Yeah man, agree with that last part: my 180-600 requires a little bit more work in post to get the best out of the shots compared to my primes. End result though is nearly identical, it's a sweet lens.
180-600 Disappointment!
- Thread starter MRK
- Start date
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).
SCoombs
Well-known member
Do you notice a difference in performance with the primes vs this zoom with regard to subject distance or size in the frame? As noted, one of my observations has been that the 200-500 is producing much more "croppable" results than the 180, and I've been told previously, not having had much chance to use one, that a prime would yield much better performance in this regard - I.e., with a zoom frame filling is much more essential as compared to a prime.
That's a good question, will have to give that a test out in the backyard.
Photo showing size of doves in frame. Swapped between the 600PF and 180-600. This is well beyond the distance I'd consider shooting, but for sake of testing, this should work:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
I couldn't take exactly the same photos, because naturally the birds/scene changed when I was changing lenses, but even so, to my eye there's no detail difference between the two lenses.
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 difference between good primes and good zooms is almost entirely in the edges, starting at about 20% away from the edge (on the long side since the projected image is a circle). If you're bored, take a similar photo, place the birds at the edge of the frame but in focus. You'll see a significant difference.
For a $1700.00 lens I think it does pretty good. I know its not wildlife..........
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I figured that would be brought up
I think the query was whether distance to subject had an impact, and to my eye (at least in the center) it doesn't. Now, edge performance I expect the prime to be better, no matter the distance. I'll try to bring the dove couple back in for another test.
SCoombs
Well-known member
I did some testing this afternoon. First, out in the yard I did some shots which turned out a lot better than previous days. Honestly, these still took a little bit of processing to get to this point and especially the finch is a bit soft if viewed at a fuller size, though it is possible that's attributable to it jerking its head. Even so, these are better than I'd managed before with this lens. The Nuthatch in particular is much closer to the one I previously posted from the 200-500.
Next I set up a test chart and did the 200-500 vs the 180-600. The results seem pretty clear to me. I tested wide open and at 500mm because the 200-500 can't go any longer. Here's the center, 180-600 on the left:
In the center it's closeish, but the 200-500 is definitely sharper to my eye. Stopping the 180-600 down closes the gap, but I'd still put the 200-500 better wide open vs. the 180-600 at f8 or f9.
Now I found both lenses in the corners and edges to be mostly similar to the center, with the 200-500 slightly but comfortably beating out the 180-600. It was only in the lower left hand corner that I found a substantial difference, with the 180-600 on the left here:
As you can see, it's really not even close. The 200-500 looks frankly about the same as it does in the center. It's really nicely sharp even on the corner and in fact you can't see it because I've cropped it off to fit it onto the forum better but in the border of that 200-500 corner image you can see very nicely the paper fibers. The 180-600 in that lower left corner is comparatively pretty darn soft, though.
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.
Next I set up a test chart and did the 200-500 vs the 180-600. The results seem pretty clear to me. I tested wide open and at 500mm because the 200-500 can't go any longer. Here's the center, 180-600 on the left:
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.
|
Now I found both lenses in the corners and edges to be mostly similar to the center, with the 200-500 slightly but comfortably beating out the 180-600. It was only in the lower left hand corner that I found a substantial difference, with the 180-600 on the left here:
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.
|
As you can see, it's really not even close. The 200-500 looks frankly about the same as it does in the center. It's really nicely sharp even on the corner and in fact you can't see it because I've cropped it off to fit it onto the forum better but in the border of that 200-500 corner image you can see very nicely the paper fibers. The 180-600 in that lower left corner is comparatively pretty darn soft, though.
Attachments
Good on you for diving in and doing these tests yourself. It definitely confirms that you either have a bad copy of the 186 or an outstanding copy of the 200-500
Where did you get the test chart image at, if you don't mind me asking?
SCoombs
Well-known member
Good on you for diving in and doing these tests yourself. It definitely confirms that you either have a bad copy of the 186 or an outstanding copy of the 200-500
Where did you get the test chart image at, if you don't mind me asking?
I searched for it but don't remember exactly where this one was from. If you search for BH test chart they have one you can download. I think this one may have verb from a site called bealecorner and it's an ISO12233 test chart. In any case if you search for that term various sources should come up.
ajrmd
Well-known member
A couple of points, namely I think you over sharpened the subjects (nuthatch and finch) in your attempts. I appreciate your efforts to assess the lens via static testing and I pulled some published data from PL regarding the lenses and pasted them together for your reference. They didn't test them head-to-head though the two copies they looked at revealed the following measures. I think this is in line with what I am seeing with my version of the lens. You're achieving something different and again I think your copy may have some issues and warrants a trip to Nikon.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
SCoombs
Well-known member
Why, because there is a slightly jagged, almost "pixelated" look to the feathers? Nope - that's what the photos look like out of camera if you crop them much past 30MP.
I half want to do it, but I've previously researched this heavily and refreshed my memory over the last few days and from all I read it seems like there's an extraordinarily high likelihood that doing so would simply cost me shipping only to have Nikon dlsay it's within spec. I've had a lens with very clear sharpness issues before. The first copy of my 200-500 was very, very bad. At 5.6 everything looked like you'd twisted the focus ring 30 degrees from a good shot, except there wasn't even an in focus plane. That one was terrible. Comparatively, this lens is good enough that most consumers would happily accept it and think it's great, and I can see that from looking at a lot of the photos people proudly post in various places with their new lenses and rave about how sharp they are even as they're clearly not. As noted, I've also put it through FoCal calibrarion and rating several times and it has put its sharpness as high as 70th percentile even as we can clearly see issues (my 200-500 is rated 90-93rd percentile or something, so I do seem to have an especially good copy of it). The wishful side of me would want to send it in hoping for a drastic improvement, but the realistic side is very skeptical that a lens FoCal rates in the mid 60s to 70th percentile would register as sufficiently out of spec that Nikon would do something about it. This is especially true since from what I've read it's hard to get them to make significant adjustments even when something is more clearly off.
Also, if I correctly understand how FoCal rates things then a rating of 60th-70th percentile would mean that my copy is above the median level of sharpness for all the copies that are our there, meaning Photographylife probably has an especially good copy and mine is probably about what's expected. Or have I misunderstood what their rating means?
ajrmd
Well-known member
In general, the 186 doesn't crop as well as a corresponding prime, though with good light it is possible to make some heavy crops (see example below which is heavily cropped to 5.5 MP followed by export to fit here - 1900 pixels on long side). On my monitor, and to my eyes, it appears the latest images presented are over sharpened.
FoCal is a decent program and it is difficult to ascertain what their DB means. Obviously, highly motivated individuals use the program and they can develop a DB of the users. Whether this represents a true, unbiased sampling of the larger pool of lenses is impossible to determine without comparing it Nikon's information. From the images you've posted, especially those of the static target, it is suggestive that there is something wrong with your copy.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Marcepan
Well-known member
These results are incomparable.
Only with the same look of graphs.
ajrmd
Well-known member
Care to explain your comments? They used similar testing methodology at similar FL’s for the respective lenses.
SCoombs
Well-known member
I'm curious what you think of that same photo when there has been no sharpening applied beyond the default:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Marcepan
Well-known member
The PL editors mentioned that resolution tests can only be compared if they have similar graphics. Just because of the methodology.
ajrmd
Well-known member
I haven't seen this disclaimer. Perhaps you could convince them to remeasure the lenses together?
ajrmd
Well-known member
It's better and the feathers seem more realistic as I view it on my MBP. If you want to add a little extra selective sharpening to the eye for emphasis, that's fine.
ARClark
Well-known member
This doesn't tell me anything about the relative sharpness of the lenses. It just demonstrates that neither of them is able to render feather detail at that distance.
Right, I agree, that's a distance I wouldn't ever consider shooting at if I were going for detail. I want my birds in close, MFD to about ~30' max; for environmental captures, then that fine detail doesn't matter, but you at least want the bird clear (which these are). I wouldn't expect even the 600TC to be able to render detail at this distance; if this is how far away you like to shoot, and are looking for detail, you need more reach.
To reiterate, those shots were in response to:
What distance, exactly, do you want to see comparison shots from? Personally, willfully trying to create an image with a bird way at the edge of the frame or intending to crop later isn't how I would normally shoot, so the results from any test of this sort are more of a "nice to know" rather than a qualification test of a lens' capabilities.
Are talking static birds? Some times it is hard to keep a BIF in the center. That is where a prime shines.
Well, for any subject, in motion or otherwise. The question was if comparing the 180-600 to a prime, is there a noticeable difference in resolving power between the 180-600 vs. a prime as the subject gets smaller in the frame or the distance to subject increases. Up close, both lenses should resolve greater detail, but as distance increases, will the prime hold an advantage? Is this accurate, @SCoombs?
This wasn't my question, @SCoombs was asking it, and all I'm trying to do is produce sample shots that answer that for him, and am trying to figure out from him or anyone else, what distance do you want me to test at?
BTW, I've done test shots b/w my 180-600, 600PF and 800PF, I know there's differences in sharpness as you head to the corners, but that's not the query here. In regards to the 186, at least my copy, there was barely a difference between it and the 600PF, even out to the corners, but not as definitive as everyone has made it out to be.
SCoombs
Well-known member
I agree with this to a point - closer/frame-filling is better if possible. On the other hand, there are a good number of successful/skilled photographers out there who crop a lot more than I'd have ever thought before watching some of their stuff. I'd still rather not crop any more than necessary, but I have to say I'm much more "open to it" or I consider it a lot more something that I should expect good gear to make possible after seeing some of this stuff.
I'll post some examples later which give an idea of the distance. I would say, though, that even at the distance you mention of 30ft many or most birds look pretty small in the frame and much smaller than the size I've found that I can get a worthwhile level of detail from this lens. It's probably right on the edge of what I would consider a decent amount of detail from my 200-500.
Right on.. we have these 45mp sensors, we should be able to crop and enjoy them, right?! I always hear that 300-400 is good for BIF, and then see people posting frame-filling ducks/birds/owls. I never thought to ask/check the image size or how much they cropped, but it'd be interesting to see the workflow from someone who does more BIF.
Anyways, I did some quick tests just now b/w the 186 and 600PF. Did 3 distances (9, 18, 34 yards as measured with my laser rangefinder), with a shot at center and edge of frame for each, compared at 200%. At 9yds, both lenses are comparable in the center, and as we move to the edge the prime is a bit sharper. We already knew this, no surprise there, but here's some interesting info for you: at the 18 and 34yd distance, the 186 is noticeably softer even in the center, and the edges degrade even worse, becoming very soupy at 34 yards. I'd say that it supports your hypothesis that the zoom is losing resolving power as the distance increases.
In summary, this is some of what the $3200 price difference is getting you. How often will this impact your photos, probably rarely to never, and in a vacuum, you’d be perfectly happy with how the 186 performs. After owning both lenses for quite a few months now, seeing the differences for myself is eye-opening, but it won’t in one bit alter my view of the 186.
I get it, jpeg screen grabs uploaded to a non-Pro Flickr account and then posted here aren't going to show the best detail, but hopefully it shows enough of the difference. If one really wants to compare them, you have to do it with the RAW files at home on your system, so anyone wants these files to see for yourself, PM me and I'd be happy get them over to you.
34 yards at the center (600PF on the left, focus is on the eye in all photos):
34yd-center by M K, on Flickr34 yards at the edge (600PF on the left):
34yd-edge by M K, on FlickrFor fun, here's the comparison shots at 9 yards, again, 600PF on the left:
Center:
9yd-center by M K, on FlickrEdge:
9yd-edge by M K, on Flickr
Last edited: