Another Nikon Z 180-600 Review.

[Paul T]

People may be interested in this Nikon Z 180-600 Lens review. Duade is predominantly a Canon shooter but his reviews are in my opinion reasonably balanced.

It runs for around 35mins so grab a drink of some sort and see what you think.

 

[ajrmd]

A very balanced review though it is a bit disconcerting at the same time. It would be a tremendous loss if the lens is not sharp wide open. As a former Canon (and Sony) shooter, it’s interesting to note Duade’s observations which are strikingly similar to my experience. These include the amazing VR, the odd “recentering” of the image in the EVF and the differences in AF. He is correct that one becomes accustomed to the “jumping” and it no longer affects me as much. In terms of the AF, I think the greatest distinctions are learning the various AF modes and tricks to achieve a maximal hit rate though I think it is accurate to say that the eye detect’s range is less than that of Sony/Canon.

 

[Cameron T]

The re centering happens in normal vr mode, and is working as intended (in that mode). The elements recenter before shooting. The lens looks perfectly sharp, even with a tc. His comments in the video are varied but... Based on his images, I don't think it's a huge difference. It also looked like his exposure was slightly different, among other things.

Obviously a lens is likely to get some amount sharper as you stop down, but I'm not sure the difference is actually that much here.

I also don't agree with your comment about the eye detect range. I've found it did as good of a job (give or take, it was in the field, not a scientific test) as the a1, and I've heard it's as good as the r3 (again, like give or take, but close enough at worst) from people with that (I haven't spent enough time with one myself, though I have played with one).

Using 3d is also not the mode I'd use, but duade is used to that. Wide area with SD is my starting mode, with buttons set up to change that depending on circumstances. This is more in reference to his prior video.

That all said, I like his videos and he's very good about being fair about what's he's saying. I also really like how he shows his images (shows the raw, and then his edit with the crop).

I'm also planning on doing a full review/writeup of it and compare it to my 150-600 (and tc, where appropriate) once I get mine and have time. Hoping for sooner rather than later, but I've got an airshow to shoot this weekend too

 

[ajrmd]

The re centering happens in normal vr mode, and is working as intended (in that mode). The elements recenter before shooting. The lens looks perfectly sharp, even with a tc. His comments in the video are varied but... Based on his images, I don't think it's a huge difference. It also looked like his exposure was slightly different, among other things.

Obviously a lens is likely to get some amount sharper as you stop down, but I'm not sure the difference is actually that much here.

I also don't agree with your comment about the eye detect range. I've found it did as good of a job (give or take, it was in the field, not a scientific test) as the a1, and I've heard it's as good as the r3 (again, like give or take, but close enough at worst) from people with that (I haven't spent enough time with one myself, though I have played with one).

Using 3d is also not the mode I'd use, but duade is used to that. Wide area with SD is my starting mode, with buttons set up to change that depending on circumstances. This is more in reference to his prior video.

That all said, I like his videos and he's very good about being fair about what's he's saying. I also really like how he shows his images (shows the raw, and then his edit with the crop).

You are correct with respect to recentering though it is not something that one witnesses on either the Sony or Canon flagships. I suspect that the recentering effect is not visible on the Sony (in spite of using a "similar" sensor) because the Sony VR is nowhere in the league of the Nikon. The Canon R3 BIS has fewer pixels and the IS while it is solid, is not as good as the Nikon.

Lens sharpness is an important factor and if Duade is accurate, for those of us who shoot in lower light, just bumping up the ISO to shoot at f/8 is not always an option. My hope is that either the production lens is as sharp as the Sony (which I've used) or Duade was simply mistaken in his assessment.

Having shot all three bodies, I can state that both the Canon and Sony are able to detect and track the subjects further downrange. Additionally, I've found that the Nikon struggles a bit more against contrasty backgrounds than its competitors even when using a (non-3D) wide area C1 mode unless one reduces the size of the box significantly. A prime example was this lesser bittern which was hiding in the weeds. With my Canon R5 (or R3) the main AF mode would easily grab the subject, whereas with my Z8 I had to use spot or the small C1 with handoff. Your experience may vary but I am reporting accurately on my findings, and they are in keeping in what has been published.

I'm not sure what AF mode or other settings Duade was using when he described his AF difficulties (around 31:20 mark) of the small subject bird against the water/reeds/other birds though if he initiated with 3d that might have been an issue (the video doesn't reveal the AF mode). Alternatively, the subject was so small in the frame that he might have been better off just keeping the subject in focus with an alternative mode. Perhaps it is the result of his lack of familiarity of the distinctions between the different AF systems, though it is not unusual for those who are accustomed to Canon or Sony.

Again, these aren't "digs" against Nikon. To the contrary, I migrated back to Nikon (hadn't shot them since the 1980's) from Canon because I perceive that Nikon is providing more interesting, high quality, and more affordable lenses and gear.

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

 

[Cameron T]

You are correct with respect to recentering though it is not something that one witnesses on either the Sony or Canon flagships. I suspect that the recentering effect is not visible on the Sony (in spite of using a "similar" sensor) because the Sony VR is nowhere in the league of the Nikon. The Canon R3 BIS has fewer pixels and the IS while it is solid, is not as good as the Nikon.

On mobile, so snipping through these replies quickly, it's possible the impact isn't visible, or the way nikon did it is much more obvious. I don't have that answer, but from this video the vr on nikon looks many times better than Sony for sure (Sony, you can do better, he was on dry land, not drunk on a boat).

Lens sharpness is an important factor and if Duade is accurate, for those of us who shoot in lower light, just bumping up the ISO to shoot at f/8 is not always an option. My hope is that either the production lens is as sharp as the Sony (which I've used) or Duade was simply mistaken in his assessment.

Like I said, even the examples at 6.3 seemed fairly sharp, and he had the parrot image which was pretty sharp wide open. We'll get more data when we get it.

Having shot all three bodies, I can state that both the Canon and Sony are able to detect and track the subjects further downrange.

I don't agree, but okay. That's fine.

Additionally, I've found that the Nikon struggles a bit more against contrasty backgrounds than its competitors even when using a (non-3D) wide area C1 mode unless one reduces the size of the box significantly.

What do you mean by "non 3d"? 3d is a completely different mode than wide area. I've not had that problem personally, unless I was already focused on the background (or closer to it).

A prime example was this lesser bittern which was hiding in the weeds. With my Canon R5 (or R3) the main AF mode would easily grab the subject, whereas with my Z8 I had to use spot or the small C1 with handoff. Your experience may vary but I am reporting accurately on my findings, and they are in keeping in what has been published.

And Steve thinks nikon is up there with Sony, as do others. So user experience varies.

I'm not sure what AF mode or other settings Duade was using when he described his AF difficulties (around 31:20 mark) of the small subject bird against the water/reeds/other birds though if he initiated with 3d that might have been an issue (the video doesn't reveal the AF mode).

Check his prior video, he was in 3d for most of the shots. I try to avoid it, personally.

Alternatively, the subject was so small in the frame that he might have been better off just keeping the subject in focus with an alternative mode. Perhaps it is the result of his lack of familiarity of the distinctions between the different AF systems, though it is not unusual for those who are accustomed to Canon or Sony.

I agree he probably struggled some because he hasn't used nikon a lot.

Again, these aren't "digs" against Nikon. To the contrary, I migrated back to Nikon (hadn't shot them since the 1980's) from Canon because I perceive that Nikon is providing more interesting, high quality, and more affordable lenses and gear.View attachment 67553

I'm not worried about digs at nikon just making sure we're clear about how people experience different things, and might have different issues.

 

[NorthernFocus]

This review should have been titled "Nikon 180-600mm Review for non-Nikon Shooters". In fairness he is up front about not being familiar with Nikon. Some of the things he points out are nuances of Nikon vs other brands e.g. behavior of the different VR modes. I'm surprised that Nikon loaned him a copy of the pre-release lens.

 

[Woodyg3]

This review should have been titled "Nikon 180-600mm Review for non-Nikon Shooters". In fairness he is up front about not being familiar with Nikon. Some of the things he points out are nuances of Nikon vs other brands e.g. behavior of the different VR modes. I'm surprised that Nikon loaned him a copy of the pre-release lens.

He's a very popular YouTuber and is known for his fair approach to evaluating equipment, so I'm not so surprised that Nikon Australia loaned him the equipment. Since he has a lot of Canon users that flow him, this gives some Nikon exposure to any of them thinking about switching to Nikon.

You are right that non-Nikon users probably get much more from this video than Nikon users. Also good for people still using DSLRs, I think. Again, that might be good for Nikon in terms of broadening their audience.

Anyway, I think it's probably a valuable video to his followers. I watch him just to see the Australian wildlife as much as anything

 

[RichF]

Great review. A few weaknesses in the lens but otherwise a stellar performer

 

[Tim Karels]

I thought it was a good honest review. I'm not sure that I will buy this lens since I already have a 400 4.5 and 800 6.3. But I wouldn't decide against the 180-600 based on this review. It seems plenty sharp enough and sharpness is not only just depended on the optics – technique, shutter speed, VR etc all play a role. Excellent VR may compensate for any deficiencies in optical sharpness in certain conditions. Nevertheless, the review is based on a sample size of 1, which was also a pre-production lens. There may be sample variations and perhaps slight modifications in production. I'm looking forward to seeing more reviews once the lens is released.

 

[ajrmd]

Like I said, even the examples at 6.3 seemed fairly sharp, and he had the parrot image which was pretty sharp wide open. We'll get more data when we get it.

It doesn't appear as sharp as the Sony. Let's hope that was the pre-production lens or some other issue.

I don't agree, but okay. That's fine.

This weekend I was out with my Z8 + 800 f/6.3 and R5 + 500 f/4 II IS + 1.4 tc (EFL 700mm) shooting osprey, side by side. The R5 eye detect locked on to the osprey before the Nikon Z8. Frequently, at the distance I was at, the Z8 would not eye detect, instead favoring the square on the body. This occurred for perched subjects as well where the R5 locked in on the eye instantly, whereas the Z8 frequently could not. In terms of tracking, both cameras were equally as good.

What do you mean by "non 3d"? 3d is a completely different mode than wide area. I've not had that problem personally, unless I was already focused on the background (or closer to it).

"non 3d" means not initiating AF with 3d AF. Usually, I initiate AF using a WA such as CF1 and then doing a "hand off" to 3d if appropriate. Again, if we are to compare/contrast the AF systems, using the AF on the R5 to capture a diving osprey, one can use their Face+tracking+animal eye detect and it will pretty much find and stay with the bird anywhere in the frame. On the z8, usually, I have to use a WA+animal and limit to a smaller area, lest the AF wander and find a specular highlight or something else to focus upon.

And Steve thinks nikon is up there with Sony, as do others. So user experience varies.

It's difficult to parse that. I think the AF systems are different and the Nikon system is less cut and dry. One has to know how to use the system more effectively. That doesn't necessarily mean that one is better than the other.

Check his prior video, he was in 3d for most of the shots. I try to avoid it, personally.

I agree he probably struggled some because he hasn't used nikon a lot.

I'm not worried about digs at nikon just making sure we're clear about how people experience different things, and might have different issues.

I believe that Duade is more of a Canon user (as I was) and is probably used to just pointing the camera at something and achieving AF. As I mentioned, the Nikon AF system requires more user expertise to achieve best results.

 

[Richard_M]

I enjoyed the review, particularly since it's done in my part of the world. What I did find interesting is the apparent minimal focus breathing. I believe the Nikkor 200-500 was something like 400mm at MFD.

 

[ajrmd]

I thought it was a good honest review. I'm not sure that I will buy this lens since I already have a 400 4.5 and 800 6.3. But I wouldn't decide against the 180-600 based on this review. It seems plenty sharp enough and sharpness is not only just depended on the optics – technique, shutter speed, VR etc all play a role. Excellent VR may compensate for any deficiencies in optical sharpness in certain conditions. Nevertheless, the review is based on a sample size of 1, which was also a pre-production lens. There may be sample variations and perhaps slight modifications in production. I'm looking forward to seeing more reviews once the lens is released.

I think this kind of lens has different applications which may or may not apply to you. My intent is to use it as a complimentary lens to the long prime on a second body or as a travel/hike lens. That's the way I used the Sony 200-600 or Canon 100-500. They were paired with a long prime to take advantage of the zoom and near action.

 

[John Navitsky]

It doesn't appear as sharp as the Sony. Let's hope that was the pre-production lens or some other issue.

i haven’t watched the review, but i think unless folks do static and controlled tests you can’t compare. remember that missed focus (and motion blur) can masquerade as soft focus, so unless the subjects are static, you don’t know if the user or camera missed slightly. and if the user is less familiar with the system that goes doubly

 

[Cameron T]

i haven’t watched the review, but i think unless folks do static and controlled tests you can’t compare. remember that missed focus (and motion blur) can masquerade as soft focus, so unless the subjects are static, you don’t know if the user or camera missed slightly. and if the user is less familiar with the system that goes doubly

He did a static test, but the images (to me, watching in 4k on my TV) looked sharp enough and he said they weren't. So I'm not sure what's really going on there.

When I get my copy, I'm going to do static tests (vs my Tamron 150-600, which is a pretty good copy) and then I'll have both out during a day when I can go shoot birds, but more laid back and I'll have more time.

I'll also do both with a 1.4x tc (I don't have a 2x, and don't plan on getting one).

 

[NorthernFocus]

It's difficult to parse that. I think the AF systems are different and the Nikon system is less cut and dry. One has to know how to use the system more effectively. That doesn't necessarily mean that one is better than the other.

I believe that Duade is more of a Canon user (as I was) and is probably used to just pointing the camera at something and achieving AF. As I mentioned, the Nikon AF system requires more user expertise to achieve best results.

Yes exactly. It's very obvious that he's not familiar with the equipment. That's why I said it's more of a review for non-Nikon shooters. I think he summed it up by saying that his keeper rate wasn't what he thought it should be. That was exactly my thoughts when I switched to Z9 from DSLR. I was looking for magic. But lo and behold you still have to learn to use the equipment. I have no experience with Canon but did spend a year with and A1/200-600. The AF system in the A1 is certainly easier to use and definitely identifies birds farther out than Z8/9 will do. I did get rid of the A1 prior to the latest FW update for the Z9 but my sense is still that it doesn't reach out as far. On the other the Z8/9 do lock on with a BIF smaller in the frame than I care to capture. So I guess people who typically crop out 90 percent of the frame are probably better off shooting something other than Nikon.

i haven’t watched the review, but i think unless folks do static and controlled tests you can’t compare. remember that missed focus (and motion blur) can masquerade as soft focus, so unless the subjects are static, you don’t know if the user or camera missed slightly. and if the user is less familiar with the system that goes doubly

He took some static shots but nothing resembling a controlled test. Everything he shot was also handheld. For anyone who is a long time Nikon shooter it's pretty much a useless video. Seems like a nice enough guy but a gear expert he's not.

 

[Richard_M]

He took some static shots but nothing resembling a controlled test. Everything he shot was also handheld. For anyone who is a long time Nikon shooter it's pretty much a useless video. Seems like a nice enough guy but a gear expert he's not.

Considering he was reviewing a lens, I’m not sure why he would need to be a “gear expert”. If the lens requires an expert to operate, there will be a number of disappointed owners.

 

[John Navitsky]

same as car reviewers. you don’t need an expert to tell you if the car drives. but it helps if you’re trying to see where the limits are

 

[Richard_M]

Another point I liked in his review is the potential to move the focus ring while operating the zoom ring when the mount is not in the down position.

 

[Anjin San]

I’m actually surprised they let him compare it with other lenses since Steve wasn’t allowed to do that…but maybe he figured it was better to beg forgiveness than ask permission.

 

[Woodyg3]

I’m actually surprised they let him compare it with other lenses since Steve wasn’t allowed to do that…but maybe he figured it was better to beg forgiveness than ask permission.

Nikon Australia may not have imposed the same limitations as Nikon USA. Just a guess.

 

[arbitrage]

I think the only worrying part of Duade's video is the IQ at 600 f/6.3.

My guess is that there is going to be more variability in the performance of this lens copy to copy at this price point than most are used to with all the other higher end Z lenses.
Duade's copy may be on the lower end of the IQ scale when evaluated against a larger sample of lens copies.
Just like the 200-500 where some needed 3 copies to get a sharp one at wide open, this may play out similar for the 180-600. I know some loved their 200-500 at 500/5.6 but with my copy I only felt it critically sharp at 500 f/7.1.
With my Sony 200-600 I felt it sharp enough on a lower 24 MP body at 600 f/6.3 but on A7RIV at 61MP I only liked it at 600 f/8....similar to Duade's findings of the 180-600 on the 45MP Z9.
I know people who had to buy 2-3 copies of the Sony 200-600 to get an acceptably sharp copy.
I think at these lower price points that is just how it is and we are going to read varying opinions of the wide-open IQ of this lens as more people get their own copy. This confusion will be compounded by the variability of people's ideas of what is a sharp lens.

 

[Cameron T]

While copy variation might be an issue... I'm not sure I saw bad quality at 600 wide open. Granted, it's YouTube, etc, so I'm not seeing what he saw 1:1, but it looked acceptable to me (watching in 4k on a relatively large screen) for the price point.

People have also compared it favorably to the 100-400 with tc (ricci, and someone else said it was almost as good as the 400 4.5 with tc) so I'm expecting this lens to be good.

Once it's out in the wild (whenever it shows up), we'll start seeing more results.

 

[NorthernFocus]

...I think at these lower price points that is just how it is and we are going to read varying opinions of the wide-open IQ of this lens as more people get their own copy. This confusion will be compounded by the variability of people's ideas of what is a sharp lens.

I think the latter half of the above is WAY more of an issue than actual variability in manufacturing. Plus people who simply refuse to even consider that poor technique might be the source of soft images.

 

[Cameron T]

I think the latter half of the above is WAY more of an issue than actual variability in manufacturing. Plus people who simply refuse to even consider that poor technique might be the source of soft images.

What do you mean I could be wrong? I spent 100k on this camera and lens and it should just work

I've found atmospherics to be one of the larger issues in people shooting images with longer lenses, as well as bad technique.

 

[John Navitsky]

I think the latter half of the above is WAY more of an issue than actual variability in manufacturing. Plus people who simply refuse to even consider that poor technique might be the source of soft images.

1000%