Thanks for the video. Confirmed my thoughts about the lens. Not quite as good as the TC primes but a great value
A Pro’s take on the venerable 180-600mm Nikkor Z lens
- Thread starter beano
- 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).
ajrmd
Well-known member
Please explain how an f/5.6 lens vs. 6.3 at the long end would make a significant difference? It's a negligible and arguably irrelevant difference of a 1/3rd stop. It's not as though that would suddenly make the lens "usable" with a TC as that has more to do with the optical properties. Quite candidly, I can't think of a modern zoom that I like with a TC perhaps with the exception of the Canon 100-300 f/2.8. Additionally, a f/5.6 lens would be larger and likely heavier.
I look at the 180-600 as a decent all utility WL lens which is comparatively affordable, produces decent images, and is reasonable to travel with. In my calculus it is generally a companion lens to a longer prime, an entry lens for those who want explore WL, etc. It really serves multiple purposes and I think Nikon made a calculated choice.
O
Well-known member
Good question, the 100-400 is light and small, so maybe they can put Fresnel elements in the 180-600 ?
I think the 180-600 is a brilliant lens for what it is, I do however feel in general its overpriced for what it is and not because of competition price points.
The 200-500 has a magnification ratio of 2.5 versus 3.33 in the 180-600 yet the 180-600 technology has brought slight gains optically and added benefits mechanically and
the VR is greatly improved allowing for slower shutter speeds, a MTF chart measures any gains.
But yes it would be nice if it was lighter and smaller, optically is great as is the colour, its also sharp. A great tool.
Nikon does a brilliant job with colour accuracy and appeal. I have a dislike for the quality of the Nikon view finder in the Z8 Z9.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
Cameron T
Well-known member
It's also (as I mentioned before to O, in relation to a post he edited) the same price point as the 200-500 when it came out. So If he would like it to be cheaper, my next question would be "why is sony's equivalent also the same price", etc.
The 200-500 was introduced early 2015. If the lens was $1400 when introduced (2015 $) that would be $1800 in 2023 when the 180-600 was release. $ amount accounts for inflation but not changes in the exchange rate of $ to Yen. I believe that the 180-600 introductory price was $1700. So inflation adjusted it was $100 cheaper than the 200-500.
O
Well-known member
Reflecting back, I think Nikon needed to desperately fill a more affordable empty long zoom lens space as well as get into the massive then150-500 MR 3.33 ratio market of very affordable excellent lenses from Sigma and Tamron.
Even today when I do a national surfing competition and i am surrounded by masses of passionate photographers most sporting Sigma and Tamron 150-600 at 4-1 MR, why, affordability at this time, also nothing was really available from Nikon. Photographers using Canon Nikon cameras made up the field with Sigma or Tamron lenses.
Nikon wanted to get into that lucrative space as the more expensive OEM alternatives were not flying of the shelf.
Along came the excellent 200-500 2.5 -1 MR Nikon, really cheap intro with a quick ramp up on price once they got a surprise of better than expected traction.
The 200-500 became very popular very quickly again seeing the price move up to align with demand especially as the supply was limited, here in Oz at least Nikon came in initially way to cheap according to then roomers.
Since then we have seen the competition still gain or hold ground with the counter move of 150-600 from Tamron and Sigma, I mean why would consumers sell their Tamron Sigma for a narrower range Nikon 200-500 when there more than happy with what they have as well as broader longer reach.
On the back of mirror less cameras phasing in from Nikon they released their 180-600 3.33 MR and pumped the price knowing the transition phase from DSLR user’s to ML will upgrade.
I see Coach loads of people show up for the WSL international surf comp, most from camera clubs, they line up in massive groups along the shore almost a clean sweep of Tamron Sigma 150-600 optics on Canon Nikon cameras.
Why ...........well TODAY 2025 Nikon is $2300-$2500 AUD for the 180-600, TODAY 2025 Tamron Sigma are $1400-$1600 AUD for the 150-600, let’s face it, if you’re a Z8 Z9 Z6 user what long zoom lens would you put on your camera a 180-600 ? i guess it depends on what you’re doing, the budget, the outcome expectations.
The 200-500 180-600 from Nikon seems to be fractionally better than the findings with Sigma and Tamron options according to some of our camera club members, others are indifferent.
While i have a great respect for Tamron and Sigma lenses i prefer the colour synergistic of OEM to be aligned where noticeable.
Only an opinion
the 180-600 is a very viable option. not quite as cheap as the Sigma, but very affordable
If after dropping $4000-6000 for body, and you are concerned about several hundred $, then get the 200-500 which has a similar price ranges as the Sigma. There are many choices in this range, some a bit less expensive and some a bit more expensive (and in my experience better built - my wife's (sigma? tamron?) 150-600 feel over (tripod collapse) and was seriously damaged. Cost better part of the cost of the lens. Personally I'll pay a bit more quality (and have fewer lenses or save $ elsewhere like when we kept our toyota for 13 years).
I just don't understand how anyone does not see why the Nikon 180-600 is the price to performance leader in the super telephoto zoom category.
The lens was designed as a Z-mount replacement for the F-mount 200-500 ED, and to compete with the Sony 200-600. The latter was the one lens that put pressure on Nikon shooters to move en-mass to the Sony ecosystem. While compromises in coatings and barrel housing were made, at the point of introduction it was $200 less than the Sony, and had better quality at the long end.
For those who need to shoot at 800mm, this is not the appropriate lens. While it can take tele-converters, users are asking too much from a $1700 lens to resolve fine feather detail when using the lens with a converter on a 45MP camera. On the other hand, the lens out performs the Nikon 200-400 f4 in both weight and speed when used with a Z-mount camera. The F-Mount 200-400 f/4 was a find lens in its day, and sold for about $5400 at the time. When one considers the price you pay for a 180-600, it offers people access to a high quality ultra telephoto lens at a price that was unheard of 10 years ago. While I am fortunate to be able to afford a 400 f2.8TC, 100-400, and 180-600, if all I had was the 180-600, I'd be fine... I spent decades shooting lesser lenses because that was what I could afford... this lens equalizes the playing field between those who can afford to shoot the most expensive glass and those willing to make the most of the best lens they can afford.
bruce
The lens was designed as a Z-mount replacement for the F-mount 200-500 ED, and to compete with the Sony 200-600. The latter was the one lens that put pressure on Nikon shooters to move en-mass to the Sony ecosystem. While compromises in coatings and barrel housing were made, at the point of introduction it was $200 less than the Sony, and had better quality at the long end.
For those who need to shoot at 800mm, this is not the appropriate lens. While it can take tele-converters, users are asking too much from a $1700 lens to resolve fine feather detail when using the lens with a converter on a 45MP camera. On the other hand, the lens out performs the Nikon 200-400 f4 in both weight and speed when used with a Z-mount camera. The F-Mount 200-400 f/4 was a find lens in its day, and sold for about $5400 at the time. When one considers the price you pay for a 180-600, it offers people access to a high quality ultra telephoto lens at a price that was unheard of 10 years ago. While I am fortunate to be able to afford a 400 f2.8TC, 100-400, and 180-600, if all I had was the 180-600, I'd be fine... I spent decades shooting lesser lenses because that was what I could afford... this lens equalizes the playing field between those who can afford to shoot the most expensive glass and those willing to make the most of the best lens they can afford.
bruce
Last edited:
O
Well-known member
We paid $12000 more to get into our new Toyota H300 SLWB Hi Ace Van over the cheaper larger alternatives.
The previous Toyota van had done nearly 700,000k over 22 years and ran like a bird, the new owner packed it full of gear and is running right around Australia and loving it.
On the old one I could do the fuel pump timing, injectors all the servicing my self, the new one you cant so much as their is so much done through computers.
But yes in top tier brands you often get what you pay for unless its a re bagged clone product.
viper699
Well-known member
100% agree esp on price compared to many moons ago. I never thought in my film days I'd reach to 600mm like I can w/my 186 at its price point with a serious IQ.
O
Well-known member
$1900 USD is near on $3000 AUD currently, the Sigma and Tamron lenses are nearly half that in AU $ making the Nikon lens very very expensive domestically.
Here the Nikon 180-600 sells for USD $1600.
Georges is a local camera store, as is Ryda, we at times get far better pricing in OZ, hence i bought my 200-500 circa $1300 AUD new about $850 USD but i think the currency exchange rate was stronger then for the AUD.
In recent times it was better to buy things out of Japan due to heavy currency fluctuations.
Also the Pipeline for a lot of products around the world is backed up with strong head winds, dynamic pricing is turning into more dumping.
Unless i have it all wrong, if so i apologies
Only an opinion
I bought a Z8 / 24-120 kit I late 2023. I picked up a 180-600 in early 24. Frankly, the IQ of both lenses exceeds my most extravagant expectations. I added an AF S 85 1.8 for a faster short telephoto and have a pair of legacy MF Rokinons for Astro and WA things.
Some may accuse me of being satisfied with mediocrity. But if that kit is mediocre, I’m all in.
Some may accuse me of being satisfied with mediocrity. But if that kit is mediocre, I’m all in.
macwalter
Well-known member
3x the cost would be 6k. That’s still a lot lass than an exotic and if the IQ was closer to the mid price primes I would be interested depending.
macwalter
Well-known member
I don’t think the 186 is mediocre but it is heavy and I would like to see a drop in weight. I would like to see a zoom made to the same specs as the 100-400 but with the longer reach maybe I’m just drea amd any thing can work assuming the shooter kn ows what they are doing. I have friends who get lovely photos with the 186.
beano
Well-known member
As you say, we can’t always use the regular USD to AUD conversion for everything pertaining to Australia. This lens is $2,499 at Amazon AU currently, and on the weekend, it was as low as $2,299 AUD.
More often than not, camera-gear doesn’t align with USA market prices, I find it significantly less costly here. Depends on what you buy as well, of course….wrt to Japanese prices, I was in Tokyo a couple of weeks ago, the only S-line lens that was cheaper than in Australia was funny enough, the 400 2.8 S. It was the equivalent of ‘only’ $16,200 AUD, vs the local extortion of generally $20,000 to $24,000.
I might grab one next time I travel through there, which should be before end Q2.
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
@BLev65 is absolutely correct. I might add the 200-500 was probably also Nikon's response to the SiTamron Supertelephoto zooms.
The 180-600 continues to encourage 200-500 f5.6E owners to upgrade. The more compact design is a positive and especially the improved balance; and remarkably it's a IF design at such an affordable price.
I hear from retailers this new zoom continues to be in high demand in southern Africa, primarily as a wildlife lens - as it is worldwide.
Since 2015, Nikon sold well over 200 000 copies of the 200-500, judging from the (underestimated) total on Roland's database. To date the 180-600 total is climbing towards 100 000 (approximately 1.5 years of sales)
As Thom Hogan summarizes : "Nikon 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR — A real surprise considering its very affordable price. In the overlapping 180-400mm focal lengths, this lens is optically a bit better than the previous one at 400mm and it is less flare prone. Plus it goes to 600 ;~). As it turns out, this combination makes for a very flexible choice that produces results well above what you expect. However, while some seem to think that it's "just as good" as the 600mm f/6.3 PF at 600mm, the test results say otherwise. This zoom is good, but not quite that good. Still, this lens should be considered a bargain for what it is able to achieve. Much like the 200-500mm f/5.6E before it, this lens is going to remain very popular and well-regarded in the lineup for a very long time. And yes, it's better than the Sony 200-600mm."
The 180-600 continues to encourage 200-500 f5.6E owners to upgrade. The more compact design is a positive and especially the improved balance; and remarkably it's a IF design at such an affordable price.
I hear from retailers this new zoom continues to be in high demand in southern Africa, primarily as a wildlife lens - as it is worldwide.
Since 2015, Nikon sold well over 200 000 copies of the 200-500, judging from the (underestimated) total on Roland's database. To date the 180-600 total is climbing towards 100 000 (approximately 1.5 years of sales)
As Thom Hogan summarizes : "Nikon 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR — A real surprise considering its very affordable price. In the overlapping 180-400mm focal lengths, this lens is optically a bit better than the previous one at 400mm and it is less flare prone. Plus it goes to 600 ;~). As it turns out, this combination makes for a very flexible choice that produces results well above what you expect. However, while some seem to think that it's "just as good" as the 600mm f/6.3 PF at 600mm, the test results say otherwise. This zoom is good, but not quite that good. Still, this lens should be considered a bargain for what it is able to achieve. Much like the 200-500mm f/5.6E before it, this lens is going to remain very popular and well-regarded in the lineup for a very long time. And yes, it's better than the Sony 200-600mm."
Best Telephoto Options in the Z Mount | Thom Hogan
What's the best telephoto option for a Z camera at 200-800mm?
www.zsystemuser.com
Last edited:
O
Well-known member
I think the currency exchange is giving heartburn to a lot of companies now and will do going forward.
I think some used camera market prices may even go up in the future in some locations compared to others, yet new prices may go up in other places, add to this market segments may find traditional country's and volume take off relied upon may go soft in sales forcing a scramble to alternative markets, on the other hand the losses may simply be passed on with price rises, this may usher in stronger used prices ?? who knows, watch this space.
It may be a roller coaster ride looking forward, something to watch i guess.
That said i feel some companies are filling up with stock on hand from some clogged pipelines others are dumping fast..................
Georges and Ryda are local shops in OZ selling at grey market prices.
In answer to Rich F question of me, i feel $1900 USD is to high, it should be more around $1600 USD, but that's just my opinion.
If Amazon is on the weekend at $2300 AUD that's $1470 USD a far distance from $1900 USD.
Grab a 400 F2.8 TC in Japan at $16200 AUD or $10,200 USD, its very good buying. I am no expert but I feel the USD may not be as strong going forward, this may strengthen the AUD i hope, Who Knows. I only play this if their is big $ involved.
Only an opinion
Being the outer areas of the 200-500 and the third party Sigma/Tamrons were the weak point and APS-C is going to crop that out, the value you can get now out of any of these F mount lenses with an FTZ and a Z50ii for wildlife is pretty high. That's potentially a $1400-1500 combination used or about 1800-1900 new with a 150-600C, pretty great wildlife photography value!
macwalter
Well-known member
I always found the 200-500 to be an ungainly piece with terrible balance but it was sharp enough and I did get some nice shots with it. But the weight and front heavy balance put me off as a purchase. The 186 is vastly superior in this regard. Also I really don’t like how the FTZ adapter pushes the lenses out further that only make balance issues worse. This is why I decided to sell all my dslr gear and go full mirrorless. I don’t regret the decision although the cost up front was significant
I have subscribed to the ‘better is the enemy of good enough’ doctrine my whole life. Doesn’t only apply to photography. I’m going to Orlando Wetlands in May for a morning and am deliberately leaving the 600PF, 100-400 and the second Z8 behind taking only Z8/180-600 because it isn’t a bucket list location and I’m going lighter overall as another test of that combo.
Yeah…I find the claim it is overpriced laughable as well…but that’s just me.
I don't mind if Nikon makes a reasonable profit, after all that will increase the value of my gear. If they lose too much money and can not innovate or worse go out of business, then the value of my gear is drops. Plus I will need to buy a new camera system (if I want any improvements) which will cost me a lot more money.
Cameron T
Well-known member
It isn't. It's still 100$ cheaper than sony's 200-600, which is considered an excellent 'budget' lens.
The only way anyone can consider it overpriced is comparing it to decade old designs at this point, which are worse in various ways (external zoom, old mount, worse weather sealing, worse throw, etc etc).
Well sure…the @4K lens will be better…but you will likely need to be pixel peeping to see the difference once downsampled to screen resolution or print res…physics simply eliminates most of the difference and what is left is more different than better/worse. At that point…flexibility, weight, price, and output needs can easily override the ‘better’. As I said…better is the enemy of good enough and unless one is a pro making money…or an amateur who insists on the ‘best’…other considerations should also play into a decision. I’m simply not interested in the size and weight of the expensive primes…I could take one but the weight limits other lenses in the bag and that kills a lot of opportunities due to no flexibility.
Ive even carried the 100-400 and TC with a single body…if im pretty sure based on the location that 400 will be enough (plus cropping a bit) will be enough most of the time…and since my output is almost exclusively screen usage…I’m perfectly happy with the 1.4 if needed…the Z TCs are a lot better than the F ones are.