180-600 Disappointment!

[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.

 

[Mark Hauser]

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.

No, you are not alone.
I returned my 180-600 for an exchange because I wasn't happy with the sharpness either.
All the fine microstructures such as feathers and fur are lost
I took a lot of comparison pictures with my 200-500

As videos from Ricky Talks or the Camaralabs test show, there are much sharper 180-600 versions out there.
So I assume I only had a bad copy of it and will test the next one again if I ever get it


Here is the link to my post here in the forum
And no, that wasn’t even a 100% view

Here a link to m comparison pictures

Nikon 180-600 Sharpness And AF Speed Tests!

Looking at these images they don't appear to be "soft" rather it seems you were shooting near MFD and the camera was focusing on something else than your intended target. The first image of the DF, the tail appears to be the focal point. In the second image, the flower appears to be in focus...

bcgforums.com

 

[SCoombs]

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.

With so many comments from people in various places praising my 200-500 as being unusually sharp, I'm now wondering if I should try a Tc14 with it - something I've generally avoided for obvious reasons, though I have seen a few good results posted out there. If mine is an especially good copy, maybe I could get those better results from it.

Either way, it's got me worried that even assuming the 180-600 is nicely sharp that it may be hard to expect as good results since the probability would be against me getting another lens that is also an especially good copy.

 

[Crr008]

Landscapes of fields, different parts of the plants like bolls, blooms or open bolls, wildlife, spray planes, tractors etc. below are some examples..View attachment 72092View attachment 72093View attachment 72094

Beautiful!

 

[Pat Cassity]

With so many comments from people in various places praising my 200-500 as being unusually sharp, I'm now wondering if I should try a Tc14 with it - something I've generally avoided for obvious reasons, though I have seen a few good results posted out there. If mine is an especially good copy, maybe I could get those better results from it.

Either way, it's got me worried that even assuming the 180-600 is nicely sharp that it may be hard to expect as good results since the probability would be against me getting another lens that is also an especially good copy.

It’s been a number of years for me but as i recall, the 1.4x on the 200-500 provided terrible results. In fact, its what prompted my decision to replace the 200-500 with the 500 PF.

 

[SCoombs]

It’s been a number of years for me but as i recall, the 1.4x on the 200-500 provided terrible results. In fact, its what prompted my decision to replace the 200-500 with the 500 PF.

Some people report terrible results, others good ones. I've seen some nice photos with the combo. I think the norm would be to assume results would be poor - but apparently the norm is also to see significantly worse results from the bare lens than I often get. My thinking is that I'd my bare lens is much sharper than the average, maybe I'd get the better rather than the worse end of the soectrum with the TC.

 

[Kenny88]

I find that that I need to apply post processing sharpening more with this lens at 600mm versus than what I had to do with the 200-500mm at 500mm - one day I'll try using the 180-600mm at 500mm and do a comparison against the 200-500mm at that focal length

 

[SCoombs]

I find that that I need to apply post processing sharpening more with this lens at 600mm versus than what I had to do with the 200-500mm at 500mm - one day I'll try using the 180-600mm at 500mm and do a comparison against the 200-500mm at that focal length

Interesting. What about at 500mm?

 

[Marcelo_R]

FWIW... It simply wasn't for me, so I passed it to a good friend of mine that it's thrilled with it.

In my experience, this zoom needs to be "helped out" with: a) shorter distances, b) better light and c) backgrounds well away from the subject to shine.

And it does shine, don't get me wrong, but IMHO within that bracket of conditions.

Shooting at longer distances than ideal (I'd say about 15-20m for a medium sized bird) softnening becomes more apparent to me but, more importantly, loss of textures in feathers.

While all this can be "masked out" by editing with some of the sw available (I personally use Topaz AI), I noticed that to achive a result that I'd be happy with, it took a far more agressive edition with the Topaz than on other lenses I'm used to deal with. Still, the textures are not easily recovered if not in the original shot.

I probably overdid with my expectations, maybe I didn't give it enough time... maybe I'll get another copy in the future and give it a second chance, I'm not getting any younger and dealing with heavier lenses is a factor that might weigh in more than anything else in the (hope far away) future.

Krgds, Marcelo

 

[Pat Cassity]

FWIW... It simply wasn't for me, so I passed it to a good friend of mine that it's thrilled with it.

In my experience, this zoom needs to be "helped out" with: a) shorter distances, b) better light and c) backgrounds well away from the subject to shine.

And it does shine, don't get me wrong, but IMHO within that bracket of conditions.

Shooting at longer distances than ideal (I'd say about 15-20m for a medium sized bird) softnening becomes more apparent to me but, more importantly, loss of textures in feathers.

While all this can be "masked out" by editing with some of the sw available (I personally use Topaz AI), I noticed that to achive a result that I'd be happy with, it took a far more agressive edition with the Topaz than on other lenses I'm used to deal with. Still, the textures are not easily recovered if not in the original shot.

I probably overdid with my expectations, maybe I didn't give it enough time... maybe I'll get another copy in the future and give it a second chance, I'm not getting any younger and dealing with heavier lenses is a factor that might weigh in more than anything else in the (hope far away) future.

Krgds, Marcelo

I have to agree completely with Marcelo's comments. Especially the loss of texture in the feathers. I am trying really hard to like this lens but results from a shoot yesterday were disappointing. The first shot is from last December using the z9 with the 400 4.5 + 1.4x, (560mm). The second shot is from yesterday with the z8 + 180-600 @ 530mm. Both shots were at approximately 150' and somewhat similar settings. Also, the light was a bit more harsh for the first shot in December. I'm not giving up on it yet but so far it appears that it's at its weakest over 500mm and at longer distances.

 

[Kenny88]

I believe the same in my experience - if looking for feathered details at 600mm, it's not the strongest, but keep in mind the price point of this lens and what it represents and in that it is not intended to deliver the same results as a prime lens. It all depends on one's expectations.

 

[NicholasN]

I have to agree completely with Marcelo's comments. Especially the loss of texture in the feathers. I am trying really hard to like this lens but results from a shoot yesterday were disappointing. The first shot is from last December using the z9 with the 400 4.5 + 1.4x, (560mm). The second shot is from yesterday with the z8 + 180-600 @ 530mm. Both shots were at approximately 150' and somewhat similar settings. Also, the light was a bit more harsh for the first shot in December. I'm not giving up on it yet but so far it appears that it's at its weakest over 500mm and at longer distances.

Pat, I can see some softness very faint but I am more concerned about the blue fringing around in and out of focus areas to the right of the photo and orange to the left on the 180-600mm - This is what I found a lot of and even in similar images that I took with my 80-400mm, which is an older lens, I did not see this as often or at all as I did on the 180-600mm which seemed to show up a lot more especially when VR was turned with BIF. That’s why I returned it as I thought that the 6 ED elements and the fact that it’s quoted as eliminating CA, it just showed up a lot more than I had liked. How do you find the 400mm f4.5 cos I Am seriously considering changing direction from the zoom as I wanted a replacement for my 80-400mm

 

[Kenny88]

Pat, I can see some softness very faint but I am more concerned about the blue fringing around in and out of focus areas to the right of the photo and orange to the left on the 180-600mm - This is what I found a lot of and even in similar images that I took with my 80-400mm, which is an older lens, I did not see this as often or at all as I did on the 180-600mm which seemed to show up a lot more especially when VR was turned with BIF. That’s why I returned it as I thought that the 6 ED elements and the fact that it’s quoted as eliminating CA, it just showed up a lot more than I had liked. How do you find the 400mm f4.5 cos I Am seriously considering changing direction from the zoom as I wanted a replacement for my 80-400mm

Some have reported to see CA with the lens, and I suspect that this is due to variance in lenses in terms of copy variation - that's the only factor that I"m thinking is the culprit here as there are reports from others that don't observe CA including myself - I've tested the lens so far, and went looking specifically for CA, which on my 200-500mm is there in some degree, but on that 180-600mm, it really is mitigated. More feedback from other owners will help verify this. [I can't recall if Steve's review on his pre-production copy made any claim to CA].

 

[SCoombs]

I have to agree completely with Marcelo's comments. Especially the loss of texture in the feathers. I am trying really hard to like this lens but results from a shoot yesterday were disappointing. The first shot is from last December using the z9 with the 400 4.5 + 1.4x, (560mm). The second shot is from yesterday with the z8 + 180-600 @ 530mm. Both shots were at approximately 150' and somewhat similar settings. Also, the light was a bit more harsh for the first shot in December. I'm not giving up on it yet but so far it appears that it's at its weakest over 500mm and at longer distances.

I've been pretty skeptical of this lens, but were these conditions all that similar? The better shot seems to have the bird in the open on a largely bare tree directly exposed to direct light, whereas in the other shot the bird looks like it's sitting in shade under cover with a lot of greenery around it to provide a color cast - but with a strongly lit background. This means the camera metered at ISO 1250 for the overall scene *but* the bird itself may have needed something closer to ISO 2500 or 4000 be acceptably bright. The result is a deceptively low ISO but a bird with more noise and less detail than the you'd expect if just judging from the ISO number. In other words, the settings may not be all that similar in practical terms.

I could be wrong of course. I can't see the rest of the scene and maybe there is plenty of light on the Eagle. It does look a bit aoft either way, and I have definitely noticed with my 200-500 that while closer subjects can look very sharp the sharpness really doesn't hold up if the subject is further away - so if that's what this lens is doing I wouldn't be surprised, and it would make me second guess getting the lens myself as it may not be an improvement over what I already have.

There'd definitely very noticeable fringing here.

 

[Steve]

FWIW... It simply wasn't for me, so I passed it to a good friend of mine that it's thrilled with it.

In my experience, this zoom needs to be "helped out" with: a) shorter distances, b) better light and c) backgrounds well away from the subject to shine.

And it does shine, don't get me wrong, but IMHO within that bracket of conditions.

Shooting at longer distances than ideal (I'd say about 15-20m for a medium sized bird) softnening becomes more apparent to me but, more importantly, loss of textures in feathers.

While all this can be "masked out" by editing with some of the sw available (I personally use Topaz AI), I noticed that to achive a result that I'd be happy with, it took a far more agressive edition with the Topaz than on other lenses I'm used to deal with. Still, the textures are not easily recovered if not in the original shot.

I probably overdid with my expectations, maybe I didn't give it enough time... maybe I'll get another copy in the future and give it a second chance, I'm not getting any younger and dealing with heavier lenses is a factor that might weigh in more than anything else in the (hope far away) future.

Krgds, Marcelo

This could be the case, or ir may be sample variation. I had decent luck with the pre-production lens at longer distances, but I'm not heavily cropping either way. When I shoot, I tend to keep within the parameters you mention - with this or any lens, really - and it makes a big difference.

 

[Steve]

I think there may be a couple of things happening with these lenses. Keep in mind that sample variation is a thing - it might be that some have poor copies. It happens - I've had it happen myself. Also, as @Marcelo_R implied, you have to work within the limitations of the glass. Although the zoom is good, it's only good for the price. It's not going to compete head to head with something like a 400 4.5 or 600 F/4.

In addition, and this is VERY anecdotal, it almost seems like the lens does better in Sport VR than in Normal. The other day I was out in a local park and at a slow(ish) shutter speed, so I went to Normal VR since it's often just a little better than Sport at slower speeds. However, I seemed to be getting more softness than expected, so I switched to Sport and that seemed to help. Again, very anecdotal and it could have been a coincidence. I'd want to test it more formally before I make any kind of summary judgment.

There's also the fact that higher end lenses seem to have, overall, more accurate AF. Primes in particular. In using this lens, I don't feel that's really a big problem, but a thought.

Also, high-end glass often features better coatings, and provides better contrast.

In addition, you might have to play with processing a bit more to "draw out" additional sharpness (the way you might when using a TC). As long as the subject was properly focused and absent of motion blur, you can often push in a little extra sharpness (use masking first) and uncover more apparent detail. You can also selectively use texture and clarity (carefully) around the areas you want sharp to further enhance the sharpness.

At any rate, here are a few from the other day that I liked. No issues with sharpness at all IMO. Little to no cropping, proper background distance, etc. So, as long as you have a good copy, I think it's a very useable, flexible lens.

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.

 

[BLev65]

FWIW... It simply wasn't for me, so I passed it to a good friend of mine that it's thrilled with it.

In my experience, this zoom needs to be "helped out" with: a) shorter distances, b) better light and c) backgrounds well away from the subject to shine.

And it does shine, don't get me wrong, but IMHO within that bracket of conditions.

Shooting at longer distances than ideal (I'd say about 15-20m for a medium sized bird) softnening becomes more apparent to me but, more importantly, loss of textures in feathers.

While all this can be "masked out" by editing with some of the sw available (I personally use Topaz AI), I noticed that to achive a result that I'd be happy with, it took a far more agressive edition with the Topaz than on other lenses I'm used to deal with. Still, the textures are not easily recovered if not in the original shot.

I probably overdid with my expectations, maybe I didn't give it enough time... maybe I'll get another copy in the future and give it a second chance, I'm not getting any younger and dealing with heavier lenses is a factor that might weigh in more than anything else in the (hope far away) future.

Krgds, Marcelo

So I'll go in the complete opposite direction of your perception...
While I don't find the 180-600 to be the sharpest lens in my bag, I find the flexibility of the focal length and inherent compromises to be a fair trade-off.
As someone who has the 400 f4.5, 800PF, and 1.4X Z-converter, I NEVER expected the 180-600 to match the optical quality of my significantly more expensive lenses. Let's be clear, the 400 f4.5 + 1.4x costs more than twice the 180-600, and the 800PF is almost 4 times the cost of the 180-600 (this is US pricing as that is where I purchase my equipment). On the other hand, the 180-600 is significantly smaller that than the 800PF and is easier to pack with my other gear, it allows me to stand in one place to vary my composition, and is capable of rendering sharp images as a variety of focal lengths and distances.
So with all of that said, let's talk about the way different people take pictures of nature, as this will help you to determine if the 180-600 is the right lens for you. I'll begin with three distinct philosophical differences between the nature photographers I know, teach, and work with.

1. Philosophical Difference #1: You're not into field craft, but you like to be in nature, think of yourself as a nature documenter, and are willing to shoot birds (let's say eagles) 100 meters away. The 180-600 is not for you. Images like this are documentary shots, they say "I was there and I saw this." There is definitely a place for this type of work in the world, and I contend this is part of the natural evolution that many nature/wildlife photographers go through. Wildlife enthusiasts are excited to see the eagle, owl, or blackburnian warbler, but they may not be thinking about artistic intent, the story of the animal, or how to distinguish there work from the mainstream. If you want to get the best detail from that distant eagle... Buy in this order: 600mm f4S, 800PF, 600PF, and 180-600 last. You will always be thinking... what's wrong with this lens and why are my pictures soft? Well to be clear, many of your pictures will be soft with the $15,000 lens, but you won't be blaming the lens. The pictures are soft because this is too far to render feather detail most of the time.

2: Philosophical Difference #2: You don't want to do any post processing other than hitting the "Auto" button and cropping to 4K output. Post processing is a key part of photography for some people, but it is a hassle, a time suck, and requires a learning curve. While there are some "easy" ways to expedite the process, reality requires that you sort through hundreds (or thousands) of images, choose the top 5 or 10, and then invest the time to make them into something that realizes your vision. If you don't want to do post work with the 180-600, then you need to get close to your subject, drop your ISO down to 800 or below, and fill the frame (see comment about fieled craft above). Just to a note... in reference to @Steve ... If you've watched any of Steve Perry's videos in the last few years, a few have have referred to optimizing your wildlife photographs. This video (6 Top Mistakes Photographers Make at 8'34" says it all... get close instead of cropping). The 180-600 will produced amazing images if you are in close and expose your work correctly, but is a compromise optic with flaws that reflect its price point.

3: Philosophical Difference #3: Optical purity or optical functionality... This comes down to how you think about your camera gear. For some, owning the best camera and having the sharpest lenses are the most important thing. Furthermore, it is the gear that motivates their photography, and being in nature is their excuse for using this gear. For others, being in nature and looking for uniquely different ways to realize their understanding of nature or their "artistic" vision is the driving force for their photography. For the latter, the type of gear they use is less important than how they see their subject and the experience of being there. In these cases, the gear is secondary and if all you had was a Tamron or Sigma 150-600, you'd still produce striking work. The 180-600 allows this type of photographer to travel deeper in the field because they are carrying more with less and experience compositional control without having to move...

I have now used the 180-600 extensively... mostly in poor light, and I find it to be good enough if I do my part.

bruce

 

[BLev65]

I think there may be a couple of things happening with these lenses. Keep in mind that sample variation is a thing - it might be that some have poor copies. It happens - I've had it happen myself. Also, as @Marcelo_R implied, you have to work within the limitations of the glass. Although the zoom is good, it's only good for the price. It's not going to compete head to head with something like a 400 4.5 or 600 F/4.

In addition, and this is VERY anecdotal, it almost seems like the lens does better in Sport VR than in Normal. The other day I was out in a local park and at a slow(ish) shutter speed, so I went to Normal VR since it's often just a little better than Sport at slower speeds. However, I seemed to be getting more softness than expected, so I switched to Sport and that seemed to help. Again, very anecdotal and it could have been a coincidence. I'd want to test it more formally before I make any kind of summary judgment.

There's also the fact that higher end lenses seem to have, overall, more accurate AF. Primes in particular. In using this lens, I don't feel that's really a big problem, but a thought.

Also, high-end glass often features better coatings, and provides better contrast.

In addition, you might have to play with processing a bit more to "draw out" additional sharpness (the way you might when using a TC). As long as the subject was properly focused and absent of motion blur, you can often push in a little extra sharpness (use masking first) and uncover more apparent detail. You can also selectively use texture and clarity (carefully) around the areas you want sharp to further enhance the sharpness.

At any rate, here are a few from the other day that I liked. No issues with sharpness at all IMO. Little to no cropping, proper background distance, etc.

View attachment 72703


View attachment 72704

View attachment 72705

You must have posted this as I was writing... I think we are saying the same exact thing... (and that makes me feel good about myself )
bruce

 

[Steve]

You must have posted this as I was writing... I think we are saying the same exact thing... (and that makes me feel good about myself )
bruce

LOL, I saw that - I think we were!

 

[Kenny88]

I think there may be a couple of things happening with these lenses. Keep in mind that sample variation is a thing - it might be that some have poor copies. It happens - I've had it happen myself. Also, as @Marcelo_R implied, you have to work within the limitations of the glass. Although the zoom is good, it's only good for the price. It's not going to compete head to head with something like a 400 4.5 or 600 F/4.

In addition, you might have to play with processing a bit more to "draw out" additional sharpness (the way you might when using a TC). As long as the subject was properly focused and absent of motion blur, you can often push in a little extra sharpness (use masking first) and uncover more apparent detail. You can also selectively use texture and clarity (carefully) around the areas you want sharp to further enhance the sharpness.

Unfortunately, sample variation exists and I wonder how 'bad' it is in terms of a percentage - it's a shame that as a consumer, paying money for a lens and realizing that it might be inferior compared to another copy. Given that lenses are mass produced, I wonder how sample variation happens in the first place, and in the case of Nikon, what have they done to ensure every lens is the same.

Steve: my same observation as you noted in that post processing required a bit more to bring out the sharpness. I'm assuming that since you remarked on this, you have the same observation with your copy of the lens?

Thanks for sharing the 3 pictures - the subject looks like they were in good light, which I find that if that's the case, the lens does perform better.

Cheers

 

[Steve]

Unfortunately, sample variation exists and I wonder how 'bad' it is in terms of a percentage - it's a shame that as a consumer, paying money for a lens and realizing that it might be inferior compared to another copy. Given that lenses are mass produced, I wonder how sample variation happens in the first place, and in the case of Nikon, what have they done to ensure every lens is the same.

Steve: my same observation as you noted in that post processing required a bit more to bring out the sharpness. I'm assuming that since you remarked on this, you have the same observation with your copy of the lens?

Thanks for sharing the 3 pictures - the subject looks like they were in good light, which I find that if that's the case, the lens does perform better.

Cheers

For sharpness, it depended a little on the shot. I had to apply a little more pressure to the chipmunk but not the birds. I think the chipmunk was more an issue of the camera focusing more towards the front of the eye though

Full disclosure, the birds did have a little extra sharpening than normal since I used Lightroom noise reduction on them, but no more sharpening than I'd use on an image from my 600TC where I did noise reduction. So, I feel like they were fine.

The light was good for the dove but kinda flat for the other two. It's amazing what a little white point manipulation can do when mixed in with some contrast controls

 

[Cameron T]

For what it's worth Steve (and everyone else), all of my shots I've posted here (and elsewhere) have been standard vr, and I haven't seen any sharpness issues. Sport vr didn't seem to change anything from my limited testing. Ymmv of course, but that's my two cents on this particular subject.

 

[BLev65]

I wanted to post some sample images that were made over the last two weeks. None were made in good light (see ISOs), all reflect deliberate processing. I am about 2000 pictures behind in my review, but I'll be posting a blog about the lens early next week... anyway, I think that these reflect my normal shooting situations, as I tend to pick overcast and foggy mornings to shoot or dramatic late evening light.
cheers
bruce

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.

 

[Steve]

For what it's worth Steve (and everyone else), all of my shots I've posted here (and elsewhere) have been standard vr, and I haven't seen any sharpness issues. Sport vr didn't seem to change anything from my limited testing. Ymmv of course, but that's my two cents on this particular subject.

Good to know - as I said, it may have just been a coincidence

 

[Steve]

I wanted to post some sample images that were made over the last two weeks. None were made in good light (see ISOs), all reflect deliberate processing. I am about 2000 pictures behind in my review, but I'll be posting a blog about the lens early next week... anyway, I think that these reflect my normal shooting situations, as I tend to pick overcast and foggy mornings to shoot or dramatic late evening light.
cheers
bruce
View attachment 72713

Leucistic deer - nice