180-600 Disappointment!

[MRK]

Received my Nikon 180-600 last week very excited to try it on my Z9. My go to lens has been 500PF and sigma 150-600C. Most of the time use the 500PF for its light weight and super sharpness. So this past weekend was out with the new 180-600 photographing warblers and shore birds. No inflight shooting, just trees and walking on shores. After 2 days I was very disappointed with the new lens, so much so I am sending it back for a refund. I was hoping this would give me a little more flexibility over my 500pf and it did. But here is where my big disappointment was with this lens. Sharpness. Shot over 1500 images this weekend and most were soft. Nothing like the 500pf and not as good as the older Sigma. Don't know if maybe it was a bad copy of the lens, but sending back for a refund. And going to stay with my old faithful 500 pf. Also the 500pf is not only much sharper but lighter and faster focusing. Anyway was wondering if anyone else has used the 180-600 after having used a 500pf. Just curious, maybe I had bad luck with my copy.
Thanks
Mark

 

[Rixpx]

Interesting.... I also have the Sigma 150-600C and have wondered if the new Nikon zoom is worth the switch. You may have a bad copy, but in general, primes are optically superior to zooms. In order to get the zoom range, a lot of optical compromises are made.

 

[abc123brian]

I’ve used the 500mm PF and haven’t had any complaints about the 180-600mm. I don’t have it anymore to compare side by side, but I feel like the 500mm was slightly sharper. That is just my feeling from pixel peeping.

 

[Cameron T]

Received my Nikon 180-600 last week very excited to try it on my Z9. My go to lens has been 500PF and sigma 150-600C. Most of the time use the 500PF for its light weight and super sharpness. So this past weekend was out with the new 180-600 photographing warblers and shore birds. No inflight shooting, just trees and walking on shores. After 2 days I was very disappointed with the new lens, so much so I am sending it back for a refund. I was hoping this would give me a little more flexibility over my 500pf and it did. But here is where my big disappointment was with this lens. Sharpness. Shot over 1500 images this weekend and most were soft. Nothing like the 500pf and not as good as the older Sigma. Don't know if maybe it was a bad copy of the lens, but sending back for a refund. And going to stay with my old faithful 500 pf. Also the 500pf is not only much sharper but lighter and faster focusing. Anyway was wondering if anyone else has used the 180-600 after having used a 500pf. Just curious, maybe I had bad luck with my copy.
Thanks
Mark

If you can post examples, it might help figure out why they're soft. A bad copy is possible, but so are a lot of other things.

My 180-600 is incredibly sharp, even with a tc, compared to my tamron 150-600g2 (which was a good copy, and fairly sharp).

I'd also hope the 500 was sharper, given that it's a prime that's twice the cost...

 

[Nextlife1]

Received my Nikon 180-600 last week very excited to try it on my Z9. My go to lens has been 500PF and sigma 150-600C. Most of the time use the 500PF for its light weight and super sharpness. So this past weekend was out with the new 180-600 photographing warblers and shore birds. No inflight shooting, just trees and walking on shores. After 2 days I was very disappointed with the new lens, so much so I am sending it back for a refund. I was hoping this would give me a little more flexibility over my 500pf and it did. But here is where my big disappointment was with this lens. Sharpness. Shot over 1500 images this weekend and most were soft. Nothing like the 500pf and not as good as the older Sigma. Don't know if maybe it was a bad copy of the lens, but sending back for a refund. And going to stay with my old faithful 500 pf. Also the 500pf is not only much sharper but lighter and faster focusing. Anyway was wondering if anyone else has used the 180-600 after having used a 500pf. Just curious, maybe I had bad luck with my copy.
Thanks
Mark

I have shot tens of thousands of sharp shots with the 500 PF all over the world having received it as soon as it was released. Having gotten the 180-600 in the first shipment I have tested it extensively in preparation for an upcoming trip to Botswana. I feel confident in saying that you either 1) have a bad copy of the 180-600, or 2) got soft shots due to conditions. My first day shooting with the 180-600 I thought a lot of the shots were questionable. So I waited for a cool overcast day and went to the zoo. Virtually every shot was tack sharp. When conditions are good shots are very sharp even at 600mm wide open. As Steve found in his testing.

 

[MRK]

Could have been a bad copy but it has been sent back. Maybe I was expecting too much. I guess I have 3 options: 1. Keep and enjoy what I have and know. 2. At some point try another copy. 3. Save my pennies for the 600PF

 

[dabhand16]

This is the first time I've seen anything negative said about this lens and since its release there has been a lot said about it, so in that light it is pointing to a bad copy.

 

[MRK]

I did see a review somewhere stating they love the lens overall but said they had to stop down to F8 or at lease recommended for the lens to be sharper during there pre-release Lens test.

 

[dabhand16]

Nikon 180-600mm Sharpness & AF Speed Tests! - Backcountry Gallery

In this video, we’ll do some tests to discover how sharp the Nikon 180-600 is – pitting it against six popular contenders. We’ll compare the Nikon 180-600mm against the Nikon 100-400mm, Nikon 400mm F/4.5, Nikon 800PF, Nikon 500PF, Nikon 600mm TC And Sony 200-600! Will it impress? Will it...

backcountrygallery.com

Summing up at 34:49.

 

[Patrick M]

Mark, maybe you’re used to the sharpness of a prime….so perhaps the new Z 600 pf woukd suit your needs? Shame there’s quite a large price difference.

 

[Pat Cassity]

I have shot tens of thousands of sharp shots with the 500 PF all over the world having received it as soon as it was released. Having gotten the 180-600 in the first shipment I have tested it extensively in preparation for an upcoming trip to Botswana. I feel confident in saying that you either 1) have a bad copy of the 180-600, or 2) got soft shots due to conditions. My first day shooting with the 180-600 I thought a lot of the shots were questionable. So I waited for a cool overcast day and went to the zoo. Virtually every shot was tack sharp. When conditions are good shots are very sharp even at 600mm wide open. As Steve found in his testing.

I agree with Nextlife. The 180-600 seems to be significantly affected by the conditions in which one is shooting. Especially at 600mm. Back it down to 550 or 500 and try again Telephotos always have a 'sweet spot' and generally it's never at its longest focal length. I have also found it to suffer at further distances. Again, probably due to conditions.

 

[MRK]

I will admit I am a Sharpness Freak. When I go through my photos 1st and 2nd times I view the Eyes at 100%. If not Tack Sharp they are deleted before I import to my computer. I have shot this way since Slide Film days and Non VR Lens. But before VR everything was shot from a heavy tripod. I could try another copy or just save for the 600PF

 

[Kenny88]

My copy of the lens and at 600mm appears sharp - do you have samples that you can share? As someone said, perhaps you're so used to the 500pf that you might be expecting the same on the zoom, which likely won't be the case as the zoom lens is a different lens entirely.

 

[Kenny88]

I have shot tens of thousands of sharp shots with the 500 PF all over the world having received it as soon as it was released. Having gotten the 180-600 in the first shipment I have tested it extensively in preparation for an upcoming trip to Botswana. I feel confident in saying that you either 1) have a bad copy of the 180-600, or 2) got soft shots due to conditions. My first day shooting with the 180-600 I thought a lot of the shots were questionable. So I waited for a cool overcast day and went to the zoo. Virtually every shot was tack sharp. When conditions are good shots are very sharp even at 600mm wide open. As Steve found in his testing.

I think I know what you mean - much like the 200-500mm, if conditions are ideal, the lens is tack sharp. For one, good lighting makes a difference. I do not know if this also impacts prime lenses, such as your 500pf.

 

[SCoombs]

I think I know what you mean - much like the 200-500mm, if conditions are ideal, the lens is tack sharp. For one, good lighting makes a difference. I do not know if this also impacts prime lenses, such as your 500pf.

I'd be curious about this, never having had the experience to shoot with a long prime. Do the long primes like the 500pf experience less negative impact from poor conditions? I.e., would I be less likely to see heat distortion or softer images in lower light on the 500pf than the 200-500 or 180-600?

Put differently, whatever a lens' performance ceiling is, will a prime operate at that level more independently of conditions than the zoom?

 

[DRwyoming]

I'd be curious about this, never having had the experience to shoot with a long prime. Do the long primes like the 500pf experience less negative impact from poor conditions? I.e., would I be less likely to see heat distortion or softer images in lower light on the 500pf than the 200-500 or 180-600?

No, external image degrading conditions like atmospheric distortion impact primes and top end zoom lenses the same way as those image degradations are happening between the lens and the subject. Sure the resulting image from a good prime to a low end zoom might still favor the prime if the zoom is really a poor lens but the amount of image degradation caused by things external to the lens degrade both images and there's no magic in a prime that corrects for things like atmospheric distortion.

Put differently, whatever a lens' performance ceiling is, will a prime operate at that level more independently of conditions than the zoom?

No. Lenses that start with a higher image quality will tolerate slight degradations like adding a TC a bit better but a prime won't tolerate bad shooting conditions like heat distortions, excessive dust, smoke or other things in the field better than a zoom.

You could even argue the opposite. For instance in really tough field conditions like shooting through a lot of haze or with a lot of atmospheric distortion the image from an inexpensive consumer grade zoom may not seem to degrade as much as the degradation in a top end prime only because we're expecting a tack sharp image with great micro-contrast from the prime and not necessarily conditioned to expect the same from a low end consumer zoom. Neither image will be great in tough conditions but the prime likely won't perform anywhere near it's potential where we might not have expected that from the low end zoom in the first place.

 

[Steve]

I'd be curious about this, never having had the experience to shoot with a long prime. Do the long primes like the 500pf experience less negative impact from poor conditions? I.e., would I be less likely to see heat distortion or softer images in lower light on the 500pf than the 200-500 or 180-600?

Put differently, whatever a lens' performance ceiling is, will a prime operate at that level more independently of conditions than the zoom?

I don't think it's a prime / zoom thing - I think it's more of a lens quality thing. (High end zooms are often like primes).

Although the 180-600 is outstanding for its price, it's still a relatively inexpensive optic when compared to something like the 500PF, 600PF, 400.45, or 600TC. The higher-end optics have better quality lens elements and better quality coatings on those elements - and that has a direct impact on optical performance, increasing things like sharpness and contrast. This gives these more expensive optics a leg up with it comes to "atmospherics" in general. It's not so much that the higher-end has any special resistance to things like heat distortion or haze, it's just that they start out with the ability to produce sharper, more contrasty images.

EDIT: Oops - Dave beat me to it with basically the same answer.

 

[Anjin San]

Received my Nikon 180-600 last week very excited to try it on my Z9. My go to lens has been 500PF and sigma 150-600C. Most of the time use the 500PF for its light weight and super sharpness. So this past weekend was out with the new 180-600 photographing warblers and shore birds. No inflight shooting, just trees and walking on shores. After 2 days I was very disappointed with the new lens, so much so I am sending it back for a refund. I was hoping this would give me a little more flexibility over my 500pf and it did. But here is where my big disappointment was with this lens. Sharpness. Shot over 1500 images this weekend and most were soft. Nothing like the 500pf and not as good as the older Sigma. Don't know if maybe it was a bad copy of the lens, but sending back for a refund. And going to stay with my old faithful 500 pf. Also the 500pf is not only much sharper but lighter and faster focusing. Anyway was wondering if anyone else has used the 180-600 after having used a 500pf. Just curious, maybe I had bad luck with my copy.
Thanks
Mark

Could be a bad copy…or something you did differently this time of course…but given the number of pretty outstanding reports we've gotten on the lens it might be worth some investigation on your part before sending it back.

 

[jerrylwatson]

I don't think it's a prime / zoom thing - I think it's more of a lens quality thing. (High end zooms are often like primes).

Although the 180-600 is outstanding for its price, it's still a relatively inexpensive optic when compared to something like the 500PF, 600PF, 400.45, or 600TC. The higher-end optics have better quality lens elements and better quality coatings on those elements - and that has a direct impact on optical performance, increasing things like sharpness and contrast. This gives these more expensive optics a leg up with it comes to "atmospherics" in general. It's not so much that the higher-end has any special resistance to things like heat distortion or haze, it's just that they start out with the ability to produce sharper, more contrasty images.

EDIT: Oops - Dave beat me to it with basically the same answer.

Will a good polarizer filter help?

 

[DRwyoming]

Will a good polarizer filter help?

Nope, atmospheric disturbance isn't a matter of glare and reflections that a polarizer can help with.

 

[Steve]

Will a good polarizer filter help?

What Dave said

Also, the only way to battle things like heat haze is avoidance. I tend to avoid shooting over long, sunny areas. The closer you are and the lower the sun, the better things tend to work out. Heat haze is a big reason why I stop shooting once the golden hour (OK, maybe hour and a half if it's something good) is over on sunny days

 

[Nimi]

Will a good polarizer filter help?

We call it "distortion," but as others pointed out, it's part of the scene, like a tree.

 

[StefanSC]

Do the long primes like the 500pf experience less negative impact from poor conditions? I.e., would I be less likely to see heat distortion or softer images in lower light on the 500pf than the 200-500 or 180-600?

Put differently, whatever a lens' performance ceiling is, will a prime operate at that level more independently of conditions than the zoom?

I'm gonna go against the popular opinion here and say a it's definite maybe that a prime will handle the heat distortion better than a zoom.

My reasoning for that goes as follows:

In the ideal (and very simplified) optical model, the rays of light reflected by the subject you are trying to capture would enter the lens in a nice parallel way. When you get heat distortion, what happens is that you have areas where air has different thermal properties and light suffers refraction because of that. This bends the light and causes it to enter the lens at various angles.

Now, by their nature, zooms usually have more complex designs (e.g: 25 for the 180-600 f6.3 vs 21 for the 600mm f6.3 PF). This means that the light that is already coming at a weird angle will be bounced and bent more in the zoom lens before it hits the actual sensor. This will most certainly leads to loss of image quality.

That thing with the complex zoom design also bites us in another way: it's harder to make a zoom truly optimized for all distances compared with a prime lens. More often than not the manufacturer optimizes the zooms for mid-range work and they assume that most people can live with a drop in image quality at longer distances (e.g: Nikkor 200-400 f4). Now, the thing is you usually get heat distortion at longer distances so the zoom is already fighting an uphill battle.

Now, all that is in theory as in practice it is harder to prove because rarely zooms and primes of the same focal length are of the same quality optically (or the same generation optically) and as far as I know, nobody has gotten around on a hot day to shoot at long distance the 300mm f2.8VR side by with the 120-300mm f2.8 or the 180-400 and 400mm prime .

 

[Nimi]

I'm gonna go against the popular opinion here and say a it's definite maybe that a prime will handle the heat distortion better than a zoom.

My reasoning for that goes as follows:

In the ideal (and very simplified) optical model, the rays of light reflected by the subject you are trying to capture would enter the lens in a nice parallel way. When you get heat distortion, what happens is that you have areas where air has different thermal properties and light suffers refraction because of that. This bends the light and causes it to enter the lens at various angles.

Now, by their nature, zooms usually have more complex designs (e.g: 25 for the 180-600 f6.3 vs 21 for the 600mm f6.3 PF). This means that the light that is already coming at a weird angle will be bounced and bent more in the zoom lens before it hits the actual sensor. This will most certainly leads to loss of image quality.

That thing with the complex zoom design also bites us in another way: it's harder to make a zoom truly optimized for all distances compared with a prime lens. More often than not the manufacturer optimizes the zooms for mid-range work and they assume that most people can live with a drop in image quality at longer distances (e.g: Nikkor 200-400 f4). Now, the thing is you usually get heat distortion at longer distances so the zoom is already fighting an uphill battle.

Now, all that is in theory as in practice it is harder to prove because rarely zooms and primes of the same focal length are of the same quality optically (or the same generation optically) and as far as I know, nobody has gotten around on a hot day to shoot at long distance the 300mm f2.8VR side by with the 120-300mm f2.8 or the 180-400 and 400mm prime .

Not the case. Light doesn't come into the lens nice, parallel and orderly in any situation (unless subjected to a series of polarizers). Heat distortion is just another source of wacky rays.

 

[SCoombs]

Not the case. Light doesn't come into the lens nice, parallel and orderly in any situation (unless subjected to a series of polarizers). Heat distortion is just another source of wacky rays.

This all would have been in accordance with my understanding, BUT I have certainly read plenty of reports from people who upgraded from a Sigma or Nikon telezoom to a 500pf or some other prime and say they started getting far more consistent results in worse conditions hot days, etc., so I wonder why that would be.