I really enjoy the format of your videos. Excellent to have the different perspectives based on your use cases. Refreshing compared to many other channels. Thank you both.
If I had all the money in the world, I would have ALL the primes, but here in my retired reality, choices are made. I love the 100-400mm S lens. Having a lighter longer tele has surprizingly opened up my landscape photography in ways that I had not expected. The old adage that “your best lens is the one you have with you” absolutely applies. Additionally, the engineers at Nikon have added internals that move to help balance the lens as it extends…that is bloody brilliant! Love your videos! Hello from 🇨🇦
Another class chat men, always great to have more than one opinion. Nice to see the RIAT photos and in the chat you cleared up one of my concerns of aero photos how expose a flying aircraft … exposure compensation.
I have the privilege of owning a 400mm f/2.8, 400mm f/4.5, and 180-600mm lens. As a professional photographer, each serves a different purpose. The 400mm f/2.8 is a clear choice for both indoor and outdoor sports, especially when I have a dedicated spot to shoot from, as well as for wildlife photography from a hide. The 400mm f/4.5 is my go-to when I want to travel light, fitting perfectly in a smaller backpack. It works great for sports, wildlife, and intimate landscape shots. The 180-600mm is the lens I use the least. I keep it in the passenger seat on the way to shoots and walk around with it at the arena before a game to capture the crowd and players warming up. 😊
@@russandloz Absolutely, for certain shoots, the 180-600mm lens is incredibly useful. For example, when hiking and weight and flexibility are crucial, especially when wildlife photography is on the agenda. However, I usually rely on my 70-200mm and 400mm lenses for various events, such as sports. Today, I just returned from Iceland, and I brought my 14-30mm f/4, 24-120mm f/4, and 400mm f/4.5. The 70-200mm f/2.8 also came along, but I didn’t end up using it at all during the week. On my Zf, I kept the 40mm f/2 attached for walks around Reykjavik and different villages.
I use the 100 - 400 mainly for planespotting (on a Z8) and all I can say is: It`s - with quite a wide margin - the absolutely best telephoto lens I have ever used!
I used to own a D850 with the 200-500mm and used it at air shows. For 45 minutes I could use it easily, then the weight started to become noticeable. After 6 hours or so I could barely lift it when the aircraft came over. I had to swing the camera in an arc to raise it up! As much as I'd love to own the 180-600 I know I would experience the same issues as I recently tried one in a camera shop, so I went the 400mm f/4.5 with 1.4x TC route. I used this combo for all of the air shots for over 5 hours with my Z8, no problems and I'm not young anymore. For all of the ground shots I used a 28-400 and this wide range allowed me to get plenty of great shots. Who wants f/2.8 for the static aircraft where some bits are out of focus, (unless that's your intention) so I often stop down to f/5.6 or f/8. It's the same for landscapes, I often stop my 24-120 down to f/8, so the 28-400 can be very useful for landscapes as well. It may not be everyone's choice but I got away with two lenses all day and no weight fatigue. I am going to take my 28-400 to the Stratford Butterfly Farm soon as the good minimum focus and great zoom range should let me get shots that are impossible with my 105mm f/2.8 S. The closeup shots with the 105mm requires at least f/8 to try to get the required depth of field so the 28-400 will do this fine. Fingers crossed it works well. Great videos by the way, I always look forward to them.
Thanks Peter, interesting approach but works well for you then. I used to own the 200-500 and struggled to manoeuvre it for very long at all. I sometimes struggle with the 400 2.8, review coming soon, but the rewards are worth the weight with wildlife
I did the Cosford air show with Z8 and 180-600. I agree it does get heavy however the ability to zoom out to find the plane then zoom back in was important to me
@@Petrolhead66 I have no doubt that the 180-600 is more versatile and if I was 20 years younger it would be my go to lens. Sadly the weight would be too much after hours of shooting and I found many of my 200-500 photos were soft as my arms were getting tired. Earlier shots were very sharp, but you could see the degredation over the hours of shooting. So sadly the 180-600 would have the same weight problem as my old 200-500 had, so I went lighter. I was at 560mm for all of the air shots and never needed to zoom back in closer so my 400 + 1.4x TC works fine for me. Happy plane shooting!
I should have such problems as deciding between two lenses of such quality. Putting that aside, I do so enjoy your sometimes differing opinions on which lens is best for your particular use. As a strictly amateur photographer, I've shot air shows where decent results required serious cropping. Had I used my 200 - 500, I would have spent half my time trying to find the fast moving planes in my viewfinder. My 70 - 200 F4 was a much more appropriate lens for me.....and I already own it. Thanks for another enjoyable and informative video.
I agree: I love the flexibility and the portability of the 100-400mm and the image quality differences in relation to the 400 f4.5 aren't big enough to make the case for the prime. The extra 10cm of the 180-600mm is also problematic for me and would make it to stay at home more often.
If you want to use teleconverters with the prime then it's worth it as the rendition and sharpness is better than the zoom. I'll have to rent the 180-600 to find out!
The 180-600 is great for airshows. However there are times where the 180 is too much. A second camera with the 70-200 solves that but now you’re dealing with a lot of weight. The 100-400 is a solid choice in particular with a higher megapixel camera.
Recently took mine to Wales and it rained most of the week. I never find myself using it much in the rain and when I do it’s not teaming down so think the weather sealing isnt really too much of an issue. You can’t argue with the balls but that 100-400 is really useful and yes you can zoom in with 70-200 but I’d rather shoot at 400 and still have the option to digitally zoom in. Just my opinion…
Hi Loz, just a thought regarding your upcoming trip to Oman for the 6 a side gig: I own the Z 70-200mm f2.8 and the Z 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 and I understand why you are considering taking both of those with you. But, it I could, I would also take my Z 24-120mm f4 (which I believe you own). That way I could cover everything from 24mm to 400mm at reasonable apertures assuming the event is outdoors. If it were indoors, then I'd definitely count on the 70-200 f2.8.
Hi John thanks for the comment. Yes I do have the 24-120. My problem will be luggage weight I think and I sometimes have to take photos of meetings indoors so may well take the 24-70 F2 .8 to cover that off instead. Decisions decisions - too much choice! When I did the event in 2019 I had just bought my Z6 with the ‘kit’ 24-70 and that’s all I used!
@@lozzom That makes perfect sense. I don't currently own the Z 24-70mm f2.8. I do significant dog sports photos, often indoors under lousy lighting conditions. I usually just stick with the 70-200mm, use my Z 105mm f2.8 Macro, or jack up the ISO while using the 24-120mm f4. I keep telling myself that I should buy the Z 24-70mm f2.8, but I keep spending my funds on other things. Choices, choices!!
I have had both the 180-600 and the 100-400 for some time. All your observations are pretty much spot on. The 180-600 is a beast ( I favor Loz in age) to carry all day on a Z8. It is an overachiever for the price. The 100-400 is lighter, easier to pack, good for it's macro abilities. For birds and wildlife I pretty much keep one on my Z8 and one on a Z6iii. Side note, so far, I am not finding the Z6iii to be near as good for birds in animal mode as the Z8 in bird mode in the same conditions. Maybe I have defective birds.
@@samwarren1429 Very interesting to hear that Sam. I’ll have to rent a 180-600 to make that very review. Z6iii will have an update I’m sure. But z8 has more focus points 🤷♂️
Ok I’m in London for few days love to try your 400 4.5 I’ll let you try the new z6iii . I have 100-400 it’s good. The 400 2.8 is outstanding except heavy. But yours may be best .. keep up good work.
I have been using the 28-400mm f/4 - f/8 and I love the focal length better than the 24-200mm. I have the 100-400mm and figured with the teleconverters I can get the reach with a higher aperture. I also got the 180-600mm too. I guess I am stating that I like the Zooms better than the Primes. Cheers!
@@russandloz I have tested them and I agree with Loz. I go all over the place and the one focal length is not for me. I need a zoom. Now if the subject was stable that would be a different story. Plus I do not use the longer zooms that much. On my Z9 I have the 24-120mm f/4. Z8 the 28-400mm. The 180-600mm with the 45mp whenever I decide to change. That way I can crop with better resolution or match the DX cameras. I will say I have cropped the Z6III and it still looks fabulous. 28-400mm is not that heavy. Try compairing those zoom lenses with the Tamron 35-150mm f/2 - 2.8. Tamron is a good lens but that is why I chose the 24-120mm at that time. I'll take the 28-400mm over that too, because of the weight. I am not into Bokeh and I do not mind f/5.6 and above resolution. More into Sharp and Clear Images. Cheers!
Opted for the 100-400 for the versatility and MFD…Use it mostly for landscape and a bit of birding with an apsc Z body. I did buy the 1.4x teleconverter to use with it. But was pretty disappointed with how much of a hit on image quality it produced. Will try it again with a FF camera when i get that in the hopes it might be more usable. But dang, that teleconverter was expensive…Like you say, consider using only with your best fast primes.
At the 8 Minute Mark was there a crash? Three planes going the same direction horizontally and one going the opposite direction but turned sideways. The very right one seems yards away from the one that is turned sideways. I would like for You to explain that if they didn't crash did you do something in Photoshop or Lightroom? In other words did you combine images? Cheers!
I (russ) believe it's an optical illusion they direct towards the crowds, very smart flying. There was no crashing but I'm sure Loz will explain if he can.
No crash and I didn’t do anything in Lightroom or Photoshop; I think as Russ says it was just the angle that made it look like that. I’ll see if I’ve got a photo before or after.
@@lozzom Thankyou! I may have to join first. I have seen many Air Show Photos and I guess with lenses and the angle of planes do play tricks with depth of field. Cheers!
Just as an additional discussion point, it would have been interesting to have included the 28-400mm. Not that I would expect it to be as sharp or have anything like the bokeh quality, but it is a Z range lens with the same focal length.
@@russandloz It is, but that is not the point. There are some respected reviewers (I’m not inferring you are not!) out there who have spoken quite positively about it. It’s just always interesting to get wider views.
6:49 there is a mismatch between the example embedded graphics vs titles on both images. Ie 100-400 titled image is the 70-200? The 400 prime titled is actually the 100-400? Do I have that right. Enjoy watching your videos.
The 180-600 is definitely sharper with more contrast than the 100-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter @ 560mm..It's never 400 f2.8 sharp but mine has surprised my how good it is at such a fair price. It's only weight and light that restrict it. I love sharp, fast glass like my 14-28 2.8S, the 50 1.2S etc but I'm definitely happy with the 180-600 in reasonable light or better. I just carry it across my body from an eyelet on the foot mount, no problems and I'm nearly 70. The nearest honest review of the 180-600 to my actual experience is Thom Hogans.
@@russandloz Rent one...My choice for birds was a 100-400 plus a 600 PF, or the 180-600. the small zoom plus prime are much heavier and less convenient than the zoom but with better image quality. They look similar but the long prime, although the same aperture, 6.3, has higher resolution when cropping. The 1.4 TC works quite well with the zoom as long as used to make the subject just larger in the frame rather that for reach, if you see what I mean. At the end of the day your 400 2.8 will always have better image quality, especially the bokeh, even stopped down. It's just the inconvenience of TC's and the weight. A great combo would be your 400 plus a zoom. I was offered this week a 400 2.8 F mount, the E Nano, same as yours, in its case for not crazy money, I'm not in the UK at the moment, but in my late 60's I don't think I would use it except in a hide...Tempting though. I love fast primes but my wallet and aging body don't. 😂
@@musiqueetmontagne Yes it's true, if you can fill the frame with the subject with TC's they are fine, seldom is that choice though. The 400 2.8 is a beast to carry, but performs so well I can deal with it just about
The police are 'hot on the heels' of the criminal. Usually we say the product is 'hot off the shelf' (probably alluding to freshly baked cakes from the shelf in the oven (stove). Sorry to be picky. I would really like to hear comparisons between the old 100-400 mm for F mount adapted to the Z mount with its new expensive Z mount lens. I would like to see comparisons also for the f2.8 zooms (so-called trinity). My 70-200 F mount was one of my best lenses on the D850, and it appears to perform just as well on my Z8. I can see buying Z mount telephotos because of the weight advantage, but with the shorter focal length lenses I wonder if there is such a big advantage to simply adapting my old f mount lenses.
@@oliverflint8173 We have a few videos where we have compared f mount to z mount if you look on our channel. The ftz can get annoying as it extends the weight and annoying to handle. Also z mount are generally better contained with image rendition issues
i own all the tele lenses and i can tell you the sharpest at all appetures is the canon 100 500mm period.the nikon 100 400 is a great lens but at 400mm wide open its just good nikon 180 600mm good lens actually a tad sharper at 400mm than the 100 400mm only problem is weight its to heavy .my 400 2.8 is super heavy but the results are breath taking but allso a costly lens
From what i am hearing, the 100-400 is only really great at 100-300, then maybe the picture quality between 300-400 range is similar to 180-600 quality ? Thus would be interesting to see a comparison between the 100-400 vs 180-600 especially at 400mm. Either way cant go wrong with any in real world use.
I was LCE in Exeter and tried the 100-400 . 180-600 . And the 600 pf . I totally thought I would be buying the 100-400 but after an hour’s testing I’ve got to say I was more impressed with the 180-600 at the long end. I also loved the fact that it zooms internally. Yes the 600 pf rocked but the price difference is crazy. I bought the 180-600 and honestly. If it was the same price as the 100-400 I would still rather buy it.
Only the power of Nikon optics can bring two grown men together to compare balls. As always, a good look at real-world use cases, and the banter is top notch. Why do I have a feeling that one of you will be holding a 180-600 soon? My bet is it will be Russ who buys it, but Loz will borrow it until Russ forgets he owns it and Russ moves on with another prime lens surprise. You can thank me later, Loz.
Thanks, glad to infotain, I'm very happy with my 400 2.8 setup, but i sure would love to try it. For airshow and cars I would prefer the 180-600 for sure
At 5:00 the 400 prime is brighter (at ISO 200) than the 100-400 (at ISO 180) - same exposure time, same aperture number. I presume the 100-400 reveals its "effective" aperture number corrected for the focal length and potentially focusing distance. If the difference only is in the ISO 180 v 200 then the 100-400 likely has a slightly less fast T value.
@@russandloz - it's the lens's "Transmission value". It defines how much light comes through - how fast a lens is. Cinematographers want clarity and hence we see cine lenses that give you the T-value, not the f/number. The f/number merely gives the diameter of the aperture's entry pupil as fraction of focal length. For example my Nikon Z 105/2.8S macro lens. The f/2.8 means that at fully open the diameter of the entry pupil is 37.5mm (because it is 105/2.8). But this is only valid at "infinity" focusing distance in lens designs that do not suppress focus breathing. And the 105/2.8 does not do that. This means that focusing closer by lengthens the focal length. When I focus that lens at 1:1 nearest focusing distance, then the lens display and camera tell me that 2.8 has changed in to 4.3. Well, the diameter of the entry pupil is not affected by this and still 37.5mm so the focal length now is 160mm. For Depth of Field (DoF) this has implications in that we need to enter both the effective focal length and the effective aperture into the formula. The reason we still use the f/number is that the (effective) number relates to Depth of Field and the T value is less easy. DxO Mark measure the T value. When you go to their site, search for 1.2L lenses and look at their T value. That may be 1.5. Yes, such 1.2 lenses are 1.5 "fast". Next search for 1.4 G lenses - that probably also have a T value of 1.5, so they are equally fast. As, per DxO Mark, the 1.2L lenses of the same generation as the 1.4G lenses, are not very sharp, they may have deeper DoF than the 1.4G lenses. Now we have wasted the arguments used by buyers of these 1.2L lenses, they probably end up saying that these lenses are so beautifully soft and that's true, primarily because they're not very sharp. Depth of Field is a rabbit hole in itself and there's more to it. Moral here is that the numbers on your lens probably are a lie in most circumstances. With Through The Lens (TTL) metering nobody cares, nobody knows, but when you shoot 8"*10" large format and each shot (a sheet of film for one shot) costs between US$10 and 20, plus the costs for processing, then you need to be aware of all this. You don't want to bracket. First time right.
@@jpdj2715 Blimey, entered a new world there! Very interesting. But how does this apply to the comparison image being brighter? Means the zoom is better at letting light in than it says?
@@russandloz - the one with the lighter image was the prime iirc, so that one could have a better T value. Alternatively, as I noticed ISO variations between your shots you could have the camera on Auto ISO and half-pressing the shutter release will lock exposure for what's in frame, which can vary with what's in the frame.
6:00 I'm convinced this is because of the fake Gaussian blur applied in the z cameras. As the viewfinder is all electronic and the lenses focus has a lag in manual focus too, it allows them time to insert extra blur /rounder "enhanced balls" in the bokeh on z cameras with z lenses. Using 105 Z macro I've even seen an obvious blur mask jumping on and off the subject, it's pretty blatent and not a natural blur sometimes can see hexagonal edges to the mask. Also with Z 50/85mm 1.8 I've seen weirdness putting my finger through the bokeh of distant lights, where it appears the balls are coming out of my finger rather than behind, like the software has decided the shadowy part of my finger is the edge of my finger and used that as thr cutoff for this artificial bokeh ball. The tech allows lighter lenses etc but is annoying you can't turn this feature off in Z cameras as it's obviously unnatural and that's why I use a mirrorless vs phone after all..
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 83 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "พันฤทธิ์ vs ซุปเปอร์บอล วันของโอม MBK"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1b4pkKHa_Fk/mqdefault.jpg)
I really enjoy the format of your videos. Excellent to have the different perspectives based on your use cases. Refreshing compared to many other channels. Thank you both.
@@simonsenkim2842 Thanks Simon, that’s what we try to do, something different and balanced 😊
If I had all the money in the world, I would have ALL the primes, but here in my retired reality, choices are made. I love the 100-400mm S lens. Having a lighter longer tele has surprizingly opened up my landscape photography in ways that I had not expected. The old adage that “your best lens is the one you have with you” absolutely applies. Additionally, the engineers at Nikon have added internals that move to help balance the lens as it extends…that is bloody brilliant! Love your videos! Hello from 🇨🇦
@@davidroberts6766 Ah that’s why it feels so well balanced then! For a landscape and possible wildlife it does fit
Another class chat men, always great to have more than one opinion. Nice to see the RIAT photos and in the chat you cleared up one of my concerns of aero photos how expose a flying aircraft … exposure compensation.
@@pete1927 Thanks Pete
I have the privilege of owning a 400mm f/2.8, 400mm f/4.5, and 180-600mm lens. As a professional photographer, each serves a different purpose. The 400mm f/2.8 is a clear choice for both indoor and outdoor sports, especially when I have a dedicated spot to shoot from, as well as for wildlife photography from a hide. The 400mm f/4.5 is my go-to when I want to travel light, fitting perfectly in a smaller backpack. It works great for sports, wildlife, and intimate landscape shots. The 180-600mm is the lens I use the least. I keep it in the passenger seat on the way to shoots and walk around with it at the arena before a game to capture the crowd and players warming up. 😊
@@dalecarliaphoto Don’t you find the versatility of the zoom handy?
@@russandlozI was wondering the same
@@russandloz Absolutely, for certain shoots, the 180-600mm lens is incredibly useful. For example, when hiking and weight and flexibility are crucial, especially when wildlife photography is on the agenda. However, I usually rely on my 70-200mm and 400mm lenses for various events, such as sports. Today, I just returned from Iceland, and I brought my 14-30mm f/4, 24-120mm f/4, and 400mm f/4.5. The 70-200mm f/2.8 also came along, but I didn’t end up using it at all during the week. On my Zf, I kept the 40mm f/2 attached for walks around Reykjavik and different villages.
I’m a zoom fan usually and that 100-400 is definitely a lens on my radar! Great comparison. 📸😎
I use the 100 - 400 mainly for planespotting (on a Z8) and all I can say is: It`s - with quite a wide margin - the absolutely best telephoto lens I have ever used!
@@Travelagent Yes with the z8 cropping power it’s a great combo
I used to own a D850 with the 200-500mm and used it at air shows. For 45 minutes I could use it easily, then the weight started to become noticeable. After 6 hours or so I could barely lift it when the aircraft came over. I had to swing the camera in an arc to raise it up! As much as I'd love to own the 180-600 I know I would experience the same issues as I recently tried one in a camera shop, so I went the 400mm f/4.5 with 1.4x TC route. I used this combo for all of the air shots for over 5 hours with my Z8, no problems and I'm not young anymore. For all of the ground shots I used a 28-400 and this wide range allowed me to get plenty of great shots. Who wants f/2.8 for the static aircraft where some bits are out of focus, (unless that's your intention) so I often stop down to f/5.6 or f/8. It's the same for landscapes, I often stop my 24-120 down to f/8, so the 28-400 can be very useful for landscapes as well. It may not be everyone's choice but I got away with two lenses all day and no weight fatigue. I am going to take my 28-400 to the Stratford Butterfly Farm soon as the good minimum focus and great zoom range should let me get shots that are impossible with my 105mm f/2.8 S. The closeup shots with the 105mm requires at least f/8 to try to get the required depth of field so the 28-400 will do this fine. Fingers crossed it works well. Great videos by the way, I always look forward to them.
Thanks Peter, interesting approach but works well for you then. I used to own the 200-500 and struggled to manoeuvre it for very long at all. I sometimes struggle with the 400 2.8, review coming soon, but the rewards are worth the weight with wildlife
I did the Cosford air show with Z8 and 180-600. I agree it does get heavy however the ability to zoom out to find the plane then zoom back in was important to me
@@Petrolhead66 I have no doubt that the 180-600 is more versatile and if I was 20 years younger it would be my go to lens. Sadly the weight would be too much after hours of shooting and I found many of my 200-500 photos were soft as my arms were getting tired. Earlier shots were very sharp, but you could see the degredation over the hours of shooting. So sadly the 180-600 would have the same weight problem as my old 200-500 had, so I went lighter. I was at 560mm for all of the air shots and never needed to zoom back in closer so my 400 + 1.4x TC works fine for me. Happy plane shooting!
@@peterlooper7956 would love to see how the photos look with the 1.4tc on the 400
You guys are the best..
.just what I need cannot decide between these two lenses
@@bratsdelight Thanks. Really it comes down to if you need a longer reach. If you don’t the 100-400 is perfect.
I have the 180-600, and no doubt, it's heavy, but that 600mm is what I was longing for all those years for wildlife, especially for birds.
I should have such problems as deciding between two lenses of such quality. Putting that aside, I do so enjoy your sometimes differing opinions on which lens is best for your particular use. As a strictly amateur photographer, I've shot air shows where decent results required serious cropping. Had I used my 200 - 500, I would have spent half my time trying to find the fast moving planes in my viewfinder. My 70 - 200 F4 was a much more appropriate lens for me.....and I already own it. Thanks for another enjoyable and informative video.
"your math's are getting better", Class!
Only slowly though sadly 😬
This was excellent video
I agree: I love the flexibility and the portability of the 100-400mm and the image quality differences in relation to the 400 f4.5 aren't big enough to make the case for the prime. The extra 10cm of the 180-600mm is also problematic for me and would make it to stay at home more often.
If you want to use teleconverters with the prime then it's worth it as the rendition and sharpness is better than the zoom. I'll have to rent the 180-600 to find out!
The 180-600 is great for airshows. However there are times where the 180 is too much. A second camera with the 70-200 solves that but now you’re dealing with a lot of weight.
The 100-400 is a solid choice in particular with a higher megapixel camera.
Recently took mine to Wales and it rained most of the week. I never find myself using it much in the rain and when I do it’s not teaming down so think the weather sealing isnt really too much of an issue.
You can’t argue with the balls but that 100-400 is really useful and yes you can zoom in with 70-200 but I’d rather shoot at 400 and still have the option to digitally zoom in. Just my opinion…
Hi Loz, just a thought regarding your upcoming trip to Oman for the 6 a side gig: I own the Z 70-200mm f2.8 and the Z 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 and I understand why you are considering taking both of those with you. But, it I could, I would also take my Z 24-120mm f4 (which I believe you own). That way I could cover everything from 24mm to 400mm at reasonable apertures assuming the event is outdoors. If it were indoors, then I'd definitely count on the 70-200 f2.8.
Hi John thanks for the comment. Yes I do have the 24-120. My problem will be luggage weight I think and I sometimes have to take photos of meetings indoors so may well take the 24-70 F2 .8 to cover that off instead. Decisions decisions - too much choice! When I did the event in 2019 I had just bought my Z6 with the ‘kit’ 24-70 and that’s all I used!
@@lozzom That makes perfect sense. I don't currently own the Z 24-70mm f2.8. I do significant dog sports photos, often indoors under lousy lighting conditions. I usually just stick with the 70-200mm, use my Z 105mm f2.8 Macro, or jack up the ISO while using the 24-120mm f4. I keep telling myself that I should buy the Z 24-70mm f2.8, but I keep spending my funds on other things. Choices, choices!!
Fresh off the boat
They're all great lenses. Goood summary between you.
They sure are! Can't go wrong really!
I have had both the 180-600 and the 100-400 for some time. All your observations are pretty much spot on. The 180-600 is a beast ( I favor Loz in age) to carry all day on a Z8. It is an overachiever for the price. The 100-400 is lighter, easier to pack, good for it's macro abilities. For birds and wildlife I pretty much keep one on my Z8 and one on a Z6iii. Side note, so far, I am not finding the Z6iii to be near as good for birds in animal mode as the Z8 in bird mode in the same conditions. Maybe I have defective birds.
@@samwarren1429 Very interesting to hear that Sam. I’ll have to rent a 180-600 to make that very review. Z6iii will have an update I’m sure. But z8 has more focus points 🤷♂️
Ok I’m in London for few days love to try your 400 4.5 I’ll let you try the new z6iii . I have 100-400 it’s good. The 400 2.8 is outstanding except heavy. But yours may be best .. keep up good work.
We aren't in London, but thanks
I have been using the 28-400mm f/4 - f/8 and I love the focal length better than the 24-200mm. I have the 100-400mm and figured with the teleconverters I can get the reach with a higher aperture. I also got the 180-600mm too. I guess I am stating that I like the Zooms better than the Primes. Cheers!
Fair enough but have you used primes in comparison? Is the 28-400 heavy?
@@russandloz I have tested them and I agree with Loz. I go all over the place and the one focal length is not for me. I need a zoom. Now if the subject was stable that would be a different story. Plus I do not use the longer zooms that much. On my Z9 I have the 24-120mm f/4. Z8 the 28-400mm. The 180-600mm with the 45mp whenever I decide to change. That way I can crop with better resolution or match the DX cameras. I will say I have cropped the Z6III and it still looks fabulous. 28-400mm is not that heavy. Try compairing those zoom lenses with the Tamron 35-150mm f/2 - 2.8. Tamron is a good lens but that is why I chose the 24-120mm at that time. I'll take the 28-400mm over that too, because of the weight. I am not into Bokeh and I do not mind f/5.6 and above resolution. More into Sharp and Clear Images. Cheers!
I own a 180-600 and was in doubt to trade in for a 400 because the weight, but I'll stick to 180-600 for now as it has more range.
Yes I would prefer that lens 180-600 despite the weight and size
Opted for the 100-400 for the versatility and MFD…Use it mostly for landscape and a bit of birding with an apsc Z body. I did buy the 1.4x teleconverter to use with it. But was pretty disappointed with how much of a hit on image quality it produced. Will try it again with a FF camera when i get that in the hopes it might be more usable. But dang, that teleconverter was expensive…Like you say, consider using only with your best fast primes.
@@craigcarlson4022 Unfortunately so, even with my prime it’s not impressive. But gives an opportunity of reach
At the 8 Minute Mark was there a crash? Three planes going the same direction horizontally and one going the opposite direction but turned sideways. The very right one seems yards away from the one that is turned sideways. I would like for You to explain that if they didn't crash did you do something in Photoshop or Lightroom? In other words did you combine images? Cheers!
I (russ) believe it's an optical illusion they direct towards the crowds, very smart flying. There was no crashing but I'm sure Loz will explain if he can.
No crash and I didn’t do anything in Lightroom or Photoshop; I think as Russ says it was just the angle that made it look like that. I’ll see if I’ve got a photo before or after.
I've found the photo just after that and have just put it in our Flickr group - Russ and Loz Open
@@lozzom Thankyou! I may have to join first. I have seen many Air Show Photos and I guess with lenses and the angle of planes do play tricks with depth of field. Cheers!
Just as an additional discussion point, it would have been interesting to have included the 28-400mm. Not that I would expect it to be as sharp or have anything like the bokeh quality, but it is a Z range lens with the same focal length.
@@davids2720 I am interested to try that as it’s such a zoom! But 6.3 at 80mm is a bit rubbish lol
@@russandloz It is, but that is not the point. There are some respected reviewers (I’m not inferring you are not!) out there who have spoken quite positively about it. It’s just always interesting to get wider views.
@@davids2720 Oh yeah I’d love to try it, must be really fun! I can’t really imagine that range to use
6:49 there is a mismatch between the example embedded graphics vs titles on both images. Ie 100-400 titled image is the 70-200? The 400 prime titled is actually the 100-400? Do I have that right. Enjoy watching your videos.
Yes, well spotted, I go stir crazy making these, but actual lens data in at the top, but thanks i'll put a correction on video description
I just can’t get the staff 🤷♂️
Excellent comparison of balls gentlemen 😆 (sorry)
You must get a Kirk Replacement Foot for your 400 f4.5. it fits the 100-400 and 70-200
Whats the advantage?
@@russandloz Arca-Swiss mount capability ;)
The 180-600 is definitely sharper with more contrast than the 100-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter @ 560mm..It's never 400 f2.8 sharp but mine has surprised my how good it is at such a fair price. It's only weight and light that restrict it. I love sharp, fast glass like my 14-28 2.8S, the 50 1.2S etc but I'm definitely happy with the 180-600 in reasonable light or better. I just carry it across my body from an eyelet on the foot mount, no problems and I'm nearly 70. The nearest honest review of the 180-600 to my actual experience is Thom Hogans.
I'm sure you're right about the 180-600 vs 100-400 at the long end thats why its a better choice for reach. I'd love to try one
@@russandloz Rent one...My choice for birds was a 100-400 plus a 600 PF, or the 180-600. the small zoom plus prime are much heavier and less convenient than the zoom but with better image quality. They look similar but the long prime, although the same aperture, 6.3, has higher resolution when cropping. The 1.4 TC works quite well with the zoom as long as used to make the subject just larger in the frame rather that for reach, if you see what I mean. At the end of the day your 400 2.8 will always have better image quality, especially the bokeh, even stopped down. It's just the inconvenience of TC's and the weight. A great combo would be your 400 plus a zoom. I was offered this week a 400 2.8 F mount, the E Nano, same as yours, in its case for not crazy money, I'm not in the UK at the moment, but in my late 60's I don't think I would use it except in a hide...Tempting though. I love fast primes but my wallet and aging body don't. 😂
@@musiqueetmontagne Yes it's true, if you can fill the frame with the subject with TC's they are fine, seldom is that choice though. The 400 2.8 is a beast to carry, but performs so well I can deal with it just about
I own both 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and 400 f/4.5. I want to get rid of one, but can't decide which one to go.
Depends if you need 100-300
The police are 'hot on the heels' of the criminal. Usually we say the product is 'hot off the shelf' (probably alluding to freshly baked cakes from the shelf in the oven (stove). Sorry to be picky. I would really like to hear comparisons between the old 100-400 mm for F mount adapted to the Z mount with its new expensive Z mount lens. I would like to see comparisons also for the f2.8 zooms (so-called trinity). My 70-200 F mount was one of my best lenses on the D850, and it appears to perform just as well on my Z8. I can see buying Z mount telephotos because of the weight advantage, but with the shorter focal length lenses I wonder if there is such a big advantage to simply adapting my old f mount lenses.
@@oliverflint8173 We have a few videos where we have compared f mount to z mount if you look on our channel. The ftz can get annoying as it extends the weight and annoying to handle. Also z mount are generally better contained with image rendition issues
i own all the tele lenses and i can tell you the sharpest at all appetures is the canon 100 500mm period.the nikon 100 400 is a great lens but at 400mm wide open its just good nikon 180 600mm good lens actually a tad sharper at 400mm than the 100 400mm only problem is weight its to heavy .my 400 2.8 is super heavy but the results are breath taking but allso a costly lens
From what i am hearing, the 100-400 is only really great at 100-300, then maybe the picture quality between 300-400 range is similar to 180-600 quality ? Thus would be interesting to see a comparison between the 100-400 vs 180-600 especially at 400mm. Either way cant go wrong with any in real world use.
Yeah I think the same, there are more determining factors for sharpness in shooting situations
I think the ‘greatness’ depends quite a bit on focusing distance
I was LCE in Exeter and tried the 100-400 . 180-600 . And the 600 pf . I totally thought I would be buying the 100-400 but after an hour’s testing I’ve got to say I was more impressed with the 180-600 at the long end. I also loved the fact that it zooms internally. Yes the 600 pf rocked but the price difference is crazy.
I bought the 180-600 and honestly.
If it was the same price as the 100-400 I would still rather buy it.
@@SingleTrack66 Yea, if you need the range its unbeatable especially for the price
I would love to see a comparison with the 100-400 and the 28-400. I own both and trying to decide which to take on a trip to Antarctica ?
@@ericerickson6537 depends if you need low light too?
If I take it to Antartica everything is shot outdoors. Other than the boat all else is outside. So I may not have to take the big lens.
I could imagine...two men meet at dawn on the misty field to settle a score...zoom versus prime...who will win?
We made a harness at Dawn video where we have a duel but of course i'd win! (Russ) unless I needed flexibility in a fast changing environment. 😁
@@russandloz Haha! Love you guys!
Zoom obviously - in the mist the Prime will miss - it will be either too close or too far away 🤷♂️😂
@@lozzom Makes sense! Lol!
What lenses was used to film this video?
@@Lon1an Nikon 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.8 yongnuo with z8 and zf
Only the power of Nikon optics can bring two grown men together to compare balls.
As always, a good look at real-world use cases, and the banter is top notch.
Why do I have a feeling that one of you will be holding a 180-600 soon? My bet is it will be Russ who buys it, but Loz will borrow it until Russ forgets he owns it and Russ moves on with another prime lens surprise.
You can thank me later, Loz.
Thanks, glad to infotain, I'm very happy with my 400 2.8 setup, but i sure would love to try it. For airshow and cars I would prefer the 180-600 for sure
When taking photos of aeroplanes with propellers…. use slowest shutter speed possible so you get motion in the propeller
Yep realised I definitely need to work on that !
At 5:00 the 400 prime is brighter (at ISO 200) than the 100-400 (at ISO 180) - same exposure time, same aperture number.
I presume the 100-400 reveals its "effective" aperture number corrected for the focal length and potentially focusing distance.
If the difference only is in the ISO 180 v 200 then the 100-400 likely has a slightly less fast T value.
@@jpdj2715 Interesting. Whats a T value?
@@russandloz - it's the lens's "Transmission value". It defines how much light comes through - how fast a lens is. Cinematographers want clarity and hence we see cine lenses that give you the T-value, not the f/number.
The f/number merely gives the diameter of the aperture's entry pupil as fraction of focal length.
For example my Nikon Z 105/2.8S macro lens.
The f/2.8 means that at fully open the diameter of the entry pupil is 37.5mm (because it is 105/2.8).
But this is only valid at "infinity" focusing distance in lens designs that do not suppress focus breathing.
And the 105/2.8 does not do that.
This means that focusing closer by lengthens the focal length.
When I focus that lens at 1:1 nearest focusing distance, then the lens display and camera tell me that 2.8 has changed in to 4.3. Well, the diameter of the entry pupil is not affected by this and still 37.5mm so the focal length now is 160mm.
For Depth of Field (DoF) this has implications in that we need to enter both the effective focal length and the effective aperture into the formula.
The reason we still use the f/number is that the (effective) number relates to Depth of Field and the T value is less easy.
DxO Mark measure the T value. When you go to their site, search for 1.2L lenses and look at their T value. That may be 1.5.
Yes, such 1.2 lenses are 1.5 "fast".
Next search for 1.4 G lenses - that probably also have a T value of 1.5, so they are equally fast.
As, per DxO Mark, the 1.2L lenses of the same generation as the 1.4G lenses, are not very sharp, they may have deeper DoF than the 1.4G lenses.
Now we have wasted the arguments used by buyers of these 1.2L lenses, they probably end up saying that these lenses are so beautifully soft and that's true, primarily because they're not very sharp.
Depth of Field is a rabbit hole in itself and there's more to it.
Moral here is that the numbers on your lens probably are a lie in most circumstances.
With Through The Lens (TTL) metering nobody cares, nobody knows, but when you shoot 8"*10" large format and each shot (a sheet of film for one shot) costs between US$10 and 20, plus the costs for processing, then you need to be aware of all this. You don't want to bracket. First time right.
@@jpdj2715 Blimey, entered a new world there! Very interesting. But how does this apply to the comparison image being brighter? Means the zoom is better at letting light in than it says?
@@russandloz - the one with the lighter image was the prime iirc, so that one could have a better T value. Alternatively, as I noticed ISO variations between your shots you could have the camera on Auto ISO and half-pressing the shutter release will lock exposure for what's in frame, which can vary with what's in the frame.
@@jpdj2715 Yes I did use auto ISO and it's outside so the light could slightly change I guess
6:00 I'm convinced this is because of the fake Gaussian blur applied in the z cameras. As the viewfinder is all electronic and the lenses focus has a lag in manual focus too, it allows them time to insert extra blur /rounder "enhanced balls" in the bokeh on z cameras with z lenses. Using 105 Z macro I've even seen an obvious blur mask jumping on and off the subject, it's pretty blatent and not a natural blur sometimes can see hexagonal edges to the mask. Also with Z 50/85mm 1.8 I've seen weirdness putting my finger through the bokeh of distant lights, where it appears the balls are coming out of my finger rather than behind, like the software has decided the shadowy part of my finger is the edge of my finger and used that as thr cutoff for this artificial bokeh ball. The tech allows lighter lenses etc but is annoying you can't turn this feature off in Z cameras as it's obviously unnatural and that's why I use a mirrorless vs phone after all..
Interesting theory, but really i'm not a fan of z lenses out of focus areas, they are usually too busy looking, so the mask isn't doing a great job