Yes, a prime maybe better quality. But, for me as bird photographer who can afford only one long lens, it's the Nikon 180-600mm. Internal zoom. Why? Shooting birds at a distance ... then some small birds a few metres away - no problem. Also, I find the target at 200mm, then start zooming in on the tracked target. Only 70 deg. of turn. Very fast. No-one will tell me it's faster to start tracking a fast flying bird at 400, 600, 800mm. I am 70 years old & I can walk around with Z9/180-600mm for a few hours. I'm using a monopod & a Wimberley MH-100 with a quick release plate. Cheers.
Yes, the price is certainly a contributing factor for many, the prices are kind of nuts! The versatility of the 180-600 is ideal for many like you said how well it works for you. It's a bit too much focal length for me and not wide enough on the long end but I shoot differently than most! Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts
Great video Ray, I shoot on a smaller zoom lens with a TC and end up with good photos, portraits and habitat shots all the same. Of course there are times i wish i could get closer but i always make the most of the situation and my gear.
Well I have the z 100-400 and the 400 f/4.5. The last road trip I took both lenses. I just love the quality of 400 f/4.5, but then again the 100-400 can do the same and bit more versatile. But the 400 f/4.5 is lighter. I don't think I will get rid of any of these lenses, but like you I will keep using both and the zoom more than the other. I also carry the 1.4x TC and that is plenty enough. For real low light, I got the 70-180 f/2.8, that that's what I have. Cheers and thanks for your video.
Great video mate ! Always been a hot topic primes vs zooms. Currently I'm using a Sony FE 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 G OSS and that was just because it was a good entry price to get the range that I wanted, however I do have the Sigma 500mm Prime on my list and will be purchasing that in the near future. The low light usage and reduced weight in Primes has always been a big selling point for me.
I use the Sigma 150-600, Canon 100-500 and the venerable Canon 400 f5.6. Each has its place in my lens selection. But I do love the 400 f5.6 and am considering the 400 f4 or 300 f2.8. I think a prime also makes you think about your shooting position. The zooming with your feet idea just makes me feel more involved in the process.
Nice about your zoom lenses. Those smaller primes seem like killer lenses too! As far as zooming with your feet, I agree that I think it helps in the beginning but once you understand distances and composition a bit more I don't feel like having a prime has any compositional advantages to me, just speed and shallow depth. I still move myself plenty with a zoom lens changing the relationship of the subject to its surroundings.
@@RayHennessy moving around more is definitely something I need to practice more. I sometimes feel starstruck, especially with a new or rare sighting bird, and don't move. I seem to remember a video you did on that subject...going to have to watch it again!
@@PeterLariviere I definitely talk about that in a bunch of my learn wildlife photography videos, it's something I certainly have to think about often myself.
I have the old 80-400 with the ftz 2, I want to get either a 800 mm prime or the 180 -600. The main thing is image quality and having more freedom within the frame where it’s a back and forth of what I actually want in my images.
Zooms are just such a fun time. Had a 400 prime for my first few years, definitely something to be said for fixed focal length forcing you to do some active compositional problem solving. But, at the end of the day, zooming with your feet really doesn't work like changing focal length lol. Seems like big primes are awesome at what they do, but it's just a matter of if what they do is what you want do.
Yup, certainly primes are not for everyone or for every situation as I mentioned. And yes changing focal lengths is sometimes the only way to get the right balance between subject size and background or other elements around it.
I can’t say enough good things about the Canon RF 100-500 7.1, if you pull back to 400 mm it’s 6.3. It’s fast, it’s lightweight, it’s an L series lens with weatherproofing. I can shoot macro-ish photos with the min focus distance. Money and weight are 2 big considerations for my gear. I will never sell this lens as long as I shoot with Canon. Date your camera, marry your lens is so true for this lens!
I went with an older 500 f4 none VR for years but just got the 400 f2.8 tc, It has rained every day since I got it so i need to actually put it thru its paces. Can’t wait to see what i get. I have a 100-400 z too but I think this 400 2.8 will rock and I will also shoot some video as I got the ND drop in as well.
Congrats on the new 400mm f/2.8, you will love it! It's a great lens to have and as I mentioned I'm glad I have both even though I end up leaning towards the zoom lately for the more in-habitat shots I prefer to get.
Thank you for your thoughts - valuable and appreciated! In June I'm in Indonesia. I own the 100-400. However, I'm not shure, whether it's "long" enough to capture Orang Utans, Gibbons etc. Would the 180-600 be the better choice?
It depends on how you like to photograph those subjects I'd say. I don't have experience with them but in general I prefer smaller in frame photos so the 100-400mm fits my style. If you prefer closer portraits or you simply can't get very close at all to those subjects having the longer lens might be more ideal yes.
when I got into photography all the primes Canons EF mount had were $6,000+ and very very very heavy so when I was buying my glass I went with a bunch of zooms so I had versatility and mobility now that I am older and making more than I did 15 years ago I want to buy those older primes I saw the adults walk around with.
Many of us will get a zoom first, and then some may get a super Tele a few years later. But carrying the latter is a drag, so we don't get rid of the zoom or the smaller primes 😅
That is how Americans pronounce the name, it's how it's been as long as I've been a photographer here which is about 25 years. I know Europe does go with the pronunciation you mentioned.
Don't forget the coatings and quality of the lens elements are often far superior to the zooms as well on primes. Hard to quantify until you see the difference but I can sure see in a L vs non L lens with Canon.
A great point. Do they make the coatings different on primes vs. zooms often? I know there are more entry level less costly lenses that don't have the same coatings but I thought some of the higher end zooms still have them. I do agree with the difference in the look of the photos with all the high end coatings, consistently better contrast and color throughout, especially when shooting into brighter light.
@@RayHennessy I think it depends on the lens really, but in general I think the primes are getting the premier quality coatings over the cheaper, it just makes sense. I noticed very much with the 200-800 compared to primes, haze, flare etc all exacerbated. However you can with some knowledge deal with it. If you have the funds and need then primes, but if you don't then the quality of zooms today are incredible. I use both, I prefer primes but use both.
@@VinceMaidens yeah it makes sense with the super expensive primes they give them the best coatings for sure. I have noticed way more flare, haze, less micro-contrast/detail with some of my zoom lenses but with my 100-400mm the difference is incredibly small and in almost all circumstances indistinguishable from my 400mm f/2.8 I think part of it too is likely less glass elements in a prime lens so less chance for ghosting, lens flare, etc. I'm happy to have both because there are certainly times when one of them does the job far better than the other.
