b top gun

Anyone have personal experience with both of these lenses; am considering my options for a Nikon mirrorless. I have seen the 100-400 at a local camera store; I like its overall weight and would pair it with a 1.4x TC when needed. On the other hand the 180-600 is supposed to be internal focus, and costs less. I would have to get a few new filters IF I got the 180-600; my 77mm filters already fit the 100-400.

rcorne001 Loc: Cary, NC

Only have the 100-400 Z mount and it has proven quite capable in good, outdoor lighting. Think softball, soccer and airshows. My suggestion is to rent one of both of these to see how they work with your photography.

b top gun

My intent for either lens is outdoor use only, not always in the best lighting as in early morning or sunset and after. NOT astrophotography.

ricardo00

Sounds like you are favoring the 100-400mm. I tried one 100-400mm and used it with the 1.4TC to photograph birds, etc. I ended up returning it and getting the 400mm f/4.5. The 100-400mm with the 1.4TC was not as sharp as either my 500mm PF or the 400mm plus 1.4TC in tests that I ran. Maybe I got a bad copy of the 100-400mm. But if you are using it mostly with the TC, I would say to get the 180-60mm. That lens is heavier so if weight is key, then consider the 400mm f/4.5. It is possible that other 100-400mm lenses are better with the TC.
A few photos with the 100-400mm are on my Flickr album:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60519499@N00/albums/72177720300184656/

rcorne001 Loc: Cary, NC

Like I mentioned, I only have the 100-400 so I can't really give a comparison. I do like that lens enough to not look for an alternative. Biggest thing for me is to use it in an appropriate setting. When I got it, I tried it on an indoor volleyball match. UGLY! But for ME, it is fine outside.

I still stand by my suggestion to rent a copy of what you THINK you want or even both for a true comparison, to see if it is a fit for one's shooting style/requirements.

ricardo00

Think the idea of renting to try them out is a great idea. Each lens is a trade off, weight, cost, etc. But any lens is better without a TC IMO.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I have the 100-400 and found I liked pairing it with the 1.4x TC better than using the 200-500 with the FTZ. It’s a great lens and I still use it in certain situations. That being said I was on the 190-600 as soon as it was announced. Although it’s not an S lens it’s still a great lens, especially at the $1700 price. Besides being internal zoom and focus it also covers the entire zoom range in 1/4 turn. And to get to 560mm with the 100-400 and TC I was at f/9, while the 180-600 gets me to 600mm at f/6.3, a full stop less. I don’t intend to give up my 100-400 but if I had to choose just one it would be the 180-600.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

#1 Do not put a filter on the 180-600. I has the coating on the front element that actually repels dust, besides, the lens hood is all you will need on the front of the 180-600. Besides, a 95mm filter can be costly and heavy and make the lens more front heavy, do not do this.
#2 If you like wildlife the choice is clear, the 180-600 is the lens you want to go with.
#3 Putting a 1.4 convertor on any lens in the field is NEVER a good idea. Besides, there is no 1.4 convertor made that IMPROVES the image.
#4 The 180-600 internally focuses, great for tripod and monopod work, but I hand hold the one I rented and it was very easy to hand hold.
#5 https://www.google.com/search?q=steve+perry+nikon+180-600mm&oq=steve+perry+on+the+nikon+180-600&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhge0gEJMTI4MzhqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:f82d7cd9,vid:7loeXXUP4Ic,st:0

tcthome Loc: NJ

Might need a ND if shooting video? Y/N? Polarizer, Y/N?

neillaubenthal

I have the 100-400 and the 180-600 is on order. The former is smaller, lighter, makes a decent close up lens and even macro if you add extension tubes. The latter is bigger, heavier, longer reach, and has a greater MFD so needs extension tubes. I also have the 600PF and the latter will be my second body lens for shorter hikes or out of the car outings.

The latter is technically sharper in the corners and is poorer at 400 than shorter lengths…but in order to see that less sharp one needs to be at 1:1 or 2:1 in LR…once processed and downsampled to output resolution the sharpness differences disappear…but then the sharpness difference of the 600PF pretty much disappears as well.

For me…the 600 with the 1.4 mounted and the 180-600 will most of the time down here in FL be a better overall reach combo unless I’m walking far enough that light is needed…and in that case I would take the 180-600 unless the hike was specifically for a nest or single subject (an unlikely thing for me). If light was needed I would take a single body with the 600 and the 100-400 in the bag.

With Z mount lenses…the 1.4 can definitely improve the image…it increases the pixels on hawk number and that’s good…it does introduce a bit of noise and a loss of 1 stop…but the old adage of TCs being lousy is a hangover from the F mount days. I can still see…at 2:1 on a 5K monitor…a slight difference in detail sharpness…but the noise reduction and slight sharpening takes care of both. You will see lots of people claiming the TC makes it worse and that the 180-600 is better…and they’re not wrong (maybe) at pixel peeping magnifications. But *nobody* looks at the final output at PP zooms…they’re looking at a downsampled image on screen or print at normal viewing distances. At those appropriate viewing resolution and distance…there isn’t a better or worse for IQ any more…you can’t beat physics. There will be…again, maybe…slight differences in bokeh or BG but they’re just differences at that point, not better/worse unless your definition includes that more bokeh is obviously better.

Me…the images go on the blog and I’ve never had anyone complain that the detail in the osprey snatching the fish wasn’t good enough or that the striating on the bears teeth aren’t sharply defined enough…but that’s just me.

The Perry video in another reply is excellent…and he correctly points out the differences at 2:1…but most people referencing that video kinda skip the conclusions that either is plenty sharp and just fine for almost all uses and that the differences in the field and at normal viewing distance and resolutions show no differences outside of aperture related ones.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-798900-1.html

Tc's are a compromise - but, so are zooms .....you do not say what body you are using - that will matter ....
.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Your choice. Personally I do not use either on long lenses. Because I am shooting primarily birds in flight.
When shooting landscapes with smaller fixed and zoom lenses I use Polarizers and ND's. My favorite ND is a 10 stop because it's easy to figure the exposure.

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

I disagree that zooms are a compromise. Years ago, there was no argument that primes outperformed zooms. No contest. But improved manufacturing processes by virtually all major lens manufacturers have made the distinction irrelevant in real world applications. I need useable images, not test shots of brick walls or 300% pixel peeping examinations. I don’t give a hoot about a theoretical DXO chart. I need images that work when viewed as they will be in actual practice. No way I would swap out my 2.8 zoom lens trilogy for a bagful of primes (although my 85mm/1.4 is often in my bag for times I need the dof.).

I’ve also moved beyond the argument that fast primes are useful in low light situations. In film days, that was true and continued to be in the early days of digital. But gigantic improvements in higher ISO ability of the modern sensors mean I no longer need F1.4 with its often negative limited DOF to successfully shoot in low light.

I do however agree completely that all TC’s are comprises.

photoman43

I use the 100-400mm S lens on my Z9. I bought it instead of the 70-200mm f2.8 S lens. For most nature shots especially birds, I use my 500mm f5.6 pf lens on my Z9. If your primary need is nature or wildlife, I would suggest you check out the 180--600mm as you will likely need the extra focal length 80-90% of the time. Or get the 400mm prime lens and the tc. .

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I agree - but only with the very BEST zooms up to 300mm ....zooms longer than 300 - advantage primes ....