Who is buying the 180-600?

I have the old 200-500, which I bought Nov 2022 and can use on my DSLR and on my Z5 with adaptor.  If I didn't have the 200-500 I would be very interested in the 180-600, but it's not worth $1700 to upgrade (or about $1200 net if I sold the 200-500), especially as the 180-600 is only a few ounces lighter than the 200-500, with or without the tripod collars.

I really like the 600 f/6.3 part, but I don't really need the zoom. So I wait and hope for a 600 f/6.3 (or 5.6) PF that should be significantly lighter.

Posted by: @nightjar

↑

I really like the 600 f/6.3 part, but I don't really need the zoom. So I wait and hope for a 600 f/6.3 (or 5.6) PF that should be significantly lighter.

Agreed! I've been waiting for a 600PF ever since Canon showed off a prototype of their 600DO (which was never released).

@jpolakphotography Considering the obvious gap between the 400/4.5 and 800/6.3, and how popular all those small/lightweight/affordable telephoto lenses are, I think we will see our wish fulfilled someday. ;)

Until then, I will just keep using my 500 PF, which I'm still very happy with.

From the specs definitely a great and versatile lens, internal focusing, internal zoom, 160g lighter than the Sony 200-600 with marginally smaller dimensions and that at a very attractive price, especially in the US, looks at first glance like an absolute winner tele-zoom.

Still not an issue for me, I'm absolutely happy with my Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S + Z TC-1.4x.

After the experience with the Z 400/4.5, there is no way back for me.

For me personally, dimensions and weight increasingly correlate with the fun I have with a piece of equipment and it leads to more frequent use for me.

Together with my Z6, including battery + CFExpress Card, the package weighs just 1,84 kg / 4,06 lbs, even with 1.4x teleconverter at 560mm f/6.3 it remains only slighly above 2 kg / 4,41 lbs at the size of a Z 70-200 f/2.8 VR S.

From there, I would have interest, as already mentioned here elsewhere, primarily in a 600mm PF in the future.
Either way, in the longer telephoto range, only solutions that combine high optical performance with very low weight and very compact dimensions come into question for me.

I think you guys are right. If you're staying mostly at 600, the 400 f/4.5+TC makes more sense. The 180-600 is more for versatility.

I have the 400mm f/4.5 and the 800mm PF.  I'm not adding the 180-600.  I find a lot of subjects work very well with the 400mm f/4.5, and the TC is good for occasional use.  But if I really need reach, 400mm with a TC is not enough and the 800mm is my choice.

But I think if you are counting on a TC to get the reach you need most of the time, you are probably making a mistake.  The 400mm f/4.5 is excellent.  But adding the TC it's now a $3900 560mm f/6.3 - not much different in quality than the 180-600mm and more than twice the cost.  With a 2x TC you see some drop off plus it's f/9 wide open.  In general, the rule of thumb is to get a lens with the amount of reach you need, and use the TC occasionally.

I don't expect a 600mm PF very soon, and it would likely be f/6.3.  At f/5.6 you could add a TC and be very comfortable, but the slower aperture will be a challenge at f/9 wide open.  

The 180-600 is a tough call.  It really depends on budget, subject matter, and the kind of images you like to make.  For people who don't have the 400mm f/4.5, it's an easy choice.  If you have the 100-400 I see it as lenses for different purposes.  In any event, the 180-600 has real value because it provides flexibility.

I will definitely buy it. It looks quite good for what it is, and the versatility is top notch. Also it's half the price of the 400 f/4.5+1.4x TC, so that's a bonus. 

Not really interested.  Most people will be at the long end, so why bother.  I would like a Z version of the 500mm PF.

Posted by: @tonywu

↑

Not really interested.  Most people will be at the long end, so why bother.  I would like a Z version of the 500mm PF.

That may be true of some, but the majority of people like the flexibility, I think. If you're exclusively a bird photographer, maybe not. For birds for example, I never have a problem with the 500PF. But there are times when the 500PF isn't much help. Once I was shooting birds and I ran into a large deer (not literally). 500mm was way too much then, and 150 or 200mm would have been better. And, if you visit the tropics where there are a lot of lizards, 500mm is often a little too much also. Even if it isn't, the MFD of a prime is usually insufficient.

So I definitely get your point, but I really do think the flexibility is welcome by most.

I've got the 100-400 and I put in a preorder as soon as I saw the announcement. I've found 400mm to be too short on occasion, and 600mm at better than f/8 will be nice. The price is affordable too. 180mm I expect to be too long on occasion, so I'll be holding onto the 100-400mm for now.

I'll see how I use the 180-600mm before making any decisions about the next telephoto lens to get, if any.

Maybe it's time to start focusing on portraits after this. The 24-70mm f/4 is not exactly the best performer when it comes to portraits.

I voted "no" because I'm not a long lens guy. The longest lens I own today is a 70-200 f4. I also have a TC1.4 which I hardly ever use. I guess this is due to the fact that I mainly shoot landscapes and don't have a real need for a long lens. 

I'm actually really torn on this one.. Do I want it? Absolutely! But then I already have the 100-400, which is simply a lot lighter and since I'm mostly out hiking, that weight difference really matters..

I'll probably end up with one eventually, especially when the price drops to around 1.4-1.5k € during a sale and GAS kicks in, but would also first be looking to upgrade my Z6 II to something with more pixels..

I'm in a "wait and see" mode. I suspect that at this price and because it's not an S lens, the edge sharpness is going to be a little less than what we're accustomed to seeing. I'll wait for release and see more about the IQ. The utility of a zoom is very attractive but I think the 100-400mm might have better utility for landscapes and close-ups. It's a close call for now.