You can buy both lenses here (affiliate links): Canon RF 100-500mm: amzn.to/3vglP3E Nikkor Z180-600: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1773440-REG/nikon_20117_nikkor_z_tm_180_600mm.html/BI/23328/KBID/28873

A thorough and relevant comparison, much appreciated. I have been using the RF 100-500 for 12 months now, and I remain thrilled by its image quality, autofocus performance, and image stablization. I am glad to see how well it stands up in your formal comparison.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Thanks! I hope you continue to have fun with the lens

Thank you for this comparison! very interesting !

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Thanks 😊

For me needing to turn the Canon a bunch of times to reframe it basically makes it a no-go as a decisive moment zoom. I don't want to be in that situation if a bird is flying towards me. The maximum aperture is not that good in either lens, at f6.3 for the Nikon and f7.1 for the Canon, but nowadays we can get away with it. The Nikon 100-400mm is a better match for the Canon, it's faster at f5.6 and similar weight. It's also faster AF than the 180-600mm but I don't think it will match the Canon. The fact that Nikon does not have a 100-500mm makes the comparison difficult. The 100-400 Nikon is a better lens, including magnification, but it's 100mm shorter than the Canon and 200mm shorter than the 180-600mm. This is a pretty odd comparison.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

As I mentioned, I compared the two because it’s the nearest equivalent Canon has to offer at the moment

This is so useful thank you. I'm exactly in the market to upgrade from the Canon 100 400 and Crop sensor DSLR to mirrorless full frame. So close I can't help wondering how much the small differences in image quality are a function of the camera sensor and processing and not the lens. So it really does come down to the system, use case and budget 👍

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Happy to hear 😊

Thanks for testing the teleconverters. Happy Nikon focused more on the long end of the lens.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

You‘re welcome

Very fair and honest demeanor and well informing comparison. Thank you. I subscribe you.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

7 ай бұрын

Thanks

Thanks for sharing valuable information

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

Ай бұрын

Happy to hear that it helps

A detailed and objective analysis, thanks. . Agree with your assessment. For wild animals I prefer the 100-500 as a single lens solution as 100mm at the wide end is more useful.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Thanks!

@planetfun85

6 ай бұрын

How is better suited 100 mm in a telephoto zoom ?

@pics7161

5 ай бұрын

Sorry for the delay in reply. It's just that with large wildlife (Africa) being used to 4WD's they tend to come quite close to the vehicle. I always have to use a 70-200 for this as my 180-400 F/4 is not wide enough at 180mm. This will allow me take a single camera/lens instead of two combinations.

Great comparison. I feel like the bokeh on the 180-600 is nicer. As a birder, having the 600mm reach is great. Hopefully the AF will improve with firmware on Z8.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Thanks 😊

@alwynsmit3546

9 күн бұрын

The life story of Nikonians it seems. Waiting for Nikon to improve AF 😂

From what I see they are both great options for their respective systems and they both have their pros and cons. I think the Nikkor is the more versatile lens for wildlife photography overall simply because it has more reach and lets in more light at the long end on top of that. On the other hand the 100-500 defilitely has the faster auto focus, which is just as important. The Canon is just also over 1000 bucks more expensive than the Nikkor. So in terms of "value" Nikon's offering is pretty tough to beat here. Though Canon now has their own value telephoto zoom with the 200-800! 🙂 Personally I am a Nikon shooter and I got to try my 180-600 properly for the first time yesterday. Before that I used the adapted 200-500 and the difference is noticable. Especially in terms of AF speed.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

2 ай бұрын

At the time were I did the video the RF200-800 was not announced yet 🙁

@MattisProbably

2 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Yup, which is why I just mentioned it without going into it further 😁

Nice test! tx!

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

9 күн бұрын

😊

extremely usefull video

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Happy to hear that

Amazing and comprehensive comparison! For wildlife the stacked sensor of the Z8 at 20fps RAW is superior than the Canon R5. That for me is a decisive factor.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

2 ай бұрын

Thanks

Fabian, I have watched many of your videos and followed you as you have traveled, you seem to have tested quite a few nikon teles, I am torn between which one to get (coming from a 80-400) looking at AF speed, sharpness and flexibility If you had to just get one lens which would you pick and why the 180-600mm, 400mm F4.5 or the 100-400mm, I mainly want to use it for wildlife BIF, however after looking at some images online and trying the 180-600 for a short time, it just seemed to not be as sharp as I expected (sometimes)and had a little too much CA which I did not like, although I had none of the other lenses to compare it too - which one would you keep.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Hmm, tricky decision. Did you also consider the new Z600/6.3 PF? I‘m working on a video that should cover most of the Nikon tele lenses 😊

@Photographersforyou

8 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography bit to expensive for the time being as I am in for a macro 100 and some other lenses at present. Did you notice any CA differences between the 180-600 and the 400 F4.5 Also af speed - Fabian advice on those 2 factors may help.

From your video it does look like the canon suffers from a bit of focus breathing, is that just my perception or true on your end as well?

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Basically all zoom lenses are affected (to a different degree though). Which section of the video are you specifically referring to?

@garnerboyd4206

5 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography The focus point was also different. between the Canon and the Nikon.

Looking forward to your review of the 600 PF. Lighter than both of these zooms, and should provide better IQ, faster af… of course for a cost. Hopefully Nikon brings the bird af update to the Z8 sooner than anticipated

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

I hope I can test it soon 😊

@jaimeduncan6167

8 ай бұрын

The 100-400mm was missing from this comparison, but he can't test everything. It's probably a better match for the Canon and better or close in all regards except the 100mm

@livejames9374

8 ай бұрын

@@jaimeduncan6167 yeah that’s definitely more similar in price and capability

@livejames9374

8 ай бұрын

@@jaimeduncan6167 hey Jaime. Can you make a video similar to the R7 a6700 a1 video but for A1 and Z9 with new bird mode

Hi Fabian, Nice comparison but it misses one important for me aspect -comparison of the image stabilization in handheld video and more specifically during pans. I have Sony and the IS in video is terrible, tried RF 100-500 and was in another league. Saw few of reviewers saying that the IBIS in video of the Nikon 180-600 is the best among the full frame lenses. Unfortunately they don't mention anything about handheld panning. I'm trekking a lot and don't carry most of the time heavy tripod and fluid head so the handheld video stabilization is very important for me. Do you have any impression or perhaps can compare it in future video ?

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

3 ай бұрын

Thanks! I didn’t notice big differences on panning, but overall the stabilisation of Nikon is better in the movie mode

@SonofTangra359

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the insight!@@FabianFoppNaturephotography

How does the 400mm f4.5 compares to the RF 100-500mm in terms of sharpness, autofocus and background blur ?

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

I did do a review about the Z400/4.5, but I didn’t compare it directly to the RF100-500 for all the points you mentioned. Sharpness and AF were on a very similar level (based on my experience) but the 400/4.5 clearly wins in terms of background blur

@stripes_in_raw

8 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thanks and yes I watched that review. 👍🏽

@Ben_Stewart

8 ай бұрын

The 400 f4.5 with the 1.4 tele is just as sharp or sharper than the 180-600. And lighter.@@FabianFoppNaturephotography

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

But @stripes_in_raw was asking for a comparison with the RF100-500, not the Z180-600

In your test photos, the canon seems to show a reddish Color cast. Did you rely on automatic white balance?

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

26 күн бұрын

No, but even the presets (sunny, cloudy) result in slightly different tones between different camera brands

A slower shorter lens with most expensive price in the market. I still remember after one year 100 500 came out Canon even raised the price up. This definitely didn’t provide a good choice to Canon user.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Well, the Nikkor Z100-400 is even more expensive 😉 But yes, Canon should bring a competitor to the Z180-600

@thor9722

8 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography yeah, we are waiting for Canon’s 400mm 5.6 or 600mm 6.3 or something like this 200 600 for years. But except 100 500, what Canon offered were 600 and 800 f11🤣🤣🤣.

@planetfun85

6 ай бұрын

​@@FabianFoppNaturephotography,no its not more expensive.

Thanks for testing. I was expecting a large difference in favor of the Canon, as it cost 1000$ more. AF speed: Steve Perry tested it, the Canon is almost twice as fast. Clearly one does not go moving from infinite to closer focus all the time, but if for some reason you have to do it, the Canon system is far better.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Thanks!

OK Fabian I just watched your comparison between the 2 lenses it's too bad that we can't adapt the nikon lens to the Canon Body . I really think Canon is blowing it nowadays her Fabian , Canon they don't any good lenses like what nikon has the 100 - 500 that you use here you can't even use a teleconverter with it .

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

6 ай бұрын

You can use the teleconverter with the RF100-500. Also if you want more focal range there is also the RF200-800

I’m torn, I’m a canon user, but the Nikon lenses in this range, both price and options have me wanting to ship. Except the color, I prefer the slightly warmer colors of the Canon, Nikon is always a little too green. But the lens options have me seriously considering it

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

3 ай бұрын

Changing systems is unfortunately always expensive

@alwynsmit3546

9 күн бұрын

You're gonna miss fast AF if you switch.

Very good comprehensive review

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Thanks

For a cheaper body than the Z8 that has good AF, you can also get the Nikon Zf. If you don't mind the retro design. You will give up resolution though. But yes, the Z6 II and Z7 II need to be replaced. Particularly the Z6 II; I can't imagine it selling well with the Zf out. And while they're at it, maybe they should release a Z70 or Z80 as well. Crop sensor but with the better autofocus and maybe even a stacked sensor.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

I totally agree

Personally I think 100-500 falls in the same category of 100-400 because it's not a super tele zoom. If I want something light and with a very fast AF I choose 100-500, if I need mm I choose 200-600 or 180-600, but unfortunately Canon doesn't have such a lens, but maybe it is doing a 200-800 mm.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

Yes, I really hope this RF200-800 (non L) will come 😊

Lets see how your mental gimnastics will make canon winner. LE: bias confirmed : when nikon is better its a tie, when canon is better, canon is better, or by a lot. Love how he preffers the noise baked loss of details to more noisiers but sharper nikon output. Yeah, just what i expected.

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

6 ай бұрын

Seems like you disagree with my video. I would be interested to see your comparisons and conclusions. Recently someone else complained that I‘m biased towards Nikon

@planetfun85

6 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography ,how can you be nikon biased when you dont own one single nikon product?

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

6 ай бұрын

I also don’t see how I am Canon biased. But some people apparently suggest both

A pointless comparison in my mind. If you have one, why worry about what the other ?

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

As I mentioned: it’s targeted for people who are deciding which system to chose. I completely agree that nobody will switch from one of these lenses to the other

@FordSierraIS

8 ай бұрын

pointless? i already have a superzoom i just like to learn more about everything :)

@highanddryful

20 күн бұрын

troll.... this is a review for persons who don't have either.

@tectoramia-sz1lu

20 күн бұрын

@@highanddryful Very good Ha, ha, ha

the canon colour is beautiful... the nikon is bluish

@FabianFoppNaturephotography

8 ай бұрын

This can usually be corrected rather easy

@mbismbismb

8 ай бұрын

@@FabianFoppNaturephotography i prefer something 'correct' from the beginning 😌

@romanpul

8 ай бұрын

Just set the camera to a different setting for white balance and it will go away

@mbismbismb

8 ай бұрын

@@romanpul i said it before i prefer the awb is correct from the start from the Image processing unit inside , cause if u shoot on other lighting situations, u have to manually tweak it to suit the other different scene, and its not very user friendly

@romanpul

8 ай бұрын

@@mbismbismb Not sure about Canon, but Nikon has several autoWB modes to choose from, depending on your likings. The blueish one is set as default on most Nikons, but there is also a neutral and a warmer one (and of course all the special ones). This is just a a setup thing you have to change ones and you never have to worry about it again. And at least in my opinion some of the Canon images had too much warmth, so they would require tinkering as well