180-600 Disappointment!

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
Interesting discussion.
For me, perhaps most instructive is the fact Steve is adding this lens to his standard kit. That puts to rest any question I have of its quality, sharpness, etc.
In other words, it IS a good sharp lens, it just comes down to inescapable tradeoffs (will not be as sharp as a prime, etc.) Steve illustrates in his review.
For those who haven’t seen it, Photography Life has a couple articles below that proffer an opinion the lens is exceptionally sharp, outperforming the f 200-500 in almost all regards, and offering great sharpness at 600mm.

I have been shooting the f 180-400 TC for years, but replaced it with the z 180-600 on a 3 week safari I just completed, while I wait on my z 600 tc (Ordered in August). I can‘t render final judgement until I’m back at my computer in a month and process the photos, but my early read from back of the camera viewing is I will prefer the z 180-600 over the 180-400 TC and the 600 TC for future international trips as the optical quality is good enough to save the weight of the other two options.

photographylife.com

Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR Review

We've updated our review of the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 with full lab tests of sharpness, vignetting, chromatic aberration, and distortion. I've also added dozens of new sample photos from my recent trip to Sri Linka. Read on to see how the lens stacks up after these extensive tests!
photographylife.com photographylife.com

photographylife.com

Best Super-Telephoto Lenses for Nikon Z Cameras: 8 Tested

photographylife.com photographylife.com
 
Member's gallery
Kemble Widmer said:
Interesting discussion.
For me, perhaps most instructive is the fact Steve is adding this lens to his standard kit. That puts to rest any question I have of its quality, sharpness, etc.
In other words, it IS a good sharp lens, it just comes down to inescapable tradeoffs (will not be as sharp as a prime, etc.) Steve illustrates in his review.
For those who haven’t seen it, Photography Life has a couple articles below that proffer an opinion the lens is exceptionally sharp, outperforming the f 200-500 in almost all regards, and offering great sharpness at 600mm.

I have been shooting the f 180-400 TC for years, but replaced it with the z 180-600 on a 3 week safari I just completed, while I wait on my z 600 tc (Ordered in August). I can‘t render final judgement until I’m back at my computer in a month and process the photos, but my early read from back of the camera viewing is I will prefer the z 180-600 over the 180-400 TC and the 600 TC for future international trips as the optical quality is good enough to save the weight of the other two options.

photographylife.com

Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR Review

We've updated our review of the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 with full lab tests of sharpness, vignetting, chromatic aberration, and distortion. I've also added dozens of new sample photos from my recent trip to Sri Linka. Read on to see how the lens stacks up after these extensive tests!
photographylife.com photographylife.com

photographylife.com

Best Super-Telephoto Lenses for Nikon Z Cameras: 8 Tested

photographylife.com photographylife.com
Click to expand...
The PhotographyLife piece posted here finds the 200-500 to outperform the newer lens in many ways, a fact that raised a bit of discussion here and on other forums when the piece was first released.
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
The PhotographyLife piece posted here finds the 200-500 to outperform the newer lens in many ways, a fact that raised a bit of discussion here and on other forums when the piece was first released.
Click to expand...
Hmm.
The field review states “It’s sharper and overall better optically, while reaching 600mm rather than 500mm (and 180mm rather than 200mm).”

In the lens comparison, yeah in re- reading I would agree he gives the slight edge to the 200- 500 at 400mm and 500mm.
In this review he does state the lens improves quite a bit at 600mm (every lens has a sweet spot as many have said), and that the autofocus is superior.

I recall Ricci found the 180-600 superior in sharpness to the 200-500.

Seems sharpness is awfully close and depending on exact lens copy, focal length, etc. but I guess my reading is the reviewers lean more toward the sharpness edge to the 180-600.
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
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.
Click to expand...
One main thing I like about the 200-500 over the 200-600 , manual focus override on the lens . I used this a lot with BIF , my thumb had a lot of exercise
 
Member's gallery
LTK said:
One main thing I like about the 200-500 over the 200-600 , manual focus override on the lens . I used this a lot with BIF , my thumb had a lot of exercise
Click to expand...
I don't understand. You can just turn the control ring on the 180-600 and go to mf whenever. I leave mine set for focus (which is why I wish it had a second ring, but alas).
 
Member's gallery
MRK said:
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
Click to expand...
I had the same experience shooting alongside a 500PF and returned mine after trying it out for a few weeks.

I wanted to like the 180-600 and use it to replace my 200-500 as I go more and more mirrorless. I appreciated the internal focusing, faster AF, wider focal range and lighter weight. However, IQ was always my big question, as I saw a lot of soft image examples online. I did see a couple reasonably sharp ones that prompted me to try it out, along some very positive reviews.
Unfortunately, I found it just a bit too soft compared to my other lenses including the 500 PF, 500E, 800 PF and 200-500.

I’ll add that I’ve seen some nice images posted by friends that own the lens, and if I was getting similar results I’d have kept it. So, perhaps I had a bad copy.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I wanna know if there is anybody here who’s experienced hi noise and color distortion because I just took a photo of an osprey at 1/800 and ISO 110 and the photo is awful! I loved my 200-500 but it was too heavy. I traded it in for this and I’m regretting it. I don’t know why everybody’s saying how sharp it is it’s not any sharper than a 200- 500 was. Frankly, I think the the 200 500 is better.
 
Member's gallery
Klocarolinanc said:
I wanna know if there is anybody here who’s experienced hi noise and color distortion because I just took a photo of an osprey at 1/800 and ISO 110 and the photo is awful! I loved my 200-500 but it was too heavy. I traded it in for this and I’m regretting it. I don’t know why everybody’s saying how sharp it is it’s not any sharper than a 200- 500 was. Frankly, I think the the 200 500 is better.
Click to expand...

Well, high noise is a function of the sensor, and if you're pixel peeping a high res sensor will look noisier. That has nothing to do with the lens. Color distortion I haven't seen. Can you post an example? What were your white balance settings?
 
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
Well, high noise is a function of the sensor, and if you're pixel peeping a high res sensor will look noisier. That has nothing to do with the lens. Color distortion I haven't seen. Can you post an example? What were your white balance settings?
Click to expand...
Your point is well taken however, I’m not doing anything different than I did with my 200 500 and the photos are not as good. I will try to post a photo soon.
 
Member's gallery
I
sportmaster said:

​

To set default settings for raw images, do the following:
  1. In the Camera Raw dialog box, click the Open Preferences Dialog button
    open-preferences-dialog.png
    . Or, in Photoshop, choose Edit > Preferences > Camera Raw (Windows) or Photoshop > Preferences > Camera Raw (macOS).
  2. Select Raw Defaults from the Camera Raw Preferences dialog box.
  3. From the Master drop-down, select one of the following:

    Adobe Default
    Select this option to apply Adobe default settings to your raw images.

    Camera Settings
    Select this option to keep the settings of the camera from which the raw image was taken.
Click to expand...
yes, mine is set to camera settings
 
  • Like
Reactions: xxx
Member's gallery
After tweaking settings and getting use to this lens, it’s definitely sharper than the 200-500 and lighter. I will say though using it with the Z8 the majority of the time during early or late hours you will need Denoise.

The 6.3 is just not good in low light with the Z8 obviously. But because you can stop down, your photos will still be tack sharp at 1/500 it’s a trade off. Most of the time in low light I end up around 2800-6400 ISO
It is what it is for $1500
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1466.jpeg
    IMG_1466.jpeg
    299.6 KB · Views: 70
Member's gallery
Interesting, but you don't say here if you tried to make an AF Fine Tune calibration, do not forget that once a new lens is attached to the camera it is essential to match both units. Maybe that would have to solve the matter.
 
Member's gallery
Klocarolinanc said:
After tweaking settings and getting use to this lens, it’s definitely sharper than the 200-500 and lighter. I will say though using it with the Z8 the majority of the time during early or late hours you will need Denoise.

The 6.3 is just not good in low light with the Z8 obviously. But because you can stop down, your photos will still be tack sharp at 1/500 it’s a trade off. Most of the time in low light I end up around 2800-6400 ISO
It is what it is for $1500
Click to expand...
Not sure how this is an indictment of the 180-600, rather that’s the reality of any lens shooting at f/6.3. You obviously have options for faster glass, be it the $15k+ super Z primes or now more affordable legacy F-mount f/4 super-teles, that would better assist in creating shots with a little less noise.

2800-6400 on the z8 is more than usable as well. If you want a little less noise, maybe look into a Z6II (or hopefully III someday), but the obvious tradeoff is loss of resolution.

Best setup would be to run two camera bodies: Z6III + f4 exotic, Z8 + 180-600. Right tool for the job.
 
Member's gallery
MRK said:
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,
Click to expand...
While "soft" is a relative term, it is widely reported (including by me) the 180-600 at 400mm is slightly sharper the the 100-400 at 400mm.
Despite not having S designation the 180-600 is very sharp.
Assuming your threshold for "soft" is reasonable (there seems no reason to doubt this) your 180-600 was clearly defective.
You might get a modest resolution difference (below 10%) with both lenses at 500mm, though the zoom has more capable VR when used - and an often overlooked advantage of zooms is by zooming they can put more pixels on a subject than a prime of a less than ideal focal length.
 
Member's gallery
I am going to “unwatch” this thread now. This discussion is rather pointless really. I have the 180-600. It is fine for what it is intended to be. I am pleased with it as a lens because of what it offers. It is not as sharp as my 500 F4G but the end result can sometimes be much better, when it is the best tool for the job.
There is an overlap in the functionality of the different approaches of the lenses. Sometimes it will be much better to use the prime and other times a zoom will be better. If, for example, the bird is closer (the 180 minimum focus distance is better) OR the stabilisation is a factor, I can see that I am getting a better keeper rate than I “guess” I would have got with the prime.…. And so on. If I am further away and the subject is bigger and.…. If I need to crop in more and there is less motion blur…… IF…..
So my points are:
1. I love both lenses (I acquired the 500 before the PF was released)
2. It is good to have a choice - but you cannot always know which one will be the best choice
3. Flexibility and inherent sharpness are different
4. It depends on lots of factors.
5. F4 is “better” than F6.3………. especially if that gets you the type of shot you want
6. I think the Z600 F6.3 would be a very interesting partner for the 180-600 but so would the 500 PF
 
Member's gallery
I received mine a couple of weeks ago and I have to say I'm pretty disappointed.

First, there are things I really like about the lens. The size is nice. Coming from a 200-500, the lens button is nice and the lens hood is a vast improvement. Many people don't like the tripod foot, but I actually sort of do, after having gotten a bit used to it. The autofocus definitely feels snappier or more responsive.

The only area where it falls short is that I just haven't found it sharp. I haven't found it as sharp as my 200-500, for instance. As one example, here is a nuthatch at one of my feeders that I shot with each lens this weekend. I've been testing to two back and forth in a lot of situations but this one is nice because it's the very same bird (not just the same species, but as far as I know the same bird) in the very same location and so on. These are not edited.
NZ8_1426.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
NZ8_1352.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

The one thing I can say here in the 180's defense is that the shot taken on the 200-500 was clearly a bit closer, but the difference in sharpness is nevertheless somewhat extreme. If there was a slight difference I'd be happy to ascribe that to one shot filling the frame more, but suffice it to say that I think the difference in sharpness is far more than I'd expect given the difference in size. Also, this is 5.6 on the 200-500 vs. f8 on the 180-600. The 200-500 is as sharp at 5.6 as it is at anything else, whereas my 180-600 seems to need to be stopped down to get the best chance at a sharp photo.

Also note that this is one of many, many shots. On it's own I'd not think much of this specific shot, but in the context of everything else it sort of acts like an exemplar of what I have been seeing.

I've also run both of these through calibrations on FoCal. FoCal puts my 200-500 at between an 88-95 for sharpness compared to other lenses, whereas the 180-600 it puts between 60-70, but mostly low 60s. Here's a question, then, for all the nerds, experts, and general know-it-alls out there: when FoCal says that this lens is a 61 compared to other lenses "of this type," does it mean compared to other copies of the same lens model, or does it mean that it is comparing to other lenses of this focal length range and/or class? In other words, is it ranking my copy as just a mediocre 180-600 copy, or is it giving a broader rank of how it compares to other lenses of this category?

Regardless, my general observations so far:

1) My 200-500 is sharper when it's at its best, with even a cropped 500mm (or lower) shot besting the 180-600's 600 mms.
2) My 180-600 seems to be more consistent with getting accurate focus, though it misses its fair share, too
3) My 180-600 seems to be less negatively impacted by atmospherics/haze than my 200-500
4) My 180-600 seems to have a distinct cutoff point in terms of subject distance where it is MUCH sharper within that range and MUCH less sharp outside of that range. My 200-500 does as well, but it's generally more forgiving.
5) As noted above, my 180-600 needs to be stopped down to compare to the 200-500 wide open, but even stopped down it's noticeably soft.

Here's about the sharpest I've gotten from it:

NZ8_1461-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Now this shot is admittedly pretty good, BUT it's a best case scenario of good lighting on a subject that is very close and very large in the frame and this particular image has been run various sharpening methods including a high pass filter. Compare that to something like this, shot on my 200-500 but constituting a 60% crop and done before I knew how to do most of the sharpening I did on that squirrel:
NZ8_8856-Enhanced-NR-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Here's one of the better crops I've gotten from my 180-600 so far. It's okayish, but doesn't compare to the cardinal shot - and this is one of the absolute best and is really an exception to the overall trend. (For what it's worth, I don't think the difference is coming across as well in the forum-sized images as they do looking at the full ones.
NZ8_1396-Enhanced-NR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
This is one of the sharpest I’ve gotten with my 180-600. I’m continuing to shoot with it and I’m expecting to get more consistently sharp shots over the coming weeks.

No metadata for some reason. 😢
Z9, shutter speed:1/1600, f/stop: f/6.3, iso 1250.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8051.jpeg
    IMG_8051.jpeg
    335.1 KB · Views: 96
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top