suggest it’s very sharp through out.
Really great video. I just bought a used z30 ($450) and with the 2x TC it makes my 70-200 2.8 S lens a 600mm 5.6! I was skeptical at the quality, but after testing it, theses S lenses are so good that it’s sharp. I probably will still get that 180-600 lens though. But I’m digging my poor* man’s 600mm with the Z30, 2x TC, and 70-200. Light in the backpack also.
@@Skye_the_tollerhes shooting on a crop body, so 400 x 2 x 1.5 = 600. Not really the math I use because the focal length per pixel doesn’t change but most people use that formula.
Have the 100-400 and love it (the 3ft min working distance is epic and keeps its spot in my bag) I also have the 800pf and its range is insane. But i do find I miss the 500-600 range as i came from a D500+200-500, and even though I have the 1.4 and 2.0 TC, I'm not a fan of them in practical use. So the 180-600 is on preorder for me. Im hoping I can fit the 800, 180-600, 100-400, and 105mc all in 1 bag ... but unfortunatly i think the marry poppins store may be outta bags atm
The 400 2.8 and 600 4 are 10x more expensive. Literally $2800 vs $28000. For two extra stops. Having the 400 4.5, I’m going to pickup the 800 6.3 for my super Tele birding shots.
Hi Guys, I have a Z100-400mm and as soon as the Z180-600 was announced I ordered one. As a wildlife photographer I think both lenses have their place. However, during a trip to Tanzania earlier in the year I was a little disappointed with the performance of the Z100-400mm (with and without the 1.4 TC). It appeared a little soft at the long end, so much so, I sent it back to Nikon. They say, it's within tolerances for this lens. Given the great reviews this lens has had, I have lost a little confidence in it. So bring on the Z180-600mm, I can't wait!
Including "s Vs non s" as a pro for the 100-400 but not the price difference for the cons doesn't make much sense... S Vs non S is superficial. Performance means more than prestige "S" on the lense or not. For some the 30% are IS a heavy CON.
I just collected my copy of the 100-400 from my local Nikon dealership Grays of Westminster in London. I had been waiting for the 200-500 Z version (and sold my 200-500/5.6) but once they announced the 180-600 I went through a similar thought process that you both covered. And that is I’m FAR more likely to carry the 100-400 more frequently because of size and weight alone. Basically It’s more versatile for my use case so I will get more use out of it. I had always thought twice before bringing my 200-500 because of size and weight so it ended up staying at home more often than not. If I get a really long lens in the future it will be the 800/6.3
Have heard tell that the 1.4x TC gives results that aren't as sharp as the 2x TC. Pardon? You'd have a hell of a time proving that, with the quality of glass these days - but in any event isn't that "expectable" when you push out another 40%-plus in focal length? What I find amusing these days is precisely that - it is TERRIBLY hard to pick between ANY of these lenses, any longer. Yes on "light" - a smaller "yes" on the built-in TC, I see your point but it's not critical to results. Money? - obvious difference. But most of the results from all of these lenses are so good nowadays, that they could have been taken with ANY of them. I confess - I am torn - for the moment, I have my Z8 to play with, only one Z-mount lens on it so far (but the FTZ II adapter and some VERY nice F-mount lenses to play with). I'm thinking of ditching my F-mount SIGMA 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport lens, which makes me lean towards the Nikkor 180-600. One test I have yet to track down is comparing the sweet spot on the 100-400 with the sweet spot on the 180-600; depending what F-stop is best at - say - 300 and 400, there might or might not be a significant difference between them - that might be the killer - leaving mostly only "cost" to consider. Hmm. More thinking time require, maybe.
No, 180-600 for me, about $1500 less U.S. including the 1.4 teleconverter. Also I plan to get the Z8 or Z7III (if that comes out before I buy the Z8) and will keep my Z7 for a second lens to cover the rest of the range.
![Nikon 180-600 Z vs Sigma 150-600 C [And Sharpness Testing]](/img/n.gif)
I went with the third option, the Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S. It's even lighter than the 100-400mm, noticeably sharper, and faster-which is very helpful for wildlife and sports. It also gives you a creamier and more pleasiing bokeh. I love it.
definitely my go-to option. but I guess the price has me pausing.
Excellent suggestion - thanks for that one - although it does mean MORE thinking time, it's probably worth it - possibly the best idea. I have 200mm covered, 400mm isn't so much further that I'd seriously need to cover 300 as well. 2xTC takes it out to 600. Where am I at with that, as far as f stops go? - reduced to F/6.3 at 600mm (with the 2xTC)? That's the same as the 180-600 at 600mm! But I'm only one Fstop in front at 400, with the Z 400, aren't I? Where you gain is weight - and for birding or other wildlife (probably sports at well), better weather proofing than the 100-400 zoom can provide. Also I'm not keen on zooms that breath externally - much prefer one like the 18-600 that only breaths internally.
My choice also. Love the lens.
great lens but it's not a zoom! With a zoom we can choose the composition we want, with a fixed foacl length lens we are often compromised!
Would love to see a thorough detailed comparison of the z 100-400 vs z 180-600 for wildlife/bird photography.
Another PRO for the 100 - 400 is the minimum focal distance. That makes it such a versatile lense.
Yeah, a great all round lens. I do also really like the 24-120.
Yes. It's sad that they made the mistake with the prices, the difference is almost 1000 US$ a 59% the difference between buying a Z7 II and a Z8
I think some important differences not mentioned are both related to the internal zoom of the 180-600. I can't imagine the 100-400 is sealed as good in the front as a lens that doesn't contract. Also, the short internal zoom throw of the 180-600 may mean getting shots of fast moving objects when you're still turning the ring on the 100-400. The second one is an ENORMOUS improvement in usability over the external zoom 200-500 or any of the 150-600 offerings.
The 100-400mm is extremely well sealed, more-so than the older 80-400mm G VR, which I used a professional photojournalist for many years and I never had an issue with weather sealing. So while you add a point for the internal zoom on the 180-600mm vs. extending barrel zoom, you should take a point away for the internal lens is made in Thailand and is not a professional grade or S-line lens and it's not made in Japan. I personally would add two points there, because I've always trusted Nikon pro-grade lenses made in Japan. In my 25 years of being with Nikon, I've owned every flagship camera and pro-grade lens and I've had access to both Nikon and Canon pool gear at a couple of my workplace's/newspaper's. I've personally shot Nikon for about 20 out those 25 years, the other years I shot Canon for work reasons. Anyways, I've never once needed a single repair or replacement and I've never had to visit a Nikon service center. Now I'll admit the D850 and Z8, Z9 are all made in Thailand and seem like great cameras. However I've had my D6 now since early 2020 and it still looks and feels new, I've put over 150k on the shutter and it's good as new. Whereas almost all of my colleagues who shoot Z9's and now Z8's have all had to send their bodies in for different reasons. In fact one colleague of mine has had his Z9 in for service or issues now 3x since he got it.
I bet most Z8 owner won't come to my aid, but I bet they were none to happy to have to send their beloved brand new camera's back in for service almost immediately after receiving them new in box. I sold a D5 of mine with 887,984 shutter count on it, and it's still going according to the buyer. We'll see how well the Z9 and Z8 do with that many frames on them, sure less moving parts...but I'd bet everything Nikon will see more Z9's and Z8's in for service over or versus Nikon D6's and D850's! I'm certainly not a racist and I love the D850, D810 and other Nikon gear or Apple products which are made in China. Nikon and Apple both have shown they can and do make incredible professional grade products in both China and Thailand. However I will always prefer my gear be made in Japan. The fact that the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S is made in Japan would be a consideration for me, personally. Thankfully I have the 500mm f/4E VR FL and 70-200mm FL with TC-14E III and I can pretty much cover anything with just three lenses and two or three bodies. I may eventually migrate over to mirrorless but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I love my D6's and I sold my Z7 and 24-120mm f/4S, despite liking the combo...because I hated the fact that my fingers would hang off the bottom of the front grip and the MB-N10 was a joke, it felt awkward without the vertical controls. Yes, I know I know the Z7 II fixed that issue and they now have two cards and proper vertical grip. However I just could not bring myself to buy a Z7 II with current prices and because in my opinion a gripped D850 is better for my needs. I lost a little money figuring that out, but in the long run I made the right move. Hopefully Nikon continues to make great products, everywhere. I'm a fan and I am rooting for Nikon, for sure. I can see why so many people were waiting for this lens, but I have to agree with Matt and Joe, here...I'd rather have the 80-400mm!
@@patricksmith2553most canon bodies and lens are still made in japan😂
The look on Joe’s face, after he first pointed the lens out the window, tells the story. That was a pretty big smile. I have a 300mm, the 400mm S and a 600 f4 E. I’m not going to cancel my pre order for the 180-600. It’s a tool that will fit perfectly in my kit. Thanks guys for quenching my thirst for 180-600 content.
I have the 100-400mm. I got it a little over a year ago before I went on some wildlife excursions. I also have the 2x teleconverter. When the 180-600mm came out I thought about the pros of the 100-400mm to make myself feel better.
* I can fit the 100-400mm lens in my backpack with the lens hood on (not reversed). I couldn't do that with the 180-600mm. This is important because I hike with it.
* The 100-400 has an extra control ring that I use for ISO, not available on the 180-600mm. It also has function buttons. I like to easily control ISO.
* I can get down to 100mm on the wide end, which can be important when things get closer up or when wanting to show the subject in a larger context
* faster aperture on the low end of course
* I guess there is a coating or two that the 100-400mm has that the 180-600mm doesn't
I can see though how one might prefer the 180-60mm lens, so it is nice to have choices.
I‘m considering a 2x TC to add to my 100-400. Are you happy with the results?
@@berndtsturznickel8548 I haven't seen much decline in sharpness in good bright daylight, but the loss of 2-stops does make it challenging in conditions with poorer light. Bumping up the ISO to compensate erodes sharpness in the image.
I have the 100-400mm AND the TC 1.4x (na, na Matt) ... love the size, weight and images .... no plans to buy the 180-600mm.
I love the Nikkor 100-400mm with my 1.4 TC on Z8. No need for the much heavier 180-600mm in my case and the 100-400mm is so versatile.
Have the 100-400 and the 1.4 Converter. As i also use it for landscanpe and hiking, this is/was the better choise for my use. And as i often go to the zoo, the 400 is mostly enough for my animal shots.
Ordered 180-600 the first day I could. Now only have 24-70/4 and 24-200.
Turning 60 in September so 180-600 can be my birthday present. I was thinking of starting with bird photography, let's see if I manage to take some good pictures.❤😊
I have the 100-400. Works great for shooting my grandson’s youth baseball games. But I also would like longer reach for birding. That said, I did not realize there was 1.4x Z tele out. I pre-ordered the 180-600 but now I am re-thinking that. May cancel that, get the 1.4 tele, and try that for a while along with crop mode when needed. Or I may just keep the 180-600 on order. Decisions decisions. Just a hobbyist.
When the 180-600 was announced, I pre-ordered within the first hour. Sold my 200-500 and FTZ (it was my last remaining F lens, bittersweet) so that covered about 1/2 the cost of the 180-600. With its internal zoom, +100 reach, and last but not least - a proper lens hood with a lock button (!) I feel this is a significant upgrade for the price, and worth the wait. This is what we get when companies take their time and do things right 👍🏻
Very informative and above all funny video. I like it when you both make videos together. I myself have the 100-400 and am super satisfied with it.
Great to hear!
I have the 100-400 currently and most birders will tell you that's not quite enough reach( will elaborate in a bit ). Now if you're in a hide like you are and things are set up to attract birds close to a hide a 100-400 might be all you need. If you are laying on a beach and patient enough, the shore birds will come close enough to you where the 100-400 is enough as well. But there is a reason the almighty 600mm f4 is the gold standard for nature photographers and since the 180-600 get's to 600 it carries the same benefit at a much reduced cost. The longer focal length allows you to fill the frame with animals and birds that may be very wary of people and you just can't get close to them to get a picture, or in some instances the subject may be potentially dangerous so you as a photographer don't want to get too close such as shooting Bison, Bears, Crocs etc. The longer focal length is also a great benefit when trying to capture Birds in flight, with the added reach you can pick up on your subject sooner and have a better chance of ensuring a properly focused subject. Now the Zoom has the added benefit of accommodating you when your subject gets closer which is an advantage over a fixed telephoto, sometimes you just can't back up, and although 180mm isn't 100mm it will accommodate you just fine the majority of the time. I took 10's of thousands of pics with the F mount 200-500 with my D850 in the day and was very happy with that range the 180-600 is even better. As you say Matt, it all depends on your use case. I also don't see myself choosing one lens over the other, they both have there benefits, if you can swing it, get both. One final note , you can lose shots if you have to take off your lens to add a TC, just sayin.
When thinking about gear - a useful question is "What am I wanting to photograph that I can't with my current gear?'
Ricci talks did an excellent comparison of these two lenses. For wildlife I think the 100-400 is definitely inferior. The 180-600 @6.3 is sharper than the 100-400 @f8 w the 1.4 tc (560mm). He also compared them without a tc at 600 vs 400 and the image quality is similar between the two lenses, with the exception of 200 extra millimeters on the 600. If size and weight aren’t a limiting factor ricci came to the conclusion that the 180-600 is superior. Both lenses have their place but for me the 180-600 is a no brainer!
Thanks - same here. I can do 100 with my 24-120 and then I have the 70-200 with the 2x TC. can’t wait for my 180-600!
Yes, you failed to mention that the 100-400mm focuses closer than the 180-600mm. As primarily a landscape photographer, I find the 100-400mm great for making abstract images of near-macro scenes. The 100-400mm has basically replaced the 70-200mm in my kit. And for those occasional times when I include wildlife in my images the 100-400mm, and the small 1.4x TC, takes me out to 560mm. Which is a lot of flexibility in a small kit.
I recently flew with my 100-400mm and with its compact size, I could easy store the lens attached to a Z6ii, under the seat in front of me...I don't think that could be done with the 180-600mm. I think the 100-400mm is a fantastic all around lens (except for fast action).
The key thing is, one has to decide what they will be shooting, and decide if the 100-400mm is better, or the 180-600mm is better. If one isn't shooting wildlife all the time, I think the 100-400mm is a more useful lens, IMO.
Totally agree, I am on the same boat and I did choose the 100-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter!!
I thought they did mention the 100-400 focuses closer but indeed that is a plus for the lens. This said, I would never want to throw a TC on the 100-400 as that brings it to f/8 which is too slow for me
Nikon makes it pretty easy for us to decide on this, We have to get them both! Well done guys !
No just get the 80-400mm and 1.4x TC or get the 180-600mm...whichever makes you happy! Or whichever you can afford, or get a used 200-400mm f/4G VRII for the same price and adapt it, I've done so myself and it works quite well. It is heavier, but it's a great lens for an incredible price right now. I skipped getting the 80-400mm S...because I have the 200-400mm VRII and 70-200mm FL, along with the 500mm f/4E VR FL. Mostly I use the 500mm f/4E and 28mm f/1.4E...according to Lightroom it's not even close with my other lenses. They are most used lenses, because they are the two best lenses I've ever used bar-none. I've used all of the Nikon and Canon professional grade gear from 1996-2023 and I've worked at news agencies that had both Canon/Nikon for pool equipment. So I've used pretty much every pro-grade lens and body from both and nothing much compares IQ wise to my 28mm f/1.4E or 500mm FL. The both have WTF charts instead of MTF charts, with flat lines across the top in both red and blue. Sure Nikon's mirrorless lenses are damn sharp too, I get it and for wide angle to normal, the larger mount diameter and flange distance do have advantages...I just can't see them, unless we talk about say 14-24mm? Where there is just no competition, mirrorless rules for wide angle and wide angle zooms. However in real world testing, I've not seen any improvement in image quality...for my needs. Mirrorless doesn't add anything for me IQ wise, so I'll continue to use my D6's and D850/D810.
I have the 100-400mm (and the 1.4x TC), and I think it's great! However that being said spending $1700 for the 180-600mm is not much cash layout in these days of photography. I would consider buying the 180-600mm as well if I knew I was going on a wildlife safari, or similar, where one is primarily shooting wildlife.
In this regard, Nikon is spoiling us, as we have so many ways to achieve any particular focal length! Better to have too many choices, rather than too few! Bravo Nikon!😊
Just a detail, to avoid confusion. By 3:30 they say the price difference is just 30% it's not the case, it's 58.6% more expensive, so almost 60%. Another perspective: the difference is pretty close to the difference in price between the price of a Z7 II and a Z8. So for someone that is moving the mirrorless it's the 180-600mm and a Z8, or a 100-400mm and a Z7 II
Yes - and I prefer the first alternative. Too late now anyway, I just paid for the Z8 and I'm going to have more than enough problems hiding THAT from the "woman in the next room"!
Glad you brought this up. Some of these comparisons are nice, but they often minimize the importance of budget. Many of us, especially retired photographers with fixed incomes, are on tight budgets. And I needed a long Z lens, so I bought the 100-400 + 1.4TC and used it on a short wildlife trip. I did enjoy it, but then I realized I could keep that combo on my Z7ii, or sell the Z7ii and upgrade to the Z8 and get the 180-600 for nearly the same cost. I returned the 100-400 and TC, and bought the Z8 and 180-600. Now I have 30 days to play with the new large lens and decide if it's staying. My first impression is that it will.
Great video content, was the exact question I was obsessing over yesterday. Thanks for the timely upload!
just wanted to thank you for this video after I watched it I cancelled my 180-600 Nikon z lens and and bought 100-400mm z lens. I think I was also so surprised by the price that I thought I had to have it. I have the 800pf z lens and I love it and I have 400mm f2.8e fl ed vr lens that I use with my Z9. But after watching your video i knew the 100-400mm z lens would better fit my need. thank you I really enjoy your videos you do a great job
One factor not mentioned is respect for wildlife. A 600mm lens will let you give wildlife some respectful distance and not stress them by trying to get too close. I have spent most of my career with a 600mm f/4 lens with a 1.7x teleconverter glued to it. The downside to that is the owl will never open his eyes for you. Now that I am older I am ready to give up the 600mm f/4 F lens for the 180-600. It may be bigger and heavier than the 100-400, but it will be a relief compared to my 600mm. I will be able to hand hold a 600mm again.
Great to see Joe. I know Joe had a serious health issue. Continue to send my best wishes in this regard. 🙌
Much appreciated :)
Thanks so much. I really appreciate it. 😊
f/4.5 and be there! I'm very happy with my 400 f/4.5 and both Z TCs. Sure would be nice to have that 2.8 w/ built-in TC but as an occasional wildlife photographer the 4.5 suits my needs, not to mention budget. I've noted before that the 4.5 w/ 2xTC gets you f/9 , compared to f/11 w/ 100-400.
Maybe it has been mentioned below but one huge advantage of the 100-400mm, for me, not mentioned is the close focus capability
I saw it in one of the comments, baldy - but I don't have a clue what the difference is, or what it means in practical terms. I've actually read a couple of reviews of the 180-600 suggesting its "perfect" for shooting insects as small as bees and ladybirds. My reaction to that was "bring on the angry horses!" I LOVE it! But that tells me not a thing about how close you can be to the subject. Some of the reviews do, but then they don't produce any photos showing what it means in practical terms, so that's not much help. The insects was best so far - but I haven't seen a comparison on that one between both lenses, so it still doesn't help as much as you'd like.
As I already have the 100-400… and also the tc1.4… wait to see how better the 600 is better than the 400 + tc…
A year ago I upgraded my D850 to a Z9 and I typically spend most of my time using my 600mm F4E. However I have just sold my 200-500mm zoom which was excellent but the AF was a little slow so I have ordered the new 180-600 as my more portable lens. In the UK, I find that even the 600mm lens is never long enough especially for bird photography so in the future I am hoping to invest in the 800mm F6.3 PF Lens. The 600mm prime lens really is the best but a little heavy for everyday hand held use so I am looking forward to using the 180-600mm. The wait is killing me and I am very jealous that you have access to one already but I should have it in my hands in a few weeks, fingers crossed. Love the channel, please keep up the good work, it was also good to see Joe!.
I bought the Z 100-400 and the Z 800mm. I have both TCs as well. I had ordered the 180-600 but if I take a lens that large I will always be taking the Z 800mm instead. I just love the small size and faster speed of the Z 100-400.
Hi guys, I didn't know the chuckle brothers did photography, really enjoyed it and was refreshing to see a lighter side to photography, cheers
Our pleasure!
Agreed 100-400 + TC is more versatile , love my 100-400 perfect for soccer.
Hello Matt and Joe, I know I have only had my 100-400mm 3 months now should I of just held off. No I happy it dose work well for me with the 1.4TC. Now will I get the 180-600mm not sure. Great videos. ps I am hearing what Joe says about the wight I know when I picked up the older 200-500mm lens, I put it down as it was to heavy for me.
Hi Matt,
I have been watching your TH-cam channel for a while now. I thoroughly enjoy the content and have come to rely on it when making Nikon equipment purchasing decisions. As such, I have a suggestion for a new video for you to make. With the release of the new Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 lens many TH-camrs (yourself included) have done introductory videos, but NO ONE (and believe me I have looked and looked) has shown the lens on the Z6ii (or Z5, 6, 7, 7ii) with the lower megapixel sensor and less responsive Auto focus. I can only find videos showing the lens with the Z8 or Z9 (it’s actually spooky, it’s like these are the only Z cameras anymore). A whole huge segment of the market has been ignored. I am sure there are 10’s of thousands of Z6ii owners, many of whom have been waiting for the release of this lens and are looking for some information before spending their hard earned cash (myself included).
I’d be interested in a video showing how fast the AF is with this lens compared to the 200-500 with an FTZ, both using the Z6ii (and between the Z6ii and the Z8 or Z9). I’d like to see how sharp the images from this lens are compared to the 200-500, both using the Z6ii. I’d like to see if it makes a difference on the Z6ii with or without the MB-N11 grip (faster to AF or something). I’d like to see what the low light performance is using this lens with the Z6ii. I’d like to see how responsive this combo is for BIF images (better, worse, or the same as with the 200-500, both using the Z6ii). I’d even like to know how the balance is using this lens and camera combo with and without the MB-N11.
As a wildlife photographer who uses a Z6ii currently, I am really looking forward to someone providing this kind of information.
Thank you again for all your wonderful videos and sharing your knowledge. Thank you also for considering this request. Happy Shooting…
Rich
Thanks for the discussion. I have the 100-400 and 1.4 extender. I was wondering if I made the wrong decision to get the 100-400. Of course, I was one of the first in the US to get one. I think the 100-400 is too large. I can't imagine what the 180-600 is like!
I have the 100-400 and its a great lens very fast and sharp but doesn't seem long enough i might switch to 600mm or get a converter
Having lugged around a Sigma 150-600 sport for 5 years I can’t wait to get my Nikon 180-600! Third lighter than the sigma. Plus a few hundred quid cheaper than the 100-400 is not to be sneezed at.
If you’re used to the 600mm focal length, it’s probably a better choice. I’m looking forward to lightening my camera bag too. You can’t really go wrong with either of these lenses. It really depends on your use case. Hopefully it’ll be in your hands soon. 📷
The 200-500 with the ftz isn’t fun to lug around either, even though it’s relatively light and produces great shots.
I can’t justify selling my Sigma 60-600 as it fits on my d5 and at higher iso it beats the z9 - I have both but above certain. Iso DR and NR is superior on the d5
The 100-400 is a good lens but i remember the old 80-400 too well.
The 180-600 is on another level ... 🦘
I use the excellent Z 100-400mm in addition to the z 14-30mm and Z 24-120mm plus four fixed focal lengths from 20mm to 105mm (macro).
I had also considered the Z 180-600mm, but then bought the TC 1.4x instead.
In addition to the image quality, the mobility and therefore compactness is also very important to me.
Instead of the Z 180-600mm, the new Z 6.3/600mm came into focus for me, which is relatively light and compact and should also harmonize well with the TC 1.4x.
I bought the 100-400 whilst waiting for the 180-600 to arrive. I LOVE that lens (find my reasons among the previous posts, lol), but I acquired the 180-600 as soon as it was available for an NPS member. I LOVE that lens. Haha, but I *do* have uses for both. Lately I've been messing with a dot sight (the Oly...couldn't get the Nikon) on the big lens and it's a blast! But If I'm shooting surfing from the Huntington Beach pier, it's the smaller zoom, or for, like, an arboretum shoot. I'm really happy to have both of these lenses.
With the 100-400 and the teleconverter the fstop comes out the same? If you are in inclement weather do really want to take of your lens to add the teleconverter? Wouldn't being internally add an extra layer of weather sealing? Its ~$900 usd less for the 180-600 and if add in the price of the teleconverter you could almost get 2 180-600. The 100-400 is smaller but then again i`m use to carrying the 200200-500mm. Hard decision
I have the 100-400 mm lens and I love it on my Nikon Z8. I also have the 1.4 teleconverter, all of which makes a wonderful combination of gear. Next year during nesting season, I might rent the 180-600 mm lens for a week or so, just to give it a try. But I don't see myself ever buying it.
Yeah if you don’t normally need the extra range or don’t mind the 1.4 and loss of stops on the 100-400, I’m sure you’ll appreciate the lighter smaller lens. I was in that boat having the 200-500 and asking myself if I was ok with the shorter range trading off for lighter and smaller.
@@boostedmaniac I rented the 200-500 lens a few times a few years ago. I loved the photos I got with it. But it was too cumbersome for me. I could not get comfortable carrying or using it.
@@MyAmericanMorning yeah it’s quite big and heavy for sure. My biggest gripe is slow AF and so many turns to zoom from min to max. But it looks like the 180-600 addresses all that. I was going to rent a 100-400 to compare but it was hard to rent because of popularity at the time. I ended up borrowing a Sony 100-400 on a Sony a7r4 to compare. I enjoyed the fast AF, lightweight and smaller factor, but missed the range.
Heck with it... I'm buying them all. Selling off my stable of F mounts. LOL
If weight is important and if 4000 USD is not too expansive, then the 400mm 4.5 with a 1.4 tc is the best choice for wildlife photography. There is no compromise on image quality, AF speed or build quality with this lens.
Great suggestion !!
Just a compromise if something gets a few meters too close to frame it
I tried the 400mm 4.5 and hated it due to the minimum focal distance.
Birding tips: practice on seagulls in flight, they're everywhere and active. I have the 100-400 and its great, but the 180-600 is tempting because its so well priced for what you get.
Jumping onto Amazon after this video , I see Sigma do a much cheaper 100-400 for Nikon F . If I'm on a budget would that be of any use to go with my Z6 and FTZ ? Thanks.
Get a camouflage BURKA in your environment colors and you can photograph birds with any focal length. Is also a portable setup which can be used in the Jungle or city street environments.
Have several lenses to photograph birds:
Nikon MF 400mm f/3.5 ED IF + TC301
Nikon AF-S 200-400mm f/4.0 (First edition)
Nikon AF-S 600mm f/4 (Main bird lens)
Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S [have the Z 180-600 on order]
I have never seen a wildlife blind in the USA even remotely as fancy as this one. You are spoiled! I own the 100-400S lens, and it is my go-to versatile telephoto lens. If I were a bird photographer on a budget, the 180-600 would be a no-brainer, especially for the price. Even with the slower aperture, the pros still outweigh the cons, especially since this lens has internal focusing. For me, I would prefer the 400 4.5, using the 1.4x TC, if needed, to compliment my 100-400. The $$$$$ 400 2.8 with the 1.4x TC is way out of my price range.
I love the light tone for this episode. Without much of the usual technical indepths. Get the 100-400 over the 180-600. Life is hard, but sometimes life's simple.
I broke my 100-400 last month, I dropped it on concrete. Long story. The 180-600 was introduced while my 100-400 was in repair. I felt miserable already for having dropped glass, and meanwhile Nikon introduced this just as good, cheaper lens with a much larger zoom end?
My lens came back from repair today. I'm happy as a clam and sharing your friend's advice gratefully: get the 100-400. So check, I have it. I have it back.
There's just one thing that I hate about the 100-400. The tube. The 100-400 is a smackingly good-looking lens. It looks muscular, beefy. It looks a lot better than the 180-600. Until that silly tube comes out. They've managed to keep it quite short. But still. It doesn't look fantastic and it's vulnerable to shock. Let me tell you that. But it's back. With a new tube and a new bayonet.
One thing the 100-400 does excellent, is act as a macro lens if you use a couple of extension rings. I tried that today, first thing. It probably even works better with a NISI or Raynox attached. Today I found out that you can use both at the same time; extension tubes together with an enlargement lens. Life is simple.
Anyway :). Love your channel. Watch it a lot. Take care.
I am waiting on my new 180-600mm if Nikon ever ships it. I know it will be more than adequate for what i do. Wildlife.
Watching this video made me think, is it now possible with the help of Ai to put a feature in these cameras where you set the auto focus to prioritise the face which is talking? Not always suitable but for sitations like this it would be perfect.
I've tried to talk myself into a 180-600 being a 100-400S owner. But just can't convince myself it's necessary. So far, with a 1.4x on it the 100-400 has more then met all my needs getting birds at a distance as well. Worst case I found in DX mode on my Z9 it's wonderful. Especially if you run it through Topaz Gigapixel at 1.5x and it will blow you away. The detail is enhanced and there are NO artifacts. A nice (cheap) way to get that effect and reach without a huge $$$ penalty.
More reach, less money, it's an absolute no-brainer for me.
In fact, it was the reason I bought a Z8.
And a year later, I sold the 180-600 for the 100-400. 🤷♂😅
Not because I was unhappy with it, but I got the 800 PF, and the 180-600 is too heavy and big to carry along with it.
Ah that video looks so good. It's like Joe is 3 dimensional. Lovely light. Lovely bokeh.
I’d love to own both, but if I have to pick one, I’d go with the 180-600. I have the Tamron 100-400 on the F mount, and it’s already big enough that I typically don’t just have it on me unless I know I’m going for wildlife, and I’d like the extra reach of the 600. If Tamron ever releases their 100-400 on Z mount for $899, maybe I would pick it up too and sell my f mount copy.
I am absolutely torn! Specifically because I have been offered a 100-400 from a friend (she is moving to Sony) and it’s at the price of a new 180-600.. I need to decide by end of this weekend .. and I am absolutely CONFUSED. By the way I have a Z8 and have been using a z6ii with a 200-500afs. I replaced the z6ii and now I am trying to upgrade that 200-500. Anyone have an opinion?!
What is the 2.3x crop in video that you are referencing? I get the 50% crop (1.5x) using APS-C mode, but what’s the extra crop referenced for video?
Hi Richard, have a look at this video th-cam.com/video/Y_X_LzD0uL8/w-d-xo.html , and hopefully that helps, let me know if you need more info. Cheers Matt :)
From Ricci’s video it sounds like the 180-600 is actually sharper than the 100-400 past 200mm.
Even with the 45mp Z 8/9 sensor, birds are very, very small. I'm currently putting a 1.4x on my 500PF (700mm) and still cropping down to barely get 2048px on the long side. I would not consider even going to shoot birds with a 400mm. Sure you can put a TC on the 100-400, but the 1.4 is going to get to you 560mm f/8 (since you are mostly going to be zooming to 400mm) or 800mm f/11 if you use a 2x. With the 180-600 I can get 600/6.3, 840/9 or 1200/13. I probably wouldn't use the 2X, that's just too much light loss.
600mm is 50% more reach than 400 with no modifications. That bird taking up 1500 px on your 8200px sensor is now going to be 2700px. If I consider my minimum crop of 2048 for online use, with a 600mm lens, I'm getting over 3000px which gets into a printable image range.
Yes it's a half a kilo heavier, but it's still lighter than the 200-500 or any of the big primes like the 400/2.8 or 600/4. Yes it takes up more space in the bag. But honestly 400mm is just too short if you are half-way serious about doing this.
Your video tends to dismiss this lens too quickly. That 50% more reach is worth the extra size and weight. Yes, you an go in to DX mode and get 50%, but you're still going to be cropping down to something in the 2048px range regardless of if you're full frame or not.
Joe says he will buy both. I say I’m not a birder. Joe says he is. The birder wants the 180-600.
@@MattIrwinPhotography Until I can afford a 600/4, this lens will also help me with my Cricket photography. The field needs around 800mm to catch the bowlers running up to bowl or shoot the batter and catcher head on, but when the ball is hit to a fielder near me, I'd love to be able to zoom back to 200-300mm. The throw on the 200-500 was just too far to quickly change up for sports.
Now there is one BIG advantage of the 100-400 that many people miss, and that's it's close focus distance. It has a 0.38x magnification factor with its 0.98 meter focus distance at 400mm. Put a 2X on it and you're doubling that to 0.76x and f/11 which you're likely going to need that close. That's near macro level. I'm tempted to get it just for that use case.
If you already have the holy trinity to take you to 200mm at f/2.8 and don't regularly need longer or in very low light, I think the 180-600mm has got to be a winner.
I have the Tamron G2 150-600mm. Love it but ordered the 180-600 for my Z9. Do to size, focusing, shot throw, no need for the adaptor. For birding I need 600.
Hi Michael, have you received your 180-600? I have a Tamron G2 150-600 too and I'm wondering how the 2 compare. I definitely would love the short throw. Mainly wondering about focus speed on fast moving birds/animals coming towards you.
Thanks!
I just picked up the 100-400 for the reasons that you stated. I still have my pf500 on a converter, so I’m good up to that focal length. Maybe I’ll sell off some of my old F lenses to get a down payment for the pf 800😂
Have the 100-400. Interesting, my copy is “made in Japan”. Had the F mount 200-500. Still not sure about the 180-600???
I like the Nikon 180-600mm. It works great for me. I got it in the US for $1600. ❤❤❤
Love my current 200-500mm f mount, some of my best bird shots from it. 100-400 is just too expensive for a retiree though perhaps the 180-600 might be a replacement some time in the future. Enjoyed this video
i'm thinking the exact same thing. GOD Bless
Matt, just my 2p but for anyone who already has an FTZ(ii) then the VRII version of the 80-400 is still a seriously good piece of glass, and 2nd hand they are ridiculously cheap at the moment.
I fully agree with you @DaveR
I've had the 100-400 for over a year. Using it with the 2xTC most of the time. Yes, there is a significant drop in sharpness but I have tested with and without TC and with the TC is definitely better overall. My thinking all along was that adding the 2x would have to be half the sharpness to break even. Using Focal software shows about a 20% drop in sharpness so it's a win to use the 2xTC. And, my favorite shot with that combo out of my Z9 is of a Wedegtail Eagle in flight. I never thought muggins me could ever get a shot like that. The detail in the eye of a bird in flight says there's plenty of sharpness left. :) And wait, there's more! That same kit has given me great in-flight shots of Dragonflies too. With the 2xTC it has a reproduction ratio of 0.8. Wedgies in flight right down to serious macro detail of tiny critters. All can be done cos of the number of stops the IBS and lens is amazing. 800mm handheld stills shots under 1/100th.
I just can't see any value in either of the 2 built in TC lenses. For a professional, can there ever be a payback? They are each about AU$20,000 more than a 1.4xTC and either the 100-400 or 180-600!
I agree with you on the sharpness part of the conversation, I have the 100-400 and both converters but the other half of the conversation is light gathering and background quality. The 100-400 is useless most of the good shooting times once you add those converters, the required ISO is just too noisy, even with software. Also the backgrounds are horrible with converters, too much in focus and the bokeh that is there is a mess. It’s not just about sharpness.
@@ona4day TCs useless? I have a lot of images that call BS on that. Way over-the-top remarks mate.
@@robguyatt9602 I’d said in good shooting times…the F stop is way to high to be able to shoot in even true golden hour or blue hour when the light is choice. No they have they purpose and times, I use them a lot and have some awesome picture. But the light loss to get that reach sucks. Even the 6.3 of the 180-600 is still not great but it’s better. But if it works for you the cool.
Rob, I've seen plenty of shots of dragonflies with the 180-600 on a Z8 or Z9, and very impressed with them all.
I have Sigma 100-400mm via FTZ for my Z 5. I'd like to have more reach, so I wouldn't have to crop so often. Maybe some day I get 180-600 Z.
I would like them all Please!!
Hi Matt thx for another great video. Now a year ago you made a video with the 200-400 f4 VR ii on the V1 and you said you would make a video with it on the Z9 when you get it, but I can't see if you've made that video. Question now that you've had the 180-600 for a while how would you rate those 2 lenses compared to each other. In the future I'll get the Z8 but for now the Z6ii. My focus will be birds and African wildlife on safari with some video use but for photo use the aim is to shoot for fine art print sales. So image quality is most important. thx for your or anyone else's advice. Doug
Originally planned to get the 100-400 as I loved playing with it and the image quality is a huge step up from the terrible 200-500. But I think the 180-600 is a better bet for me and more versatile. Matt - One comment for you on the video overall......the green glow text makes it much harder to read in the last few videos LOL. Just my 2 cents.
I'm leaning towards the 180-600mm simply because it's about $1,200 cheaper than the 100-400 and has an extra 200mm on the long end.
oh wow ... did not know it was so much cheaper.
@@bigboi36Yes though I think it doesn’t focus quite as fast as the 100-400 and image quality overall is a little bit lower.
I'm getting the feeling this is going to be my choice in the end, too, Tim
Interesting video comparing both lenses. I do more wildlife videogrpahy than photography as i make my own wildlife clips for teacjing about animal behaviour. I used to rely on my Z6ii and 200-500 for filming, had lots of fun but also aches due to the sheer weight of the F lens. When Z 100-400mm came along, it changed everything for me. Due ro its small size and weight, i can now film wildlife without the use of a tripod (especially when i am at the water edge), though i still rely on my tripod for steady clips. I used to rely on the TC1.4 too for closeup shots....now that i have paired the Z100-400 with the Z8, i realised i don't need tbe TC anymore (as one can afford to crop when filming in 4K). I cannot comment too much on photography, but if anyone is thinking of the 100-400 for wildlife videos, it is rhe perfect choice.
Morten Hilmer, "you must suffer for your art." Matt Irwin, "nonsense, can you turn that heater up a bit?"
?
Do you still have the 180 600
I bought the 100-400 as I was tired of waiting for the reported 200-600. Now I have the 180-600 on order supposedly with a mid August delivery date. I ordered these lenses because I’m too old to be shleping around my 400 f/2.8 and wanted (need) something lighter. The 200-500 isn’t that much of a lightweight joy to carry around, either, especially since it lacks belt hooks.
For out in nature I normally have three Nikon bodies with battery grips, the 400 f/2.8, a 300 f/4 (light weight, bright enough, very sharp), and a 70-200 f/2.8 (about 5% of my shooting, at best). Sometimes the 200-500. Along with this was either a Linhof tripod with a massive Linhof ball head which ended up becoming Manfrotto carbon legs with a heavy duty Jobu gimbal head. TC-1.4, 1.7, 2. The 400 alone was 10.2 lbs, hence the heavy duty gimbal.
So now my setup will be a 24-120 f/4 (maybe; need to travel lighter), the 100-400, and the 180-600 for the extra reach. Tripod, a 105 micro bagged on my belt, and a TC-1.4x in my pocket.
I almost bought the 800 f/6.3, but the woman in the next room would have murdered me. Life is like that. I’ll probably give her the 200-500 if she ever again goes out into the woods with me. I’m now Z, she is still F.
Ha ha - the "woman in the next room" is thankfully in Norway, at the moment, photographing the northern lights. Blissfully unaware of the fact I just bought the Z8 and I now circling, looking for a suitable lens for "beyond 200mm"! So far I've found all of these comments delightfully informative, thanks guys, to all of you. But no "killer punch" yet, determining the final cut.
Great video, as always, but how is that hide only open 5 hours a week? Crazy.
Good question!
I ordered the 180-600!
I don’t have the 180-600 but I can tell you that the 100-400 is too soft for proper wildlife work. I’ve been shooting Nikon for on about 3 decades and I’ve never sold a Nikon lens - but - I think I’ll be selling my 100-400. Don’t get me wrong it’s not bad - but unless you shoot at f8 expect soft images from it. I’m looking forward to checking out the 180-600 - I’ll no doubt buy it given the value proposition it delivers. (based on reviews so far)
Odd you say that as I find the 100-400 to be really good, far better than other super telezooms we've had in the past. Is it as good as the 400/2.8, absolutely not, but I've done some gigs using it and find the optical quality excellent.
You may want to get your copy checked out. Ive tried the 100-400 and I was able to to get tac sharp photos at 15th of a second. (maybe lower, I didn't try). I was very impressed.
I swapped my 100-400mm with 1.4tc to 180-600mm...find the 180-600mm focus much better and images as sharp....can even throw on the tc in good.light.....obviously the 100-400mm without tc is better..if the birds are close enough but that rarely happens for me
Matt, I used the 100-440 with a 1.4TC and found it better than my old go to lens of the Sigma 150-600 sports that I have been using for year to shoot action. I am considering the 180-600 purely on the non-bike pump with 70degrees of throw from 180-600 and effectively a sealed lens.. yes its only detraction for me is its not S-Glass.. and with the 70-200/100-400 in my inventory I can see the benefit of the S-Class lens and the roughly 60% of the weight of the Sigma.. Nikon is making is very hard.. the outstanding 85mm and now the 180-600.. hard choices to make. Again keep up the great content, love the real world views.
I have the 500 pf when I want to go light. I ordered the 180-600 for the extra reach for small birds. Will rent the 100-400 on the rare occasion when I need that lower end of the range but I tend to shoot at the long end for birds anyway.
Thanks for this "irritating" video. But I guess I will stay on the 180-600 order.
The question would be how it compares the 100-400 with TC14 to the 180-600 ????????😉😉 (Quality, focus speed (no one is really measunring this!!!), handling. - Internal focus is a strong argument for me.
For the 70-200 with TC 2 gives me 140-400 and then I will have the 180-600. 🙂
I was frustrated with this video. The bird hive is amazing! After the first 1/2 of the video, I felt things took a nosedive and didn't really prove the difference between the lenses. Instead, it felt more like bragging rights.
I have the 100-400mm and don’t intend to buy the 180-600mm. I have the 800mm f/6.3 and one large lens is enough!
Much of this is too premature to conclude anything. Yes, the basic specs are the basic specs. Weight, size, internal vs external zoom, etc. But I think what this is really going to come down to is IQ with and without TC's. The Z 100-400 is good with the 1.4x TC, and usable with the 2.0x TC. It is not a given that the Z 180-600 will perform well with any TC's. In fact, it is unlikely. IMO, the 100mm vs 180mm on the wide end is more valuable than internal vs external zoom. 100mm is a useful focal length for landscape and portraiture. 180mm, not so much. Smaller in a bag is also a big advantage in many scenarios. Lighter is also a big advantage in many scenarios. Better reproduction ratio/shorter minimum focus distance is also a big advantage.
Comparing pears to apples! Much better then the 28-400. It’s lighter, smaller, and half the price. If you already own the 100-400, keep it. But id you are a wildlife photographer you can’t ignore that 600mm is much better than 400. That is the one of the two most important factors for this type of photography
Nikon needs to work on the interview focus AI in the cameras. We need the cameras to know who is talking and who to focus on. They do eye tracking and should be able to see mouth movement if trained.
Haha, that could be possible in video mode Auto capture was just the beginning. :)
Sorry, you get a thumb down for this one as I thought I was watching an episode of Laurel and Hardy. Not a single bird photo was taken nor an explanation of the 4 hour limitation for the hide. Would have also been nice to have had a view from the second tier but I suppose there was a limitation on that as well as the number of views allowed out the window. Matt, your night photography videos and photos are wonderful. The thumbnail of the Duck was great. Was it a stock photo?
The video even mentions another video to follow. Ah well can’t please everybody.
The duck was shot with 180-600 from the hide at 600. Not stock. I tried something different with this video. A discussion. The pixel and full spec peeping is for the next video which as I mentioned in my previous comment will come.
All good pluses for the 100-400 but it extends 🙁, and it’s several thousands more when purchased with an attachable Z mount TC…which you’ll end up doing….cause you’ll be disappointed with the 400’s lack of reach. The 180-600 isn’t that much bigger and some comparisons suggest it’s very sharp through out.
Not into birding or wildlife and the 180-600 is on order as the 100-400 does simply not have enough reach for my use.
Nikon 200-500 is still my favourite. No match for it.
Really great video. I just bought a used z30 ($450) and with the 2x TC it makes my 70-200 2.8 S lens a 600mm 5.6! I was skeptical at the quality, but after testing it, theses S lenses are so good that it’s sharp. I probably will still get that 180-600 lens though. But I’m digging my poor* man’s 600mm with the Z30, 2x TC, and 70-200. Light in the backpack also.
600?? 200 x 2 = 400??
@@Skye_the_toller yes, the Z30 is a crop sensor. 200 x 2 = 400. 400 on an APSC = 600.
@MichaelSeneschal lol I was going to say you adapted the 1.4 and 2.0 TC converter.
@@mlai2546 whooooooooooo! Haha, that’d be awesome. 😎
@@Skye_the_tollerhes shooting on a crop body, so 400 x 2 x 1.5 = 600. Not really the math I use because the focal length per pixel doesn’t change but most people use that formula.
Have the 100-400 and love it (the 3ft min working distance is epic and keeps its spot in my bag) I also have the 800pf and its range is insane. But i do find I miss the 500-600 range as i came from a D500+200-500, and even though I have the 1.4 and 2.0 TC, I'm not a fan of them in practical use. So the 180-600 is on preorder for me. Im hoping I can fit the 800, 180-600, 100-400, and 105mc all in 1 bag ... but unfortunatly i think the marry poppins store may be outta bags atm
Why only 4-5 hours a week?
Not sure to be honest, perhaps something to do with volunteers?
The 400 2.8 and 600 4 are 10x more expensive. Literally $2800 vs $28000. For two extra stops.
Having the 400 4.5, I’m going to pickup the 800 6.3 for my super Tele birding shots.
Hi Guys, I have a Z100-400mm and as soon as the Z180-600 was announced I ordered one. As a wildlife photographer I think both lenses have their place. However, during a trip to Tanzania earlier in the year I was a little disappointed with the performance of the Z100-400mm (with and without the 1.4 TC). It appeared a little soft at the long end, so much so, I sent it back to Nikon. They say, it's within tolerances for this lens. Given the great reviews this lens has had, I have lost a little confidence in it. So bring on the Z180-600mm, I can't wait!
I know where this is! Have to take the 400 4.5 there!
Including "s Vs non s" as a pro for the 100-400 but not the price difference for the cons doesn't make much sense... S Vs non S is superficial. Performance means more than prestige "S" on the lense or not. For some the 30% are IS a heavy CON.
first here..
HOWDY
🤓
I just collected my copy of the 100-400 from my local Nikon dealership Grays of Westminster in London. I had been waiting for the 200-500 Z version (and sold my 200-500/5.6) but once they announced the 180-600 I went through a similar thought process that you both covered. And that is I’m FAR more likely to carry the 100-400 more frequently because of size and weight alone. Basically It’s more versatile for my use case so I will get more use out of it. I had always thought twice before bringing my 200-500 because of size and weight so it ended up staying at home more often than not. If I get a really long lens in the future it will be the 800/6.3
@@justinthomas3829 the 800 pf 6.3 is now glued to my Z9….you will not believe how hand holdable it is,,,,hope you get one soon,money well spent.
Have heard tell that the 1.4x TC gives results that aren't as sharp as the 2x TC. Pardon? You'd have a hell of a time proving that, with the quality of glass these days - but in any event isn't that "expectable" when you push out another 40%-plus in focal length?
What I find amusing these days is precisely that - it is TERRIBLY hard to pick between ANY of these lenses, any longer. Yes on "light" - a smaller "yes" on the built-in TC, I see your point but it's not critical to results. Money? - obvious difference. But most of the results from all of these lenses are so good nowadays, that they could have been taken with ANY of them.
I confess - I am torn - for the moment, I have my Z8 to play with, only one Z-mount lens on it so far (but the FTZ II adapter and some VERY nice F-mount lenses to play with).
I'm thinking of ditching my F-mount SIGMA 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport lens, which makes me lean towards the Nikkor 180-600.
One test I have yet to track down is comparing the sweet spot on the 100-400 with the sweet spot on the 180-600; depending what F-stop is best at - say - 300 and 400, there might or might not be a significant difference between them - that might be the killer - leaving mostly only "cost" to consider.
Hmm. More thinking time require, maybe.
I have found 400mm lenses nearly useless for wildlife. Just not enough reach. Use a 209-500 nikkor. AND a blind
No, 180-600 for me, about $1500 less U.S. including the 1.4 teleconverter. Also I plan to get the Z8 or Z7III (if that comes out before I buy the Z8) and will keep my Z7 for a second lens to cover the rest of the range.