Another Nikon Z 180-600 Review.

[Anjin San]

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

Could be…but i would think that rule would come from corporate Nikon and not the country one so it would be the same for everybody.

And following on another comment…the fact that it isn’t as good wide open as stopped down a stop isn’t surprising at all…given the price, zoom range, etc. Personally…with 5he outstanding noise reductions d sharpening software we have now…bumping the ISO a stop or the shutter a stop slower and shoot a burst will solve this issue most to almost ll of the time. And…part of the issue as others noted might be technique…or the fact that he’s not normally a Nikon shooter so might not really know the AF system well enough to pick the right one over the almost right one.

 

[SCoombs]

Technique can of course be a factor but I think that people dismissing legigimate problems with a piece of gear as being the user's fault has to be about as common as users blaming their equipment when the problem is their technique.

Heck, when I first got my 200-500 I couldn't get anything sharp at the long end - and I don't mean critically, tack sharp, but I mean just in basic focus. Take your camera, focus on something and then twist the focus ring a quarter turn and that's how everything looked. It was my first longer lens so I wasn't sure if I was doing something wrong and I started doing tests on my tripod with staggered objects, focus targets, etc. People on forums told me it was my technique. They blamed it in everything from my choice of shutter speed (no matter how fast I told them it was) to high ISO (when I used a high enough shutter speed because they said it was too low, they then started saying well now it's the ISO making it look soft) to my hand holding (even when it was on a tripod). It was relentless. Almost every user insisted it was me. I was finally sent it back and when the replacement came, lo and behold I could take sharp photos. Somehow my horrible, blame worthy technique magically improved over two weeks of my not touching the camera!

In this case, the user is a professional who clearly knows how to handle a telephoto lens and while some of the comments about his inexperience with Nikon systems may certainly explain some of his criticisms, I don't think we can reasonably attribute softness to him. That's not to say anyone here is doing that in his case, but if people start getting their copies and there is variability with some not being quite so sharp I fear there will be a lot of frustrated users getting blamed for it.

 

[arbitrage]

The reported softness during his in the field, real world testing could be from a number of factors which people have brought up.
But the controlled testing shooting the wooden bird showed the lens improves significantly stopped down.
Of course most lenses in this category/price improve stopped down 1/3-1 stops. The question becomes is if the lens is acceptably sharp wide open or always needs to be stopped down to be acceptable to a given owner.
Personally I'm not happy if I have to stop down a lens to be happy. I'm okay if a lens sharpens up when stopped down as long as I'm still okay with the wide open performance. But I'm not okay if I always have to stop down to be happy with the IQ. I won't keep a lens like that for long.
When a lens is already "slow" at f/6.3 I hate to have to need f/8 light to use it.

 

[SCoombs]

The reported softness during his in the field, real world testing could be from a number of factors which people have brought up.
But the controlled testing shooting the wooden bird showed the lens improves significantly stopped down.
Of course most lenses in this category/price improve stopped down 1/3-1 stops. The question becomes is if the lens is acceptably sharp wide open or always needs to be stopped down to be acceptable to a given owner.
Personally I'm not happy if I have to stop down a lens to be happy. I'm okay if a lens sharpens up when stopped down as long as I'm still okay with the wide open performance. But I'm not okay if I always have to stop down to be happy with the IQ. I won't keep a lens like that for long.
When a lens is already "slow" at f/6.3 I hate to have to need f/8 light to use it.

For what it's worth copies in some of the videos from June looked pretty good wide open. Of course, those are going to be hand-picked copies being given out for those first-looks, but nevertheless it seems the lens is probably capable of being pretty sharp wide open.

I don't know. If you compare the MTF charts it looks like this one should be less sharp in the center than the 200-500 but hold onto the sharpness far, far better into the corners - at least that's what I take from it. I'd imagine that this is an intentional compromise on Nikon's part, but taking it a step further I wonder if they are thinking that with the mirrorless AF system using the full frame that people will more often be putting subjects further from center.

 

[Photographer_Bill]

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.

Having been inspired by the images on your website I would have loved for Nikon to have sent you a pre-release copy, your style of nature photography is what I aspire to.

 

[Photographer_Bill]

For what it's worth copies in some of the videos from June looked pretty good wide open. Of course, those are going to be hand-picked copies being given out for those first-looks, but nevertheless it seems the lens is probably capable of being pretty sharp wide open.

I take pre-release with a grain of salt - it gives us an indication of the potential but until full production copies are out we won't know for sure. Sample variation and QC may play a role here as well.

I don't know. If you compare the MTF charts it looks like this one should be less sharp in the center than the 200-500 but hold onto the sharpness far, far better into the corners - at least that's what I take from it. I'd imagine that this is an intentional compromise on Nikon's part, but taking it a step further I wonder if they are thinking that with the mirrorless AF system using the full frame that people will more often be putting subjects further from center.

Not sure if that was intentional on Nikon's part but I would prefer a lens that offers similar sharpness throughout for this very purpose (subject not always in center of frame) and for that reason I am hoping the 180-600 will really surprise.

 

[O]

Stopping down I find always improves sharpness, i use my push pull 200-500 mostly at F8 and in sunny good conditions doing major surfing events even sometimes at F10.

Variation of samples occurs defiantly in some lens products and some brands more so than others, And, even in cameras.

Quality control is an issue of late, sadly more so for Nikon, consumers justifying, defending tolerating issues doesn't help getting the manufacture to lift their game.

Waiting or renting for myself before buying a new product can usually be very beneficial, waiting to get refined coal face feed back that may weed out issues be it design or quality control, or prove claimed performance is as its supposed to be, sadly evolution of experiences have in cases made it this way. Many companies rush out products, outsource manufacturing, and finish things is in the field for expediency and cost benefits especially with products in systems, often at the expense of consumers.

Brands you can throw a blanket over the majors, some will lead others will follow, then they leap frog, that's the game. In cameras for me Sony and Canon have a slight edge over Nikon, and are just a little less complicated to use with focus tracking options settings and menu's in general.

Reliability that's a story well told over the past almost 2 years, review the archives for details.

The 180-600 Z lens should be a slightly improved version in mirror less of the great FX 200-500. I feel it will be a good tool, i expect no focus breathing, good performance in IS-VR for video, time will tell.

Critical sharpness is it beneficial for video or more stills, or it doesn't matter ?, if it was a video consideration like for the Z9 then there may be a need to compromise a fraction, who knows?

Sharpness in 95% + of cases comes from the user.

Lenses provide us with reach, position, light, speed and time, these benefits are sold to us in tiny increments and greatly differing prices.

Image quality, when you get very similar or the same quality end results regardless of what tools or brand you use, what does that mean?

Only an opinion

 

[Lance B]

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.

To be fair, I think you will find that much of this would be the fact that the Z 800 PF does not have the focus ability compared to the Canon 500 f4II, it has a second tier AF system compared to the Nikon exotics - the Z 800 PF is a slower focusing lens compared to the higher priced exotic Nikon teles. A better comparison would be the Z 600 f4 + TC or Z 400 f2.8 + TC.

 

[jeffnles1]

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.

When my guitar plays a bad note it is obviously an inferior instrument. Likewise when my camera captures a bad image it is faulty equipment.

 

[Anjin San]

To be fair, I think you will find that much of this would be the fact that the Z 800 PF does not have the focus ability compared to the Canon 500 f4II, it has a second tier AF system compared to the Nikon exotics - the Z 800 PF is a slower focusing lens compared to the higher priced exotic Nikon teles. A better comparison would be the Z 600 f4 + TC or Z 400 f2.8 + TC.

That is arguably be true if one measures AF performance with a stopwatch (but I didn’t go look for any speed tests)…but I haven’t heard many 800PF owners complain about slow AF in either reviews or real world now do I use this lens. Much like pixel peeping…I’m not sure how that really matters. and it isn’t rocket science to expect a 14K lens to be better than something that costs less…but there are other considerations beyond absolute bestest pixel peeping IQ and subtle differences in bokeh, etc…there’s budget, weight, flexibility, what system do I use and why, and the all important better is the enemy of good enough.

 

[ajrmd]

That is arguably be true if one measures AF performance with a stopwatch (but I didn’t go look for any speed tests)…but I haven’t heard many 800PF owners complain about slow AF in either reviews or real world now do I use this lens. Much like pixel peeping…I’m not sure how that really matters. and it isn’t rocket science to expect a 14K lens to be better than something that costs less…but there are other considerations beyond absolute bestest pixel peeping IQ and subtle differences in bokeh, etc…there’s budget, weight, flexibility, what system do I use and why, and the all important better is the enemy of good enough.

It’s not the lens and in fact I used it with good success at an air show recently. The Canon acquires focus a bit more quickly and decidedly for BIF and I saw this confirmed in a recent video,

 

[Anjin San]

It’s not the lens and in fact I used it with good success at an air show recently. The Canon acquires focus a bit more quickly and decidedly for BIF and I saw this confirmed in a recent video,

Watched the first minute or so and it looks to be a body comparison more than a lens one…and from the ‘winner’ it looks like the reviewer is a Canon guy…which isn’t a bad thing but I don’t follow his videos and really have no feel for how he does the comparison and already watch too darned many videos anyway. I’m sure that the users of any of the major brands can find videos saying theirs is best…but few reviewers are unbiased…and frequently the unbiased ones like Steve have differing opinions depending on what they’re reviewing…he has said that the Sony has a little better AF generally but that Nikon‘s lens lineup is better…but that you really can’t go wrong with either. My comment was just that I’ve not seen many videos decrying the AF speed or performance of the 800…and the winner might be an issue of he’s not as familiar with maximizing the AF on other brands…much like the Australian review where he admitted that his issues with the Z9 and 180-600 could easily have been due to a lack of familiarity.

At this point we’re really talking bout polishing the cannonball…

 

[ajrmd]

Watched the first minute or so and it looks to be a body comparison more than a lens one…and from the ‘winner’ it looks like the reviewer is a Canon guy…which isn’t a bad thing but I don’t follow his videos and really have no feel for how he does the comparison and already watch too darned many videos anyway. I’m sure that the users of any of the major brands can find videos saying theirs is best…but few reviewers are unbiased…and frequently the unbiased ones like Steve have differing opinions depending on what they’re reviewing…he has said that the Sony has a little better AF generally but that Nikon‘s lens lineup is better…but that you really can’t go wrong with either. My comment was just that I’ve not seen many videos decrying the AF speed or performance of the 800…and the winner might be an issue of he’s not as familiar with maximizing the AF on other brands…much like the Australian review where he admitted that his issues with the Z9 and 180-600 could easily have been due to a lack of familiarity.

At this point we’re really talking bout polishing the cannonball…

Skip through the nonsense and I think you’ll be surprised by his conclusions. His findings are similar to mine and yet I’ve switched from Canon to Nikon because of the lens offerings.

 

[Lance B]

That is arguably be true if one measures AF performance with a stopwatch (but I didn’t go look for any speed tests)…but I haven’t heard many 800PF owners complain about slow AF in either reviews or real world now do I use this lens. Much like pixel peeping…I’m not sure how that really matters. and it isn’t rocket science to expect a 14K lens to be better than something that costs less…but there are other considerations beyond absolute bestest pixel peeping IQ and subtle differences in bokeh, etc…there’s budget, weight, flexibility, what system do I use and why, and the all important better is the enemy of good enough.

Well, slower AF will inhibit AF capture and on its own and without reference the 800 probably seems fast enough, but not when compared to the many of the exotics and some other lenses. Whilst the AF of the 800 PF is still quite fast, it isn't the fastest AFing lens and I have compared it to my blindingly fast 400 f2.8E FL VR and my 70-200 f2.8E FL VR. The point I was making was to @ajrmd and the comparison he made with the Canon 500 f4 II IS which may not be a fair comparison as it wouldn't be to my 400 f2.8E FL VR. The fact is, a faster AFing lens may get you a shot you may miss with the 800 PF due to its comparative "slowness" to these exotics. I am not disputing all the other factors you raise about the advantages of the 800 PF, it is a fantastic lens considering the price, weight and size. That is why I have the 800 PF and love it.

 

[SeanT]

Interesting result. And it's the second review to show it's not as acute as the Sony 200-600 wide open. However, I appreciate that it has less focus breathing than the Sony apparently -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9JBElDff0E&ab_channel=JanWegener

 

[Anjin San]

Skip through the nonsense and I think you’ll be surprised by his conclusions. His findings are similar to mine and yet I’ve switched from Canon to Nikon because of the lens offerings.

You may be right…but I still maintain that better is the enemy of good enough and that we‘re just polishing the cannonball…and more important than any minor lens or body AF issues or whether brand B is slightly better than brand D for this particular body and length combination is the fact that each of us (well, most of us anyway I guess)…are users and owners of whatever system we are in for a variety of reasons including ergonomics, AF performance, overall lens family , what we do, what menu systems we like etc…so if one is a Canon or Fuji or Nikon or Olympus or Sony shooter and have whatever combo of lens and bodies we want and can afford switching to SOB (some other brand) really is neither practical or affordable and in most cases won’t materially improve our output because the 80/4 rule of Steve means that the limiting factor is almost always the user and not the gear. So…all of the which is better videos will first likely be different next year amd while they may be great for providing fanboys some ammunition aren’t really going to get many people to switch…especially if (and I have no idea if it’s the case for this video) the video compares a 7K lens against a more expensive or less expensive one. Not saying he’s wrong…just that it’s interesting but in the great scheme of things isn’t going to move many people.

Edit…went back and watched a little more looking for conclusions and he said he would choose the Z8…and still didn’t see much about lenses but maybe that was in the part I didn’t see. In any event…for my overall purposes the 800 isn’t really an option for a lot of reasons…as is changing brands for a lot of the same reasons (cost isn’t on the list)…so even assuming that he concludes that the Canon or Sony lens is better wide open but they’re equivalent stopped down a stop or even one is still ‘better’…if that’s ‘better at 1:1 but not noticeable when downsampled to screen output sizes or if it gives 15% more keepers that’s what 20 FPS is for…then it’s not really better for most of us outside of bragging rights.

 

[Anjin San]

Well, slower AF will inhibit AF capture and on its own and without reference the 800 probably seems fast enough, but not when compared to the many of the exotics and some other lenses. Whilst the AF of the 800 PF is still quite fast, it isn't the fastest AFing lens and I have compared it to my blindingly fast 400 f2.8E FL VR and my 70-200 f2.8E FL VR. The point I was making was to @ajrmd and the comparison he made with the Canon 500 f4 II IS which may not be a fair comparison as it wouldn't be to my 400 f2.8E FL VR. The fact is, a faster AFing lens may get you a shot you may miss with the 800 PF due to its comparative "slowness" to these exotics. I am not disputing all the other factors you raise about the advantages of the 800 PF, it is a fantastic lens considering the price, weight and size. That is why I have the 800 PF and love it.

Oh yeah…it’s obviously a fantastic lens for what you get and what you paid…assuming it meets overall needs…and obviously for you it does for you…so if it’s AF is 1/10 or 1/4 of a second slower it doesn’t matter…and outside of comparison videos ive not seen much complaining about the slow AF of the 800…so it’s doing it’s job. I might end up getting one…still waiting on summer to end down here so I can get out and try shooting my 400/4.5 with the 2x to see (a) is it better enough to warrant the other factors weighing gain at the 800for me and (b) how many shots do I not get because I’ve got an effective 800 mounted. My biggest issue and reason I cancelled my order a year ish back was that carrying it cuts down a lot on what this pretty healthy and 1,500 miles a year bicyclist 69 year old guy is willing to carry on the hike and what I see as a severe lack of flexibility because I’m not heading out with the idea that I’m shooting red bellied woodpeckers and nothing else…I’m shooting whatever I find today. I may still end up with an 800…but I’ll be surprised if I do…and cost really isn’t much of a consideration.

 

[groob]

You may be right…but I still maintain that better is the enemy of good enough and that we‘re just polishing the cannonball…and more important than any minor lens or body AF issues or whether brand B is slightly better than brand D for this particular body and length combination is the fact that each of us (well, most of us anyway I guess)…are users and owners of whatever system we are in for a variety of reasons including ergonomics, AF performance, overall lens family , what we do, what menu systems we like etc…so if one is a Canon or Fuji or Nikon or Olympus or Sony shooter and have whatever combo of lens and bodies we want and can afford switching to SOB (some other brand) really is neither practical or affordable and in most cases won’t materially improve our output because the 80/4 rule of Steve means that the limiting factor is almost always the user and not the gear. So…all of the which is better videos will first likely be different next year amd while they may be great for providing fanboys some ammunition aren’t really going to get many people to switch…especially if (and I have no idea if it’s the case for this video) the video compares a 7K lens against a more expensive or less expensive one. Not saying he’s wrong…just that it’s interesting but in the great scheme of things isn’t going to move many people.

Edit…went back and watched a little more looking for conclusions and he said he would choose the Z8…and still didn’t see much about lenses but maybe that was in the part I didn’t see. In any event…for my overall purposes the 800 isn’t really an option for a lot of reasons…as is changing brands for a lot of the same reasons (cost isn’t on the list)…so even assuming that he concludes that the Canon or Sony lens is better wide open but they’re equivalent stopped down a stop or even one is still ‘better’…if that’s ‘better at 1:1 but not noticeable when downsampled to screen output sizes or if it gives 15% more keepers that’s what 20 FPS is for…then it’s not really better for most of us outside of bragging rights.

To add to this a bit, it would be shocking if there is any practical deficiency in IQ with proper post processing. If one resizes and then sharpens the subject appropriately, I would be floored if the 180-600 is not more than sharp enough for all but the most discerning pixel peepers.

 

[ajrmd]

To add to this a bit, it would be shocking if there is any practical deficiency in IQ with proper post processing. If one resizes and then sharpens the subject appropriately, I would be floored if the 180-600 is not more than sharp enough for all but the most discerning pixel peepers.

Interesting observation. I was reading some folks complaining about the 800 PF and claiming that it wasn't sharp. There were various comparisons, including the 600 f/4, 400 f/2.8, etc. The actual data comparing acutance and other characteristics is difficult to find so one is left with more anecdotal accounts including some which are favorable and other which are not. My personal experience in the field, with my PF 800 has been fantastic both in terms of sharpness, lack of CA/flare, amazing VR, hand-hold ability, etc. Likewise, I've seen a lot of belly aching and pixel peeping over the Tammykon 70-180 f/2.8 vs. the Nikon 70-200. In my hands, the 70-180 has been great in spite of the lack of VR and image quality for the applications has been fantastic. The reported Tammykon 35-150 f/2.8 is so interesting that I can't wait to see how that turns out. As for the 180-600, I am holding my breath for its release as it could be the perfect companion for my long glass. These are very interesting and exciting times!

 

[sportmaster]

"I was reading some folks complaining about the 800 PF and claiming that it wasn't sharp." Operator skill is probably to biggest factor impacting sharpness results.

 

[Anjin San]

To add to this a bit, it would be shocking if there is any practical deficiency in IQ with proper post processing. If one resizes and then sharpens the subject appropriately, I would be floored if the 180-600 is not more than sharp enough for all but the most discerning pixel peepers.

Yep…I’m shocked (a) how good we have it today…and (b) how much better I can make even a D7500 image look today than my original blog output. Between sharpening, noise reduction and up scaling…not to mention the high frame rates and limitless storage as compared to film being home many more shots and knowing the exposure was right or close to it in the field. Like Bruce in the other thread…we always try tomget composition and all the other stuff right in the field…but that’s still a relatively small percentage when it happens…so I’m glad we can post and clone over the beer can floating in the water as opposed to yesteryear.

 

[Patrick M]

Lots of interesting comments. I’m a big fan of zooms, and these Z lenses are a cut above, in my admittedly amateur view. Primary because it makes composure so much easier.

Last year I rented the lovely z 400 f4.5 with my z6, and I already have the 2x converter. I was convinced it’s a superb lens. I was equally convinced I prefer zooms!

Last month, having gotten my long yearned for Z8, I rented the z100-400 and a 1.4 times teleconverter for a two week trip to Svalbard.
This combo worked very well, and I had the converter on pretty much all the time, even occasionally switching to DX occasionally to see those far of critters more easily.
I get the z180-600 next week. I hope the copy I get match most of the reviews I’ve seen.

 

[leoparker]

Dip your toe into the world of Z lenses with the NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR.

 

[Photographer_Bill]

Yep…I’m shocked (a) how good we have it today…and (b) how much better I can make even a D7500 image look today than my original blog output. Between sharpening, noise reduction and up scaling…not to mention the high frame rates and limitless storage as compared to film being home many more shots and knowing the exposure was right or close to it in the field. Like Bruce in the other thread…we always try tomget composition and all the other stuff right in the field…but that’s still a relatively small percentage when it happens…so I’m glad we can post and clone over the beer can floating in the water as opposed to yesteryear.

I agree, the kind of images we are able to capture today vs the film days and early days of digital is truly amazing. And now, with the advancements in post processing I’m floored with what we can do and I'm still learning new tricks.

 

[NicholasN]

Lots of interesting comments. I’m a big fan of zooms, and these Z lenses are a cut above, in my admittedly amateur view. Primary because it makes composure so much easier.

Last year I rented the lovely z 400 f4.5 with my z6, and I already have the 2x converter. I was convinced it’s a superb lens. I was equally convinced I prefer zooms!

Last month, having gotten my long yearned for Z8, I rented the z100-400 and a 1.4 times teleconverter for a two week trip to Svalbard.
This combo worked very well, and I had the converter on pretty much all the time, even occasionally switching to DX occasionally to see those far of critters more easily.
I get the z180-600 next week. I hope the copy I get match most of the reviews I’ve seen.

Did it match your expectations ?