180-600 Disappointment!

[BLev65]

Leucistic deer - nice

Thanks Steve... Crazy lighting that evening

 

[BLev65]

Leucistic deer - nice

BTW... I love your chipmunk shot... I groomed my area for a second session with a pair that live near me, but could never get a background as beautiful as yours...

 

[Cameron T]

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

Yeah, I just wanted to add my experience while I was thinking about it.

Unfortunately, testing this stuff in an objective way (in real life conditions) is basically impossible, unless someone knows Dr Doolittle to get the wildlife to cooperate while we change lenses and settings...

 

[SCoombs]

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

Do you usually sharpen more if you use the denoise?

 

[John Navitsky]

Do you usually sharpen more if you use the denoise?

fwiw, and i’m far from an expert, i don’t get the impression that the lr denoise adds sharpening

i import all my images to explicitly turn sharpening and nr to zero so i can control what happens more directly

typically that’s by applying pure raw or topaz or lr denoise

i noticed that compared to topaz and pure raw, lr denoise doesn’t seem to add sharpening. of course you can add it with the lr sharpening slider, but just what i observed

 

[MatthewK]

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

Bruce, if it hasn’t been done before, please consider making a poll with these types!

 

[SCoombs]

fwiw, and i’m far from an expert, i don’t get the impression that the lr denoise adds sharpening

i import all my images to explicitly turn sharpening and nr to zero so i can control what happens more directly

typically that’s by applying pure raw or topaz or lr denoise

i noticed that compared to topaz and pure raw, lr denoise doesn’t seem to add sharpening. of course you can add it with the lr sharpening slider, but just what i observed

I wouldn't have assumed it did, but I am in truth rarely adding any sharpening regardless. When I import to LR, it adds some relatively small amount of sharpening- I presume based on the camera profile - and 90% of the time I don't thouch the sharpening myself. I often denoise as I almost always have poor light and maybe it's just my lens (something I'm increasingly wondering based on comments I'm getting) but I find that gives me plenty of sharpness IF there was enough detail captured by the shot in the first place. Occasionally I may upbthe sharpening if I really like a photo and want to try to save it but the original capture was subpar, but that's never something I'm hoping to recover detail from - just usually an attempt to hide a slight lack of acuity from a tiny bit of motion or shake.

 

[NicholasN]

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.

View attachment 72703


View attachment 72704

View attachment 72705

Steve, I also found that with VR ON and in Sport mode it was better than Normal Mode, if the subject is slightly moving - I believe that there is less Vibration Reduction going on in sport mode than in Normal mode. I also found that with VR OFF it was better sometimes than with VR ON (In any mode), this is after thousands of images taken with this lens and my general experience with it, Its not conclusive - I don't know why ?! but maybe that's a possible reason with Sport mode being better as it utilities less of the stabilising VR component - I know This should not be the case.
A little history, I had a similar experience with my 80-400mm G AF/S lens and I ended up not even putting VR ON for that lens because of it. I also found more color fringing when VR was activated especially with BIF (I also saw this but only slight in the 180-600mm) - It seemed that the more the movement of the subject and me panning the worse it was - Nikon said, that my 80-400mm lens was faulty, but I don't know now if VR does soften the images.
Any ideas or take on this would be helpful, but I did send my 180-600mm back, and not sure whether to reorder another one, incase I was unlucky twice with 2 different VR lenses or If that's how it is ??

 

[LTK]

Interesting thread , I always thought the Nikon 200-500 was very sharp for a cheapish zoom and it had great VR , only thing lacking was the speed . I used it with my D850 for wildlife usually for small birds . I was going to get the 500mm PF but after renting one a few times didn't feel it offered enough over my 200-500 (apart from weight ). I ended up going for the A1 200-600, anyway I'm now thinking about the Z9 and 600mm PF. If I went this route I'd get the 180-600 too for those times you need a zoom . I just hope the Z9 180-600 is as quick as the A1 200-600

A couple of shots small birds big crops using D850 200-500

_DSC8348 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC6122 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

 

[Steve]

Steve, I also found that with VR ON and in Sport mode it was better than Normal Mode, if the subject is slightly moving - I believe that there is less Vibration Reduction going on in sport mode than in Normal mode. I also found that with VR OFF it was better sometimes than with VR ON (In any mode), this is after thousands of images taken with this lens and my general experience with it, Its not conclusive - I don't know why ?! but maybe that's a possible reason with Sport mode being better as it utilities less of the stabilising VR component - I know This should not be the case.
A little history, I had a similar experience with my 80-400mm G AF/S lens and I ended up not even putting VR ON for that lens because of it. I also found more color fringing when VR was activated especially with BIF (I also saw this but only slight in the 180-600mm) - It seemed that the more the movement of the subject and me panning the worse it was - Nikon said, that my 80-400mm lens was faulty, but I don't know now if VR does soften the images.
Any ideas or take on this would be helpful, but I did send my 180-600mm back, and not sure whether to reorder another one, incase I was unlucky twice with 2 different VR lenses or If that's how it is ??

My guess is that if we are seeing a difference that has something to do with the vr group reentering between each shot.My understanding is that Sport starts where it is and Normal reenters between each shot. Again, just guessing

 

[SCoombs]

Interesting thread , I always thought the Nikon 200-500 was very sharp for a cheapish zoom and it had great VR , only thing lacking was the speed . I used it with my D850 for wildlife usually for small birds . I was going to get the 500mm PF but after renting one a few times didn't feel it offered enough over my 200-500 (apart from weight ). I ended up going for the A1 200-600, anyway I'm now thinking about the Z9 and 600mm PF. If I went this route I'd get the 180-600 too for those times you need a zoom . I just hope the Z9 180-600 is as quick as the A1 200-600

A couple of shots small birds big crops using D850 200-500

_DSC8348 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC6122 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

I have also found my 200-500 to be very sharp in many situations for static subjects. I've gone back and forth between considering a 500pf and the upcoming 200-600 - now known as the 180-600 - for a while. I wouldn't want to spend money in either to not see a meaningful improvement and in some ways I do question how much better it could be than what I get now out of the zoom.

The biggest thing I think might improve with the prime is the level of detail available in tighter crops. People do often say that the zoom is similar to the prime up close, but the prime distinguishes itself when you are cropping. That would be a big reason I'd go for the 500pf over either the 180-600 or just keeping my current lens, but I don't feel like spending the money out of the budget to rent one and see is all that feasible.

 

[LTK]

I have also found my 200-500 to be very sharp in many situations for static subjects. I've gone back and forth between considering a 500pf and the upcoming 200-600 - now known as the 180-600 - for a while. I wouldn't want to spend money in either to not see a meaningful improvement and in some ways I do question how much better it could be than what I get now out of the zoom.

The biggest thing I think might improve with the prime is the level of detail available in tighter crops. People do often say that the zoom is similar to the prime up close, but the prime distinguishes itself when you are cropping. That would be a big reason I'd go for the 500pf over either the 180-600 or just keeping my current lens, but I don't feel like spending the money out of the budget to rent one and see is all that feasible.

D850 200-500 will do BIF it just takes a little patience

_DSC5204 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC8764 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

I'm always cropping so its rare I see the weaker edges of the zooms , if the AF of the Z9 180-600 is as good or better than my A1 200-600 id be very happy

 

[SCoombs]

D850 200-500 will do BIF it just takes a little patience

_DSC5204 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

_DSC8764 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr

I'm always cropping so its rare I see the weaker edges of the zooms , if the AF of the Z9 180-600 is as good or better than my A1 200-600 id be very happy

I've definitely seen people get bif with the 200-500. After thousands of shots with mine in the D500 and Z8 (and to a lesser extent the Z7ii) I think if I put this lens on either camera on a tripod and a bird flew around in a circle without ever leaving the frame or changing its distance to the camera, and I stood there and just held down the AF button without moving anything that I might get one or two usable photos. The focus just seems to lag flying birds even when for instance the Z8 thinks it's got a perfect lock.

Of course, for everyone who gets bif photos with their 200-500 when I don't there's someone who can't get photos nearly as sharp as mine does.

 

[ajrmd]

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.

Steve, do you find this true just with the 180-600 or have you observed the same phenomena with respect to sharpness and VR settings for other lenses such as the 400 f/4.5, 800 PF, etc.?

 

[Steve]

Steve, do you find this true just with the 180-600 or have you observed the same phenomena with respect to sharpness and VR settings for other lenses such as the 400 f/4.5, 800 PF, etc.?

Not that I recall. However, the vast majority of the time I am using Sport. Again though, I'm not even sure that's what was happening

 

[Marcelo_R]

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.

You may have a great point here @Steve , there might or could be some minimal differences in between units.
Assembling lines and final QC might or might not always be 100% top notch for each and every lens being shipped out (specially at that price range).

As I wrote above, perhaps in the future I'll give it another opportunity, but not before after my incoming trip to Kenya (back to Kicheche Camps) right after Xmas.

 

[Marcelo_R]

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

Thanks Bruce for the interesting philosophical thoughts.

And I agree 100% although I don't find myself in any of the first 2 groups.

PD#1: Not me at all, I don't even care to shoot if the subject doesn't fill enough of the frame to bring up textures and definition (note I don't mention sharpness since to me it comes after definition/texture). I pay my way (whenever that's an option) into hides to get as close as possible or on safaris.
I don't like "wasting batteries" on shots that I know I won't be happy to see (or show) at full res in my editing screen first and later on our larger tv screen (like in the old days my parents used to show slides for family and friends...man am I old... ) Of course, if there's something attractive enough, even at not adequate distances, I'll go for it, but won't ever expect the results to be as if it were a portrait at 10ft...

PD#2: I'm not afraid of post-processing at all, but I have some limits imposed to myself though. Like adding portions of frames or even wing tips when lost, or changing backgrounds, adding clouds to a clear sky, etc...(ykwIm). Not me at all. I know people are more than happy doing so, and I respect that, it's just not for me.

But, I use of course all the options (within reason) that the editing programs I use offers me. NX-Studio is my basic editing program, then Nikon's CNX-2, Topaz Denoise, Topaz AI (sometimes I find Denoise a tad better than AI).

As for the amount of pictures taken and having to go thru... well, fwiw, I'm still having unedited pictures from my 35,000 shots I brought back with me from Botswana (Pangolin/Chobe NP and River), or from the 24,000 I have from Namibia (multiple locations), not to mention my last trip (June) to Kenya (Kicheche Mara/Valley camps) that I'm still in the process to pick from the 29k NEFS what to save for editing... go figure. So, no, I don't ID myself here too...nor am I in a hurry to publish right after the end of each trip each and every pic selected, so no rush for me. In between trips and/or sessions, I spend my time going back and forth the folders and find always a new unedited NEF that I didn't "see" initially, give it a try editing, and bingo! One more to the Flickr album.

PD#3: This could match me and my way of approaching photography the best, a blend of it but more oriented to the first group I'd confess. Although I'm a 100% amateur guy, with no intention whatsoever of becoming a pro or comparing myself to one, I shoot pics for myself and my own satisfaction of having done the effort to get there, and bring along whatever I expect to be the best gear that will bring back shots that I only dream of when watching great photographer's work. And I fully agree with you about the portability of the 180-600. Heck, I bought mine for that reason but I'll stick, for the time being at least, with the 180-400 TC that is "just" 3lb heavier than the 180-600 ( and it is actually a 180-560mm f/4...f/5.6) . This one, and the Z800 on the other Z9 made most of my pics on my last trip to Kenya.

Disclaimer: (LOL) I don't have the slightest "artistic vision" others have (and I envy + admire)... that's why I find myself more ID'd with the first group on PD#3 than on the 2nd.

Thanks for your well thought out post Bruce, it served me well, I honestly appreciate it.

Krgds, Marcelo

ps_ sorry for the brick everybody (and the off topic.).

 

[Marcelo_R]

Not that I recall. However, the vast majority of the time I am using Sport. Again though, I'm not even sure that's what was happening

I don't even bother using "Normal VR" any longer. I believe this setting changed the whole VR idea back from when we had "Normal" and "Tripod" modes on the older AF-S primes. With those primes (400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 if my memory serves me well), using "Tripod" could be a hindrance for burst shots (as far as I can recall). With the modern FL lenses (and now with the Z's) VR-S seems to be the way to go for me.

 

[MatthewK]

^^^ same with me, only ever use Sport VR. That herky-jerky back to center after each shot/burst in Normal is disruptive and distracting.

 

[BLev65]

Thanks Bruce for the interesting philosophical thoughts.

And I agree 100% although I don't find myself in any of the first 2 groups.

PD#1: Not me at all, I don't even care to shoot if the subject doesn't fill enough of the frame to bring up textures and definition (note I don't mention sharpness since to me it comes after definition/texture). I pay my way (whenever that's an option) into hides to get as close as possible or on safaris.
I don't like "wasting batteries" on shots that I know I won't be happy to see (or show) at full res in my editing screen first and later on our larger tv screen (like in the old days my parents used to show slides for family and friends...man am I old... ) Of course, if there's something attractive enough, even at not adequate distances, I'll go for it, but won't ever expect the results to be as if it were a portrait at 10ft...

PD#2: I'm not afraid of post-processing at all, but I have some limits imposed to myself though. Like adding portions of frames or even wing tips when lost, or changing backgrounds, adding clouds to a clear sky, etc...(ykwIm). Not me at all. I know people are more than happy doing so, and I respect that, it's just not for me.

But, I use of course all the options (within reason) that the editing programs I use offers me. NX-Studio is my basic editing program, then Nikon's CNX-2, Topaz Denoise, Topaz AI (sometimes I find Denoise a tad better than AI).

As for the amount of pictures taken and having to go thru... well, fwiw, I'm still having unedited pictures from my 35,000 shots I brought back with me from Botswana (Pangolin/Chobe NP and River), or from the 24,000 I have from Namibia (multiple locations), not to mention my last trip (June) to Kenya (Kicheche Mara/Valley camps) that I'm still in the process to pick from the 29k NEFS what to save for editing... go figure. So, no, I don't ID myself here too...nor am I in a hurry to publish right after the end of each trip each and every pic selected, so no rush for me. In between trips and/or sessions, I spend my time going back and forth the folders and find always a new unedited NEF that I didn't "see" initially, give it a try editing, and bingo! One more to the Flickr album.

PD#3: This could match me and my way of approaching photography the best, a blend of it but more oriented to the first group I'd confess. Although I'm a 100% amateur guy, with no intention whatsoever of becoming a pro or comparing myself to one, I shoot pics for myself and my own satisfaction of having done the effort to get there, and bring along whatever I expect to be the best gear that will bring back shots that I only dream of when watching great photographer's work. And I fully agree with you about the portability of the 180-600. Heck, I bought mine for that reason but I'll stick, for the time being at least, with the 180-400 TC that is "just" 3lb heavier than the 180-600 ( and it is actually a 180-560mm f/4...f/5.6) . This one, and the Z800 on the other Z9 made most of my pics on my last trip to Kenya.

Disclaimer: (LOL) I don't have the slightest "artistic vision" others have (and I envy + admire)... that's why I find myself more ID'd with the first group on PD#3 than on the 2nd.

Thanks for your well thought out post Bruce, it served me well, I honestly appreciate it.

Krgds, Marcelo

ps_ sorry for the brick everybody (and the off topic.).

Quote for the note and the clarifications about where you see yourself as a photographer. I am with you when it comes to adding content in post processing, I really strive to frame things right in the camera, but I have no qualms with punishing pixels to improve details, color, emphasis, exposure, etc... I also have no issues "grooming" a picture to remove distracting twigs that could not be avoided... this is especially an issue for wildlife photographers, as lions do not respond to communications like "move your head a little to the left, the grass is distracting "
Had I realized that you had the 180-400 w/ built in TC (I thought you had a typo and were referring to the 100-400S + TC), I would have added... the lens you own is in a different class of optics. The 180-400 w/ built in TC is one of the few zooms that is prime sharp especially in the sweet spot (within 25 meters or so). I felt this way about my 200-400... If I were not asking it to shoot more than 40 meters out, I could rely on its ability to render a solid image.

As I have noted many times... the 180-600 is my "other lens." It will either be carried with my 800PF or my 400 f4.5. I have primes that are optically stronger, but the value of versatility cannot be overstated.

cheers,
bruce

 

[Marcelo_R]

"move your head a little to the left, the grass is distracting

That’s exactly why I’m always shooting teddies!

 

[Marcelo_R]

I am with you when it comes to adding content in post processing, I really strive to frame things right in the camera, but I have no qualms with punishing pixels to improve details, color, emphasis, exposure, etc... I also have no issues "grooming" a picture to remove distracting twigs that could not be avoided...

Agreed! I sense we are on the same level here, "grooming" is OK of course! I also remove the occasional leaf, a fly or two, or an intrusive thin branch, as long as it doesn't change the whole, like adding backgrounds or reflections, wing tips, tails, etc etc... that's where I draw the line (besides, I don't know how to use PS/LR/etc... that would allow me to do so anyway! )

Krgds, Marcelo

 

[Pat Cassity]

As I recall, Steve mentioned in his review that the 180-600 was its sharpest at 500mm I agree. Here are 3 quick shots this morning, all at 500mm f/8.'Groomed' in Lightroom.

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.

 

[Anjin San]

Pat…can you post some at 600 as wellobviously you won’t get the same subjects but similar would be nice. Given the downsampling required for display…those are plenty good enough for my needs and I just wish my lens would hurry up and get here…its lmost bird season here in SW FL.

 

[Pat Cassity]

Pat…can you post some at 600 as wellobviously you won’t get the same subjects but similar would be nice. Given the downsampling required for display…those are plenty good enough for my needs and I just wish my lens would hurry up and get here…its lmost bird season here in SW FL.

Anjin, this is a shot from earlier in the week at 600mm, wide open at 6.3

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