Nikon z 180-600 alternatives

petrolhead

petrolhead

Messages
387
Edit My Images
No
I am 64 now and starting to struggle with heavy lenses. Handholding and in my back pack climbing hill etc

So am looking for a lighter alternative, have thought about a prime but think I would miss the versatility of a zoom.

So thinking about the Z 100-400 with the 1.4tc

Thoughts please., pref from people that had a similar problem or use a 1.4tc with the 100-400
 
petrolhead said:
I am 64 now and starting to struggle with heavy lenses. Handholding and in my back pack climbing hill etc

So am looking for a lighter alternative, have thought about a prime but think I would miss the versatility of a zoom.

So thinking about the Z 100-400 with the 1.4tc

Thoughts please., pref from people that had a similar problem or use a 1.4tc with the 100-400
Click to expand...
Have you considered a change of system to mFT such as an OM1 with, in the case of a prime, the 300mm F4 that gives the FoV equivalent of a 600mm lens?

Other lenses in the range are the zooms 100-400 & 150-600 are relatively budget worthy but if bigger pockets, money wise, the 150-400 with built in x1.25 TC.
 
Box Brownie said:
Have you considered a change of system to mFT such as an OM1 with, in the case of a prime, the 300mm F4 that gives the FoV equivalent of a 600mm lens?

Other lenses in the range are the zooms 100-400 & 150-600 are relatively budget worthy but if bigger pockets, money wise, the 150-400 with built in x1.25 TC.
Click to expand...
Another shout for the Olympus system.

I run the EM1X and the lenses are all superb & tiny in comparison to FF & APSC lenses.
 
I’m not sure you’d save much weight with the 100-400 + 1.4 TC over the 180-600 lens.

1.4 TC = 220g
100-400 = 1435g
Total = 1655g

180-600 = 1950g


I recently swapped the 100-400 for the 400mm f4.5. The 400mm f4.5 was originally the lens I wanted when moving to the Z8 but a well priced 100-400 enticed me as a stop gap until I found a well priced 400mm f4.5. I was surprised how much lighter the 400mm f4.5 is than the 100-400. The 100-400 felt front heavy for hand holding. The 400mm f4.5 balanced better IMO.

I’m happy with the 400mm f4.5. I picked up the 1.4TC but not got around to trying it in the wild.

Weight has always been a concern of mine and i felt fine carrying the 400mm f4.5 and Z8 around Bempton Cliffs recently. It only weights 1160g so the combination comes in at 2070g. The big weight saving is I don’t carry a tripod any more as I’m more than happy hand holding the 400mm f4.5.

If you could be happy with a prime it could be worth it. I’ve been a long term zoom user since the days of a 200-400 f4 (great lens but heavy). It’s worth checking lightroom for the focal lengths you use. I did that and found it was mainly the longer end of the zoom lenses around 300-400mm.
 
Last edited:
I have both the 100-400 (it was one of the Z systems earliest telephotos) and also the 400 4.5.
Oddly enough I was out with the 100-400 earlier this week and agree with Rob -when you zoom out it becomes front heavy.

The 400 prime is lighter and better balanced. Primes usually fare better with tc's.
 
Have you thought about the Nikon 500mm PF with the FTZ adapter - Nikon F mount lenses have become bargains, used, now that the Z mount is established
 
BillN_33 said:
Have you thought about the Nikon 500mm PF with the FTZ adapter - Nikon F mount lenses have become bargains, used, now that the Z mount is established
Click to expand...
I considered the 500mm PF as it’s a fantastic performer and far better than its price point (it shines in this review).

The only reason I didn’t was because to get an excellent/as new condition 500mm PF via stores it would be £2-2.2k. That’s a lot to invest in a F mount lens for use on mirrorless Z cameras. I personally find it hard to invest so much by buying an F mount lens when I don’t have a DSLR anymore. If I already had a 500mm PF I wouldn’t be selling it. If I could get a 500mm PF at a bargain price it may make sense but I doubt anyone who has one would be willing to sell it so cheap when it performs well with the adapter on mirrorless.

I picked up the 400mm f4.5 new for not much more at the photography show in March than WEX are selling a 500mm PF in 9+ condition so it was a no brainer going with the 400mm f4.5 in the end.
 
Have you considered the Tamron 150-500, slightly darker but seems to get some decent reviews.
 
rob-nikon said:
I considered the 500mm PF as it’s a fantastic performer and far better than its price point (it shines in this review).

The only reason I didn’t was because to get an excellent/as new condition 500mm PF via stores it would be £2-2.2k. That’s a lot to invest in a F mount lens for use on mirrorless Z cameras. I personally find it hard to invest so much by buying an F mount lens when I don’t have a DSLR anymore. If I already had a 500mm PF I wouldn’t be selling it. If I could get a 500mm PF at a bargain price it may make sense but I doubt anyone who has one would be willing to sell it so cheap when it performs well with the adapter on mirrorless.

I picked up the 400mm f4.5 new for not much more at the photography show in March than WEX are selling a 500mm PF in 9+ condition so it was a no brainer going with the 400mm f4.5 in the end.
Click to expand...

There's also the 300mm PF
 
petrolhead said:
I am 64 now and starting to struggle with heavy lenses. Handholding and in my back pack climbing hill etc

So am looking for a lighter alternative, have thought about a prime but think I would miss the versatility of a zoom.

So thinking about the Z 100-400 with the 1.4tc

Thoughts please., pref from people that had a similar problem or use a 1.4tc with the 100-400
Click to expand...
Personally I'd look at the z 400 f4.5 if you can manage without a zoom (same weight as Oly) plus the 1.4 converter. If not, go with the 100-400 as you are only approx. 200 grams heavier with the latter over the Oly. (nikon body dependant in all cases).
 
Last edited:
Do consider the Z 600 F6.3 as well, if your budget permits. Longer reach and unbelievably light.
Regards
Somnath
 
Having weight everything up (no pun intended) I am going to keep the 180-600 and persevere

To change to the 100-400 or the 400 p.us a 1.4 tc is just going to cost a lot of money. As Rob pointed out by the time I add a tc to the 100-400 I'm not far off the weight of the 180-600

I also think, having the flexibility of a zoom is of importance to me

So thank you for all your input and helping me get things straight in my mind
 
Nikon 180-600 = 2140gms

Nikon 600mm PF = 1390gms. No zoom of course.

But an expensive solution.
 
Have you considered something like the

Sirui EP-224S Carbon Fibre Photo/Video Monopod With Support Feet​

 
Retaining the monopod movement with the option of tripod feet at the bottom providing extra stability, but if you are looking I'd definitely recommend CF for the price. Or, you could attach a piece of string to the lens foot/camera and stand on the other end adding tension for stability.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top