Just choose the Nikon 180-600 and you have BOTH and far more too >> My Z8 and the 180-600 are the Bees knees for African Wild Life .. The only disadvantage of the 180-600 is that its slightly heavier to hand hold which at 73 is what I do comfortably all the time
@Mr09260 I prefer the 100-400 with(or without) a TC to the 180-600. It's getting where I can't deal with toting big lenses in the field. That's why the 200-500 F glass got traded off. Thanks, as usual, for the comment!
The 400 f/4.5 is the next lens I want to purchase. I keep hearing good comments about the lens and your comments are pushing me closer to seal the deal!
I love my 400 f4.5. I find it takes a back seat to my 180-600 but both have their advantages. My 800PF is basically a fall, winter, spring lens due to heat. What's funny though is my 400 with the 1.4 tele is still lighter and almost sharper than my 180-600.
@Ben_Stewart Thanks for the comment! I haven't had a chance to test the 180-600 yet, but have been interested in hearing 'critical' analysis about it. Most of what is out there being praise. 400 + 1.4 indeed a great combo-
It really comes down to individual use cases and preferences. As some who predominantly shoots stills with occasional video of wildlife and mostly birds/BIF's, 400mm of reach is just not enough and that 1.4x TC will be glued to the lens. It is a lot more often the case where you can back up a few/tens of feet, whereas getting closer a few feet or tens of feet is mostly just wishful thinking. If you are mostly into birds/BIF's, the real choice is between 600mm and 800mm for the majority of situations. Less than that reach is really more about including the landscape and context beyond the primary subject animal, which is totally fine. However, I prefer the Z 100-400 for such situations, because you have so much more flexibility in framing that scene. The subject animal (or really any part of the image) doesn't need to be wicked sharp to get that shot; capturing the essence of the scene is a lot more important.
@free-qe6wx You are correct, the 100-400 is exceptionally good & allows more choices. I still use mine & depending on the conditions fixed 400 may not be as good. Thanks for the comment!
The problem of 600 mm f6.3 is that.. they could do 800 mm f6.3 of the price of the 600 mm f6.3 and that would SOLVE the problem :D Or add built in x1.4 TC to each of them: 400 mm f4.5 / 600 mm f6.3 / 800 mm f6.3 which would also SOLVE the problem.
@pentagramyt417 Solve the problem, maybe, but only if you want an 800. I can't work with 800 for what I do. (2.0 TC on the 400 4.5 feels like being in a box.) I do like the idea of adding built-in TCs as an option for those who want them. Thanks for the comment!
@@folkartandcamera I guess focus speed with x2.0 TC makes 400 mm prime not that fast? I've seen it's like 0.35s for bare lens, and like +1.4s for 2.0 TC?
Just choose the Nikon 180-600 and you have BOTH and far more too >> My Z8 and the 180-600 are the Bees knees for African Wild Life .. The only disadvantage of the 180-600 is that its slightly heavier to hand hold which at 73 is what I do comfortably all the time
@Mr09260 I prefer the 100-400 with(or without) a TC to the 180-600. It's getting where I can't deal with toting big lenses in the field. That's why the 200-500 F glass got traded off. Thanks, as usual, for the comment!
Thx for the vid, have you made a video on the 100-400 4.5-5.6?
@eddyexpo Yep! Check my Camera Stuff playlist and scroll thru the videos. I usually have the lens listed near front of title. Thanks for the comment!
The 400 f/4.5 is the next lens I want to purchase. I keep hearing good comments about the lens and your comments are pushing me closer to seal the deal!
@Speed-Cecil Thanks for the comment!
I love my 400 f4.5. I find it takes a back seat to my 180-600 but both have their advantages. My 800PF is basically a fall, winter, spring lens due to heat. What's funny though is my 400 with the 1.4 tele is still lighter and almost sharper than my 180-600.
@Ben_Stewart Thanks for the comment! I haven't had a chance to test the 180-600 yet, but have been interested in hearing 'critical' analysis about it. Most of what is out there being praise. 400 + 1.4 indeed a great combo-
That owl footage was excellent
@rdphoto2 You know how it goes with wildlife, often nothing. But sometimes a good turn. Thanks for the comment!
It really comes down to individual use cases and preferences. As some who predominantly shoots stills with occasional video of wildlife and mostly birds/BIF's, 400mm of reach is just not enough and that 1.4x TC will be glued to the lens. It is a lot more often the case where you can back up a few/tens of feet, whereas getting closer a few feet or tens of feet is mostly just wishful thinking. If you are mostly into birds/BIF's, the real choice is between 600mm and 800mm for the majority of situations. Less than that reach is really more about including the landscape and context beyond the primary subject animal, which is totally fine. However, I prefer the Z 100-400 for such situations, because you have so much more flexibility in framing that scene. The subject animal (or really any part of the image) doesn't need to be wicked sharp to get that shot; capturing the essence of the scene is a lot more important.
@free-qe6wx You are correct, the 100-400 is exceptionally good & allows more choices. I still use mine & depending on the conditions fixed 400 may not be as good. Thanks for the comment!
Very informative
@NikCan66 thanks!
The problem of 600 mm f6.3 is that.. they could do 800 mm f6.3 of the price of the 600 mm f6.3 and that would SOLVE the problem :D
Or add built in x1.4 TC to each of them: 400 mm f4.5 / 600 mm f6.3 / 800 mm f6.3 which would also SOLVE the problem.
@pentagramyt417 Solve the problem, maybe, but only if you want an 800. I can't work with 800 for what I do. (2.0 TC on the 400 4.5 feels like being in a box.) I do like the idea of adding built-in TCs as an option for those who want them. Thanks for the comment!
@@folkartandcamera I guess focus speed with x2.0 TC makes 400 mm prime not that fast? I've seen it's like 0.35s for bare lens, and like +1.4s for 2.0 TC?