Nikon has long been known for their high-quality telephoto and super-telephoto lenses. Today, with the mirrorless Nikon Z system, there are already seven lenses which reach at least 400mm (without needing a teleconverter) as well as a host of F-mount lenses that can be adapted to mirrorless, too. Which one of these many super-telephoto lenses is the best one for Nikon Z photographers? We’ve done an extensive side-by-side test to answer that very question.
Comparing lenses is always a challenge. The best scientific approach that allows you to compare them over time is to photograph the same pattern each time under controlled conditions, as we do in our lens reviews at Photography Life. However, it’s also helpful to shoot real-world subjects to see how the different lenses perform in the field. That’s the type of comparison I will present to you today, covering both sharpness and bokeh.
Just getting all of these lenses into a small car was a challenge – not to mention the fact that the value of the car was roughly tripled. For a comparison like this, we had to find a subject that was patient enough not to move during the test. The South American potoos would have fulfilled this requirement perfectly, but here in the Czech Republic, it was necessary to use a fake bird. However, it was real enough to fool passers-by into thinking it was a real owl. So, for our purposes, it will do just fine.
And what Nikon Z super-telephotos will you find in my test today?
- Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S
- Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR
- Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S
- Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S
- Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
- Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S
I also tested the following two F-mount lenses for the sake of comparison:
- Nikon AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
- Nikon AF-S 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR
In order to reach different focal lengths, two of the lenses in question have their own built-in teleconverters, while the others were equipped with Nikon’s 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverters.
The one lens I didn’t test for this comparison is the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 that was released only a couple weeks ago. However, I have just recently had a chance to get my hands on this lens and will be writing a first impressions article soon.
Brief Introduction to the Compared Telephoto Lenses
The first lens tested, the Nikon AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR, is a proven matador. It is one of two F-mount lenses in this test. The compromises Nikon made in order to make the lens affordable rarely show up in the final photos. Good sharpness (especially in the center of the frame), nice bokeh, and versatility were all reasons to buy this lens – and still are. My only major complaint was the focusing speed, which suffered even more on Z-mount cameras. But how does the image quality hold up against the new Z telephoto lenses?
The biggest news in today’s comparison is that we’ve gotten a copy of the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR to test side-by-side with the other super-telephoto lenses. In my initial field review, I compared this lens to the aforementioned Nikon AF-S 200-500mm. Nikon has listened to the concerns of its users, addressing many of the criticisms of the 200-500mm f/5.6. The 180-600mm has a larger focal length range, internal zoom, and clearly snappier autofocus. My first impression last month was that even the optical performance had improved. But how did the lens perform against the rest of the pack in a head-to-head test?
The next lens is the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S. With this lens, Nikon opened up the 400mm focal length to a wider range of photographers. The Nikon Z 100-400mm is undoubtedly a great lens with fast focusing, impressive sharpness, and near-macro focus capabilities. The only limitation is that its maximum focal length of 400mm is not as long as most of the lenses here. However, the 100-400mm can be fitted with a teleconverter, and I’ll show you what results you can expect from this combination.
When Nikon introduced the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S, many photographers (including myself) compared to the highly successful Nikon AF-S 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR. It’s a lightweight, sharp, compact, and well-built lens that works well with teleconverters. In particular, the TC-1.4x is almost a must-have companion for this lens, giving a 560mm lens with an acceptable f/6.3 maximum aperture. But can this lens hold its own against longer lenses when using a teleconverter? And is it really sharper than cheaper zooms?
The other F-mount lens in this comparison – the Nikon AF-S 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR – hit the nail on the head back when it was released. Optically, this lens is practically on par with its much more expensive and larger 500mm f/4 brother. What this lens lacks in speed, it compensates for in hand-holdability and portability. As for its autofocus, it’s no slouch, even on Z cameras. But this lens was also announced back in 2018; does it still shine as brightly compared to the newer telephoto lenses?
If you look for major flaws in the Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S lens, you’ll come up empty-handed. At least in terms of optical quality, this lens represents the absolute pinnacle of lens evolution. It produces razor-sharp, high-contrast images at every aperture. What’s more, it reaches a useful 560mm f/4 even when using the built-in 1.4x teleconverter. Using an external Nikon Z TC-2x works, too, to give you an 800mm f/5.6. I think we can expect great performance with this lens at 400mm, but how well does it hold up to Nikon’s 600mm f/4 or 800mm f/6.3 lenses when using the teleconverters?
The Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S lens has been something of a unicorn for me. I knew it existed, but I had never seen it in person, let alone tested it in the field. From what I have heard, this lens is supposed to be so sharp you could shave with it. Add to that a perfect 600mm ” bird” focal length, an f/4 aperture that allows you to focus reliably even in the gloom of the evening woods, and a built-in 1.4x teleconverter that turns this super-telephoto lens into an 840mm f/5.6 monster with the flick of a finger. But the price is also monstrous. Is it good enough to justify spending $15,497? You’ll see for yourself momentarily.
Finally, the longest native Nikon Z lens – the Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S. This super-telephoto lens surprised everyone with its price when it was released. Despite a similar entrance pupil size, it’s much less expensive than the 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4, with a cost of (I hesitate to write “only”) $6,497. The lens is also relatively small and lightweight thanks to the Phase Fresnel element. In our test, it was also very good optically, although not as good as the F-mount 800mm f/5.6, which is still one of the sharpest Nikon lenses of all time. Can it beat more expensive rivals such as the 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4 equipped with teleconverters?
Technical Notes for the Test
A number of questions have been raised. Let’s get down to answering them.
To keep the scope of the test reasonable, I limited the focal length range from 400mm to about 800mm. Also, I completed this test in one day in order to minimize external variables, but for time purposes, this meant not including some lens/teleconverter combinations in the test. But don’t worry if you don’t find the combination you’re interested in. I can promise you that work is already underway to expand this comparison.
The camera used for the test was a Nikon Z9. I tested it on two scenes that correspond to the typical use of a telephoto lens in a real environment. The photos were taken at a constant distance from a Gitzo Systematic tripod. The difference in the field of view therefore corresponds to the focal length of the lens.
As a real-world test, there was a very small amount of wind that affected the tree and leaf positions slightly from photo to photo. I therefore shot at ISO 800 in order to allow sufficiently fast shutter speeds to freeze mild movement. Finally, I selected the sharpest photos from a series of RAW files in Nikon NX Studio and converted them to TIFF without any editing, sharpening, or de-noising.
By testing each set of lenses twice (from two different camera angles), I was able to minimize variability and double-check all of my sharpness impressions.
And with that, it’s time to dive into the tests. Click the menu below to jump to the page that interests you:
To give you a sense of the focal lengths involved in this test, I’ll start by showing the uncropped images of the same scene at 400mm, 500mm, 560mm, 600mm, 700mm, 800mm, and 860mm. This will give you a sense of how the various focal lengths differ, so that you know which lenses are worth your consideration in the first place.
400mm:
500mm:
560mm:
600mm:
700mm:
800mm:
840mm:
Although the right lens depends on the size and distance of your subject, this should at least give you an idea of the relative fields of view at each focal length. Personally, I like to have a lens that reaches at least the 560mm mark in my bag as a wildlife photographer, whether natively or with teleconverters.
The next page of this comparison will cover the sharpness tests of each lens at a variety of focal lengths.
Sharpness at 400mm
The focal length of 400mm, which could be considered the gateway to the world of wildlife photography, is covered by five of the lenses I tested. The following images shown are 100% crops, and all are taken at the lens’s maximum aperture. Click on each photo to see it at full resolution.
Scene #1 at 400mm:
Since the Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 and Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 have wider maximum apertures than the other lenses, for fairness, I also shot those two lenses stopped down to f/5.6:
My initial impression is that all the lenses are sharp despite over $10,000 difference in their prices! At Photography Life, when we say that almost every modern lens is sharp, and sharpness is mostly about your technique, this is what we mean.
That said, there are two tiers that you can see in the results above. On top are the two 400mm primes – both the f/2.8 and f/4.5, which are extremely similar in sharpness. Among the zooms, which are a bit less crisp than the primes, it’s essentially a tie. Any differences you see in sharpness among the zooms are likely due to slight differences in focus position.
Scene #2 at 400mm:
And here are the two photos from the prime lenses stopped down to f/5.6:
The second test scene basically confirms what I wrote above. The prime lenses are sharper than the zoom lenses at a given aperture, although every lens – even the aging 200-500mm f/5.6 – is really strong at 400mm. The three zooms are on a very similar level as one another. The 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 looks a bit worse than the other two, but that’s mostly because it focused a bit further away – take a look at the owl’s wing on the left instead of its chest, and you’ll see that it holds up nicely.
What the test photos don’t tell you is anything about the speed of the autofocus. With the 200-500mm, the camera was much slower to focus (although still extremely accurate), while with the 180-600mm, it consistently found the eye more quickly. The same goes for the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Both Nikon Z primes were even a bit faster. In these lighting conditions, I saw no speed advantages for the 400mm f/2.8 over the 400mm f/4.5, but in very low light, the f/2.8 lens is the quickest to focus of the bunch.
Sharpness at 500mm
This is where a new player comes into play. The Nikon AF-S 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR lens is considered one of the best super-telephotos on the market. How does it compare to the new Z-mount 180-600mm and the older F-mount 200-500mm zooms at 500mm?
Scene #1 at 500mm:
It doesn’t take too long to pick the winner in this round. The 500mm f/5.6 lives up to its reputation, and its sharpness definitely beats both of its zoom rivals.
The fight for second place is much closer. Again, there was a slight difference in focusing distance, with the 200-500mm focusing a bit closer than the 180-600mm, so the sharper of the two depends on where you look. It’s nearly a photo-finish, but I would give a slight nod to the 200-500mm f/5.6.
Scene #2 at 500mm:
The second test scene shows a slightly different picture. Nothing changes in first place; the 500mm f/5.6 is the best. However, the 200-500mm f/5.6 more clearly outperforms its newer rival this time – still not by much, but at least by enough to notice.
My takeaway is that the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 is outperforming expectations, while the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 has gotten a bit less sharp at 500mm than it was at 400mm. And, overall, you still can’t beat a high-quality prime lens.
Sharpness at 560mm and 600mm
Here, the group of tested lenses grows to five again. Three of the lenses have a maximum focal length of 400mm, necessitating a 1.4x teleconverter to reach 560mm. For the 180-600mm lens, this is the limit of its range. And finally, there is His Majesty, the Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S. The difference between the cheapest and the most expensive lens in this range is $13,800. Will their performance reflect this? Let’s take a closer look.
Scene #1 at 560mm and 600mm:
Now the differences are getting pretty stark. The clear loser here is the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, whose performance with the 1.4x teleconverter is only so-so. The 180-600mm looks quite good, comparatively – it seems to have shaken off its weaker 500mm performance, although part of that is the 100-400mm’s weakness side-by-side.
As for the prime lenses, all three of them are sharper than the zooms. The two 400mm lenses are on a very similar level here, with a difference in depth of field (due to the different maximum apertures of f/4 and f/6.3) but no major differences in sharpness at the in-focus areas. Note that I was using the built-in teleconverter on the 400mm f/2.8, not the external Z TC-1.4x teleconverter.
Meanwhile, the Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S is easily ahead of the group. The amount of detail and contrast of this lens is simply outstanding. With the 600mm f/4, you simply get what you paid the sinful amount of money for.
Scene #2 at 560mm and 600mm:
The situation is extremely similar this time, although the 400mm f/2.8 + TC looks perhaps a hair better than the 400mm f/4.5 + TC, taking their different depths of field into account.
Per price, the lens that impressed me the most overall at 600mm is the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3. It’s much less expensive than the other options, especially the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4, yet it keeps up with the two 400mm primes and clearly beats the 100-400mm + TC.
Sharpness at 700mm, 800mm, and 840mm
When performing the tests below, the light was fading quickly, and I had to exclude some lenses from the test in order to finish it during the daylight. For other lenses, I tested them with one of the scenes instead of both. You can see the results below.
Scene #1 at 700mm, 800mm, and 840mm
I had expected that these lenses would rank in sharpness differently depending upon which teleconverter they needed to use. To my surprise, however, three lenses tie for first: the 400mm f/2.8 + 2x TC, the 600mm f/4 with its built-in 1.4x TC, and the Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3.
As the only native 800mm lens in the bunch, I had hoped that the 800mm f/6.3 S would clearly take the #1 spot. It seems that the extra sharpness of the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 is so high that even a teleconverter can’t take it all away. Still, considering that the 800mm f/6.3 costs $6500 rather than $15,500, it is definitely the easiest to justify among the exotic, gold-ring super-telephoto primes.
What about the rest of the lenses? The 500mm f/5.6 with TC-1.4x did very well, as expected from our lab test results. I was a bit disappointed with the otherwise excellent 400mm f/4.5, which doesn’t seem to like the TC-2x very much.
Let’s look at the second scene:
Scene #2 at 700mm, 800mm, and 840mm
This time, I was able to test the 180-600mm lens with the 1.4x TC and found that it didn’t perform especially well – at these focal lengths, it’s the worst one that I had the time to test. (However, the 100-400mm + 2x TC performs worse based on my other experiences). Aside from that, the results are the same as above, with the gold ring supertelephotos taking first place.
Sharpness Conclusion
To wrap up the sharpness tests, I’ll summarize each focal length with both the sharpest and the best value lenses.
- 400mm: The Z 400mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/4.5 tie for the sharpest. This makes the 400mm f/4.5 the best value, although the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 is also a great value with solid sharpness performance.
- 500mm: The 500mm f/5.6 PF is the sharpest. All three lenses are good values, but the 200-500mm f/5.6 and 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 are less than half the price of the 500mm f/5.6 PF. The tradeoff is less sharpness and (in the 200-500mm’s case) slower autofocus performance.
- 560mm/600mm: The Z 600mm f/4 is clearly the sharpest. The best value is either the 400mm f/4.5 + 1.4x TC ($3800 and very good sharpness) or the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 ($1700 and good sharpness). I should also mention the 600mm f/6.3, which I didn’t have in time for this test, but have used since then. It costs $4800 and is a clear second place in sharpness at 600mm.
- 700mm/800mm/840mm: There’s a three-way tie in sharpness between the 400mm f/2.8 + 2x TC, 600mm f/4 + 1.4x TC, and 800mm f/6.3. The 800mm f/6.3 is the best value of the three, since it’s $6500 rather than $14,000 or more. However, another good value at this focal length is the 500mm f/5.6 PF + 1.4x TC, costing $4100 for the combo and still performing pretty well.
That does it for our sharpness tests. Next up is a comparison of how each lens renders the same scene and captures out-of-focus regions. In other words, it’s a test of bokeh.
Bokeh at 400mm
In the following scene, you can judge the bokeh with the sky coming through the leaves in the background.
Nobody will be surprised by the first place of the 400mm f/2.8. This fast super-telephoto lens is renowned for its bokeh, and at f/2.8, it has the widest maximum aperture of all the lenses here.
As for the rest of the lenses, I find that the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and the 400mm f/4.5 have more of a “cat’s eye” look compared to the 200-500mm and 180-600mm zooms. However, all of these lenses are still quite pleasant in how they render out-of-focus areas. I hesitate to pick a winner or loser, since everyone evaluates bokeh differently, and the images are fairly close regardless. However, I have a slight preference for the 200-500mm f/5.6 and 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3.
By the way, how would the bokeh champion 400mm f/2.8 look when stopped down to f/5.6? Here it is for comparison:
To me, it looks barely any different from the other lenses at f/5.6 or f/6.0. It has slightly softer transitions in the foliage above the owl, but the difference is very subtle indeed. The reason to spend over $14,000 on the 400mm f/2.8 is to shoot it at f/2.8, simple as that.
Bokeh at 500mm
How did the trio of 500mm lenses compare in terms of bokeh? Here are the results.
Here, I think the 180-600mm shows the most pleasing bokeh. The 200-500mm and 500mm are very similar to one another, and slightly worse to my eye. I had expected that the 500mm f/5.6 PF’s bokeh would look busier than this due to the texture of its phase-fresnel lens element, but it looks just fine to me.
Bokeh at 560mm and 600mm
The Nikon Z 600mm f/4 not only beats the competition in terms of sharpness, but it also dominates in terms of bokeh. Simply put, what the 400mm f/2.8 is at 400mm focal length, the 600mm f/4 is at 600mm. It even beats the 400mm f/2.8 + 1.4x combo despite both lenses sharing a maximum aperture (although the 400mm f/2.8 is second best, to my eye).
Behind this pair is the 180-600mm, and close behind are the 400mm f/4.5 and the 100-400mm, both with TC-1.4x.
Just for interest, I’ll show you how the 600mm f/4 looks when stopped down to f/5.6:
Although the bokeh is now more similar to the other lenses in this test (apart from the 400mm f/2.8 + TC combo), the 600mm f/4 is still the best, at least to my eye.
Bokeh at 700mm, 800mm, and 840mm
What about the bokeh of the lenses near 800mm? At such a long focal length, the depth of field is already razor-thin. That’s why the background looks nicely defocused even on the lenses with f/8 or f/9 as their maximum aperture.
Light levels were getting low during this test, and I was working quickly, so I apologize for the differences in exposure and a few missing tests. Pay attention to the bokeh, and you’ll see that there are some clear differences, though.
To my eye, the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3’s bokeh is the best of the f/8-f/9 lenses. Meanwhile, the 800mm f/6.3 benefits from a shallower depth of field, but some of the bokeh in the specular highlights is on the busy side. The 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 have similar bokeh to one another, and still not perfect due to the influence of the teleconverter. If I had to pick a winner, it would be the 600mm f/4. However, it’s best to judge bokeh for yourself.
Summary
In this big telephoto lens comparison test, you had the opportunity to see the performance of almost every Nikon Z supertelephoto lens, as well as a couple of popular Nikon F-mount lenses. Rarely do you get the chance to compare so many lenses in a real scene. If you’ve ever wondered if your photography would benefit from a more expensive or faster lens, this test may have helped you find the answer.
Do I have any recommendations based on the examples above? Well, if your budget allows, the two top performers were the Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 and Nikon Z 600mm f/4. If you want to save a bit of money, and you shoot mostly small birds or shy, distant animals, the 800mm f/6.3 PF will serve you wonderfully. (However, of all the lenses tested, it is the most specialized because of the huge focal length.)
A much more versatile choice is the 180-600mm zoom. What about the proven F-mount 200-500mm? Its optical performance proves that it’s not a bad choice, even years later. However, there are a number of other qualities for which I would prefer the newer 180-600mm without blinking an eye. You can read a comparison of the two lenses here. Meanwhile, the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 doesn’t handle the teleconverters especially well, but if you want a lens with near-macro capabilities and don’t need extreme focal lengths, it’s a great choice.
Then there are two lenses that have a lot in common. The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF and 400mm f/4.5 are both lightweight, relatively compact super-telephoto lenses with great optical performance. Both are excellent without teleconverters, and they also tolerate 1.4x teleconverters very well. The difference is that with a 1.4x TC, you’re now looking at a 700mm f/8 versus a 560mm f/6.3. Speed or range? That’s the question. The ability to avoid the FTZ adapter would ultimately convince me to buy the 400mm f/4.5 – which is exactly what I did. However, it will depend upon what you shoot.
Finally, the one lens that I didn’t test in this comparison is the new Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S. I just recently got my hands on it, and it has better sharpness than the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 while also being much more portable – but at more than double the price ($4800 vs $1700), I find it harder to recommend. I’ll share more of my impressions of the 600mm f/6.3 VR S within a week or so.
If you found our super-telephoto comparison helpful in deciding which lens to buy, you can reward our energy and effort by using one of the following affiliate links to B&H to buy any of your photography equipment (not just these particular lenses).
Lenses:
- Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S
- Nikon AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
- Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR
- Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S
- Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S
- Nikon AF-S 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR
- Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S
- Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S
Teleconverters:
Let me know in the comments if you have any questions!
Table of Contents