180-600 Disappointment!

[Griffym]

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

 

[SCoombs]

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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

 

[JAJohnson]

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.

 

[Fiat]

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.

What is the focal length?

 

[Patrick M]

There is a Facebook group for this lens specifically and while some members do complain about soft images, there are others that post exceptional images.
It does seem that there is some variation in quality, or maybe expectations are too high. The z180-600 is NOT an S lens, and was never claimed to be sharper than comparable lenses - for me, that’s the F 200-500, so compared to say the 500pf it’s almost a no brainier, it can’t compete on a 1 to 1.
But for Joe average like me, where I share on social media and family and friends, it ideal.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1711374482636831/

 

[Len Shepherd]

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.

View attachment 83815

View attachment 83816

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.

While you may have a lens that does not perform, apart from the image size difference both images appear to focussed on the closest part of the bird - the tail feathers.

Is this what you intended?

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

View attachment 83817

With very fine fur AF sometimes is not as accurate as one would hope, but more sharpness should be achievable with a good lens.

View attachment 83818


Here's one of the better crops I've gotten from my 180-600 so far. It's okayish,

Agreed it is OK for a crop.

 

[NorthernFocus]

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.

View attachment 83815

View attachment 83816

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:



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:

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.

From what you describe you should send it back. Something certainly seems amiss.

 

[SCoombs]

While you may have a lens that does not perform, apart from the image size difference both images appear to focussed on the closest part of the bird - the tail feathers.

Is this what you intended?

No, but then again I've found AF inconsistency to be relatively high with this lens. In this case the Af system definitely thought it was focused on the eye.

I do have to say, though, that viewing the full size file I can't say that I think the tail feathers are really any more in focus. Also, the EXIF reports a depth of field of around 1.25", which should cover both the tailfeathers and the head.

 

[SCoombs]

From what you describe you should send it back. Something certainly seems amiss.

I don't know, I've thought about it. I think it's still in the return period (BH) but definitely the tail end of it. I've not been rough on it, but it has been out of the box for 2.5 weeks and experiencing all that goes along with that so I'm not sure whether they'd accept it as a return, consider it to show signs of wear and so charge a fee (in which case I could probably make more just selling it secondhand), or refuse it.

 

[Adriano]

I don't know, I've thought about it. I think it's still in the return period (BH) but definitely the tail end of it. I've not been rough on it, but it has been out of the box for 2.5 weeks and experiencing all that goes along with that so I'm not sure whether they'd accept it as a return, consider it to show signs of wear and so charge a fee (in which case I could probably make more just selling it secondhand), or refuse it.

Have you thought about making some tests with static targets in a controlled environment (and on a tripod) as well as with VR on/off?

 

[BLev65]

There is a Facebook group for this lens specifically and while some members do complain about soft images, there are others that post exceptional images.
It does seem that there is some variation in quality, or maybe expectations are too high. The z180-600 is NOT an S lens, and was never claimed to be sharper than comparable lenses - for me, that’s the F 200-500, so compared to say the 500pf it’s almost a no brainier, it can’t compete on a 1 to 1.
But for Joe average like me, where I share on social media and family and friends, it ideal.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1711374482636831/

Quite Franky, I think the variation resides in the skill of the photographer and the decisions the photographer is making, not the lens. When you shoot little birds in direct sunlight during the midday, when you shoot little birds that are backlit by white skies, when you shoot deer that are 100m away, and the light is not interesting or supportive, the pictures will look horrible.
In reality, I can say the exact same thing about my 400 f2.8TC. My 400 f2.8TC is arguably one of the sharpest lenses Nikon makes, yet I can make images from it look just as crappy or just as good as my 180-600.
There is way more to making a nice photo of natural subjects than having nice and expensive gear.
No regrets for me... I have been shooting the 180-600 alongside my 400 f2.8TC and will happily print, post, & publish photos from each.
bruce

 

[SCoombs]

Have you thought about making some tests with static targets in a controlled environment (and on a tripod) as well as with VR on/off?

I did mention in my post that I have run this through FoCal several times. Perhaps you are not familiar with what that means. FoCal is software which automatically photographs and analyzes the sharpness of a static target while mounted on a tripod.

 

[SCoombs]

Quite Franky, I think the variation resides in the skill of the photographer and the decisions the photographer is making, not the lens. When you shoot little birds in direct sunlight during the midday, when you shoot little birds that are backlit by white skies, when you shoot deer that are 100m away, and the light is not interesting or supportive, the pictures will look horrible.
In reality, I can say the exact same thing about my 400 f2.8TC. My 400 f2.8TC is arguably one of the sharpest lenses Nikon makes, yet I can make images from it look just as crappy or just as good as my 180-600.
There is way more to making a nice photo of natural subjects than having nice and expensive gear.
No regrets for me... I have been shooting the 180-600 alongside my 400 f2.8TC and will happily print, post, & publish photos from each.
bruce

The variation you mention is a factor, but it exists among users of the 500pf, the 200-500, the various 70-200s, the 100-400, the 800, the 400 4.5, etc. just as much as the 180-600.

My observations across a wide variety of places people post images is nevertheless that for the 500pf, the 70-200s, the 400 4.5, the 800 and now the 600, and the 100-400 thar something like 90% of the photos people post kook nice and sharp, from the 200-500 something like 3/4 look nice and sharp, and from the 180-600 something like 3/4 look soft while yes, a handful are nice and sharp. The variation in photographers is there in all those groups, so something else must explain the differences among the different lens models.

This is another reason I'm unsure how to rate my copy, because while it is not great compared to what I'm used to from my 200-500, it produces results that honestly look very much like most of what I see posted by others with the lens. Plus, we've got an empirical rating here in FoCal, which puts my relatively soft copy as in the range of average for what their database has been getting from all users who have tested this lens.

 

[Cameron T]

All I can say is my copy is good, even with the tc. Maybe more copies are soft, but more likely than not a lot of what you see online is posted by people who aren't that good. I see plenty of good images coming from people here, including Steve from his video.

I think you got a bad copy.

 

[Nimi]

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.

View attachment 83815

View attachment 83816

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:

View attachment 83817

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:View attachment 83818

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. View attachment 83819

The MTF charts provided by Nikon, so presumably best-case, confirm the that 200-500 is sharper in the center.

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

 

[Adriano]

I did mention in my post that I have run this through FoCal several times. Perhaps you are not familiar with what that means. FoCal is software which automatically photographs and analyzes the sharpness of a static target while mounted on a tripod.

Then I would agree you have a bad copy. Send it to nikon for repair!

 

[BLev65]

The variation you mention is a factor, but it exists among users of the 500pf, the 200-500, the various 70-200s, the 100-400, the 800, the 400 4.5, etc. just as much as the 180-600.

My observations across a wide variety of places people post images is nevertheless that for the 500pf, the 70-200s, the 400 4.5, the 800 and now the 600, and the 100-400 thar something like 90% of the photos people post kook nice and sharp, from the 200-500 something like 3/4 look nice and sharp, and from the 180-600 something like 3/4 look soft while yes, a handful are nice and sharp. The variation in photographers is there in all those groups, so something else must explain the differences among the different lens models.

This is another reason I'm unsure how to rate my copy, because while it is not great compared to what I'm used to from my 200-500, it produces results that honestly look very much like most of what I see posted by others with the lens. Plus, we've got an empirical rating here in FoCal, which puts my relatively soft copy as in the range of average for what their database has been getting from all users who have tested this lens.

I feel like you and I have had this conversation before, so there is no point re-hashing it.
I stand by what I've said in the past... All of these newer Nikon lenses are outstanding with the 200-500 being the bottom of the list. Based on many years of use photographing wildlife and landscapes from the field, in blinds, at sets, on watercraft, by foot, with tripods, and doing empirical tests, I'd rate the lenses in the following way:
200-500 < 200-400 f4VR < 180-600 < (500PF = 400 f4.5 = 800P) < 600PF < 400 f2.8TC ... I can't speak to the 600 f4TC, but I can only assume it is equal to my 400TC.
With all of that said, I could produce high quality printable and publishable work with a D500 and 200-500 f5.6.
I've owned more lenses than I can remember, been shooting since 1987, and have yet to return a lens because it was a "poor" copy. I know that I am not a "lucky" guy, as I never win lotteries, random drawings, or randomly find a bargain.
So... where's the reality? I'm guessing that I am not as picky as some people, don't look for the flaws in everything I own, don't pixel-peep, and blame myself when things don't come out as I expect or hope.

If you've got a brilliant 200-500VR, then keep it and shoot it. There is no reason to buy something or use something that doesn't make you happy.

cheers,
bruce

 

[SCoombs]

Then I would agree you have a bad copy. Send it to nikon for repair!

Is this possible? Obviously people return lenses to try to get a better copy, but can sending one in to Nikon also improve matters? What would/can they so in this case? Also, I imagine there's a threshold for which they'd consider a lens to be in need of repair to correct softness. As we always see in these sorts of threads, people can have very different standards for what constitutes acceptable sharpness and presumably Nikon can't treat anything short of perfection as below spec or else it would be prohibitive, so there must be some standard level that they consider "good enough." If I had a way to have more confidence my copy was below that threshold I'd be more inclined to try it.

 

[JAJohnson]

What is the focal length?

600mm

 

[Adriano]

Is this possible? Obviously people return lenses to try to get a better copy, but can sending one in to Nikon also improve matters? What would/can they so in this case? Also, I imagine there's a threshold for which they'd consider a lens to be in need of repair to correct softness. As we always see in these sorts of threads, people can have very different standards for what constitutes acceptable sharpness and presumably Nikon can't treat anything short of perfection as below spec or else it would be prohibitive, so there must be some standard level that they consider "good enough." If I had a way to have more confidence my copy was below that threshold I'd be more inclined to try it.

If you contact them directly and show some "proof" you´ll probably get a honest feedback. If there is something wrong the lens is still under warranty, they won´t replace it, but they´ll fix it.

 

[Len Shepherd]

The MTF charts provided by Nikon, so presumably best-case, confirm the that 200-500 is sharper in the center.

View attachment 83837

The difference is less than 10% - not significant as in "distinctly soft".

When Canon used a similar system - they rated above 0.8 as excellent.

Both lenses should achieve this

 

[Nimi]

The difference is less than 10% - not significant as in "distinctly soft".

When Canon used a similar system - they rated above 0.8 as excellent.

Both lenses should achieve this

On these sensors, the M30 line is coming into play because the sensor is no longer the rate-limiting component. And if you put the two imagemes side by side, and look at the center, my guess is the difference can be perceived, and some of the shooters here care about the difference.

But as you point out, everything over 70 or so is good, and we've never in the history of photography had such sharp lenses.

 

[JAJohnson]

The difference is less than 10% - not significant as in "distinctly soft".

When Canon used a similar system - they rated above 0.8 as excellent.

Both lenses should achieve this

Each lens manufacturer creates MTF charts derived using proprietary optical analysis software. In other words, they’re theoretical, a best case. Both lenses show excellent performance with each having nuances unique to its optical design.

As Tom Hogan has written, Nikon’s 180-600 lens is “clearly up to the job when used well.” I’m continuing my learning process with this lens and I’m confident that, over time, I’ll get shots I’m happy with more consistently.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Is this possible? Obviously people return lenses to try to get a better copy, but can sending one in to Nikon also improve matters? What would/can they so in this case? Also, I imagine there's a threshold for which they'd consider a lens to be in need of repair to correct softness. As we always see in these sorts of threads, people can have very different standards for what constitutes acceptable sharpness and presumably Nikon can't treat anything short of perfection as below spec or else it would be prohibitive, so there must be some standard level that they consider "good enough." If I had a way to have more confidence my copy was below that threshold I'd be more inclined to try it.

Per my understanding for these "consumer grade" lenses they only QC a representative sample like typical manufacturing processes do. All of the high end lenses are checked before shipping. So there is some small number of lenses that no doubt get shipped that are outside acceptable tolerances. If you set up your test rig and send them sample images they will evaluate them. They might ask you to take more shots with specific settings. In my experience it won't be quick. But since the lens is still under warranty if they agree that it's soft they will have to ship it to their shop and will go through it at no cost to you.

Having been through all of that before I'll repeat my advise that if the lens is still within the return period where you bought it that's the route I'd go. Nikon will get there in the end but it is a slow, frustrating process to go through.

As to whether it's the lens or your expectations that are at issue only you can decide.

 

[ajrmd]

Based on my sample copy and all of the reviews, you should be able to achieve high quality results, provided you are filling the frame and aren’t shooting and cropping to subjects on the edges. I would say that it’s at least as sharp as my Sony 200-600, slightly less sharp than my Canon 100-500 though it has better flare and CA resistance, and it af’es quickly and precisely. It does require more local contrast than images from my 800 and 400 f/4.5 though that’s to be expected. I concur with the sentiment that you should send it in for service.