Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

Hmmm…. Might be true technically, but for times I can’t carry my 400/2.8, my new Z 100-400 produces lots of keepers. I don’t disagree that the prime 400 is sharper, but only noticeable if you look at 2 images in a side by side comparison from both lenses.

I should probably apologize for hijacking the OP’s original question regarding comparison of the 2 zooms he mentioned. Moderator - feel free to move/delete my off topic discussion.

rangel28

I have the Z 100mm-400mm and have used it with both the 1.4 teleconverter and the 2.0 teleconveter. In good light, the 1.4 teleconverter delivers fantastic results. I chose this lens for the size and weight, as I like to take along a long lens like this on hikes. I had the Sigma 150mm-600mm a few years back and, while a very nice lens, especially for the price, it starts to become heavy when hiking for two or so hours. I bought the Z 100mm-400mm and immediately sold the Sigma once I saw the size and weight and how well it handled in my Z cameras.

The 180mm-600mm will certainly give you more reach and costs considerably less, but it's larger and heavier. That may be something to consider if you are planning on hiking or traveling with this lens.

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

Many tele zooms are sharpest at their largest MM. My 200-600 at 600 can compete with my Sony 600 f4 every day of the week. Same with my 100-400 Sony at 400 mm.
Again, I agree with many here, todays zooms are very sharp and can compete with primes. At least that has been my experience with Sony zooms over the past several years in Florida's wetlands.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Those are totally different issues. Those filters actually serve a purpose other than “protecting” the lens. Although I’ve never needed an ND or polarizer when shooting with a long lens, (which for me is primarily wildlife).

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I completely agree with most of this, except #3. When I had the 200-500 and tried the 1.4TC it was a bad idea, but using the 1.4 on the 100-400 Z lens worked great. Any loss of IQ was minimal. The biggest drawback was working at f/9, basically doubling my ISO over f/6.3. Yes using a TC is a compromise, but not nearly the compromise it was on DSLR’s. That being said, I’ll take the 180-600 over the 100-400 w/TC any day.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

That’s another nice feature of shooting mirrorless. I don’t need to calculate exposure with an ND, I can see the exposure with the EVF. I believe the Z9 can do it with exposures up to 15 minutes. My Z7 was limited to 30 seconds. Actually I haven’t tried using ND’s on my Z9 yet because I’ve been spoiled by Live ND and Live Composite on my OM-1.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Maybe, but really not much of a compromise with modern zooms. I wouldn’t expect a $1700 180-600 zoom to compete with a $13,000 f/4 600mm prime, but it’s amazing how close it comes. Certainly close enough in the field that nobody can tell which lens I used. And actually using that prime would be a big compromise for me. I would have to use a tripod rather than shooting handheld.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

On my recent trip to Florida I spent a few hours in the morning covering 3 miles at Circle B Bar Reserve with my Z9 and the 180-600. I left there and met friends at Alifia River Corridor Nature Preserve for another 10+ miles I switched to my OM-1. For me if I’m doing less than 5 miles the weight difference between the 180-600 and the 100-400 w/TC isn’t enough to make a difference.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Yep, they’re smart enough today to optimize long zooms to the longer focal lengths. Probably 80% of my shots with the 180-600 are at 600mm. And as I mentioned before I can shoot handheld. Shooting reddish egrets at Ft DeSoto North Beach I see those guys sitting in one spot with their tripods while I’m able to move around to optimize the moving light and keep up with the moving birds, even wading up to knee deep. That flexibility is worth way more than a slight edge on paper from a big prime.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, I agree ! - and is why I developed my bodypod for use with bigger/heavier primes instead of using tripods/monopods ....

Older primes rule over older zooms - If you are stuck with older budget friendly gear like I am .......
.

Fredstersphotos Loc: Long Island NY

I have the 180 to 600 it is on the heavy side I plan on getting the 100 to 400. I have four tears in my shoulder and I do not need weight to add to the mix. I’m getting up in age and looking for not to heavy stuff. Plus the fact You walk with a cane so imagine trying to balance a camera and lens. And I am a big guy.

Dan' de Bourgogne

The longest focal length I own is a 55-200 VR2...which is way too short for birds, wild life. If I had to buy (it is a wish!) right now a long lens...if I had to choose 100-400 or 180-600...perhaps I would go for the longest one (=180-600)
1) because birds are often far away and/or sometimes small animals.
2) because money is a big problem
But, I would check the quality of the images taken with both lenses,...to compare the results.
I suppose the "shorter" lens with factor "4" should provide higher I.Q than the other one (180-600)...perhaps its aperture is wider...perhaps its mini focus distance is shorter.
Aperture, mini focus distance and I.Q are important specifications.
If money is not an issue, a good converter on the 100-400 (x1,4 TC should be great) can fill up the eventual lack of focal lenght.

ricardo00

If money is not an issue, I would say to get the 600mm PF. The f/6.3 versus f/9 for the 100-400mm plus TC. The ability to even get to 840mm with a TC. And much lighter and faster focus.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

b top gun

About my OP...I asked for input because I went to Alaska September past, my first time ever out of the lower 48. I took two Nikon bodies...a D850 and a new Z8; I had two lenses for that trip, a pair of Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 non VR and a 70-200 f/2.8...the latest F mount iteration with VR. Shot landscapes and some seascapes with both. Never took the 24-70 off the D850; I swapped out lenses only on the Z8 according to what the day might have in store for photo ops. Everything was fine. When my companion and I did the ferry ride from Valdez to Whittier via Prince William Sound, the cruise thru Resurrection Bay and Kenai Fjords to a tide water glacier and eventually to Denali Nat Pk, I had the 70-200 on the Z8. The D850 was always handy had I wanted a wider angle lens. The only time I wish I had had a longer lens was when we had our grizzly encounter at Denali. A little more reach would have been nice to get a few tighter shots of the bear's face. I like the lenses I have; they are usable on all my Nikon bodies including my D7100. I am leaning towards the 100-400 because it might allow me to use it in place of the 70-200. As for my mention of filters, my CPLs and NDs are all 77mm; I like being able to use them on all my Nikkors. I have not rented the 100-400...yet. I like its weight and would pay the extra money for that vs the heft of the 180-600. I have yet to hold a 180-600, and will not make a final decision until I do. It's gonna come down to how interested I get in wildlife photography, moving forward...just not committed to that right now. Will take my time weighing options.