@@SuomiFinland78 Sounds like something someone would say who isn't a filthy rich doctor 😎 You know, like me! I find that price insane as well 🤣Though since it is pretty much a niche product that probably cost them a lot in RND, the price is probably justified. Especially given the equally insane image quality.
The recently introduced 180-600 is a steal given the price. Even the 100-400 is a sublime lens as well. Nikon has really gone all out in offering various telephoto options, from affordable to the very expensive propositions. Great video guys...
I’ve got a 400mm f/2.8E FL and 500mm f/4E FL and they work perfectly on my Z9 and Z8 and I won’t be changing them for a long time. I own the Z70-200 as well as part of my holy trinity and that’s the only Z mount I feel I need. I shoot 95% motorsport too, the 500mm was purchased for wildlife as when used with the Z8 it’s a reasonably lightweight set up.
I was looking at getting the Z 600mm but instead got the 180-600 and the money I saved paid for half of my Z 800mm. Between these two lenses I can go from 180mm to 1,600mm. (Using TCs). The 800mm fits in a carry-on bag and is easily handheld for hours at a time, and the results are amazing matched with the Z9.
Good review with interesting comments. I have the 800PF mounted on a Z8 or Z9 almost permanently - and the smaller lenses are both F mounts, the 500PF and the 300PF which work well with the Z8/9
Would love to know your thoughts about image quality and bokeh between the 180-600 and 600mm pf!! Would love a video dedicated to those two lenses only at 600mm vs comparing them to the F4 version.
Very complete, thoughtful video with beautiful examples from the various lenses. I have the 70-200mm 2.8 and have used it with the TC1.4 and TC2.0 for birds and wildlife giving me maximum reach of 400mm at 5.6. I’ve compared it to my 500mm 5.6 pf and while I’m not a pixel peeper, the IQ using the TC2.0 is very comparable, I think because the 70-200 is such a sharp beautiful lens to start with. Also, it’s a favourite of mine for telephoto landscapes and grandkids in action. Although it’s too heavy for street photography, I’ve tried it for that too with great results. All in all, one of Nikons single best, most versatile lenses, especially with the Z mount TCs. A postscript on the Z mount TCs. While diminishing IQ was a material issue with the DSLR models, it’s much, much less of an issue with the mirrorless ones. I have no problem at all getting great shots with them, accepting the drop in aperture. All things considered for me my next lens will be the 600mm 6.3 pf. I’m fortunate I can afford the big monster telephotos and I’m envious of their built in TCs but for reach, portability and versatility, it’s the one for me. If budget were an issue, my next choice would be the 400mm 4.5 (with my TC1.4 close to permanently attached). For a very tight budget, the 180-600 is the best value for money of any of the lenses you reviewed.
Thanks! Yes, the TCs have improved a lot in the Z mount. Have fun with the 600 6.3 then! I tested it now for a couple of days and it's an incredible lens indeed!
Also I think buying lenses without the need to put tele converters on is the way to go. They are a pain in the ass really . Unless its built in of course
I'm seeking advice on a photography gear upgrade. As a hobbyist photographer, akin to how some people are passionate about golf, I enjoy capturing moments with my Nikon Z9, paired with the 24-70mm f/2.8 S lens and the 70-200mm f/2.8 S lens. I’m looking for more reach to photograph my grandchildren's sports activities, including baseball, soccer, and indoor basketball. I previously tried the TC-2.0 teleconverter but was unhappy with its sharpness, likely due to user error. I also tested the 180-600mm lens, but found it too heavy and cumbersome. Now, I’m considering either the Nikon 400 4.5 S lens or the Nikon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S lens. Given that I already have the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, which of these options would you recommend? Alternatively, are there other options I haven’t considered? Long-term, I plan to add the TC-1.4 converter to my current setup. Thanks in advance for your recommendations.
I have the 70-180 and I love it for the versatility, weight factor, and image quality as well. It's affordable as well. On the other end of the spectrum, I have the Z 600 f/6.3 and this is a superior build that is very light when you think of super primes. I can hand hold this all day long but unlike the Z70-180 it will cost you. The Z600pf mounted to my Z7II is only 4.7lbs! Great for trips to the zoo, and a tad bit heavier on the Z9. Great review. Thank you.
I am having 180-600 mm and want to have a prime telephoto. I mostly move in the hilly areas for small birds. Whether 600 or 800 mm will be suitable for my Z8? 400 mm will be mere overlapping with my existing 180-600. Please suggest. By the way, I would like to have a detailed review of 600 mm prime.
I‘m working on a detailed review of the Z600 PF lens. Regarding your first question: I would look how often you needed more than 600mm focal length in the past. If this was often the case, go for the 800/6.3 (if you are willing to carry the extra weight)
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thanks for the reply. As regards my use of telephoto lenses, it is mostly 500 or 600 mm. I am just a hobbyist and interested in bird and wildlife photography. Considering your reply, 800 mm will be an excess for me for its focal length and weight.
I think the 400mm f4.5 lens hood fits the 600mm f6.3. I can only afford a 500mm pf f5.6 - how do you think that compares to the z mount lens image quality - I use a z7ii with ftz? Thanks for all the comparisons 😊
thanks for the comparison, I have a question, if you can help me to decide: which telephoto lens would you buy first for birds with a budget max $5000? 100-400 or 400 f/4.5 or 180-600 or the old 500 pf?
Depends a bit on your style of photography, how much you want to carry and how shy the birds are. I would go for either the 180-600, 400/4.5 or maybe save a bit more to afford the 600/6.3
@@michelebelotti2022 Nice! In that case I would ask myself the following 2 questions: Before you switched, did you use a zoom lens and did you often use the zoom range or were you mostly just at the long end? If you don't really need the zoom, I would maybe try to go for the 600 6.3 if that still fits your budget. Otherwise the 400 4.5 with the 1.4 TC is also a really nice combination.
Great video thanks for this. I have a Z 7ii and looking to get a tele photo lens and wanted to know which one will you recommend as I shoot landscape and wildlife. 100-400 or 180-600?
If you do a lot of landscapes, the Z100-400 is definitely more flexible. If you need a lot of reach and don’t mind carrying a bit more, I would go for the 180-600
I shoot landscapes much much more than wildlife(it’s rare tbh) and I use the 100-400. Love this lens. I was confused with the 180-600 as well, but I didn’t require the extra reach and I found the 100-400 easier to pack and carry. I would say if you’re more into landscapes pick the 100-400; if it’s the other way around 180-600 hands down.
I HAVE THE 500 PF AND RENTED THE 600 PF. BASICALLY THE SAME LENS, BOTH EXCELLENT. I’ve been in situations where the 600 PF was just too slow, especially when using a tc. So I bought the 500 f4 fl (f mount). I’ve used this lens with the Z9 AT 500, and with the 1.4x TC with great results. In F mount I also own the 1.7 TC and combined with the 500 f4 it gives me great results at 850mm F6.8. Not quite as good as the 800 PF but so much more versatile.
o_O 2:22 extending or not (e.g. internal / external zoom) has nothing to do with being S-Line or not (see e.g. Z 24-120 f4 S) 5:52 ...aaaaand the Z 24-70 2,8 S and the Z105 MC 2,8 and the Z 50 1,2 S and the NOCT ...
