Fantastic rundown/comparison, Martin! Would love to see more results from these. I do like my 400mm f/4.5 with the TCs. Even with the 2X I get good results.
All lens have their advantages and disadvantages, the trick is to get the one that is right for what you do, not want, but maybe think you need. I have both the 100-400 and the 800 PF. When birding, I have the 1-400 on my Z8 and my 800 PF on my Z9. I have a shoulder harness that puts the weight onto my shoulders. Either camera/lens is easily accessible as they are on each side of my body. As a 70 year old, I do not find them heavy. The more that you use them, the lighter they become. I can hand hold both, finding the subject takes practice. You must invest the time to know your equipment and use it effectively.
Great comparison and well thought out comments. As you know I have the 800mm of and love it but…… recently I’ve had a shoulder problem plus I’ve been concentrating on insects so I might be thinking of the 180-600mm instead but not sure if there is that much of a weight difference.I’ll have to look in to it. But I do own the 400mm f4.5 with the tc 1.4x which has produced great results and flexible when it comes to light and is incredibly light so I’m at a weird point in my photography.
Once Olympus would make just 25-28 mpx camera, I'd be sold with 150-400 TC. I know, the blurr is not as shallow, but practically for wildlife photography (including macro magnification) it's just neat..
For me weight difference not so big 2 kg vs 2.4 kg. I have z8 with 800 mm pf . Zoom lens has advantage of flexibility, prime lens superb quality. Both this lens have great value for money. As you said 800 mm pf have a bokeh which is much closer to very expensive primes bokeh. And must important for choosing lens who is your object of photography , if you love more very small insects of course better to choose lens with more magnification.
its closer to 3kg than it is to 2kg shooting weight foot and hood makes it 2.65 kg ? still really impressive for such a lens also the 600mm pf is also great ,most appealing is the cost not sure handling is much different than a 600mm f4 but the price is easily justifiable ,i am not a nikon shooter just looking over the fence from sony i would love this lens for e mount
Use 100-400 mm with a 40 mp Apsc, which is 600 mm on a 26 mp. It have become my main lens, when I walk with my dog. It fullfill my needs very well and are soo practically. Cant use a bigger lens and dont need that reach.
Depends on what your preferred targets is .. that you want to photograph . Not every Hide offers ring side access lol . The Nature reserve i go to on occasion when i can be bothered lol the hide is a good distance from the water . A long reach lense is essential . I rarely bother with using the hide . Even though i capture Wildlife only when the oppertunity presents itself .
My only gripe with the 180-600 is that the AF motor’s performance is inconsistent. Also the optical quality isn’t that great, particularly in challenging light conditions. The Sony 200-600 is much better optically, besides it operated by linear XD motors, not the budget STM that Nikon has used in the 180-600. Bummer!
I have never noticed any problem with my AF consistency. In fact, it is faster than my 100-400 and every bit as accurate. Also, Nikon have used "Stepping motors" in their z 600 and 800 f/6.3 primes, which aren't the slightest bit budget. The 180-600 image quality is very impressive, I struggle to discern the difference in sharpness from my 600 f/6.3, unless I do some serious pixel peeping. Colour and contrast on the 600 prime is more pleasing, which makes it more distinguishable.
@@pentagramyt417 😂😂😂😂 who knows, if they starting using organic optical material(like in my glasses🤓) instead of glass and carbon fiber in the place of metal. Those asians are smart, they might do it.
@@IamNoOne-001 For sure optics will change by years. I'd believe in 10 years, we will start a new journey of new technology lenses, lighter, sharper, shorter..
I have 840mm and it is often not enough. I am sure that I could use 5000mm if if it was possible to make one that could be handheld. As an example if i want a close up of a sparrow I need to be within 15 feet with my 840mm lens. This is too close. Bigger glass is better for the photgrapher and better for the wildlife.
Fantastic rundown/comparison, Martin! Would love to see more results from these. I do like my 400mm f/4.5 with the TCs. Even with the 2X I get good results.
All lens have their advantages and disadvantages, the trick is to get the one that is right for what you do, not want, but maybe think you need.
I have both the 100-400 and the 800 PF. When birding, I have the 1-400 on my Z8 and my 800 PF on my Z9. I have a shoulder harness that puts the weight onto my shoulders. Either camera/lens is easily accessible as they are on each side of my body. As a 70 year old, I do not find them heavy. The more that you use them, the lighter they become. I can hand hold both, finding the subject takes practice. You must invest the time to know your equipment and use it effectively.
Brilliant video for full time photographer, as you said it's hard to justify spending so much on a 800mm prime for a casual shooter
Great comparison and well thought out comments. As you know I have the 800mm of and love it but…… recently I’ve had a shoulder problem plus I’ve been concentrating on insects so I might be thinking of the 180-600mm instead but not sure if there is that much of a weight difference.I’ll have to look in to it. But I do own the 400mm f4.5 with the tc 1.4x which has produced great results and flexible when it comes to light and is incredibly light so I’m at a weird point in my photography.
@birdzandbees Paul you can try my 180-600. Will let you know next time I am up your way.
I don't think I could live without my 180-600mm. The only thing I don't like about it is how narrow the focus ring is.
Once Olympus would make just 25-28 mpx camera, I'd be sold with 150-400 TC. I know, the blurr is not as shallow, but practically for wildlife photography (including macro magnification) it's just neat..
For me weight difference not so big 2 kg vs 2.4 kg. I have z8 with 800 mm pf . Zoom lens has advantage of flexibility, prime lens superb quality. Both this lens have great value for money. As you said 800 mm pf have a bokeh which is much closer to very expensive primes bokeh. And must important for choosing lens who is your object of photography , if you love more very small insects of course better to choose lens with more magnification.
its closer to 3kg than it is to 2kg shooting weight foot and hood makes it 2.65 kg ? still really impressive for such a lens also the 600mm pf is also great ,most appealing is the cost not sure handling is much different than a 600mm f4 but the price is easily justifiable ,i am not a nikon shooter just looking over the fence from sony i would love this lens for e mount
Use 100-400 mm with a 40 mp Apsc, which is 600 mm on a 26 mp. It have become my main lens, when I walk with my dog. It fullfill my needs very well and are soo practically. Cant use a bigger lens and dont need that reach.
Sounds like a good setup
With the 180-600 mm your are flexible and when it goes about quality and sharpness the prime lens NIkon Z 800 F6.3 is way ahead over the zoom lens
Very true, you cannot beat a prime for sharpness
Depends on what your preferred targets is .. that you want to photograph . Not every Hide offers ring side access lol .
The Nature reserve i go to on occasion when i can be bothered lol the hide is a good distance from the water . A long reach lense is essential . I rarely bother with using the hide .
Even though i capture Wildlife only when the oppertunity presents itself .
Many nature reserves are like that where the hide is a long way from the birds.
My only gripe with the 180-600 is that the AF motor’s performance is inconsistent. Also the optical quality isn’t that great, particularly in challenging light conditions. The Sony 200-600 is much better optically, besides it operated by linear XD motors, not the budget STM that Nikon has used in the 180-600. Bummer!
I have never noticed any problem with my AF consistency. In fact, it is faster than my 100-400 and every bit as accurate. Also, Nikon have used "Stepping motors" in their z 600 and 800 f/6.3 primes, which aren't the slightest bit budget.
The 180-600 image quality is very impressive, I struggle to discern the difference in sharpness from my 600 f/6.3, unless I do some serious pixel peeping. Colour and contrast on the 600 prime is more pleasing, which makes it more distinguishable.
Yes, I do need a 800mm lens.
Unless of course Nikon releases a 1000mm f6.3 under 3kg.
I'd say 1200 mm f2.8 is perfect under 1.5 kg, all around, portraits, wildlife, weddings, street photo, sport photography, vlogging...
@@pentagramyt417 😂😂😂😂 who knows, if they starting using organic optical material(like in my glasses🤓) instead of glass and carbon fiber in the place of metal. Those asians are smart, they might do it.
@@IamNoOne-001 For sure optics will change by years. I'd believe in 10 years, we will start a new journey of new technology lenses, lighter, sharper, shorter..
I have 840mm and it is often not enough. I am sure that I could use 5000mm if if it was possible to make one that could be handheld. As an example if i want a close up of a sparrow I need to be within 15 feet with my 840mm lens. This is too close. Bigger glass is better for the photgrapher and better for the wildlife.
I agree
Nice video
180-600 is my “kalashnikov”
… 😂
No mention of canons rf 200 = 800 mm is usm just saying?
why English always say emmmmmm?