180-600 Disappointment!

[NicholasN]

If you have CA, then it maybe that you have a lens out of alignment as Camera Labs testing said that the lens is practically free from CA:

Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR review | Cameralabs

www.cameralabs.com

An out of alignment lens would probably produce CA when it shouldn't.

Could it also be my camera although it doesn’t show with non telephoto lenses that I tried and I don’t have any other telephoto lens to try

 

[NicholasN]

They have to be a certain maximum size, so that might be your problem. I think 2k long edge is the max, and 2mb

Forum Image Size Guidelines

Forum Image Size Guidelines

bcgforums.com

Ahh ok I’ll see what I can do

 

[Lance B]

Could it also be my camera although it doesn’t show with non telephoto lenses that I tried and I don’t have any other telephoto lens to try

No. CA is from the lens and if other lenses do not show it, it just means that they have little or no CA. If you have a soft 180-600 that shows CA when there should be little to no CA, then I think you have a defective lens. Try to return it for another copy.

 

[Robert S]

No. CA is from the lens and if other lenses do not show it, it just means that they have little or no CA. If you have a soft 180-600 that shows CA when there should be little to no CA, then I think you have a defective lens. Try to return it for another copy.

Not sure if this is relevant but, does Nikon have lens correction in its software?

 

[NicholasN]

Sent mine back also, I had similar issues with sharpness or maybe not nailing sharpness on my behalf, however after thousands of shots I discovered chromatic aberration (more lateral and to the right half of the image) - More so when using VR and panning right to left it seemed to exaggerate the problem - I sort of worked out that the direction of the pan seemed to have an influence on the CA so panning from left to right added more of an orange fringe towards the front of the pan and cancelled out the already blue fringe to the right so hence the left to right panning seemed to make it a bit better. Either way with VR OFF the lens seemed ok with panning, but I just could not get rid of the outer blue fringing on the right of the frame that extended almost all the way across towards the left, but not the extreme left - weird !!

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[NicholasN]

Could it also be my camera although it doesn’t show with non telephoto lenses that I tried and I don’t have any other telephoto lens to try

camera labs has something similar, the monkey however this Is throughout the image and probably is Longitudinal chromatic aberration. Mine in although has longitudinal chromatic aberration also, its mainly the lateral CA that is inconsistent and to one side (right side) that concerns me.

 

[NicholasN]

Did you downsize them to a size suitable for the web? Somewhere on here there is the recommended image size.

I sent them again, further up in this post

 

[dabhand16]

I sent them again, further up in this post

Yes - I saw them after I replied so deleted my post but you got in first!

 

[Cameron T]

View attachment 72388View attachment 72389View attachment 72390View attachment 72391View attachment 72392View attachment 72393

something was mechanically wrong with that lens for sure, my copy shows none of that (and I've shot some really backlit birds). I imagine if you get another copy you'd be happy.

 

[NicholasN]

something was mechanically wrong with that lens for sure, my copy shows none of that (and I've shot some really backlit birds). I imagine if you get another copy you'd be happy.

Cameron thanks for the reply, I hope it was the lens as I have packed it to send it back, the only thing is I was not sure if that’s how they are (like some are more centralised with CA and some are more to one side). The other thing that concerned me is why when panning with VR on did I get more of the CA on the backlit bird when panning from right to left. Panning from left to right or with VR off it was less or even went away slightly. I just hoped it was not my camera and don’t know whether getting another one (God knows how long I would wait) - to see if it does it again.

 

[ajrmd]

Though Nicholas' particular lens appears to have a problem, my general impression regarding the 180-600 reminds me a lot of the early concerns which were expressed with the release of the Sony 200-600. I recall, many users being disappointed with that lens particularly the af speed and image quality. After more experience was gained, and users started employing it properly (paired with the correct body, Tv, etc.), much of the bellyaching stopped. Likewise, I suspect a similar reckoning will occur once this lens is out in sufficient quantities.

 

[Jerry Watson]

Though Nicholas' particular lens appears to have a problem, my general impression regarding the 180-600 reminds me a lot of the early concerns which were expressed with the release of the Sony 200-600. I recall, many users being disappointed with that lens particularly the af speed and image quality. After more experience was gained, and users started employing it properly (paired with the correct body, Tv, etc.), much of the bellyaching stopped. Likewise, I suspect a similar reckoning will occur once this lens is out in sufficient quantities.

I do not think CA can be cured with user experience.

 

[Cameron T]

Though Nicholas' particular lens appears to have a problem, my general impression regarding the 180-600 reminds me a lot of the early concerns which were expressed with the release of the Sony 200-600. I recall, many users being disappointed with that lens particularly the af speed and image quality. After more experience was gained, and users started employing it properly (paired with the correct body, Tv, etc.), much of the bellyaching stopped. Likewise, I suspect a similar reckoning will occur once this lens is out in sufficient quantities.

I wasn't around for those discussions (and since I don't shoot sony, don't lurk on their forums). Was that actually the case? I only heard about it after, with a lot of praise for it.

 

[SCoombs]

I do not think CA can be cured with user experience.

More generally, I'm genuinely interested to hear examples of  anything that can improve with user experience. Ive seen this suggested about thisblens here and in a few other places but I'm really not sure what sorts of things we could see people do differently.

Yes, of course, if someone lacks experience with super telephotos in general, or maybe even super tele zooms, then there are things they may learn over months of use which would improve their results.

Yet if someone's already been using 400mm+ lenses and/or zooms at these ranges - as I'd think most 180-600mm users will have - I can't imagine what you'd learn to do differently to drastically change your results.

 

[ajrmd]

I wasn't around for those discussions (and since I don't shoot sony, don't lurk on their forums). Was that actually the case? I only heard about it after, with a lot of praise for it.

If I remember correctly, the lens was released around 4 years ago. I was an early recipient and had purchased an a7riv as well as an a9. Pairing with the a7riv was not a resounding success as neither the body or lens AF were that fast and the sensor speed was slow. Everyone dumped on the lens though when it was mated to the a9, the 200-600 yielded great results. Likewise, many early adopters were more accustomed to f/4 primes and the reality is that while the lens is sharp, the acutance, resistance to CA/flare, etc. is not as robust. With these long zooms, filling the frame is an absolute requirement and smaller subjects which appeared ok in corresponding primes, typically looked worse in the zoom.

I could say the same regarding my Canon 100-500 versus my 500 f/4 or 600 f/4 primes. Everyone considers the 100-500 the sharpest of the three SCN long zooms, though when the subject is small in the frame, the results are disappointing and the ability to crop is much less than the aforementioned primes. Nonetheless, I have some great images from the 100-500 and consider it a really good lens in the proper application and context.

If and when I receive my 180-600, it will likely be a similar experience and what I am trying to provide is a bit of guidance and perspective. If one is looking at this lens to replace a prime and shoot a distant subject in poor light/atmospherics, that person will likely be disappointed with its performance and they should probably consider the 600 f/6.3 prime instead.

 

[ajrmd]

More generally, I'm genuinely interested to hear examples of  anything that can improve with user experience. Ive seen this suggested about thisblens here and in a few other places but I'm really not sure what sorts of things we could see people do differently.

Yes, of course, if someone lacks experience with super telephotos in general, or maybe even super tele zooms, then there are things they may learn over months of use which would improve their results.

Yet if someone's already been using 400mm+ lenses and/or zooms at these ranges - as I'd think most 180-600mm users will have - I can't imagine what you'd learn to do differently to drastically change your results.

If you read my prior post, I have mentioned some things and in addition to those elements, for users moving up from say a 100-400, they need to realize the following. First, Steve (and others) have demonstrated that the 180-600 is sharp and can AF accurately. I know this seems elemental, though it is a comparatively larger lens and a longer FL and as good as VR is, these factors have a tremendous impact on image sharpness. I can't emphasize enough the effects of steady hands and good panning technique has on IQ. Using faster Tv's than one might be accustomed to will likely improve their results. If one has ever shot a cropped sensor, then they appreciate the concept regarding Tv.

 

[Calson]

When I bought a Nikon 24-120mm lens and compared the image quality to my Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens with my 12MP D3 camera it was immediately apparent that the 24-120mm suffered greatly by comparison and greatly lacking in sharpness. I got rid of the lens. Many people have been very happy with this lens and maybe I got a bad copy but it was not worthwhile for me to try and buy a lens and test it and return it until I might get a better copy.

The 180-600mm is a good value as was the 200-500mm lens. I would not expect IQ to be on par with a 180-400mm or similar "pro" lens that sells for 4x as much.

I do like buying such items from B&H as their return process is the best in the business by far.

 

[BLev65]

Was this chromatic aberration observed on the LCD on the back of the camera? The images look like a screenshot of a camera LCD at 200% magnification.
1. The LCD displays a highly compressed JPG file which will be pixelated and exaggerate aberrations.
2. Who looks at a picture at 200%... when is this a thing?
3. Almost any sub $3000 telephoto will exhibit chromatic aberration when shooting a dark subject against an overcast background. The 100-400 exhibits fringing under these circumstances as well.
3. The lens is a non-S lens whose performance out punts its coverage (an American Football expression for those outside North America ).

As was the case with the 200-500, there is this desire to believe that Nikon could deliver a miracle zoom that is half the price of a prime telephoto with prime-like performance. There is no such unicorn.
This reminds me of the crazy discussions where people swore that their magic copy of the 200-500 was as sharp and contrasty as the 500PF lens.

So what's the reality...
-> The 180-600 is a sharper and faster focusing lens than the 200-500. The latter point is the key point, as it does not matter if the 200-500 is sharper at 400mm if you can't focus on your target.
-> The 180-600 has a better lens barrel with internal zoom than the 200-500, this increases your chances of quickly shifting between short telephoto and super telephoto.
-> The 180-600 does not require an FTZ and is more compact with no shift in balance at 600mm when compared to the 200-500 at 500mm.
-> The 180-600 is more than capable of producing professional quality images. It can be one person's only telephoto, another person's first telephoto, and somebody's specialized telephoto.

I've been shooting it side-by-side with my 70-180, 400 f4.5, and 800PF. I have used it for landscapes and wildlife. It does not beat any of those other lenses, but it is no slouch. I have full confidence that I could choose to take only the 180-600 on a trip, and I would come home with portfolio quality images that I could print, publish, and post online.

cheers,
bruce

 

[SCoombs]

So what's the reality...
-> The 180-600 is a sharper and faster focusing lens than the 200-500. The latter point is the key point, as it does not matter if the 200-500 is sharper at 400mm if you can't focus on your target.
-> The 180-600 has a better lens barrel with internal zoom than the 200-500, this increases your chances of quickly shifting between short telephoto and super telephoto.
-> The 180-600 does not require an FTZ and is more compact with no shift in balance at 600mm when compared to the 200-500 at 500mm.
-> The 180-600 is more than capable of producing professional quality images. It can be one person's only telephoto, another person's first telephoto, and somebody's specialized telephoto.

For some people (myself among them, but hardly only myself as I've seen others with the same question out there) it's a key and unanswered question whether or not the 180-600 is in fact sharper as the 200-500.

I posted in another thread (https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/photography-life-tests-8-nikkor-telephotos.28996/) a series of shots from my 200-500 which to me look to outclass almost every image I've seen posted anywhere from the 180-600 at least in terms of sharpness. Then there's the Photographylife comparison which finds the 200-500 to be sharper. None of these comparisons are perfect and whenever I raise them or see them raised there is a lot of pushback from people giving all sorts of reasons not to put much stock in the comparisons, but at the end of the day the photos that are out there are the photos that are out there.

Is it faster in focusing? It seems to be, though reports have been very inconsistent in terms of just how much faster. Some people have said it's much, much faster. Others have said it seems to be slightly faster. Others have said they think it might be faster, but it's too close to say. It's been a pretty big point of interest for me personally, since I really have found the AF on my 200-500 to be a bit of a struggle for some things, but ultimately the question of sharpness is the thing I feel like I can make the most meaningful comparisons on while I wait for the chance to use the lens myself since I can see samples of photos from others.

...and those samples, at least for me, don't look quite as strong as I'd expect compared to the 200-500.

 

[Cameron T]

If you're not convinced, and don't want to make an effort via facebook group/etc to try one, then there's nothing else anyone can tell you. You've seen my images with it, admittedly some are better than others (but I consider all of them good enough for my purposes), and that's with a TC. So either I got an exceptionally good copy, or a lot of people just don't take technically good shots all the time (which is the most likely explanation).

I'd say if you're always going to chase sharpness, you may as well just buy the exotic primes and be done with it.

 

[BLev65]

For some people (myself among them, but hardly only myself as I've seen others with the same question out there) it's a key and unanswered question whether or not the 180-600 is in fact sharper as the 200-500.

I posted in another thread (https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/photography-life-tests-8-nikkor-telephotos.28996/) a series of shots from my 200-500 which to me look to outclass almost every image I've seen posted anywhere from the 180-600 at least in terms of sharpness. Then there's the Photographylife comparison which finds the 200-500 to be sharper. None of these comparisons are perfect and whenever I raise them or see them raised there is a lot of pushback from people giving all sorts of reasons not to put much stock in the comparisons, but at the end of the day the photos that are out there are the photos that are out there.

Is it faster in focusing? It seems to be, though reports have been very inconsistent in terms of just how much faster. Some people have said it's much, much faster. Others have said it seems to be slightly faster. Others have said they think it might be faster, but it's too close to say. It's been a pretty big point of interest for me personally, since I really have found the AF on my 200-500 to be a bit of a struggle for some things, but ultimately the question of sharpness is the thing I feel like I can make the most meaningful comparisons on while I wait for the chance to use the lens myself since I can see samples of photos from others.

...and those samples, at least for me, don't look quite as strong as I'd expect compared to the 200-500.

I've read this entire discussion as well as the other threads where you have shared your skepticism. It is clear that you are suspicious about the optical quality of the 180-600 when compared to your 200-500. You have posted some exemplar images with your 200-500, and you are unsure if the same can be made with the 180-600. Let's face it, why should you shell out your hard earned money if you are going to get an inferior product? To be clear, your images reflect a tight focus on birds that fill the frame in pretty optimal light, and this is why they look so good. Can the 180-600 produce similar pictures... I believe so.
In contrast to the images you shared, I tend to shoot in moody light. By moody I am referring to overcast, pre-dawn, foggy, rainy, and snowy conditions. I found that the 200-500 underperformed when the light was soft and ISO's had to be increased. It is for this reason that it was relegated to my "kayak lens" and back-up travel telephoto. Furthermore, I found that the lens was not very useful for birds in flight... especially when needing a gimbal.
My time with the 180-600 has been limited. I have used it on 3 pre-dawn shoots, one foggy morning, during an evening with perfect sunset light, and a brief opportunity with an albino doe that occurred minutes after sundown. I am working on a blog about the lens now and my impressions, but my conclusions are consistent with what others have found. I find that the optical performance of the lens is marginally better than the 200-500, and that the handling is vastly superior. Like the 200-500, the 180-600 will be used by me to meet specific needs. It will be my kayak lens, that lens I carry when I cannot predict if I need to go long or short, and a second telephoto for international trips. I'm happy to share sharp images I've made with the 180-600, but I think that you may have lost your objectivity and may not see that the lens is a worthy replacement of the F-Mount equivalent optics.

A lot of people like to use the words "upgrade" and "downgrade" as a way to describe their purchase, but I just don't see it in those terms. Instead, I tend to assess a shift in terms of my applications and needs. I replaced my 70-200S with the 70-180 f2.8, but I don't see this as downgrading. Rather, it was a conscious choice based on my needs... a smaller lens that could approach macro distances... In the end, each of us must decide if item "A" is better or equal to item "B," and if this degree of better is worth the price of moving away from one lens to another. Only you can make this decision for yourself.

cheers,
bruce

 

[Replytoken]

When I bought a Nikon 24-120mm lens and compared the image quality to my Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens with my 12MP D3 camera it was immediately apparent that the 24-120mm suffered greatly by comparison and greatly lacking in sharpness. I got rid of the lens. Many people have been very happy with this lens and maybe I got a bad copy but it was not worthwhile for me to try and buy a lens and test it and return it until I might get a better copy.

The 180-600mm is a good value as was the 200-500mm lens. I would not expect IQ to be on par with a 180-400mm or similar "pro" lens that sells for 4x as much.

I do like buying such items from B&H as their return process is the best in the business by far.

Just wanted to make sure I read this post correctly and that you are referring to the F-mount version of the 24-120.

--Ken

 

[SCoombs]

I've read this entire discussion as well as the other threads where you have shared your skepticism. It is clear that you are suspicious about the optical quality of the 180-600 when compared to your 200-500. You have posted some exemplar images with your 200-500, and you are unsure if the same can be made with the 180-600. Let's face it, why should you shell out your hard earned money if you are going to get an inferior product? To be clear, your images reflect a tight focus on birds that fill the frame in pretty optimal light, and this is why they look so good. Can the 180-600 produce similar pictures... I believe so.
In contrast to the images you shared, I tend to shoot in moody light. By moody I am referring to overcast, pre-dawn, foggy, rainy, and snowy conditions. I found that the 200-500 underperformed when the light was soft and ISO's had to be increased. It is for this reason that it was relegated to my "kayak lens" and back-up travel telephoto. Furthermore, I found that the lens was not very useful for birds in flight... especially when needing a gimbal.
My time with the 180-600 has been limited. I have used it on 3 pre-dawn shoots, one foggy morning, on evening with perfect sunset light, and a brief opportunity with an albino doe that occurred minutes after sundown. I am working on a blog about the lens now and my impressions, and my conclusions are consistent with what others have found. I find that the optical performance of the lens is marginally better than the 200-500, and that the handling is vastly superior. Like the 200-500, the 180-600 will be used by me to meet specific needs. It will be my kayak lens, that lens I carry when I cannot predict if I need to go long or short, and a second telephoto for international trips. I'm happy to share sharp images I've made with the 180-600, but I think that you may have lost your objectivity and may not see that the lens is a worthy replacement of the F-Mount equivalent optics.

A lot of people like to use the words "upgrade" and "downgrade" as a way to describe their purchase, but I just don't see it in those terms. Instead, I tend to assess a shift in terms of my applications and needs. I replaced my 70-200S with the 70-180 f2.8, but I don't see this as downgrading. Rather, it was a conscious choice based on my needs... a smaller lens that could approach macro distances... In the end, each of us must decide if item "A" is better or equal to item "B," and if this degree of better is worth the price of moving away from one lens to another. Only you can make this decision for yourself.

cheers,
bruce

Actually the sort of conditions you describe are the norm for my shooting - lots of poor light and suboptimal conditions. In fact, most of the photos I shared on the other thread don't represent ideal light: they represent a lot of effort put into editing because with one or two exceptions the light was quite poor - not just in terms of brightness but in terms of its quality, too - the ISOs were quite high, and several of them had to be cropped, in at least one case a crop that took a 45 MP image down to about 5 MP. In fact, I feel extraordinarily confident that the vast majority of samples shared from the 180-600 are in far, far better conditions and light than the photos I take on a day to day basis. The truth is that more than a lens, I really need to find better locations and work out a better way to shoot in better light!

Just to give an idea, here is a photo I was working on as I browsed the forum tonight, both my edit and the original:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

There is a negative EV, but this was because it was so dark on the bird with a brighter background which was leading to blown highlights. The original is basically what it really looked like: it was very dark in the brush where the bird was perched, and even outside of that cover there was not much light today anyways. The bird fills the frame reasonably well, except that it is a DX frame and so there is little room to crop. Typically I will shoot creatures that fill only half as much of the frame as this.

So, as I compare these lenses I am always cognizant of the fact that the quality I am seeing from my current lens is actually in most cases even more of an improvement over samples I see than on first impressions, since most of the samples I see I have to assume were taken in better conditions with better light.

I would say that I share your experience regarding BIF: the 200-500 has been fairly poor for that. If anything, its a primary reason I want to upgrade. On the other hand, because I am often shooting animals at further distances away I am also very much concerned with sharpness. I have seriously considered a 500pf, which I think would better address both of these problems than the 180-600 - but I really do use the zoom a lot and I do think I'd lose a lot of shots without it. For instance, just in the past two days I had these two which necessitated using the zoom to get the shot.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[OwlBeBack]

Actually the sort of conditions you describe are the norm for my shooting - lots of poor light and suboptimal conditions. In fact, most of the photos I shared on the other thread don't represent ideal light: they represent a lot of effort put into editing because with one or two exceptions the light was quite poor - not just in terms of brightness but in terms of its quality, too - the ISOs were quite high, and several of them had to be cropped, in at least one case a crop that took a 45 MP image down to about 5 MP. In fact, I feel extraordinarily confident that the vast majority of samples shared from the 180-600 are in far, far better conditions and light than the photos I take on a day to day basis. The truth is that more than a lens, I really need to find better locations and work out a better way to shoot in better light!

Just to give an idea, here is a photo I was working on as I browsed the forum tonight, both my edit and the original:

View attachment 72477

View attachment 72476

The original is what it really looked like: it was very dark in the brush where the bird was perched, and even outside of that cover there was not much light today anyways. The bird fills the frame reasonably well, except that it is a DX frame and so there is little room to crop. Typically I will shoot creatures that fill only half as much of the frame as this.

So, as I compare these lenses I am always cognizant of the fact that the quality I am seeing from my current lens is actually in most cases even more of an improvement over samples I see than on first impressions, since most of the samples I see I have to assume were taken in better conditions with better light.

I would say that I share your experience regarding BIF: the 200-500 has been fairly poor for that. If anything, its a primary reason I want to upgrade. On the other hand, because I am often shooting animals at further distances away I am also very much concerned with sharpness. I have seriously considered a 500pf, which I think would better address both of these problems than the 180-600 - but I really do use the zoom a lot and I do think I'd lose a lot of shots without it. For instance, just in the past two days I had these two which necessitated using the zoom to get the shot.

View attachment 72479

View attachment 72480

I'm starting to think Nikon accidentally made a 200-500 "S" and you bought the only copy. I think I've got one of the "good/decent" 200-500 lenses and your photos are making me consider upgrading my body instead of buying a new lens.

 

[SCoombs]

I'm starting to think Nikon accidentally made a 200-500 "S" and you bought the only copy. I think I've got one of the "good/decent" 200-500 lenses and your photos are making me consider upgrading my body instead of buying a new lens.

Multiple discussions like this do have me starting to wonder if my copy is a bit of an outlier - though it definitely has its limitations which rear their most unpleasant heads all too often.