I see a lot people are arguing how much more it cost comparing to 200-500/5.6, but there are a huge amount of difference for the pros; I recently sold my 200-400/4vr2, and I own 200-500 as well, the AF speed of the 200-500 does not match with 200-400/4vr2, it’s wayyyyy slow, and paring 200-400/4vr2 with 1.4x iii got the same result, way faster AF at 5.6 comparing to 200-500/5.6. And the same to sharpness as well. Thanks for the early review, Steve, can’t wait to get my hand on 180-400 in a couple of days here
yes send her on holiday , make out youv won a few quid , and it was cheaper than it actually was 😁😁😁😁 . when she starts moaning , tell her you took a loan out off the wrong people and theyre going to teach you a lesson "starting with your wife " 😀😀😀😀 your a bachelor again and free to use your lens how you want to ,
I have been watching as this lens gets into circulation to ultimately decide, but I have been hoping for a lens like this to use in aviation photography. One of the biggest challenges in this space for me has been that take off and landing shots are very frequently at significant distance, where photo passes for ground-to-air images generally are much closer. Taking a 600mm is ideal for the more distant aircraft, but then you wind up clipping the wings off as the range decreases. Two bodies are often not feasible. This might be just the ticket.
Hii, Steve, i would love to see a 600mm f4 E FL review! I'm saving money for it, and checking your full review would be very helpful! Go on with your ebooks! I have already bought the ones you have published and they're great! Have a nice day!
Great video as always. You gave really good insight and perspective on the performance, application and strengths/weaknesses of the 180-400. I've experienced the frustration of most of my lenses being unable to acquire focus quickly enough to get the shot, so for a working pro, this lens can be a game changer. For me, LOL, my game would have to change dramatically to buy it. Thanks for the honest reviews you give and the excellent ebooks.
Thanks Steve I've been thinking about this lens myself. I love my prime big telephotos but the versatility on this for travel may what I am looking for.
Great video as always Steve! Nice lens but priced way to high my opinion $12,396.95 and is at a higher price then our Nikon 600 E FLED's... I think at $8,999 or even under 10k people would flock to this lens but not at this price.
Thanks for comparing against the 200-500. I just wore out the lock on mine but I can't slight it for the value. Still have 3 years left on the warranty anyway.
Great review, but comparing this lens @ $12,300 to the 200-500 @ $1400 is a bit curious, even if they have similar focal ranges. To even be mentioned in the same breath as the 180-400 makes the 200-500 the winner . This like comparing a D3400 to a D5. You're going to buy one without consideration to the other.
My main curiosity was how it compared against the 600 and 300 :) However, I've seen a lot of people asking about the 200-500 and 80-400 and I knew that if I didn't include those lenses, I'd hear about it LOL!
I agree. Its refreshing to see that there isn't that much difference to be missing out on for 6x the price. Given that the Sigma Sport 150-600 is only 1/3 stop slower than the 180-400 and a hair sharper than the 200-500 at 600mm I think I'll take the savings. The weight is less and the extra acuity for 100mm more should make this a wash at least in the center. Wildlife subjects are usually toward the center. I care more about corners in landscapes.
It would be good if nikon could make a 400mm f4 prime the size and weight of a 70-200, with a minimum focus distance of 1.8 meters, an in built teleconverter and at a price around $5000-6000.
I also understand that there is a software upgrade for the D500 that will allow the use of all AF points with this lens when the TC is engaged so no loss of AF performance at f5.6. maybe you can confirm that Steve?
Hi Steve thx for the video but 5 years on how do you think the 180-400 would compare to the new 180-600 which is a nice range but the 180-400 is a f4 thx
Thanks for the vieo Steve! I was really waiting for it. I remember us writing about it. I will most definately nt get it, because of the price. I´m still not sure if I should get the 400 f2.8 with 1.4x and 2x converter, or a 600 mm f4 (either won´t happen any time soon). Do you think with a D500 I´ll get enough light in a forest with f4? Currently I´m using the Sigma 150-600 mm Sport, but it´s prett slow and not sharp enough at 600 mm.
Hi Steve, love your videos! Do you think there's any likelihood of Nikon making a lightweight 400mm F4 PF lens? That would pretty much be my dream lens atm.
Did you eventually buy this lens? Love to hear your in the field experience with the teleconverter use re image quality. I've seen shot that are pretty great including with an added TC14. About to buy this lens, I think, and respect your reviews a lot! Thanks.
copy of steve reply from below comments: I did purchase it after about 9 or 10 months of deliberation. I like it - especially form 180-400, but not so much with the TC. As I mentioned in the video, I'd only get it if you plan on using it form 180-400. Also, it's almost as heavy as my 600 F/4, so keep that in mind if you are thinking of hand-holding (for some, the weight is an issue). Overall though, I like it. I don't use it nearly as much as my 600mm, but when you need a zoom in the 180-400 range, there's nothing better. It's prime-like quality.
Awesome review, thank you for your hard work! Now I know that saving up for a Nikon AF-S 600mm f/4E FL ED would be best, this zoom is way to pricey even though it is impressive, albeit with fairly noticeable vignetting.
Good heads up Steve, but here is why I will be keeping my Nikkor 300mm PF VR f4 + TC14EIII and Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6: 1) The 180 - 400mm f4 is so very expensive. 2) It weighs 3.5Kg. 3) I nearly always crop my images so would not benefit from the edge advantage over the 200 - 500mm f5.6. 4) My current lenses work so well with my D500 I have no need to "upgrade".
Would really value your opinion on this lens vs the AF-S 200-400mm VR I or II. I know the 180-400 is the superior lens, but how much in regards to actual sharpness. I think I can say safely I have a good copy of the 200-400 VR I but it's in need of VR service, and I am debating buying a second 200-400 to keep me afloat during prime shooting season, or either renting or buying this beast. It seems no one has done a legit side by side with these lenses, just allot of write ups saying "The 180-400 has more contrast".
What happens on video when you flip the TC on/off? Does it automatically black out as you switch, do you see the element moving across the frame, is there just a flash of black or gray, or what? I'm 100% sure I will never buy this lens and I will probably never rent it either, but the built-in TC is a pretty novel feature and it's piqued my curiosity.
Another great video Steve. It was making me question my purchase of the 300 mm f4 with a 1.4 TC and my purchase of the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary until I looked at the price. Hahahah. What was I thinking?? Looking forward to your new book.
Just my 2 cents...I think the 300mm f/4 is perhaps the best for BIF and fast action. Anything over the 300mm FoV would only make it far more challenging. The Nikkor 200-500mm has major issues in the AF by comparison even if I use it at 300mm. A Prime will always beat a zoom, so far, but, ultimately, it is you that matters :)
Nitin Chandra. I cannot agree with your assessment of the 200 - 500mm f.6 for BIF. I was fortunate to own one, aswell as a 300mm f4 PF ED VR + TC14EIII. I bought the 300mm f4 first and with or without the 1.4TC, it made for a brilliant BIF and wildlife lens in combination with my D500. About a year later I purchased a 200 - 500mm f5.6 and though much heavier, it hardly ever came off my D500. It got to the stage where my 300mm f4 was just gathering dust. For me, the 200 - 500mm f5.6 just seemed to snatch birds out of the sky. Both lenses are brilliant but I would go with the 200 - 500mm over the 300mm every day.
+Pete Draper do you have any experience with the new 500mm f5.6 pf that just came out. I’m wondering how it stacks up to the zoom 200-500mm? Especially on the D500 and D850.
Nick C Most feedback I’ve seen/read online is that the 500mm PF is much sharper (and faster) than the 200-500mm. I have the 200-500, the 300mm PF, the D500, and now the D850. I can tell you that the 300mm PF with the 1.4x teleconverter stays pretty much glued to my camera. I just ordered the 500mm PF, and it will be arriving in early May. I can give you some further feedback then.
Amazing video Steve! I was really curious about how the 180-400 would compare against the other nikon teles, and you definitely killed my curiosity! Ggreat stuff!
Hi STEVE, i have a Nikon D850 with 24-70E VR lens.i'm a jpeg shooter and what's the best in camera sharpness settings for this setup? Thanks for your valuable advice...
Hey Steve would love your opinion on the original 200-400mm vs the 200-500mm. Which in your honest opinion would be a better choice for me shooting surfers?
Thank you for another great video and for all the great Nikon tips and tricks I've learned from watching your channel. I just started photographing wildlife 3 weeks ago with a D7200 and the 200-500. This is so fun and your Nikon tips have helped me a lot. Did you happen to shoot the field testing part of this video at Kensington? If so I would like to hear what you thought of it since that's my favorite park.
LOL, yup, I was in Kensington! I've been going there on and off for years, although I was really impressed with it last fall, and it gave me a couple of nice shots a few days ago, so I'm planning on heading back for more :) You know, once it warms up a little!!
Great review but I have a question concerning the camera you used. Many people who enjoy your channel don't own a Nikon 850 but would be interested on how the two lenses (Nikon 180-400mm and 200-500mm F/5.6) compare mounted on a D500 or D7500. Thanks Steve. Since a crop sensor camera tends to use the center of the lens, I would guess that the comparison would be much closer.
Another nice video, Steve. Great. This lens really leaves me with big question marks on my forehead but also with great interest... Here in Shanghai where I am living and working as an Expat, this lens is sold for 62.7k RMB what is about 8.4k Euro or 9.8k USD. And it comes with a 3 years global Nikon warranty. That is, compared with the 12k in Europe, actually 3.6k Euro cheaper. Still a huuuuuge and unreasonable and crazy amount of money. But...I was thinking to sell and replace some of my older glasses for it (Nikkor 200-500mm, 300mm 2.8 AF-S II) also for versatility reasons. This would reduce my lens park basically to a Nikkor 180-400mm and a Nikkor 600mm 4.0 FL on the long end. Still crazy, ah? :) But one thing is also clear: the Nikkor 200-500mm is a damn good lens, really impressive, especially in case you have a good copy of it.
Thanks for the first look steve - was really interested to see how it performed. Personally, i would have loved to have seen a slightly longer focal length than 400mm, but i can understand they do want to keep size and weight under control. I shoot a bit of sports (using a 120-300mm Sigma Sport and 500mm F4) - the 500 is awesome for the reach and bokeh but can get caught out when a player is coming towards me. Being able to flick the TC quickly and keep shooting would be a boon. That said, for the cost - near on $20k australian, the $6500 sigma wont be going anywhere
First off,thanks Steve for this great video and possibly its next episode.Second,I have purchased your two great ebooks recently and they are really helpful,teaching me how to proceed in photography.Third,it might seem naive and simplistic,but after watching your video,except for legendary but expensive 600mm f/4E lens,I would stick to my 300 f/4E with tele-converter of 1.4 III.With converter,I reached 420 mm ,without it,I have 300mm in hand if I shoot with FX body.That almost covers the need for 180-400 without being obsessed for its higher price tag .Versatility,light weight,price wise,and being prime in terms of IQ are a few cons of having that little 300 mm f/4E,even with converter.
It covers the range, but keep in mind that the TC drops it to F5.6 at 400mm and this lens is F/4 at the same length. Still, it's a LOT of money for that extra stop. The one big advantage with the 300 PF + YC though is the size. That combo gets me shots just because I can squeeze it into places I can't take the big guns.
Great video Steve. I own the 200-500 and use it on 3 bodies, D810, D4S and D500 and am reasonably happy with image quality. The expense of the 180-400 is phew. Would it not be better to purchase the 200-400 at around £2500 uk?
Hello sir, great detailed video. Would request you to make a video on birding with entry level dslr with kit lens. I have Nikon d3300 which I use with AF-P 70-300 vr. Your valuable tips and tricks for getting the best out of what we have will be very helpful. Thanks in advance. Hoping for a reply.
Hi Steve. This is a very informative video. Can you tell me if the current Nikkor 600 mm f4 better image quality as the Nikkor 600 mm f4 G. With kind regards from Bavaria
It's a little better. I compared them and found the "E" is slightly sharper than the "G" wide open. I also like the rendering of the "E" better and it seems to take my 1.4TC III better. It's also lighter and better balanced for hand-holding, although not as well balanced for gimbal use.
I haven't formally tested the 300 PF for it, but if it does, it seems minimal. I could be wrong though. I do know that at 300mm, it's always the same crop or tighter than any lens I've tested it against.
Honestly, the sharpness test between 250-550 and 200-500 at 500mm, i think the corner of 200-500 is a little better than 250-550. But for the focus part, yeah....I am suffer as you, the 200-500 f/5.6 can't focus on the small bird.
See this post on my site: backcountrygallery.com/use-teleconverter-crop-image/ Every time I test it, it's better to use the TC for overall image quality, but there is a bit more to it and the post goes into it :)
So, will you be adding this to the 600 mm and 400mm 2.8 and if you could have only one of the 3 which would it be (as they all cost about the same)? Thanks for the video Steve!
Nope, not a video. I just purchased the lens and I'm planning an article on the website for it. Full video reviews are just too time consuming so future reviews will come in the form of articles.
Just sharing my experience, yes, I always let the VR be on. Besides the stabilization, it also helps in keeping a steady focus on the subject. This, in turn, help to get the right moment for the shutter release while tracking...
Great video Steve, I love all your work, always very professional. I want to ask a question about focus on subjects at a long distance, I have a 200-500 and as you mentioned I do have trouble getting far away subjects to be sharp, but sometimes they do come out sharp, I found that if I repeatedly focus on the subject I eventually get one or two kind of sharp images, is there some kind of technique that wil help improve with this issue? I have also tried stopping down to f8, but the change is not really that much.
Would help if you posted an actual example. For instance, if you are shooting in any "creative" mode, the shutter speed is the first one to be dropped unless shooting in shutter priority mode. I recently got the 200-500mm and well...By the time I tracked a bird in flight and released the shutter, my arms did not hold up :) Oh well...Still learning the new weight, but, I simply cannot use this lens as the 300mm and therefore I make a conscious effort to increase the SS unless I have rested arms. The 200-500mm is quite heavy and unless you have the strength and stamina, you would need a tripod or monopod for stable shots or shoot at a higher SS.
After seeing ur review, I decide that I will get the 600mm f4 rather than buying the 180-400mm! Despite the 180mm-400mm is very handy, the 600mm has a much better price and sharpness!
Hey Steve :) Thanks for this great review! I would like to see a comparison between the 180-400tc + Z9 VS. 400f2.8 + Z9. There are no videos available at the moment. Regards :)
how reasonable do you think it is to compare a $1,600.(200-500 mm) to a $16,000. 00 180-400 mm f4 , Steve ? looking at your sharpness test comparing these two lenses images, I'm now more than ever, happy with my AFS 200-500 mm f5.6 lens, focus breathing and all. The 200-500 mm lens is outstanding for the money when compared to a $16,000.00 lens. Just saying.
Nice. and thanks for providing your work and these results. I'm a Canon shooter, right now the next shortest lens below my EF 600 f/4L IS II is my EF 70-200f/2.8 IS II so i'm looking to get either the 200-400, 300, or the 400 f/4 DO possibly. I wish the Canon 300 f/4L IS was as good as the Nikon 300 f/4E PF. The 300 f/4's are awesome for portability.
From the people who own it and have used it I hear great things. I haven't used it personally. I'm a bit of a rendering freak. Not a pixel peeping type, but I can definitely see differences in the way lenses render an image when looking at it globally, outside of just resolution. Maybe i'll have Canon send me the 400 to compare. I'm a CPS member of 6 months but haven't even used it yet haha.
I wasn't expecting a zoom lens even at that price point to outperform a big prime but the result is somewhat disappointing anyway to me (for the price I mean, otherwise it's an awesome lens).
I dont know about other people but corner sharpness is literally the thing I care least about. If you have a subject in the corner you are doing something wrong. But yes, 12k$ get you really top-notch technical image quality. It better do for that kind of money. But again, for 1000$ you get yourself the best 200mm f4 AF Micro if you need technical image quality.
Great review but looks far too heavy for hand held shooting. I bought the 400 2.8 FL ED VR and it's a total nightmare for shooting hand held and even trying to carry it for more than an hour. And who's gonna spend $12k on a Nikon lens on the eve of Nikon announcing an entirely new mirrorless system with new lenses which may or may not be able to rival Sony and if it doesn't the implications of residual values of Nikon glass are scary. There's just too much uncertainty at the moment .
helthuismartin For handheld shooting in place of the 400FL ED I'm now using the 200-500 and incredibly impressed with the quality of the lens with the D850 without need for an extender. For serious tripod work I'd still go for the 600FL but there's no way I'm spending 13k without knowing what nikon have in store with their mirrorless system later this year. I'm sure Nikon will be watching to see the weight of the forthcoming Sony 400 2.8 which could be a complete game changer!
Hi Steve - according to the MTF charts it should really best my original 200-400. Although a Nikon user, I do use the Canon 200-400 quite a bit, I wonder how it compares to that. Any clue?
That is precisely my thought. The 400mm would be the same thing for long shots, AND with f:2.8. As he mentioned, I think it's about versatility; I don't think this is a lens to be bought for someone who is mainly targeting long shots. Also, the 400mm has a Flourite lens too. The 180-400mm is designed for versatility... Amen.
I thought so too, although I also think I have a very good copy of the 200-500. My first two copies of the 200-500 would have been destroyed by this lens.
I LOVE the 200-500 for what it offers at it's price point, it's truly incredible and if there was a mirrorless lens that could compete I would have left Nikon for Sony, but the 200-500 has kept me with a clunky dslr. The new 180-400 is really nice, but I couldn't swallow a $10k+ price increase for minimal returns. With that said, my biggest gripe about the 200-500 is the auto focus speed, and as you pointed out it's slow focus is a large hindrance. I would love a faster focus, but not for $10 thousand dollars... For that kind of money focus should happen instantaneously like magic! Anyways, I'm gonna stick with the 200-500, would love to see it adapted to a mirrorless body though.
I've seen posts where the idea was floated of a 200-500 "sports" model with faster AF for another $500 or so. I think that would be a fantastic move for them - I'd want one for sure.
The most relevant Nikon gear reviewer on youtube. Real work examples, concise and clear.
100% agreed
$12k vs $1400. I would expect nothing less than perfection.
I see a lot people are arguing how much more it cost comparing to 200-500/5.6, but there are a huge amount of difference for the pros; I recently sold my 200-400/4vr2, and I own 200-500 as well, the AF speed of the 200-500 does not match with 200-400/4vr2, it’s wayyyyy slow, and paring 200-400/4vr2 with 1.4x iii got the same result, way faster AF at 5.6 comparing to 200-500/5.6. And the same to sharpness as well.
Thanks for the early review, Steve, can’t wait to get my hand on 180-400 in a couple of days here
Don't suppose you have a video about convincing your wife that you need a $12,000 lens, do you?
LOL, wish I did - that would be the most popular video any photo channel has ever uploaded. :)
and one for convincing your husband aswell! 🤦♀️
yes send her on holiday , make out youv won a few quid , and it was cheaper than it actually was 😁😁😁😁 . when she starts moaning , tell her you took a loan out off the wrong people and theyre going to teach you a lesson "starting with your wife " 😀😀😀😀 your a bachelor again and free to use your lens how you want to ,
Jon Boeckenstedt but at the high price I bet the outside is plastic.
Is the outside plastic?
Never knew those were buttons on the end of these exotic Nikon lenses. Good to know and another great review!
Well done Steve, very nicely delivered and great information as usual.
Thanks Steve, always enjoy your reviews.
I'm not a Nikon shooter, but still love your videos. Keep up the top work!
Welcome!
Another Honest and Informative Review.... Thank You, Steve !!
I have been watching as this lens gets into circulation to ultimately decide, but I have been hoping for a lens like this to use in aviation photography. One of the biggest challenges in this space for me has been that take off and landing shots are very frequently at significant distance, where photo passes for ground-to-air images generally are much closer. Taking a 600mm is ideal for the more distant aircraft, but then you wind up clipping the wings off as the range decreases. Two bodies are often not feasible. This might be just the ticket.
Hii, Steve, i would love to see a 600mm f4 E FL review! I'm saving money for it, and checking your full review would be very helpful!
Go on with your ebooks! I have already bought the ones you have published and they're great!
Have a nice day!
Always enjoy your videos Steve, very informative. Thumbs up as always.
Now this is a Sharpness IIIV
diamond sword addition
The strength it has is ability to change focal length fast m, that can make or break a once in the life opportunity
Great video as always. You gave really good insight and perspective on the performance, application and strengths/weaknesses of the 180-400. I've experienced the frustration of most of my lenses being unable to acquire focus quickly enough to get the shot, so for a working pro, this lens can be a game changer. For me, LOL, my game would have to change dramatically to buy it. Thanks for the honest reviews you give and the excellent ebooks.
Thanks Steve I've been thinking about this lens myself. I love my prime big telephotos but the versatility on this for travel may what I am looking for.
Still happy with my 300 PF. It might sound strange but the light and weight of the 300 pf f4 makes it versatile for me.
Magnus Claesson so true. Even with the TC14 III awesome results.
Gotta agree - the 300PF is one of my favs. The size and weight absolutely make it a very versatile lens.
Another very well worded review I know you said its not a full review but so interesting. Thanks for your thoughts.
HI Steve, sorry to trouble you, just wondering if you ever did a D5 review? I cant seem to find it in your video list, Many thanks for your time.
Great video as always Steve! Nice lens but priced way to high my opinion $12,396.95 and is at a higher price then our Nikon 600 E FLED's... I think at $8,999 or even under 10k people would flock to this lens but not at this price.
Agree 100% - I think they would have done better to keep in under $10K
Exactly!
Thanks for comparing against the 200-500. I just wore out the lock on mine but I can't slight it for the value. Still have 3 years left on the warranty anyway.
Great review, but comparing this lens @ $12,300 to the 200-500 @ $1400 is a bit curious, even if they have similar focal ranges. To even be mentioned in the same breath as the 180-400 makes the 200-500 the winner . This like comparing a D3400 to a D5. You're going to buy one without consideration to the other.
My main curiosity was how it compared against the 600 and 300 :) However, I've seen a lot of people asking about the 200-500 and 80-400 and I knew that if I didn't include those lenses, I'd hear about it LOL!
it's good to compare to show the difference of quality and to justify the price
and it's not that far compare to the price difference I would say, especially if you are on aps-c. But of course 1 stop better ;)
Carl Licari कुदूग
।
I agree. Its refreshing to see that there isn't that much difference to be missing out on for 6x the price. Given that the Sigma Sport 150-600 is only 1/3 stop slower than the 180-400 and a hair sharper than the 200-500 at 600mm I think I'll take the savings. The weight is less and the extra acuity for 100mm more should make this a wash at least in the center. Wildlife subjects are usually toward the center. I care more about corners in landscapes.
It would be good if nikon could make a 400mm f4 prime the size and weight of a 70-200, with a minimum focus distance of 1.8 meters, an in built teleconverter and at a price around $5000-6000.
I'd be all over that - I'd love to see something like the Canon 400 DO in the Nikon lineup and that TC is a great touch.
Steve Perry same. It would be a great lens for something like a d850 or a d500.
I’d hazard a guess that the next “big thing” will be Nikon announcing all their primes with a built-in 1.4x. Perhaps even a 2x on the 300 & 400 2.8s?
The 180-400 seems to have a vignetting issue during the sharpness test or was that me
How does this compare to the 200-400 f4/g? Does any have some comparisons?
I had 3 copies of the 200-400 and now the 180-400. The 180-400 is a fair amount better up to 400mm, but the images with the tc engaged are garbage.
I also understand that there is a software upgrade for the D500 that will allow the use of all AF points with this lens when the TC is engaged so no loss of AF performance at f5.6. maybe you can confirm that Steve?
Yup. Update to the latest firmware and you'll be all set.
I used the 200-500 for horse eventing , big unwealdy and af slow as.Zoom ring was like moving the titanic
Hi Steve thx for the video but 5 years on how do you think the 180-400 would compare to the new 180-600 which is a nice range but the 180-400 is a f4 thx
Thanks for the vieo Steve! I was really waiting for it. I remember us writing about it. I will most definately nt get it, because of the price. I´m still not sure if I should get the 400 f2.8 with 1.4x and 2x converter, or a 600 mm f4 (either won´t happen any time soon). Do you think with a D500 I´ll get enough light in a forest with f4? Currently I´m using the Sigma 150-600 mm Sport, but it´s prett slow and not sharp enough at 600 mm.
Hi Steve, love your videos! Do you think there's any likelihood of Nikon making a lightweight 400mm F4 PF lens? That would pretty much be my dream lens atm.
I think the z400 4.5s lens now served this purpose.
Compairing a $12,000.00 lens with a $1,200.00 lens? not fair. lol. What about the Tamron 200-600 G2 against the 150-500 Nikon?
Did you eventually buy this lens? Love to hear your in the field experience with the teleconverter use re image quality. I've seen shot that are pretty great including with an added TC14. About to buy this lens, I think, and respect your reviews a lot! Thanks.
Did you get one? My copy is amazing at 400mm f4, but unusable with the TC engaged.
copy of steve reply from below comments:
I did purchase it after about 9 or 10 months of deliberation. I like it - especially form 180-400, but not so much with the TC. As I mentioned in the video, I'd only get it if you plan on using it form 180-400. Also, it's almost as heavy as my 600 F/4, so keep that in mind if you are thinking of hand-holding (for some, the weight is an issue). Overall though, I like it. I don't use it nearly as much as my 600mm, but when you need a zoom in the 180-400 range, there's nothing better. It's prime-like quality.
Hi Steve, I was referring using the DX Crop mode on the D850 not cropping in post ...
Same thing. Cropping in post or in camera gets you the same result (well, assuming DX crop in post of course).
Awesome review, thank you for your hard work! Now I know that saving up for a Nikon AF-S 600mm f/4E FL ED would be best, this zoom is way to pricey even though it is impressive, albeit with fairly noticeable vignetting.
FWIW, I wouldn't give up my 600E for this lens for what I do. Adding it, yes, replacing, no. So, I think your 600F4 idea is solid :)
Good heads up Steve, but here is why I will be keeping my Nikkor 300mm PF VR f4 + TC14EIII and Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6: 1) The 180 - 400mm f4 is so very expensive. 2) It weighs 3.5Kg. 3) I nearly always crop my images so would not benefit from the edge advantage over the 200 - 500mm f5.6. 4) My current lenses work so well with my D500 I have no need to "upgrade".
Hi Steve, I very much enjoyed your review can’t wait for your next video. With love from the Netherlands 👍👍🇺🇸🇺🇸🇳🇱
Extremely good reviews
!
Would really value your opinion on this lens vs the AF-S 200-400mm VR I or II. I know the 180-400 is the superior lens, but how much in regards to actual sharpness. I think I can say safely I have a good copy of the 200-400 VR I but it's in need of VR service, and I am debating buying a second 200-400 to keep me afloat during prime shooting season, or either renting or buying this beast. It seems no one has done a legit side by side with these lenses, just allot of write ups saying "The 180-400 has more contrast".
How does this compare overall with the 200-400mm f4 VRII?
Pretty much better in every way. I've had both and never liked the 200-400.
What happens on video when you flip the TC on/off? Does it automatically black out as you switch, do you see the element moving across the frame, is there just a flash of black or gray, or what?
I'm 100% sure I will never buy this lens and I will probably never rent it either, but the built-in TC is a pretty novel feature and it's piqued my curiosity.
Another great video Steve. It was making me question my purchase of the 300 mm f4 with a 1.4 TC and my purchase of the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary until I looked at the price. Hahahah. What was I thinking?? Looking forward to your new book.
Just my 2 cents...I think the 300mm f/4 is perhaps the best for BIF and fast action. Anything over the 300mm FoV would only make it far more challenging. The Nikkor 200-500mm has major issues in the AF by comparison even if I use it at 300mm. A Prime will always beat a zoom, so far, but, ultimately, it is you that matters :)
Nitin Chandra. I cannot agree with your assessment of the 200 - 500mm f.6 for BIF. I was fortunate to own one, aswell as a 300mm f4 PF ED VR + TC14EIII. I bought the 300mm f4 first and with or without the 1.4TC, it made for a brilliant BIF and wildlife lens in combination with my D500. About a year later I purchased a 200 - 500mm f5.6 and though much heavier, it hardly ever came off my D500. It got to the stage where my 300mm f4 was just gathering dust. For me, the 200 - 500mm f5.6 just seemed to snatch birds out of the sky. Both lenses are brilliant but I would go with the 200 - 500mm over the 300mm every day.
+Pete Draper do you have any experience with the new 500mm f5.6 pf that just came out. I’m wondering how it stacks up to the zoom 200-500mm? Especially on the D500 and D850.
Nick C Most feedback I’ve seen/read online is that the 500mm PF is much sharper (and faster) than the 200-500mm. I have the 200-500, the 300mm PF, the D500, and now the D850. I can tell you that the 300mm PF with the 1.4x teleconverter stays pretty much glued to my camera. I just ordered the 500mm PF, and it will be arriving in early May. I can give you some further feedback then.
Amazing video as always! Thank you!
Nice review, and I guess a good example of "the law of diminishing returns" great lens but boy is it expensive, pro yes - amateur maybe not.
We’re you in Michigan for any of this video? One of the places you’re in looks super familiar lol
LOL...maybe Kensington :)
Amazing video Steve! I was really curious about how the 180-400 would compare against the other nikon teles, and you definitely killed my curiosity! Ggreat stuff!
Hi STEVE, i have a Nikon D850 with 24-70E VR lens.i'm a jpeg shooter and what's the best in camera sharpness settings for this setup? Thanks for your valuable advice...
At $19,000 l think this Aussie will wait to see if one magically appears under next years Christmas tree... l highly doubt it though 🎅🏻
Did it happen last Christmas for you?
Tony Tarantula NOPE... Just socks and jocks ☹️
Great video as always Steve. Are you using the Nikon GPS unit on your D850? How do you like it? Does it get in the way?
Nope, I stopped using GPS awhile ago actually. I don't want people tracking down some of my more sensitive subjects with EXIF data.
Gotcha. Thought I saw one on your D850. Thanks.
Hey Steve would love your opinion on the original 200-400mm vs the 200-500mm. Which in your honest opinion would be a better choice for me shooting surfers?
Thank you for another great video and for all the great Nikon tips and tricks I've learned from watching your channel. I just started photographing wildlife 3 weeks ago with a D7200 and the 200-500. This is so fun and your Nikon tips have helped me a lot. Did you happen to shoot the field testing part of this video at Kensington? If so I would like to hear what you thought of it since that's my favorite park.
LOL, yup, I was in Kensington! I've been going there on and off for years, although I was really impressed with it last fall, and it gave me a couple of nice shots a few days ago, so I'm planning on heading back for more :) You know, once it warms up a little!!
Very good and detailed video! What schc memorycards do you recommend for wildlife photography? How big and how fast?
I only use XQD now, so I can't say for sure. Sorry.
Steve Perry Okay, but would you recommend the d810 over the d7200 for birds in flight?
Great review but I have a question concerning the camera you used. Many people who enjoy your channel don't own a Nikon 850 but would be interested on how the two lenses (Nikon 180-400mm and 200-500mm F/5.6) compare mounted on a D500 or D7500. Thanks Steve. Since a crop sensor camera tends to use the center of the lens, I would guess that the comparison would be much closer.
Totally agree...Wildlife is not about focus and re-compose unless you are in a zoo or similar...Has to be bullseye within the second or two...
Thanks Steve, great review
fantastic review
Another nice video, Steve. Great. This lens really leaves me with big question marks on my forehead but also with great interest... Here in Shanghai where I am living and working as an Expat, this lens is sold for 62.7k RMB what is about 8.4k Euro or 9.8k USD. And it comes with a 3 years global Nikon warranty. That is, compared with the 12k in Europe, actually 3.6k Euro cheaper. Still a huuuuuge and unreasonable and crazy amount of money. But...I was thinking to sell and replace some of my older glasses for it (Nikkor 200-500mm, 300mm 2.8 AF-S II) also for versatility reasons. This would reduce my lens park basically to a Nikkor 180-400mm and a Nikkor 600mm 4.0 FL on the long end. Still crazy, ah? :) But one thing is also clear: the Nikkor 200-500mm is a damn good lens, really impressive, especially in case you have a good copy of it.
One more day and it will be delivered :)
Thanks for the first look steve - was really interested to see how it performed.
Personally, i would have loved to have seen a slightly longer focal length than 400mm, but i can understand they do want to keep size and weight under control.
I shoot a bit of sports (using a 120-300mm Sigma Sport and 500mm F4) - the 500 is awesome for the reach and bokeh but can get caught out when a player is coming towards me.
Being able to flick the TC quickly and keep shooting would be a boon.
That said, for the cost - near on $20k australian, the $6500 sigma wont be going anywhere
First off,thanks Steve for this great video and possibly its next episode.Second,I have purchased your two great ebooks recently and they are really helpful,teaching me how to proceed in photography.Third,it might seem naive and simplistic,but after watching your video,except for legendary but expensive 600mm f/4E lens,I would stick to my 300 f/4E with tele-converter of 1.4 III.With converter,I reached 420 mm ,without it,I have 300mm in hand if I shoot with FX body.That almost covers the need for 180-400 without being obsessed for its higher price tag .Versatility,light weight,price wise,and being prime in terms of IQ are a few cons of having that little 300 mm f/4E,even with converter.
It covers the range, but keep in mind that the TC drops it to F5.6 at 400mm and this lens is F/4 at the same length. Still, it's a LOT of money for that extra stop. The one big advantage with the 300 PF + YC though is the size. That combo gets me shots just because I can squeeze it into places I can't take the big guns.
cant wait for the full review :)
great steve! how is the 850 that got wet doing, did you shoot this with it?
No issues with it at all, well over 25K photos now.
Great video Steve. I own the 200-500 and use it on 3 bodies, D810, D4S and D500 and am reasonably happy with image quality. The expense of the 180-400 is phew. Would it not be better to purchase the 200-400 at around £2500 uk?
Hello sir, great detailed video. Would request you to make a video on birding with entry level dslr with kit lens. I have Nikon d3300 which I use with AF-P 70-300 vr. Your valuable tips and tricks for getting the best out of what we have will be very helpful. Thanks in advance. Hoping for a reply.
Hi Steve.
This is a very informative video.
Can you tell me if the current Nikkor 600 mm f4 better image quality as the Nikkor 600 mm f4 G.
With kind regards from Bavaria
It's a little better. I compared them and found the "E" is slightly sharper than the "G" wide open. I also like the rendering of the "E" better and it seems to take my 1.4TC III better. It's also lighter and better balanced for hand-holding, although not as well balanced for gimbal use.
Very nice Steve, but just 1 question, The 200-500 has focus breathing and am wondering if the 300PF has focus breathing or is it a true 300?
I haven't formally tested the 300 PF for it, but if it does, it seems minimal. I could be wrong though. I do know that at 300mm, it's always the same crop or tighter than any lens I've tested it against.
@@backcountrygallery üp
Has any one tried extension tubes with nikons 500mm or 600mm primes? Which ones? How dose it affect the auto focus?
Honestly, the sharpness test between 250-550 and 200-500 at 500mm, i think the corner of 200-500 is a little better than 250-550. But for the focus part, yeah....I am suffer as you, the 200-500 f/5.6 can't focus on the small bird.
Biggest downside of this lens is price, I would buy the 600 E FL for that kind of money and never look back.
If I didn't have a 600E already I would as well.
Do you ever use the crop mode on the D850 instead of the Teleconvert? Have you ever tested for quality difference?
See this post on my site:
backcountrygallery.com/use-teleconverter-crop-image/
Every time I test it, it's better to use the TC for overall image quality, but there is a bit more to it and the post goes into it :)
Hi Steve, I was referring to the DX Crop mode on the D850 not cropping in post ...
Do you think 80-400 is better than the 200-400 especially at 400?
So, will you be adding this to the 600 mm and 400mm 2.8 and if you could have only one of the 3 which would it be (as they all cost about the same)? Thanks for the video Steve!
No 400 2.8, it's that lens or this one that will be added to the 600F4. If only one? 600 without the least bit of hesitation.
Hi Steve! Are there going to be anymore videos about the 180-400mm?
Love your reviews!
Nope, not a video. I just purchased the lens and I'm planning an article on the website for it. Full video reviews are just too time consuming so future reviews will come in the form of articles.
@@backcountrygallery Alright, thanks for the reply!
Do you let VR run at fast shutter speeds over 1/500s?
Just sharing my experience, yes, I always let the VR be on. Besides the stabilization, it also helps in keeping a steady focus on the subject. This, in turn, help to get the right moment for the shutter release while tracking...
Depends on the lens, some seem to work better than others at faster speeds. I'd have to use this one a lot more before I can say one way or the other.
May I know what brand is your lens foot for the Nikkor 200-500 f5.6?
That one is a Kirk Enterprises foot.
Hi Steve - Your wildlife is just SO CLOSE!!!! Where in the US are you?
LOL, all over the place. These were in Kensington Metropark near Ann Arbor MI.
Thanks for your videos!
Have any experience with the 200-400mm f4 vrII?
Please compare the 180-400 to the Canon 1200mm f/5.6L... I am sure you will find the results interesting!
How many inch is the lenshood in diameter??????
Great video Steve, I love all your work, always very professional. I want to ask a question about focus on subjects at a long distance, I have a 200-500 and as you mentioned I do have trouble getting far away subjects to be sharp, but sometimes they do come out sharp, I found that if I repeatedly focus on the subject I eventually get one or two kind of sharp images, is there some kind of technique that wil help improve with this issue? I have also tried stopping down to f8, but the change is not really that much.
Callie van Huyssteen interested in this as well as I also have the 200-500 and have this issue.
This is the problem:
ua-cam.com/video/mrZk6q4mjzg/v-deo.html
Steve Perry thank you! That’s exactly it!
Would help if you posted an actual example. For instance, if you are shooting in any "creative" mode, the shutter speed is the first one to be dropped unless shooting in shutter priority mode. I recently got the 200-500mm and well...By the time I tracked a bird in flight and released the shutter, my arms did not hold up :)
Oh well...Still learning the new weight, but, I simply cannot use this lens as the 300mm and therefore I make a conscious effort to increase the SS unless I have rested arms. The 200-500mm is quite heavy and unless you have the strength and stamina, you would need a tripod or monopod for stable shots or shoot at a higher SS.
For $900 you can buy a used Nikkor 400 3.5 IF-ED AIS that is smaller faster sharper and lighter.
Nice work, thank you.
By the way, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E VR + TC-14E III give you an excellent 100-300mm f/4
Sharp and with very close focusing !
Think you might do a field test and review of the Tamron 100-400 sometime? Looks like a good budget wildlife lens.
I have the Tamron 100-400 and love it. The image quality is quite good and it's lighter than most alternatives.
After seeing ur review, I decide that I will get the 600mm f4 rather than buying the 180-400mm! Despite the 180mm-400mm is very handy, the 600mm has a much better price and sharpness!
I love my 600 F4 - not a bad choice at all. Comes down to how you're going to use the lens. For me, 600 F4 is first, then this one.
Thank U, Steve
Hey Steve :)
Thanks for this great review! I would like to see a comparison between the 180-400tc + Z9 VS. 400f2.8 + Z9. There are no videos available at the moment.
Regards :)
how reasonable do you think it is to compare a $1,600.(200-500 mm) to a $16,000. 00 180-400 mm f4 , Steve ? looking at your sharpness test comparing these two lenses images, I'm now more than ever, happy with my AFS 200-500 mm f5.6 lens, focus breathing and all. The 200-500 mm lens is outstanding for the money when compared to a $16,000.00 lens. Just saying.
Which 600 was used in the comparison ? the G or the E? just wondering, thank you.
The new "E" version.
Nice. and thanks for providing your work and these results. I'm a Canon shooter, right now the next shortest lens below my EF 600 f/4L IS II is my EF 70-200f/2.8 IS II so i'm looking to get either the 200-400, 300, or the 400 f/4 DO possibly. I wish the Canon 300 f/4L IS was as good as the Nikon 300 f/4E PF. The 300 f/4's are awesome for portability.
Personally, I love that 400 DO - wish Nikon had one...
From the people who own it and have used it I hear great things. I haven't used it personally. I'm a bit of a rendering freak. Not a pixel peeping type, but I can definitely see differences in the way lenses render an image when looking at it globally, outside of just resolution. Maybe i'll have Canon send me the 400 to compare. I'm a CPS member of 6 months but haven't even used it yet haha.
I wasn't expecting a zoom lens even at that price point to outperform a big prime but the result is somewhat disappointing anyway to me (for the price I mean, otherwise it's an awesome lens).
Thanks for your videos
I’m liking my 300 PF more and more.
It's hard not to love that lens! One of my all time favorites.
I dont know about other people but corner sharpness is literally the thing I care least about. If you have a subject in the corner you are doing something wrong. But yes, 12k$ get you really top-notch technical image quality. It better do for that kind of money. But again, for 1000$ you get yourself the best 200mm f4 AF Micro if you need technical image quality.
Great review but looks far too heavy for hand held shooting. I bought the 400 2.8 FL ED VR and it's a total nightmare for shooting hand held and even trying to carry it for more than an hour. And who's gonna spend $12k on a Nikon lens on the eve of Nikon announcing an entirely new mirrorless system with new lenses which may or may not be able to rival Sony and if it doesn't the implications of residual values of Nikon glass are scary. There's just too much uncertainty at the moment .
Try the older Nikon 200-400mm 4,0 VR1.Its sharper than the VR2 version and it wil cost secondhand only 2200 Dollars.
It's a bear to hand-hold, compared to smaller glass, but it's still doable fro short sessions, at least IMO.
helthuismartin
For handheld shooting in place of the 400FL ED I'm now using the 200-500 and incredibly impressed with the quality of the lens with the D850 without need for an extender. For serious tripod work I'd still go for the 600FL but there's no way I'm spending 13k without knowing what nikon have in store with their mirrorless system later this year. I'm sure Nikon will be watching to see the weight of the forthcoming Sony 400 2.8 which could be a complete game changer!
Hi Steve - according to the MTF charts it should really best my original 200-400.
Although a Nikon user, I do use the Canon 200-400 quite a bit, I wonder how it compares to that. Any clue?
Not sure, that Canon has a heck of a reputation, it would be an interesting comparison.
if this is anything like the original 200-400 f4 its a fantastic lens ..
It's considerably better than the 200-400. I had 3 copies of that lens and now have the 180-400
@@perfectbill1550 might have to save up , sell a kidney 😃
Muchas gracias, muy bien explicado. Saludos //// Thank you very much, very well explained. regards
Why wouldn't you go for the 400mm F2.8 for this kind of money? With the 400 F2.8 you could still use teleconverters with less loss.
That is precisely my thought. The 400mm would be the same thing for long shots, AND with f:2.8. As he mentioned, I think it's about versatility; I don't think this is a lens to be bought for someone who is mainly targeting long shots. Also, the 400mm has a Flourite lens too. The 180-400mm is designed for versatility... Amen.
because from 180mm to 399mm
What is that tripod mount called?
It's a gimbal mount - specifically a Wimberley WH-200. I can't recommend it highly enough for long lens work.
180-400 is certainly quite the lens. Kind of impressive though how the 200-500 does considering the price difference.
I thought so too, although I also think I have a very good copy of the 200-500. My first two copies of the 200-500 would have been destroyed by this lens.
Indeed. I was fortunate to get a good copy. Thank you for the first look at this lens.
Makes the 200-500 even better value :-)
Out of my league!
I LOVE the 200-500 for what it offers at it's price point, it's truly incredible and if there was a mirrorless lens that could compete I would have left Nikon for Sony, but the 200-500 has kept me with a clunky dslr. The new 180-400 is really nice, but I couldn't swallow a $10k+ price increase for minimal returns. With that said, my biggest gripe about the 200-500 is the auto focus speed, and as you pointed out it's slow focus is a large hindrance. I would love a faster focus, but not for $10 thousand dollars... For that kind of money focus should happen instantaneously like magic! Anyways, I'm gonna stick with the 200-500, would love to see it adapted to a mirrorless body though.
I've seen posts where the idea was floated of a 200-500 "sports" model with faster AF for another $500 or so. I think that would be a fantastic move for them - I'd want one for sure.
Thanx, good info!