I am in love with my Z 180-600. I’m 74 years old and yesterday I spent 3 non-stop hours hand holding it while shooting non-stop action around a Bald Eagle nest with 2 adults and 2 babies. Meanwhile countless ducks and Cormorants were buzzing the sky around us providing even more opportunities! When paired with my Z8, this lens is a dream come true! My picture quality and the ease of use are fantastic!
@@lewcehjitl3282 I have had no complaints about battery use! In this 3 hour period, shooting 1,800 images(mostly in bursts) and using focus constantly, I used 1.5 batteries! I turn the camera off when there is no activity!
@@lewcehjitl3282 I used 1.5 batteries. I was shooting 20 frame/second bursts but I turn the camera off whenever the action lulls! Also, I rarely view my shots in the back screen unless I think I got something amazing and I just catch wait to see it! I’ve had no complaints about battery life. I usually bring 4 batteries with me, but I don’t think I’ve ever used more than two.
This question of "which telephoto" has become a real challenge for Nikon photographers because Nikon has produced so many amazing telephoto lenses for the Z-system. I was a long-time Nikon F-mount shooter and became an early adopter of the Z-system. As early as 2018 I was shooting a "hybrid" of DSLRs and Z Bodies and relied on the FTZ to make everything "sing." Because I was an early adopter, I shot Z telephotos as they were introduced, thus I have had the 70-200S, 100-400S, 400 f4.5, and 800PF... in that order with some overlap. Of this kit, the 400 f4.5 was my favorite lens for is faster aperture and amazing image quality. While I loved the 800PF, I found that it was too long and that I only shot it to justify the expense of buying it. In October I had a chance to buy the 180-600 and added this to my bag. Having sold the 100-400 and 70-200, I began to reconnect with the value of a zoom. Back in my F-Mount days, I was a 200-400 f4VR shooter and the 180-600 seemed to be the perfect lens for a guy like me. While the 180-600 is less sharp at 400mm than the 400 f4.5, it was sharper enough. Furthermore, the ease of shifting to DX mode on the Z9 and Z8 allowed me to get the approximate field of view that my 800PF offered. Sure this is a crop, but if used sparingly and with good processing, one can make a DX file look lovely. With the 180-600 replacing my other lenses, I began to wonder why I was holding onto my 400 f4.5 and 800PF. Because I absolutely love crepuscular light, I didn't want to be married to only an f6.3 aperture, as such, I began to explore my options. In November I decided to sell my 400 f4.5 and 800PF and I replaced them with the 400 f2.8TC. I've now shot the latter with the 180-600 for about 6 months. Buying into one of Nikon's premier primes was a serious expense, but it with the 180-600 offers me a mix of amazing flexibility and image quality. Like many, I continue to struggle with defining the "best" kit for my type of photography, but for the moment, my pairing seems to be meeting my needs. Thanks for providing a nice discussion about Nikon's "orphaned" high-quality prime... bruce
Yes, they are. I really have to think hard whether I should just dump all my Canon gear and migrate. That is why I still haven't bought the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 yet. If i were to switch, I would just grab the Z 800mm f/6.3 PF and that would be everything I need as far as birding goes.
How so ? My RF 85mmF1.2 is superb. Nikon doesn't make one. My RF10- 20mm F4 is tack sharp and sooo wide. Nikon doesn't make one. My RF 100-500 Can focus close @ 500mm, and still is 500mm @ mfd, and can focus 40cm from the end of the lens @ 500mm and thus can be used as a macro in the field. Nikons 180- 600 cannot focus that close, and is not 600mm @ mfd means not nearly as good for close up work in the field. The Canon lens is also 600g lighter. This makes a huge difference after several hrs of hand held shooting. The Canon RF is better.
Thank you for your video and your thoughts. For me I decided to go for the 600 mm PF (from the 500 mm PF). In Germany you often need 600 mm and more. The 600 mm PF is also light and super sharp. Nikon has for different needs different good options.
I am now looking to purchase the z400 prime . I live in England and poor light is the most common the problem is refraction Closer up the z 180-600 is a quality lens is the problem. as prime seems to work better. Has always you have to be out there to notice the best lens for you . Great help listening to your advice. Refraction is the killer . Ps filming on the z the two times converter is not bad . On other occasions it’s mostly down to the lighting. Cheers for your help
Me too, this side of 13k it is the best. Rarely is it too long (and that is a good thing) and when it is too short I put the 1.4z tele on or hit dx mode (on Z8 this feels like no loss at all) retaining the f4.5 and iso values or even both and get an f6.3 840mm equivalent (in dx mode). But the point is the image quality from the 400 f4.5 is wholly addictive. Would have maybe been persuaded by a Z 200-500 f5 constant with internal zoom but it doesn't exist and I am overjoyed with my 400mm prime. S glass all the way. 180-600 looks a load of fun though!
400 4.5 is a lot of fun and let's in that little extra light in the evening. I jumped to the 800PF and have no regrets. The 180-600 that I recently re purchased is a no brainer for travel. Super handy and versatile.
When the Nikon Z80 comes out in May then the 400/4.5 will be a 600/4.5 & with tc1.4 an 840mm 6.3 ... nice! The 180-600 will be a 270-900 which in my opinion is the perfect range for birding, plus the MFD is decent too, with tc1.4 a 378-1260 f8/f9 ... not too shabby, eh! The 600pf is then 900/6.3(1260 f9 with tc1.4), & 800pf is 1200/6.3(1680 f9 with tc1.4). Even Glen B. would agree nikon has indeed closed the gap finally, not only that but surpassed the competition totally.😊 I own the 800pf, 600pf, 180-600 so with 2x Z8's now a Z80 would mean the birding bases will be all loaded. Cheers ... Geoff A. nb. of course in DX mode now on Z8 the fov is this now but for 19.4MP only, so a Z80 would make it much more so sensor size is a 'watch this space', hopefully 32MP.
If I were to switch to Nikon, the Z 800mm f/6.3 PF would be my go-to 24/7 lens without a question of a doubt. Fantastic reach, sharper than zooms plus more than reasonable aperture size at an affordable price as compared to a true Big White 800mm f/5.6 (or Big Black in the case of Nikon, LOL). The only modestly priced Canon equivalent would be f/9 at 800mm on the RF 200-800mm (without having to go to f/11 on the RF 800mm f/11).
Thanks for this! I rented the 100-400 to try yesterday and although the versatility is nice it was not nearly as sharp (or the backgrounds as nice at 400) as the 500 I'm using with an adaptor on my Z8. For my birding the birds are all close so I'm feeling a bit cramped using 500. I guess I'll ne renting the 400 on Monday. Thank you!!
Than you Jan for review ,I will get my z400 f4,5 next tuesday. I have z180-600mm since december ,very good lens but too heavy for phographing small rapidly moving birds on winter feeding places. In these situations you cannot use monopod and there z400 f4,5 shines and Im gonna use also with 1,4 ext. Cheers
I own 2 lenses: my main lens is the 800mm pf and the 400m 4.5 in addition to that. Now I have a long and a short lens and a lens for low Light situations. A Sony rx10 24-600mm makes the compleet picture or the compagnion for one of the 2 prime s. But I love my 800mm: as lightwight as I am willing to carry around and as good as I am willing to pay for. Not a lens for every situation though.
I bought the 400mm F4.5 with the intention of using it with the 1.4TC almost always attached. At the time of purchase the 600mm PF had not been announced and while I had the 180-600mm on pre-order I had no idea when I might get one. The 400+TC does not disappoint and I have no complaints. It is so easy to carry all day and I love the ability to remove the TC and get F4.5. My pre-order came quicker than expected so I ended up with both lenses and intend to keep both. I am tempted by the 600mm PF except for the minimum focus distance which I would find very limiting. Between the 400+TC and 180-600 I would say the 400+TC is still a little more snappy to focus and just a tiny bit sharper though mostly I wouldn't be able to tell between them. Would I like a 600PF for the little bit of extra sharpness... you bet. With all 3 lenses it would still be only slightly over half the cost of a 600mm F4.
I was very keen to hear your opinion on this lens, especially now because i'm interested in the new Sigma 500mm F5.6. The Sigma lens not taking a TC (for sony) is pretty much a deal breaker, half the reason of having a prime lens is to have a lens sharp enough to work well with teleconverters!
Having the 400 4.5 for a while, it is often too short but use DX mode which isn't ideal. I love the weight and portability but I know the 600 lens is a better choice, it's out my budget. Maybe the 500pf at a great used price would have been a better choice with the older VR. Hard to say without using them. Coming from the 200-500 I didn't want another heavy lens like the 180-600.
I’m definitely going for the 180-600, for my use case (I love wildlife but it’s not a primary genre for me). If I shot sports more often, I’d definitely grab this 400 4.5 as a companion to my 70-200 2.8. But overall I tend to lean more towards zooms for longer focal lengths, and primes on the shorter side.
Was at Stick Marsh the last couple of days and wished that I had the 400 f/4.5 though it would have failed in other applications such as when a wood stork walked up to me and fortunately the 180-600 was the ticket.
A nice review, thanks. As I age, 3 lbs is about the most I can manage in a hand held lens. So these new lenses are game changers for me. Fortunately, all the major camera companies are producing lighter mirrorless lenses these days. For example, I am a huge fan of the Canon RF100-500 on the R7, with a helpful crop factor for extra reach and a minimum focus distance of less than 1m for "macro" work. If pressed, the 1.4x TC adds little extra weight, with minimal degradation in terms of image quality and AF performance and zero impact on minimum focus distance. For birding, it's hard to beat this combination IMO.
I like to follow your channel as a SONY shooter, as your genre has man similarities with my sports and concert genres. You also push the cameras and lenses to it's limits, which allows me to judge the capabilities of other high-end brands in realistic scenarios. Personally I don't own any fast telephoto prime lenses. All I own are 70-200mm, 100-400mm and 200-600mm telephoto lenses, which are sufficient for my genres on my A1 and A9III. Judging from your video, AF tracking looks pretty good on your Z9.
If you are a bird photographer, Nikon is the way to go. Right now. And Canon is far behind for "amateurs" like us. Sony has come up with a really exciting 300 f2.8 (for "cheap" money) where 2x works really well - very interesting what it can become in fixed fast fixed lenses for Sony.
I have the Z400 f/4.5 and love its small size and weight. However, I do miss the longer focal length at times and also carry the Z180-600mm zoom. If I could afford it, I would get the Z600 PF, but for now I have to make do with what I have.
Nikon is blowing canon out of the water with their lens lineup. Their Z9 and Z8 cameras are also amazing choices. I am a canon shooter so I have been very tempted to switch over
I have the 100-400S because the MFD is important for me. I'm still waiting for the 180-600 for those times I want the reach. Meanwhile, I rely on my OM gear for that extra reach with the 40-150 f2.8 with 2.0x TC or the 100-400. Sometimes it is tempting to get the M.Zuiko 300 f4.
If I had the budget, I would probably own a 100-400 and a 600 6.3 or even a 600 4 TC . . . but I don't, so I went with a 400 f 4.5 and I really like it so far.
Don’t bother with the 100-400 it’s not nearly as sharp and the focus precision seems a bit less accurate. I have one and it never gets any use. It’s the only Nikon lens I regret buying in 4 decades of shooting Nikon.
Great video! I'm not sure TC's alter IBIS if they are from the camera manufacturer... Nikon has a dial in your focal length for non modern lenses, so you gotta think the camera would recognize the TC as the direct mount and adjust the distance for the lens based on that.
When i was heading to my local train st . I saw a Parrot in the wild , Bright Green plumage similar to the variety you capture .. And am over here in Scotland .Though there has been no articles of any Parrots escaping from a private owner or Zoo that i've seen on fb ..
So my take-away is the 400/4.5 is a great performer but not one you would add to your bag as a bird photographer. As a bird videographer that owns the 100-400, 180-600, 600pf and 800pf, I would tend to agree. By all accounts the 400/4.5 an excellent performer but to me it is "too specialized" to consider adding to add to my kit -- I just don't know when I would use it.
Hi Jan, I think the 400mm f4.5 would be great on a new APS-C flagship camera for the Nikon Z series, let's say a direct competitor to the Canon eos R7. The 400mm f4.5 with a camera like that will be a killer combo. The extra reach because of the cropfactor and the low weight will make it a nice combo for longer hikes. Do you have any news about a new APS-C camera for the Nikon Z series coming out soon?
This is what I've been waiting from Canon. A prime lens that is a bit faster than a zoom lens but a lighter, cheaper alternative to the serious super telephoto range. Instead they keep releasing new zoom lenses with even slower f stops
I am saving to buy canon rf prime , but it seems like it better to invest is Nikon system as they have less expensive 600 and 800 . I wonder if it’s time to move to Nikon .
Last week I received the new Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN Sports Lens, the Sigma 500 5.6 and the Nikon 400mm 4.5 are about the same size, the Sigma is a bit heavier, but it is a 500mm ! The Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN Sports are very easy to handle and use, the images looks great, so I can very highly recommend it.
@@jan_wegener It is made for Leica L-mount and for Sony E-mount. I use Sony A7RIVA, so I do not need teleconverter, I often use APSC mode with 26 megapixels. I do not at all need 15fps, 5 fps is more than enough for me. I like the small size and low weight of the new Sigma 500mm, I had the Sony 200-600mm which was too big and heavy for my use when hiking, I neither liked the IBIS issues with the Sony A7R series cameras, Sony knows about the problem, but Sony will not comment it in public.
Hi Jan. Great video as usual, thank you. I am a Nikon shooter - previously D810. Still have the D500 + Nikkor AF-S 80-400 (on DX eqiv. 120-600mm) for wildlife. I also have a Z7 II and few Z lenses - moving to Z system.. For wildlife the Z 180 - 600 would be the best focal lens for me, but the quality in low light is not the same as Z 400 S or even Z 100 - 400 S. On Z7 II or on Z8 on full frame we have over 50 MB. If we will change on Z7 II / Z8 into DX mode to have "longer focal lens" we will have about 29 MB approx. What is better in your opinion, if I will use camera DX mode or Z teleconverter 1.4x (on full frame mode more pixels - eg. on Z 100-400mm S) - or it will be similar result ? Thanks in advance.
Dx mode is an in camera crop, nothing else, so you get the identical result by shooting Full frame and then crop. The TC will allow you to get more pixels onto the bird, which usually helps, unless the lens can't handle it well
As a Canon shooter I feel Nikon's portfolio is more balanced. Better f-performance compared to Canon's telefoto lenses and price is between high end >10k€ and low/moderate budget ~1-3k€. But at the end the entire package counts camera+lenses, like autofocus performance, Mpix and the the lens performance. AND first of all the photographer makes the picture not the camera gear 😅
This type of lens is missing in the Sony line up. There are only the very expensive 400 f2.8 and 600 f4 or the darker 200 600. The new Sigma 500 is also 5.6. f4 or f4.5 would be useful for sports in winter.
I’ve been extensively using 400mm F4.5 for bird photography and I can safely say that the autofocus is phenomenal. The teleconverter is a definite no for moving birds. The autofocus is very slow.
600 PF over the 400 f4.5 seems like a no-brainer to me if you are interested in shooting birds. Yes it's faster but if you have to crop more to get the composition then I'm not sure how much you really gain by that. I've owned several 400's and they are inevitably just too short. And if you are lucky enough to get close to something you still can't fill the frame due to the minimum focus distance. Although 2.5m is pretty good for a prime I still think I'd find it limiting. As you said Jan, a 100-400 and it's ability to shoot at high mag when you get close to a subject would still be preferable for me. The zoom isn't that much slower. Nice lens but I think it makes more sense for sports. As a Canon shooter I'd love something comparable to the 600 PF but I doubt we'll ever see it. Just isn't how they roll.
The 400mm f4.5 with an extention tube gets me to a close focus of 1,85 m. I use that when I am in a hide with dark windows or in low light. The 2,5m is OK but the magnification is not so good with small birds. The extention tube solves that problem.
@@robotten5966 Yes. Good tip. I often carry an extension tube stacked between the Tele-extenders for my primes. I just have to remember to take it off before I try and focus on something further away. 😂
Hi Jan, If I were a Nikon shooter, this lens had me screaming for a Z90 (as a mini Z9 to compete the R7) But given the 400/4.5 and 600/6.3 and 800/9 have the same bokeh-power, I do prefer the flexibility and price of the 200-800 over these compelling Nikon primes which probably are giving slightly better IQ, but lack the zooming.
They don't even have a low mpx crop mirrorless. Pretty sure that a 40 mpx crop isn't coming anytime soon. And if by chance they do make one, expect to pay a premium with worse sensor performance than ff
They currently have (at least) two low m p x crop mirrorless bodies. Neither offers the robust focus systems of the Z9. The D500 was a favourite amongst birders for the precise reason of the crop factor. You often don't need the full frame sensor if you're only trying to photograph a tiny bird at a distance. There's a reason a lot of birders are gravitating toward the Canon R7. If Nikon made something similar at a similar price point it might, just possibly, do quite well. @@christophercarlimages9003
Great lens. I think a lot of people would benefit shooting at 400mm as it will force them to work more on their field craft rather than try and solve everything with 600mm or greater focal lengths. 600mm or greater focal lengths have their place for the more timid/shy birds - but there are many where a 400mm prime is all you need.
Are you finding yourself slowly gravitating toward Nikon? I really wish Canon would get on the ball and give us something ultra-useful like an RF 200-600 f/4 or f/5.6 with 1.4 TC. Something!
These days I gravitate toward whatever helps me the most in the field. That does not necessarily have to come from just one brand. In saying that atm all my personal gear is still Canon, but I have my eye on the 600PF for sure
I think you inadvertently proved why the 400mm f4.5 is the most superior of the bunch. The 400mm f4.5 is the most versatile lens of the group, outside of a zoom, and is still better than a zoom. The 400mm can be extended to 600ish and 800. 400mm can also get to 4.5 when the lighting falls. I would rather have the f4.5 available than not, and I would rather have a prime than a zoom. Because you have a 600mm the 400 is far less appealing. The only less that compares is the 180-600 but you have a heavy lens that cannot get to 4.5 and is not as sharp and doesn’t render as well. I chose the 400 because I short everything, from Elk and Moose in the fall of to Birds in the winter. Its AF performance with the 2.0 TC is exceptional as well.
![Gunna - one of wun [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/w_JtBYqMgk8/mqdefault.jpg)
I am in love with my Z 180-600. I’m 74 years old and yesterday I spent 3 non-stop hours hand holding it while shooting non-stop action around a Bald Eagle nest with 2 adults and 2 babies. Meanwhile countless ducks and Cormorants were buzzing the sky around us providing even more opportunities! When paired with my Z8, this lens is a dream come true! My picture quality and the ease of use are fantastic!
That’s great to hear!
How many batteries did you use?
@@lewcehjitl3282 I have had no complaints about battery use! In this 3 hour period, shooting 1,800 images(mostly in bursts) and using focus constantly, I used 1.5 batteries! I turn the camera off when there is no activity!
Living the dream!! 😀
@@lewcehjitl3282 I used 1.5 batteries. I was shooting 20 frame/second bursts but I turn the camera off whenever the action lulls! Also, I rarely view my shots in the back screen unless I think I got something amazing and I just catch wait to see it! I’ve had no complaints about battery life. I usually bring 4 batteries with me, but I don’t think I’ve ever used more than two.
This question of "which telephoto" has become a real challenge for Nikon photographers because Nikon has produced so many amazing telephoto lenses for the Z-system. I was a long-time Nikon F-mount shooter and became an early adopter of the Z-system. As early as 2018 I was shooting a "hybrid" of DSLRs and Z Bodies and relied on the FTZ to make everything "sing." Because I was an early adopter, I shot Z telephotos as they were introduced, thus I have had the 70-200S, 100-400S, 400 f4.5, and 800PF... in that order with some overlap. Of this kit, the 400 f4.5 was my favorite lens for is faster aperture and amazing image quality. While I loved the 800PF, I found that it was too long and that I only shot it to justify the expense of buying it.
In October I had a chance to buy the 180-600 and added this to my bag. Having sold the 100-400 and 70-200, I began to reconnect with the value of a zoom. Back in my F-Mount days, I was a 200-400 f4VR shooter and the 180-600 seemed to be the perfect lens for a guy like me. While the 180-600 is less sharp at 400mm than the 400 f4.5, it was sharper enough. Furthermore, the ease of shifting to DX mode on the Z9 and Z8 allowed me to get the approximate field of view that my 800PF offered. Sure this is a crop, but if used sparingly and with good processing, one can make a DX file look lovely.
With the 180-600 replacing my other lenses, I began to wonder why I was holding onto my 400 f4.5 and 800PF. Because I absolutely love crepuscular light, I didn't want to be married to only an f6.3 aperture, as such, I began to explore my options. In November I decided to sell my 400 f4.5 and 800PF and I replaced them with the 400 f2.8TC. I've now shot the latter with the 180-600 for about 6 months. Buying into one of Nikon's premier primes was a serious expense, but it with the 180-600 offers me a mix of amazing flexibility and image quality.
Like many, I continue to struggle with defining the "best" kit for my type of photography, but for the moment, my pairing seems to be meeting my needs.
Thanks for providing a nice discussion about Nikon's "orphaned" high-quality prime... bruce
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Bruce
Nikon is killing the lens game, as a Canon shooter I’m jealous of that 😳😁
If I had the money to switch to Nikon I would but I have a complete set of EF glass and accessories.
Same
Yes, they are. I really have to think hard whether I should just dump all my Canon gear and migrate. That is why I still haven't bought the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 yet. If i were to switch, I would just grab the Z 800mm f/6.3 PF and that would be everything I need as far as birding goes.
How so ? My RF 85mmF1.2 is superb. Nikon doesn't make one.
My RF10- 20mm F4 is tack sharp and sooo wide. Nikon doesn't make one.
My RF 100-500 Can focus close @ 500mm, and still is 500mm @ mfd, and can focus 40cm from the end of the lens @ 500mm and thus can be used as a macro in the field.
Nikons 180- 600 cannot focus that close, and is not 600mm @ mfd means not nearly as good for close up work in the field. The Canon lens is also 600g lighter. This makes a huge difference after several hrs of hand held shooting.
The Canon RF is better.
@@nordic5490Nikon has 85mm 1.2 lens
Thank you for your video and your thoughts. For me I decided to go for the 600 mm PF (from the 500 mm PF). In Germany you often need 600 mm and more. The 600 mm PF is also light and super sharp. Nikon has for different needs different good options.
Nice choice, I love that lens
It's an impressive lens, but too short for our needs - 600mm PF and 800mm PF better suited - thanks for the great review.
I am now looking to purchase the z400 prime . I live in England and poor light is the most common the problem is refraction Closer up the z 180-600 is a quality lens is the problem. as prime seems to work better. Has always you have to be out there to notice the best lens for you . Great help listening to your advice. Refraction is the killer . Ps filming on the z the two times converter is not bad . On other occasions it’s mostly down to the lighting. Cheers for your help
I have the 400 4.5 and I like it a lot.. super light and very nice image quality 👍👍.
Thanks for sharing
Me too, this side of 13k it is the best. Rarely is it too long (and that is a good thing) and when it is too short I put the 1.4z tele on or hit dx mode (on Z8 this feels like no loss at all) retaining the f4.5 and iso values or even both and get an f6.3 840mm equivalent (in dx mode). But the point is the image quality from the 400 f4.5 is wholly addictive. Would have maybe been persuaded by a Z 200-500 f5 constant with internal zoom but it doesn't exist and I am overjoyed with my 400mm prime. S glass all the way. 180-600 looks a load of fun though!
400 4.5 is a lot of fun and let's in that little extra light in the evening. I jumped to the 800PF and have no regrets. The 180-600 that I recently re purchased is a no brainer for travel. Super handy and versatile.
Thanks for sharing
When the Nikon Z80 comes out in May then the 400/4.5 will be a 600/4.5 & with tc1.4 an 840mm 6.3 ... nice!
The 180-600 will be a 270-900 which in my opinion is the perfect range for birding, plus the MFD is decent too, with tc1.4 a 378-1260 f8/f9 ... not too shabby, eh!
The 600pf is then 900/6.3(1260 f9 with tc1.4), & 800pf is 1200/6.3(1680 f9 with tc1.4).
Even Glen B. would agree nikon has indeed closed the gap finally, not only that but surpassed the competition totally.😊
I own the 800pf, 600pf, 180-600 so with 2x Z8's now a Z80 would mean the birding bases will be all loaded. Cheers ... Geoff A.
nb. of course in DX mode now on Z8 the fov is this now but for 19.4MP only, so a Z80 would make it much more so sensor size is a 'watch this space', hopefully 32MP.
If I were to switch to Nikon, the Z 800mm f/6.3 PF would be my go-to 24/7 lens without a question of a doubt. Fantastic reach, sharper than zooms plus more than reasonable aperture size at an affordable price as compared to a true Big White 800mm f/5.6 (or Big Black in the case of Nikon, LOL). The only modestly priced Canon equivalent would be f/9 at 800mm on the RF 200-800mm (without having to go to f/11 on the RF 800mm f/11).
Thanks for this! I rented the 100-400 to try yesterday and although the versatility is nice it was not nearly as sharp (or the backgrounds as nice at 400) as the 500 I'm using with an adaptor on my Z8. For my birding the birds are all close so I'm feeling a bit cramped using 500. I guess I'll ne renting the 400 on Monday. Thank you!!
Interesting!
Than you Jan for review ,I will get my z400 f4,5 next tuesday. I have z180-600mm since december ,very good lens but too heavy for phographing small rapidly moving birds on winter feeding places. In these situations you cannot use monopod and there z400 f4,5 shines and Im gonna use also with 1,4 ext. Cheers
Nice
My 100-400 is often too short for wildlive, so I decided to buy the 600 PF. With the Z8 a fantastic combo.
That’s a $15K kit here in Australia mate must be nice to have that sort of $$ for your hobby lol
Are you actually having a dig a guy for having the funds to buy his choice of kit? @@plantman6245
I own 2 lenses: my main lens is the 800mm pf and the 400m 4.5 in addition to that. Now I have a long and a short lens and a lens for low Light situations. A Sony rx10 24-600mm makes the compleet picture or the compagnion for one of the 2 prime s.
But I love my 800mm: as lightwight as I am willing to carry around and as good as I am willing to pay for. Not a lens for every situation though.
Awesome, thanks for sharing
I bought the 400mm F4.5 with the intention of using it with the 1.4TC almost always attached. At the time of purchase the 600mm PF had not been announced and while I had the 180-600mm on pre-order I had no idea when I might get one. The 400+TC does not disappoint and I have no complaints. It is so easy to carry all day and I love the ability to remove the TC and get F4.5. My pre-order came quicker than expected so I ended up with both lenses and intend to keep both. I am tempted by the 600mm PF except for the minimum focus distance which I would find very limiting. Between the 400+TC and 180-600 I would say the 400+TC is still a little more snappy to focus and just a tiny bit sharper though mostly I wouldn't be able to tell between them. Would I like a 600PF for the little bit of extra sharpness... you bet. With all 3 lenses it would still be only slightly over half the cost of a 600mm F4.
Thanks for sharing! It definitely still works well with the TC
Great review on a 400mm lens, not my cup of tea as I like zoom but its always good to see improvements in every range.
I was very keen to hear your opinion on this lens, especially now because i'm interested in the new Sigma 500mm F5.6. The Sigma lens not taking a TC (for sony) is pretty much a deal breaker, half the reason of having a prime lens is to have a lens sharp enough to work well with teleconverters!
Yea, not taking TCs is not great for bigger primes
Having the 400 4.5 for a while, it is often too short but use DX mode which isn't ideal. I love the weight and portability but I know the 600 lens is a better choice, it's out my budget. Maybe the 500pf at a great used price would have been a better choice with the older VR. Hard to say without using them. Coming from the 200-500 I didn't want another heavy lens like the 180-600.
I’m definitely going for the 180-600, for my use case (I love wildlife but it’s not a primary genre for me). If I shot sports more often, I’d definitely grab this 400 4.5 as a companion to my 70-200 2.8.
But overall I tend to lean more towards zooms for longer focal lengths, and primes on the shorter side.
Thanks for sharing, I am sure for sports it’s excellent
Was at Stick Marsh the last couple of days and wished that I had the 400 f/4.5 though it would have failed in other applications such as when a wood stork walked up to me and fortunately the 180-600 was the ticket.
A nice review, thanks. As I age, 3 lbs is about the most I can manage in a hand held lens. So these new lenses are game changers for me. Fortunately, all the major camera companies are producing lighter mirrorless lenses these days. For example, I am a huge fan of the Canon RF100-500 on the R7, with a helpful crop factor for extra reach and a minimum focus distance of less than 1m for "macro" work. If pressed, the 1.4x TC adds little extra weight, with minimal degradation in terms of image quality and AF performance and zero impact on minimum focus distance. For birding, it's hard to beat this combination IMO.
Yes, I am hopeful we will be seeing more and more smaller “big” lenses
I like to follow your channel as a SONY shooter, as your genre has man similarities with my sports and concert genres. You also push the cameras and lenses to it's limits, which allows me to judge the capabilities of other high-end brands in realistic scenarios. Personally I don't own any fast telephoto prime lenses. All I own are 70-200mm, 100-400mm and 200-600mm telephoto lenses, which are sufficient for my genres on my A1 and A9III. Judging from your video, AF tracking looks pretty good on your Z9.
Thank you! Great to hear. I should have some Sony gear coming soon
If you are a bird photographer, Nikon is the way to go. Right now. And Canon is far behind for "amateurs" like us. Sony has come up with a really exciting 300 f2.8 (for "cheap" money) where 2x works really well - very interesting what it can become in fixed fast fixed lenses for Sony.
I have the Z400 f/4.5 and love its small size and weight. However, I do miss the longer focal length at times and also carry the Z180-600mm zoom. If I could afford it, I would get the Z600 PF, but for now I have to make do with what I have.
Do you find you don’t need the 400 if you use the 180-600?
Just purchased the Sigma 500mm f5.6 for Sony , testing at the moment but is looking very good so far. Canon and Nikon model surely coming 👍
Awesome!
I am not so sure, we'll see a Nikon version. There is a 500/5.6 already, not sure there is a market. I'm all for choices tho.
@@martinhildagreed. I don’t think Nikon will do a 500, they already have the 600
Nikon is blowing canon out of the water with their lens lineup. Their Z9 and Z8 cameras are also amazing choices. I am a canon shooter so I have been very tempted to switch over
Yes, the lenses are very tempting
I have the 100-400S because the MFD is important for me. I'm still waiting for the 180-600 for those times I want the reach. Meanwhile, I rely on my OM gear for that extra reach with the 40-150 f2.8 with 2.0x TC or the 100-400. Sometimes it is tempting to get the M.Zuiko 300 f4.
Thanks for sharing
If I had the budget, I would probably own a 100-400 and a 600 6.3 or even a 600 4 TC . . . but I don't, so I went with a 400 f 4.5 and I really like it so far.
Don’t bother with the 100-400 it’s not nearly as sharp and the focus precision seems a bit less accurate. I have one and it never gets any use. It’s the only Nikon lens I regret buying in 4 decades of shooting Nikon.
Interesting you say that. The first time I had that lens, I didn't love it. And when I had it again recently, it was somehow much better.
Great video! I'm not sure TC's alter IBIS if they are from the camera manufacturer... Nikon has a dial in your focal length for non modern lenses, so you gotta think the camera would recognize the TC as the direct mount and adjust the distance for the lens based on that.
You can test it yourself. Put the TCs on and try to do handheld video. It still works but becomes more shaky
@@jan_wegenerok word, I will !
When i was heading to my local train st . I saw a Parrot in the wild , Bright Green plumage similar to the variety you capture ..
And am over here in Scotland .Though there has been no articles of any Parrots escaping from a private owner or Zoo that i've seen on fb ..
Colin was it perhaps a parakeet ruclips.net/video/Ico8cRO3sAg/видео.html
Probably an India Indian Ringneck?
So my take-away is the 400/4.5 is a great performer but not one you would add to your bag as a bird photographer. As a bird videographer that owns the 100-400, 180-600, 600pf and 800pf, I would tend to agree. By all accounts the 400/4.5 an excellent performer but to me it is "too specialized" to consider adding to add to my kit -- I just don't know when I would use it.
Pretty much my thoughts. Excellent lens that is by far the best when 400mm is the main shooting length
Hi Jan, I think the 400mm f4.5 would be great on a new APS-C flagship camera for the Nikon Z series, let's say a direct competitor to the Canon eos R7. The 400mm f4.5 with a camera like that will be a killer combo. The extra reach because of the cropfactor and the low weight will make it a nice combo for longer hikes. Do you have any news about a new APS-C camera for the Nikon Z series coming out soon?
Yes that would be nice!
This is what I've been waiting from Canon. A prime lens that is a bit faster than a zoom lens but a lighter, cheaper alternative to the serious super telephoto range. Instead they keep releasing new zoom lenses with even slower f stops
Agreed they need to release an updated 400 5.6 with IS for rf, or let someone else do it....
I am saving to buy canon rf prime , but it seems like it better to invest is Nikon system as they have less expensive 600 and 800 . I wonder if it’s time to move to Nikon .
I think we’re all waiting for that 😉
@jan_wegener yes but we don't all have a super expensive supertelephoto lens and waiting on this just to use as our backup 🤣
@@jakecook716something like a6.3/600 I’d probably use as much or more as an F4 prime
Last week I received the new Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN Sports Lens, the Sigma 500 5.6 and the Nikon 400mm 4.5 are about the same size, the Sigma is a bit heavier, but it is a 500mm ! The Sigma 500mm 5.6 DG DN Sports are very easy to handle and use, the images looks great, so I can very highly recommend it.
The sigma is for Sony, right? So one Limitation is that you cannot use TCs and only get 15fps max, but size wise it’s very attractive for sure
@@jan_wegener It is made for Leica L-mount and for Sony E-mount. I use Sony A7RIVA, so I do not need teleconverter, I often use APSC mode with 26 megapixels. I do not at all need 15fps, 5 fps is more than enough for me. I like the small size and low weight of the new Sigma 500mm, I had the Sony 200-600mm which was too big and heavy for my use when hiking, I neither liked the IBIS issues with the Sony A7R series cameras, Sony knows about the problem, but Sony will not comment it in public.
Hi Jan. Great video as usual, thank you. I am a Nikon shooter - previously D810. Still have the D500 + Nikkor AF-S 80-400 (on DX eqiv. 120-600mm) for wildlife. I also have a Z7 II and few Z lenses - moving to Z system.. For wildlife the Z 180 - 600 would be the best focal lens for me, but the quality in low light is not the same as Z 400 S or even Z 100 - 400 S. On Z7 II or on Z8 on full frame we have over 50 MB. If we will change on Z7 II / Z8 into DX mode to have "longer focal lens" we will have about 29 MB approx. What is better in your opinion, if I will use camera DX mode or Z teleconverter 1.4x (on full frame mode more pixels - eg. on Z 100-400mm S) - or it will be similar result ? Thanks in advance.
Dx mode is an in camera crop, nothing else, so you get the identical result by shooting Full frame and then crop.
The TC will allow you to get more pixels onto the bird, which usually helps, unless the lens can't handle it well
Thanks a lot Ian for your answer.
Going on african safari next year have the nikon z 100-400 as my longest lens do you think this will be long enough
Not in all situations, but for bigger animals it should be
As a Canon shooter I feel Nikon's portfolio is more balanced. Better f-performance compared to Canon's telefoto lenses and price is between high end >10k€ and low/moderate budget ~1-3k€. But at the end the entire package counts camera+lenses, like autofocus performance, Mpix and the the lens performance. AND first of all the photographer makes the picture not the camera gear 😅
That’s sums it up well. In terms of wildlife lenses Nikon definitely has a much bigger offering
This type of lens is missing in the Sony line up. There are only the very expensive 400 f2.8 and 600 f4 or the darker 200 600. The new Sigma 500 is also 5.6. f4 or f4.5 would be useful for sports in winter.
If only Nikon gave me a capable crop Body to couple this with.
They're halfway there.
That would be great and a hot seller for sure
I’ve been extensively using 400mm F4.5 for bird photography and I can safely say that the autofocus is phenomenal. The teleconverter is a definite no for moving birds. The autofocus is very slow.
600 PF over the 400 f4.5 seems like a no-brainer to me if you are interested in shooting birds. Yes it's faster but if you have to crop more to get the composition then I'm not sure how much you really gain by that. I've owned several 400's and they are inevitably just too short. And if you are lucky enough to get close to something you still can't fill the frame due to the minimum focus distance. Although 2.5m is pretty good for a prime I still think I'd find it limiting. As you said Jan, a 100-400 and it's ability to shoot at high mag when you get close to a subject would still be preferable for me. The zoom isn't that much slower. Nice lens but I think it makes more sense for sports. As a Canon shooter I'd love something comparable to the 600 PF but I doubt we'll ever see it. Just isn't how they roll.
Yes for us bird photographers it’s very hard to go past the 600pf
The 400mm f4.5 with an extention tube gets me to a close focus of 1,85 m. I use that when I am in a hide with dark windows or in low light. The 2,5m is OK but the magnification is not so good with small birds. The extention tube solves that problem.
@@robotten5966 Yes. Good tip. I often carry an extension tube stacked between the Tele-extenders for my primes. I just have to remember to take it off before I try and focus on something further away. 😂
There could be 2 arguments for getting the 400mm even to always use with a TC, instead of the 600mm PF: price and MFD
Correct, although prices moves closer together when you factor in the cost of the Tc
Hi Jan, If I were a Nikon shooter, this lens had me screaming for a Z90 (as a mini Z9 to compete the R7)
But given the 400/4.5 and 600/6.3 and 800/9 have the same bokeh-power, I do prefer the flexibility and price of the 200-800 over these compelling Nikon primes which probably are giving slightly better IQ, but lack the zooming.
Come on Nikon, make a high resolution (let's aim for 40mp) crop-body Z8. A high mp crop body & this lens would certainly take care of reach issues.
They don't even have a low mpx crop mirrorless. Pretty sure that a 40 mpx crop isn't coming anytime soon. And if by chance they do make one, expect to pay a premium with worse sensor performance than ff
They currently have (at least) two low m p x crop mirrorless bodies. Neither offers the robust focus systems of the Z9. The D500 was a favourite amongst birders for the precise reason of the crop factor. You often don't need the full frame sensor if you're only trying to photograph a tiny bird at a distance. There's a reason a lot of birders are gravitating toward the Canon R7. If Nikon made something similar at a similar price point it might, just possibly, do quite well. @@christophercarlimages9003
Great lens. I think a lot of people would benefit shooting at 400mm as it will force them to work more on their field craft rather than try and solve everything with 600mm or greater focal lengths. 600mm or greater focal lengths have their place for the more timid/shy birds - but there are many where a 400mm prime is all you need.
Are you finding yourself slowly gravitating toward Nikon? I really wish Canon would get on the ball and give us something ultra-useful like an RF 200-600 f/4 or f/5.6 with 1.4 TC. Something!
These days I gravitate toward whatever helps me the most in the field. That does not necessarily have to come from just one brand. In saying that atm all my personal gear is still Canon, but I have my eye on the 600PF for sure
I think you inadvertently proved why the 400mm f4.5 is the most superior of the bunch. The 400mm f4.5 is the most versatile lens of the group, outside of a zoom, and is still better than a zoom.
The 400mm can be extended to 600ish and 800. 400mm can also get to 4.5 when the lighting falls. I would rather have the f4.5 available than not, and I would rather have a prime than a zoom.
Because you have a 600mm the 400 is far less appealing.
The only less that compares is the 180-600 but you have a heavy lens that cannot get to 4.5 and is not as sharp and doesn’t render as well.
I chose the 400 because I short everything, from Elk and Moose in the fall of to Birds in the winter.
Its AF performance with the 2.0 TC is exceptional as well.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
Could not download your presets that i paid for, your email did not work, should also put a email address which is none.
You can email me at jcwx91@gmail.com and we can easily work out whatever the issue was
👍🏾🙏🏾 🏴🇸🇪🇹🇹
What does "super unique" mean? Unique means one of a kind. It can't be more or less unique.
And what does pedantic mean?