Z 400mm f/4.5 + TC-2.0x vs Z 180-600mm + TC-1.4x (2024)

2

I have the Z 400mm f/4.5 with both the TC-1.4x and the TC-2.0x. Since my budget won't accommodate the Z 600mm nor any of the other high-end long lenses, I'm making do with the 400mm. The IQ with the TC-1.4x is quite acceptable, and often times so it is with the TC-2.0x, but if the 180-600mm at 600mm can produce better images than the 400mm with the TC-1.4x (560mm f/6.3) I'd pre-order it as I can afford it. The bigger question is can the 180-600mm with the TC-1.4x (making it an 840mm f/8.8 lens) yield better images than the 400mm with TC-2.0x (800mm f/9)? The subject matter would range from static wildlife to BIF in good daylight which is where I would be shooting most of the time.

Overall is the 180-600mm worth the price and the wait, given what I already have?

Thoughts?

Here's an image taken this morning with the 400mm + TC-2.0x through my front window with the Z9, full-frame. I processed it as I do most images, with PureRAW 3 in LR and only shadows/highlights adjustment in PS. The original 8256 x 5499 image was cropped in LR to 5332 x 3999, then reduced in PS to the size posted here as a jpeg.

NIKON Z9 + NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S + Z TC-2.0x | 1/125 @ f/10 | ISO 1600 | 800mm | 11/12/23

9

Visionist wrote:

Overall is the 180-600mm worth the price and the wait, given what I already have?

As I said in my Creative Photo Academy presentation last week, Nikon has given us a feast of choices in telephoto, and most people are trying to nitpick the wrong the thing (image quality). I'm perfectly happy using any of the Nikkor telephoto options now, which means other things come into play.

Specifically:

• having to take teleconverters on and off versus a zoom or built-in converter.
• speed to initial focus, particularly with lenses with long focus ranges.
• size/weight, particularly if you handhold or travel a lot.
• do you have enough light?

Your current choice is better at the last three bullets, but suffers from the first compared to the 180-600mm you seem to covet.

5

Adding and removing lenses is a pain... Can be solved by 2 bodies, which takes money.

Adding and removing teleconverters is MORE of a pain... Can be solved by... money.

1

Thom Hogan wrote:

Visionist wrote:

Overall is the 180-600mm worth the price and the wait, given what I already have?

As I said in my Creative Photo Academy presentation last week, Nikon has given us a feast of choices in telephoto, and most people are trying to nitpick the wrong the thing (image quality). I'm perfectly happy using any of the Nikkor telephoto options now, which means other things come into play.

Specifically:

• having to take teleconverters on and off versus a zoom or built-in converter.
• speed to initial focus, particularly with lenses with long focus ranges.
• size/weight, particularly if you handhold or travel a lot.
• do you have enough light?

Your current choice is better at the last three bullets, but suffers from the first compared to the 180-600mm you seem to covet.

Thanks, Thom. I think you answered my questions, and I no longer covet the 180-600mm.

RWN Photo wrote:

Adding and removing lenses is a pain... Can be solved by 2 bodies, which takes money.

Adding and removing teleconverters is MORE of a pain... Can be solved by... money.

I couldn't agree more. If, or when I can afford a Z8 or the next iteration of it, I will have that as my second body. The Z6 II, while a very good and underrated body, doesn't serve for the purpose as you suggest. Money, money, money. That is what it is all about, eh?

2

I have the 400mm f4.5, the 180-600mm, the 600mm f6.3 and the 800mm f6.3 plus the 1.4TC, so I can provide you with some insight.

I don’t have the 2x TC so can’t comment its use. I’ve never been comfortable with the thought of a 2X TC in terms of light loss and quality degradation, although I hear that the 2X ‘Z’ TC does a far better job than the old ‘F’ TC.

I started a thread a couple of days ago comparing the 180-600 with the 600 f6.3 and the consensus was that both lenses were very close in terms of quality. The zoom is heavier but of course more flexible. I find both to be easily hand holdable on my Z9 bodies.

I’ve commented previously that the 180-600 has a poor collar/foot compared to the other Z telephotos, including the 400 f4.5.

I’ve previously used the 400 f4.5 with the 1.4 TC and found the results to be very acceptable. I haven’t yet made a direct comparison with the 180-600, but my feeling is that they are probably quite similar in terms of sharpness.

Let me know if you have specific questions.

Visionist wrote:

I have the Z 400mm f/4.5 with both the TC-1.4x and the TC-2.0x. Since my budget won't accommodate the Z 600mm nor any of the other high-end long lenses, I'm making do with the 400mm. The IQ with the TC-1.4x is quite acceptable, and often times so it is with the TC-2.0x, but if the 180-600mm at 600mm can produce better images than the 400mm with the TC-1.4x (560mm f/6.3) I'd pre-order it as I can afford it. The bigger question is can the 180-600mm with the TC-1.4x (making it an 840mm f/8.8 lens) yield better images than the 400mm with TC-2.0x (800mm f/9)? The subject matter would range from static wildlife to BIF in good daylight which is where I would be shooting most of the time.

Overall is the 180-600mm worth the price and the wait, given what I already have?

Thoughts?

Here's an image taken this morning with the 400mm + TC-2.0x through my front window with the Z9, full-frame. I processed it as I do most images, with PureRAW 3 in LR and only shadows/highlights adjustment in PS. The original 8256 x 5499 image was cropped in LR to 5332 x 3999, then reduced in PS to the size posted here as a jpeg.

NIKON Z9 + NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S + Z TC-2.0x | 1/125 @ f/10 | ISO 1600 | 800mm | 11/12/23

I would be very interested in seeing how the TC2.0 works with the 400 f4.5 but it's impossible to get anything meaningful from a 3.5mp downsized image.

This is an excellent summary. I agree that all of these Z telephotos are excellent. All have their pros and cons regarding flexibility, size and weight, minimum focus distance, and transportability. I select the lens to use based on these considerations, knowing that whatever I choose is capable of providing very acceptable images.

3

I have both lenses and both TC's but I have not done the direct comparison you are asking for. My impression is that the 400+2XTC is very close to the 180-600+1.4TC. Both are acceptable other than that F9 can be a challenge.

Here are a couple with the 400 F4.5 +2xTC

And here is one with the 180-600 with the 1.4x TC.

The images are edited and cropped but I posted the version that were not run through AI noise reduction so hopefully they give you an idea what each is capable of.

1

Mr. Hogan has already described the essentials, in terms of image quality, all solutions are at a very high level, so that the actual differences in practice lie at other levels.
He has already listed these too.
This is where the main differences lie, do I need the flexibility of the zoom, what are my priorities in terms of weight, dimensions, AF speed, max. aperture, MFD, do I feel like fiddling around with a teleconverter, size of your wallet......

Photographylife has also carried out a very comprehensive comparison test of all current Nikon Z telephoto solutions + 500PF and 200-500 F-mount, at that time still without the Z 600/6.3 VR S PF.
Everything is sorted by focal length, 400, 500, 600, 800 and mostly including Z TC solutions, including the comparison between the Z 400/4.5 VR S + Z TC-1.4x and the Z 180-600/5.6-6.3 VR.

https://photographylife.com/best-nikon-z-super-telephoto-lens

´

ajr images wrote:

I have the 400mm f4.5, the 180-600mm, the 600mm f6.3 and the 800mm f6.3 plus the 1.4TC, so I can provide you with some insight.

I don’t have the 2x TC so can’t comment its use. I’ve never been comfortable with the thought of a 2X TC in terms of light loss and quality degradation, although I hear that the 2X ‘Z’ TC does a far better job than the old ‘F’ TC.

I started a thread a couple of days ago comparing the 180-600 with the 600 f6.3 and the consensus was that both lenses were very close in terms of quality. The zoom is heavier but of course more flexible. I find both to be easily hand holdable on my Z9 bodies.

I’ve commented previously that the 180-600 has a poor collar/foot compared to the other Z telephotos, including the 400 f4.5.

I’ve previously used the 400 f4.5 with the 1.4 TC and found the results to be very acceptable. I haven’t yet made a direct comparison with the 180-600, but my feeling is that they are probably quite similar in terms of sharpness.

Let me know if you have specific questions.

Which lens/focal length do you use the most? Which is your favorite? Is your 600 PF being used less since you have the versatile 180-600mm? (Or vice versa)

Looking through my images in Lightroom, I've used the 800PF the most for airshows, surfing, and zoo shooting; the 180-600 not too much. I only received the 600 after the end of the airshow season, but anticipate using it in conjunction with the 800 this year.

The 180-600 is certainly very versatile, but I might not have bought it if I'd realized that the 600 f6.3 was being released. I normally use two Z9's so I can quickly change between fixed focal lengths.

Latter will have some weight.

6

zephxiiii wrote:

Latter will have some weight.

Be careful of "chart performance." Generally, this kind of testing is done closer than it probably should be. Most people are looking at 800mm because they need reach (distance), and it's ridiculously difficult to get good comparative numbers for that.

The Leica D-Lux 8 is a gently updated version of the D-Lux 7, bringing the latest interface and styling cues to match the Q3 and reminding us how much we like a good enthusiast compact.

The Pentax 17 is the first Pentax film camera in two decades. It's built around a half-frame film format and includes design cues inspired by previous Pentax models. Is the experience worth the price of admission? We tested it to find out.

The newest version of Panasonic's Micro Four Thirds video-oriented flagship camera has arrived, and it includes features like internal ProRes RAW recording, 32-bit Float audio capture, phase-detect autofocus, and compatibility with Panasonic's Real-Time LUT system and Lumix Lab app.

The Lumix S9 is Panasonic's newest full-frame mirrorless camera. It allows users to create their own custom looks for out-of-camera colors and is the first full-frame Lumix camera aimed squarely at social media content creators.

The Sony a9 III is the world's first full-frame mirrorless camera to feature a global electronic shutter with simultaneous readout. After extensive testing of this 120 fps sports camera, to see what you gain (and, perhaps, lose).

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.