definitely my go-to option. but I guess the price has me pausing.

Excellent suggestion - thanks for that one - although it does mean MORE thinking time, it's probably worth it - possibly the best idea. I have 200mm covered, 400mm isn't so much further that I'd seriously need to cover 300 as well. 2xTC takes it out to 600. Where am I at with that, as far as f stops go? - reduced to F/6.3 at 600mm (with the 2xTC)? That's the same as the 180-600 at 600mm! But I'm only one Fstop in front at 400, with the Z 400, aren't I? Where you gain is weight - and for birding or other wildlife (probably sports at well), better weather proofing than the 100-400 zoom can provide. Also I'm not keen on zooms that breath externally - much prefer one like the 18-600 that only breaths internally.

My choice also. Love the lens.

Yeah, a great all round lens. I do also really like the 24-120.

Yes. It's sad that they made the mistake with the prices, the difference is almost 1000 US$ a 59% the difference between buying a Z7 II and a Z8

The 100-400mm is extremely well sealed, more-so than the older 80-400mm G VR, which I used a professional photojournalist for many years and I never had an issue with weather sealing. So while you add a point for the internal zoom on the 180-600mm vs. extending barrel zoom, you should take a point away for the internal lens is made in Thailand and is not a professional grade or S-line lens and it's not made in Japan. I personally would add two points there, because I've always trusted Nikon pro-grade lenses made in Japan. In my 25 years of being with Nikon, I've owned every flagship camera and pro-grade lens and I've had access to both Nikon and Canon pool gear at a couple of my workplace's/newspaper's. I've personally shot Nikon for about 20 out those 25 years, the other years I shot Canon for work reasons. Anyways, I've never once needed a single repair or replacement and I've never had to visit a Nikon service center. Now I'll admit the D850 and Z8, Z9 are all made in Thailand and seem like great cameras. However I've had my D6 now since early 2020 and it still looks and feels new, I've put over 150k on the shutter and it's good as new. Whereas almost all of my colleagues who shoot Z9's and now Z8's have all had to send their bodies in for different reasons. In fact one colleague of mine has had his Z9 in for service or issues now 3x since he got it. I bet most Z8 owner won't come to my aid, but I bet they were none to happy to have to send their beloved brand new camera's back in for service almost immediately after receiving them new in box. I sold a D5 of mine with 887,984 shutter count on it, and it's still going according to the buyer. We'll see how well the Z9 and Z8 do with that many frames on them, sure less moving parts...but I'd bet everything Nikon will see more Z9's and Z8's in for service over or versus Nikon D6's and D850's! I'm certainly not a racist and I love the D850, D810 and other Nikon gear or Apple products which are made in China. Nikon and Apple both have shown they can and do make incredible professional grade products in both China and Thailand. However I will always prefer my gear be made in Japan. The fact that the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S is made in Japan would be a consideration for me, personally. Thankfully I have the 500mm f/4E VR FL and 70-200mm FL with TC-14E III and I can pretty much cover anything with just three lenses and two or three bodies. I may eventually migrate over to mirrorless but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I love my D6's and I sold my Z7 and 24-120mm f/4S, despite liking the combo...because I hated the fact that my fingers would hang off the bottom of the front grip and the MB-N10 was a joke, it felt awkward without the vertical controls. Yes, I know I know the Z7 II fixed that issue and they now have two cards and proper vertical grip. However I just could not bring myself to buy a Z7 II with current prices and because in my opinion a gripped D850 is better for my needs. I lost a little money figuring that out, but in the long run I made the right move. Hopefully Nikon continues to make great products, everywhere. I'm a fan and I am rooting for Nikon, for sure. I can see why so many people were waiting for this lens, but I have to agree with Matt and Joe, here...I'd rather have the 80-400mm!

​@@patricksmith2553most canon bodies and lens are still made in japan😂

Great to hear!

No just get the 80-400mm and 1.4x TC or get the 180-600mm...whichever makes you happy! Or whichever you can afford, or get a used 200-400mm f/4G VRII for the same price and adapt it, I've done so myself and it works quite well. It is heavier, but it's a great lens for an incredible price right now. I skipped getting the 80-400mm S...because I have the 200-400mm VRII and 70-200mm FL, along with the 500mm f/4E VR FL. Mostly I use the 500mm f/4E and 28mm f/1.4E...according to Lightroom it's not even close with my other lenses. They are most used lenses, because they are the two best lenses I've ever used bar-none. I've used all of the Nikon and Canon professional grade gear from 1996-2023 and I've worked at news agencies that had both Canon/Nikon for pool equipment. So I've used pretty much every pro-grade lens and body from both and nothing much compares IQ wise to my 28mm f/1.4E or 500mm FL. The both have WTF charts instead of MTF charts, with flat lines across the top in both red and blue. Sure Nikon's mirrorless lenses are damn sharp too, I get it and for wide angle to normal, the larger mount diameter and flange distance do have advantages...I just can't see them, unless we talk about say 14-24mm? Where there is just no competition, mirrorless rules for wide angle and wide angle zooms. However in real world testing, I've not seen any improvement in image quality...for my needs. Mirrorless doesn't add anything for me IQ wise, so I'll continue to use my D6's and D850/D810.

I have the 100-400mm (and the 1.4x TC), and I think it's great! However that being said spending $1700 for the 180-600mm is not much cash layout in these days of photography. I would consider buying the 180-600mm as well if I knew I was going on a wildlife safari, or similar, where one is primarily shooting wildlife. In this regard, Nikon is spoiling us, as we have so many ways to achieve any particular focal length! Better to have too many choices, rather than too few! Bravo Nikon!😊

Totally agree, I am on the same boat and I did choose the 100-400 with the 1.4 teleconverter!!

I thought they did mention the 100-400 focuses closer but indeed that is a plus for the lens. This said, I would never want to throw a TC on the 100-400 as that brings it to f/8 which is too slow for me

Much appreciated :)

Thanks so much. I really appreciate it. 😊

Our pleasure!

Thanks - same here. I can do 100 with my 24-120 and then I have the 70-200 with the 2x TC. can’t wait for my 180-600!

i'm thinking the exact same thing. GOD Bless

I saw it in one of the comments, baldy - but I don't have a clue what the difference is, or what it means in practical terms. I've actually read a couple of reviews of the 180-600 suggesting its "perfect" for shooting insects as small as bees and ladybirds. My reaction to that was "bring on the angry horses!" I LOVE it! But that tells me not a thing about how close you can be to the subject. Some of the reviews do, but then they don't produce any photos showing what it means in practical terms, so that's not much help. The insects was best so far - but I haven't seen a comparison on that one between both lenses, so it still doesn't help as much as you'd like.

If you’re used to the 600mm focal length, it’s probably a better choice. I’m looking forward to lightening my camera bag too. You can’t really go wrong with either of these lenses. It really depends on your use case. Hopefully it’ll be in your hands soon. 📷

The 200-500 with the ftz isn’t fun to lug around either, even though it’s relatively light and produces great shots.

I can’t justify selling my Sigma 60-600 as it fits on my d5 and at higher iso it beats the z9 - I have both but above certain. Iso DR and NR is superior on the d5

Yeah if you don’t normally need the extra range or don’t mind the 1.4 and loss of stops on the 100-400, I’m sure you’ll appreciate the lighter smaller lens. I was in that boat having the 200-500 and asking myself if I was ok with the shorter range trading off for lighter and smaller.

@@boostedmaniac I rented the 200-500 lens a few times a few years ago. I loved the photos I got with it. But it was too cumbersome for me. I could not get comfortable carrying or using it.

@@MyAmericanMorning yeah it’s quite big and heavy for sure. My biggest gripe is slow AF and so many turns to zoom from min to max. But it looks like the 180-600 addresses all that. I was going to rent a 100-400 to compare but it was hard to rent because of popularity at the time. I ended up borrowing a Sony 100-400 on a Sony a7r4 to compare. I enjoyed the fast AF, lightweight and smaller factor, but missed the range.

Great suggestion !!

Just a compromise if something gets a few meters too close to frame it

I tried the 400mm 4.5 and hated it due to the minimum focal distance.

Hi Richard, have a look at this video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j8WIkq-rqZbZfGw.html , and hopefully that helps, let me know if you need more info. Cheers Matt :)

Yes - and I prefer the first alternative. Too late now anyway, I just paid for the Z8 and I'm going to have more than enough problems hiding THAT from the "woman in the next room"!

Glad you brought this up. Some of these comparisons are nice, but they often minimize the importance of budget. Many of us, especially retired photographers with fixed incomes, are on tight budgets. And I needed a long Z lens, so I bought the 100-400 + 1.4TC and used it on a short wildlife trip. I did enjoy it, but then I realized I could keep that combo on my Z7ii, or sell the Z7ii and upgrade to the Z8 and get the 180-600 for nearly the same cost. I returned the 100-400 and TC, and bought the Z8 and 180-600. Now I have 30 days to play with the new large lens and decide if it's staying. My first impression is that it will.

Ha ha - the "woman in the next room" is thankfully in Norway, at the moment, photographing the northern lights. Blissfully unaware of the fact I just bought the Z8 and I now circling, looking for a suitable lens for "beyond 200mm"! So far I've found all of these comments delightfully informative, thanks guys, to all of you. But no "killer punch" yet, determining the final cut.

Good question!

oh wow ... did not know it was so much cheaper.

@@bigboi36Yes though I think it doesn’t focus quite as fast as the 100-400 and image quality overall is a little bit lower.

I'm getting the feeling this is going to be my choice in the end, too, Tim

Joe says he will buy both. I say I’m not a birder. Joe says he is. The birder wants the 180-600.

@@MattIrwinPhotography Until I can afford a 600/4, this lens will also help me with my Cricket photography. The field needs around 800mm to catch the bowlers running up to bowl or shoot the batter and catcher head on, but when the ball is hit to a fielder near me, I'd love to be able to zoom back to 200-300mm. The throw on the 200-500 was just too far to quickly change up for sports. Now there is one BIG advantage of the 100-400 that many people miss, and that's it's close focus distance. It has a 0.38x magnification factor with its 0.98 meter focus distance at 400mm. Put a 2X on it and you're doubling that to 0.76x and f/11 which you're likely going to need that close. That's near macro level. I'm tempted to get it just for that use case.

I agree with you on the sharpness part of the conversation, I have the 100-400 and both converters but the other half of the conversation is light gathering and background quality. The 100-400 is useless most of the good shooting times once you add those converters, the required ISO is just too noisy, even with software. Also the backgrounds are horrible with converters, too much in focus and the bokeh that is there is a mess. It’s not just about sharpness.

@@ona4day TCs useless? I have a lot of images that call BS on that. Way over-the-top remarks mate.

@@robguyatt9602 I’d said in good shooting times…the F stop is way to high to be able to shoot in even true golden hour or blue hour when the light is choice. No they have they purpose and times, I use them a lot and have some awesome picture. But the light loss to get that reach sucks. Even the 6.3 of the 180-600 is still not great but it’s better. But if it works for you the cool.

Rob, I've seen plenty of shots of dragonflies with the 180-600 on a Z8 or Z9, and very impressed with them all.

Hi Michael, have you received your 180-600? I have a Tamron G2 150-600 too and I'm wondering how the 2 compare. I definitely would love the short throw. Mainly wondering about focus speed on fast moving birds/animals coming towards you. Thanks!

I fully agree with you @DaveR

?

Odd you say that as I find the 100-400 to be really good, far better than other super telezooms we've had in the past. Is it as good as the 400/2.8, absolutely not, but I've done some gigs using it and find the optical quality excellent.

You may want to get your copy checked out. Ive tried the 100-400 and I was able to to get tac sharp photos at 15th of a second. (maybe lower, I didn't try). I was very impressed.

I swapped my 100-400mm with 1.4tc to 180-600mm...find the 180-600mm focus much better and images as sharp....can even throw on the tc in good.light.....obviously the 100-400mm without tc is better..if the birds are close enough but that rarely happens for me

Haha, that could be possible in video mode Auto capture was just the beginning. :)

600?? 200 x 2 = 400??

@@Skye_the_toller yes, the Z30 is a crop sensor. 200 x 2 = 400. 400 on an APSC = 600.

​@MichaelSeneschal lol I was going to say you adapted the 1.4 and 2.0 TC converter.

@@mlai2546 whooooooooooo! Haha, that’d be awesome. 😎

@@Skye_the_tollerhes shooting on a crop body, so 400 x 2 x 1.5 = 600. Not really the math I use because the focal length per pixel doesn’t change but most people use that formula.

The video even mentions another video to follow. Ah well can’t please everybody.

The duck was shot with 180-600 from the hide at 600. Not stock. I tried something different with this video. A discussion. The pixel and full spec peeping is for the next video which as I mentioned in my previous comment will come.

Not sure to be honest, perhaps something to do with volunteers?

I do too, but a real hassle getting it mounted!

HOWDY

🤓

I just collected my copy of the 100-400 from my local Nikon dealership Grays of Westminster in London. I had been waiting for the 200-500 Z version (and sold my 200-500/5.6) but once they announced the 180-600 I went through a similar thought process that you both covered. And that is I’m FAR more likely to carry the 100-400 more frequently because of size and weight alone. Basically It’s more versatile for my use case so I will get more use out of it. I had always thought twice before bringing my 200-500 because of size and weight so it ended up staying at home more often than not. If I get a really long lens in the future it will be the 800/6.3

@@justinthomas3829 the 800 pf 6.3 is now glued to my Z9….you will not believe how hand holdable it is,,,,hope you get one soon,money well spent.