Brad Hill's exhaustive tests have begun: 180-600, 600PF, 150-500

[Geoff_G]

It seems to me that we can get caught up in reviews and second guess the performance of a lens we love. We are looking for the affirmation the we made a smart purchase.

I see that in a lot of forums. At this point I find reviews interesting and informative but I usually try to read those before purchase and don't really care afterwards. At that point I either like it or not and reviews probably won't temper my 1st hand opinion. I have been known to return things ...

 

[Steve]

It seems to me that we can get caught up in reviews and second guess the performance of a lens we love. We are looking for the affirmation that we made a smart purchase.

The problem is, everything is good now. Reviewers have to be cautious of the language they use when talking about the lenses so they don't cause concern over minute differences. As mentioned above, saying the 100-400 has "poor" performance can cause a misinterpretation. It doesn't have poor performance in the sense that it's a "bad" lens, it just doesn't perform as well as the 180-600 at some focal lengths. However, it's incredibly tricky to pick the correct words and still try to get your point access sometimes. I know, I've been there LOL. Right now, we're really to the point where it's mostly minor difference few would notice in the real world.

 

[Jerry Watson]

The problem is, everything is good now. Reviewers have to be cautious of the language they use when talking about the lenses so they don't cause concern over minute differences. As mentioned above, saying the 100-400 has "poor" performance can cause a misinterpretation. It doesn't have poor performance in the sense that it's a "bad" lens, it just doesn't perform as well as the 180-600 at some focal lengths. However, it's incredibly tricky to pick the correct words and still try to get your point access sometimes. I know, I've been there LOL. Right now, we're really to the point where it's mostly minor difference few would notice in the real world.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy and appreciate the reviews, especially when looking for a new piece of equipment.

 

[DRwyoming]

I see that in a lot of forums. At this point I find reviews interesting and informative but I usually try to read those before purchase and don't really care afterwards. At that point I either like it or not and reviews probably won't temper my 1st hand opinion. I have been known to return things ...

The problem is, everything is good now.

Agreed, modern lenses especially those in the price ranges we're talking about are all very, very good and it's hard to go wrong.

That wasn't always the case and I'm guessing there are plenty of photographers that owned one or more lenses along the way that really didn't perform well. I can remember some real dogs where it was tough to get any sharp images even when shooting film and evaluating via a loupe on the light box way before pixel peeping high res images became a thing, I suspect that background for many folks along with the desire to always have the best can make us overly sensitive to concerns that a given lens might not be the best possible out there even when it can consistently deliver great images.

When a new great lens comes out the previous great lenses don't stop working or suddenly deliver crummy images but reading the internet you might reach that conclusion.

 

[Jerry Watson]

Agreed, modern lenses especially those in the price ranges we're talking about are all very, very good and it's hard to go wrong.

That wasn't always the case and I'm guessing there are plenty of photographers that owned one or more lenses along the way that really didn't perform well. I can remember some real dogs where it was tough to get any sharp images even when shooting film and evaluating via a loupe on the light box way before pixel peeping high res images became a thing, I suspect that background for many folks along with the desire to always have the best can make us overly sensitive to concerns that a given lens might not be the best possible out there even when it can consistently deliver great images.

When a new great lens comes out the previous great lenses don't stop working or suddenly deliver crummy images but reading the internet you might reach that conclusion.

I Agee Dave. For me I have had superb big glass that I just cannot lug around anymore. So the most important thing when I look at new equipment is the weight, but must have adequate IQ.

 

[Pat Cassity]

This morning I had the opportunity to try the 1.4x on the 180-600. I had intended to shoot this at 500mm but instead it was at 485 which gave me a 680mm focal length. I was about 100' from the tree and the Eagle was at a height of approximately 60'. It was shot at full frame on the z8 and cropped to 2949 x 2359. 1/1000s, f9, ISO 250 and a tripod. Processed completely in Lightroom. Would have liked to have been able to get the same shot without the TC at 600mm but mom had other things to tend to.

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

 

[Geoff_G]

I Agee Dave. For me I have had superb big glass that I just cannot lug around anymore. So the most important thing when I look at new equipment is th weight, but must have adequate IQ.

Yep. It's a bigger deal as I get older. Fortunately Nikon is solving those issues with kick-ass PF lenses.

 

[Calson]

Nikon greatly slowed and then halted its development of new lens or improved version of its existing f-mount lens. I migrated to the Z9 camera largely to take advantage of the new Z mount lenses entering the market that were substantial upgrades of their f-mount equivalents (24-120mm, 100-400mm, 800mm PF).

As always it is better to try different settings for oneself and learn what works in different situations with different subjects with different lenses and different cameras (with different levels of firmware).

 

[gdecamp]

The problem is, everything is good now. Reviewers have to be cautious of the language they use when talking about the lenses so they don't cause concern over minute differences. As mentioned above, saying the 100-400 has "poor" performance can cause a misinterpretation. It doesn't have poor performance in the sense that it's a "bad" lens, it just doesn't perform as well as the 180-600 at some focal lengths. However, it's incredibly tricky to pick the correct words and still try to get your point access sometimes. I know, I've been there LOL. Right now, we're really to the point where it's mostly minor difference few would notice in the real world.

Amen Steve we are all lucky that there is a nice assortment of lenses for most price ranges and sharpness is really not the main deciding factor. Good times for photographers!!

 

[simplynature]

For those who are not aware, Brad Hill, a Canadian wildlife photographer that specializes on North Pacific Coast marine mammals and bears has begun to publish his review/analysis of some of the most recent telephoto Z optics. In this linked first post, Brad lays out his intention for future comparisons and offers a general summary of his findings.
The summary includes overall impressions of the 180-600, 600PF, and 150-600. In addition he offers a general description about how the 100-400S stacks up against the 3 lenses as well as how close... or not.. each lens compares to the 600 f4S &/or 500PF.

The summary is a good read and relatively short for Brad Hill...
Here's the spoiler... Brad's findings pretty much align with everything that @Steve has written on this forum and in his videos. The only new information relates to where the Tamron 150-500 fits.

If you care about these type of comparison, this first summary is a good read... I give it a
regards,
bruce

Thanks, Bruce, for the post!

 

[fcotterill]

These recent reviews of the 180-600mm, 600 PF etc recall an essay by Roger Cicala of LensRentals advocating his preference for field testing lenses. And most recently, the explanation in a series of posts also on dpr, by a knowledgeable member, is equally relevant to the best practice of evaluating the IQ of telephotos. He also argues why no single test can qualify how a lens will perform under field conditions: particularly across a wide range.

Certainly, MTF charts give us guidance, but these have limitations to try and predict the real world performance of a lens for wildlife photography. Besides there being no flat paper charts, outdoor conditions often different from laboratory setups and radically; moreover MTF data are not only challenging to measure with telephotos, but are restricted to a single distance, which is usually fairly close. Beyond and besides MTF estimates contrast and resolution in tightly restricted conditions, it is as critical to test for flare and other negative influences in a telephoto.

Basically, only Field testing can test a telephoto. This is where I appreciate how clearly Brad Hill explains his field methodology (Appendices) including Caveats, Qualifiers, and Limitations. This is where these tests by experienced professional photographers, including Brad Hill, @BLev65 and @Steve , stand apart. They test the lens in ways and on subjects at different distances and conditions. (Obviously, Brad Hill is a tough case to match in all his minutae and details!) Their final assessment of a new lens is also grounded in years of experience with many different models of telephotos in the past besides current models.

 

[fcotterill]

{clip}
To be clear, the 180-600 is a compromise optic that attempts to do many things in a a relatively small package. One should use the lens a lot and find where it is strong and where it is weak. From my experience, given its broad zoom range and price, I find that it is better than it should be at 600mm. In fact, I never hesitate to shoot it at 600mm f6.3 if I do not plan to crop the image... my sharpening routine makes the images look nearly as good as my 800PF. However, I find that the lens is weakest at where high ISOs and slow shutter speeds are required. Low light photography requires the best coatings to eek out every bit of light. Here, it is likely that the lack of nano &/or arneo coatings my reduce total light transmission under these circumstances. So, when I know that I will be shooting in marginal light, I consider using my 400 f4.5S instead of the zoom. emphasis added
{clip}

Under these conditions, a converter shines. As soon as you put some distance between you and the subject, shoot over water, shoot over snow, or drop the light down to dawn or dusk, you will see how a converter significantly degrades an image.
Prior to buying the 800PF, I used the 400 f4.5 w/ 1.4x and 2x. After buying the 800PF, I stopped using me converters... the difference is definitely visible to me... and I'm not a person who nitpicks or pixel-peeps.
bruce

I agree when comparing telephotos for outdoor and wildlife genres, the two critical factors are how a lens varies with distance and in challenging light - lowlight particularly.

In using and testing many lenses since 1984 (mostly over the past 10 years) one lesson learned is there's very little reliable review data about these aspects of Lens performance for wildlife photography. (And this is besides real world tests of VR, AF and ergonomics etc.) As @BLev65 summarized eloquently, one has to stress test a telephoto in lowlight, contrasting conditions, as well as over distances etc. I have found these tests take me many days, where I live: highly dependent on behaviour of the weather and wild subjects to obtain representative samples.

I agree rigorous field tests (in tricky light especially) are the only way we can test (given no sophisticated optical laboratory sued used / available to optical engineers). These show up the (1) benefits of paying more for proprietary glass elements, ARNEO and NANO coatings etc, and (2) the constraints on the respective lens. There's probably more engineering factors at play besides the latter. It's been shown some of Nikon's propriety optical technologies are held back from the public lens profile. Besides the stated lens coatings, it is also perfectly possible some of their "exotic" telephotos use elements made of any number of their patented optical glass formulae (eg for higher refractive index) yet Nikon does not advertise these factors (!). However, the optical benefits stand out in the images besides justifying the higher prices of these lenses.

There is one lens for which we do know this - the 58mm f0.95 Noct Nikkor. Nikon's engineers used a total of 14 different types of glass in the respective elements (each of a unique chemical composition). Three of these 14 are of a hitherto unknown composition; and pertinently the use of 2 of the 3 ["593679" and "Hikari CF E-FKH1"] reveals an interesting trade secret [refer to L4,L6,L7,L10 in the diagram]... What Nikon's codes as Yellow elements in its official diagrams as its widely used "ED" glass can represent at least 2 different types of glass (and possibly even more!)

In such cases of premium Nikkors, it is clear how we photographers benefit from Nikon making its own optical glass
[edited]

Glass for geeks: An in-depth tour of Nikon’s Hikari Glass factory

I've been on a lot of factory tours with various camera and lens manufacturers before, but had never had a chance to see how the optical glass was made that goes into the lenses we use every day. So I was really happy to receive…

www.imaging-resource.com

 

[BLev65]

These recent reviews of the 180-600mm, 600 PF etc recall an essay by Roger Cicala of LensRentals advocating his preference for field testing lenses. And most recently, the explanation in a series of posts also on dpr, by a knowledgeable member, is equally relevant to the best practice of evaluating the IQ of telephotos. He also argues why no single test can qualify how a lens will perform under field conditions: particularly across a wide range.

Certainly, MTF charts give us guidance, but these have limitations to try and predict the real world performance of a lens for wildlife photography. Besides there being no flat paper charts, outdoor conditions often different from laboratory setups and radically; moreover MTF data are not only challenging to measure with telephotos, but are restricted to a single distance, which is usually fairly close. Beyond and besides MTF estimates contrast and resolution in tightly restricted conditions, it is as critical to test for flare and other negative influences in a telephoto.

Basically, only Field testing can test a telephoto. This is where I appreciate how clear Brad Hill explains his field methodology (Appendices) including Caveats, Qualifiers, and Limitations. This is where these tests by experienced professional photographers, including Brad Hill, @BLev65 and @Steve , stand apart. They test the lens in ways and on subjects at different distances and conditions. (Obviously, Brad Hill is a tough case to match in all details!) Their final assessment of a new lens is also grounded in years of experience with many different models of telephotos in the past besides currently.

@fcotterill Thanks for including me in a list with Brad and Steve,... you make me feel as if I got a free upgrade from economy to first class on a trans-continental flight
I am not a lens tester, nor do I pretend to be one, but I am a shooter. Like many on the forum, I'm a photographer with multiple decades of experience who cut their teeth with more "primitive" manual focus cameras/lenses that struggled to hit 4 fps with bulky motor drives while dealing with the real limitations of slide film. Many of us have lived a world when wildlife photography was once very difficult, and then out of nowhere became suddenly easy. I say easy because it has... There was a time when I had to camp for a week in Denali national park with 40 rolls of Velvia slide film to come home with 5 or 6 publishable pictures of a grizzly bears and caribou. Today, social media has exposed the "easy" places to find and see subjects, there are multiple flights to exotic locations, and cameras do all of the hard work...
So, what's left... what gives one photographer an edge over another? In the end, it boils down to field craft and knowing your gear. As many have stated, there are no "bad" lenses any longer. The least expensive Nikon telephoto at $1700 (180-600) bests the one time $5500 200-400 f4. The $3000 Nikon 400 f4.5 is the near optical equivalent of the $14000 400 f2.8S, the $4500 600PF is the near optical equivalent of the 600 f4S, and the $6700 800PF is the near optical equivalent of the $18000 800mm f5.6 E.
So when we discuss the merits of the 100-400 vs 180-600 we are splitting hairs in terms of their optics. In the end, it all comes down to case use...
1. What do you intend to photograph with your lens(es)?
2. How far is the subject from you and its background?
3. Are you shooting through vegetation, or are you shooting over water?
4. How much available light exists when and where you shoot?
5. How much are you willing to spend to eek out another 5% of opportunity or quality?

While I don't "test" lenses, per se, I do use them and I look for their weaknesses. The weaknesses remind me that a great lens in one situation may not be a great lens in another. Case in point, I dashed out mid-sentence in this post to search for wildlife in pre-sunrise light. I had full intentions of using the 180-600, but the location I found with a juvenile eagle standing on a muskrat lodge was backlit and poor morning light... the wrong lens for the 180-600. Instead, I pulled out the 800PF knowing it would resolve the available light better than the zoom.
Arguments about which lens is better can be an exercise in futility if you spend more time evaluating "bests" and less time in the field.
Cheers mates and good shooting,
bruce

 

[Ken Miracle]

@fcotterill Thanks for including me in a list with Brad and Steve,... you make me feel as if I got a free upgrade from economy to first class on a trans-continental flight
I am not a lens tester, nor do I pretend to be one, but I am a shooter. Like many on the forum, I'm a photographer with multiple decades of experience who cut their teeth with more "primitive" manual focus cameras/lenses that struggled to hit 4 fps with bulky motor drives while dealing with the real limitations of slide film. Many of us have lived a world when wildlife photography was once very difficult, and then out of nowhere became suddenly easy. I say easy because it has... There was a time when I had to camp for a week in Denali national park with 40 rolls of Velvia slide film to come home with 5 or 6 publishable pictures of a grizzly bears and caribou. Today, social media has exposed the "easy" places to find and see subjects, there are multiple flights to exotic locations, and cameras do all of the hard work...
So, what's left... what gives one photographer an edge over another? In the end, it boils down to field craft and knowing your gear. As many have stated, there are no "bad" lenses any longer. The least expensive Nikon telephoto at $1700 (180-600) bests the one time $5500 200-400 f4. The $3000 Nikon 400 f4.5 is the near optical equivalent of the $14000 400 f2.8S, the $4500 600PF is the near optical equivalent of the 600 f4S, and the $6700 800PF is the near optical equivalent of the $18000 800mm f5.6 E.
So when we discuss the merits of the 100-400 vs 180-600 we are splitting hairs in terms of their optics. In the end, it all comes down to case use...
1. What do you intend to photograph with your lens(es)?
2. How far is the subject from you and its background?
3. Are you shooting through vegetation, or are you shooting over water?
4. How much available light exists when and where you shoot?
5. How much are you willing to spend to eek out another 5% of opportunity or quality?

While I don't "test" lenses, per se, I do use them and I look for their weaknesses. The weaknesses remind me that a great lens in one situation may not be a great lens in another. Case in point, I dashed out mid-sentence in this post to search for wildlife in pre-sunrise light. I had full intentions of using the 180-600, but the location I found with a juvenile eagle standing on a muskrat lodge was backlit and poor morning light... the wrong lens for the 180-600. Instead, I pulled out the 800PF knowing it would resolve the available light better than the zoom.
Arguments about which lens is better can be an exercise in futility if you spend more time evaluating "bests" and less time in the field.
Cheers mates and good shooting,
bruce

"Arguments about which lens is better can be an exercise in futility if you spend more time evaluating "bests" and less time in the field.
Cheers mates and good shooting,"

 

[DBalaur]

Not related to any of the lens focused in the thread, but I really appreciate Brad's mention of his biggest gripe with the FTZ: poor moisture sealing. It's something I have experienced myself and, needless to say, it could be frustrating.

 

[ChrisM]

I agree when comparing telephotos for outdoor and wildlife genres, the two critical factors are how a lens varies with distance and in challenging light - lowlight particularly.

In using and testing many lenses since 1984 (mostly over the past 10 years) one lesson learned is there's very little reliable review data about these aspects of Lens performance for wildlife photography. (And this is besides real world tests of VR, AF and ergonomics etc.) As @BLev65 summarized eloquently, one has to stress test a telephoto in lowlight, contrasting conditions, as well as over distances etc. I have found these tests take me many days, where I live: highly dependent on behaviour of the weather and wild subjects to obtain representative samples.

I agree rigorous field tests (in tricky light especially) are the only way we can test (given no sophisticated optical laboratory sued by optical engineers). These show up the (1) benefits of paying more for proprietary glass elements, ARNEO and NANO coatings etc, and (2) the constraints on the respective lens. There's probably more engineering factors at play besides the latter. It's been shown some of Nikon's propriety optical technologies are held back from the public lens profile. Besides the stated lens coatings, it is also perfectly possible some of their "exotic" telephotos use elements made of any number of their patented optical glass formulae (eg for higher refractive index) but not advertised. However, the optical benefits stand out in the images.

There is one lens for which we do know this - the 58mm f0.95 Noct Nikkor. Nikon's engineers used a total of 14 different types of glass in the respective elements (each of a unique chemical composition). Three of these 14 are of a hitherto unknown composition; and pertinently the use of 2 of the 3 ["593679" and "Hikari CF E-FKH1"] reveals an interesting trade secret [refer to L4,L6,L7,L10 in the diagram]... What Nikon's codes as Yellow elements in its official diagrams as its widely used "ED" glass can represent at least 2 different types of glass (and possibly even more!)

In such cases of premium Nikkors, it is clear how we photographers benefit from Nikon making its own optical glass
[edited]

Glass for geeks: An in-depth tour of Nikon’s Hikari Glass factory

I've been on a lot of factory tours with various camera and lens manufacturers before, but had never had a chance to see how the optical glass was made that goes into the lenses we use every day. So I was really happy to receive…

www.imaging-resource.com

I agree with you. Shooting over distance sets high end lenses apart from consumer level lenses, as well as performance in challenging light, and of course performance with extenders.

This is true for the Sony 200-600 vs the 600GM, and I don't doubt it is equally valid for the nikon 180-600 vs the 600TC or Z600PF.

The tricky part is that many lens tests these days are irrespective of the conditions in which the "test shots" were taken, eg. a test chart in good light over 10m distance on a tripod.
Based on such test shots the conclusion may be that a consumer lens like the 180-600 is almost as good as the Z600TC or PF, and of course for that particular shooting scenario it probably is.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I agree with you. Shooting over distance sets high end lenses apart from consumer level lenses, as well as performance in challenging light, and of course performance with extenders.

This is true for the Sony 200-600 vs the 600GM, and I don't doubt it is equally valid for the nikon 180-600 vs the 600TC or Z600PF.

The tricky part is that many lens tests these days are irrespective of the conditions in which the "test shots" were taken, eg. a test chart in good light over 10m distance on a tripod.
Based on such test shots the conclusion may be that a consumer lens like the 180-600 is almost as good as the Z600TC or PF, and of course for that particular shooting scenario it probably is.

Absolutely! Real world use over time is the real test for me.

I am a bird ID photographer hiking and photographing hand held for mobility and speed in all conditions, a wide range of distances and habitats, birds flying in clear sky or past and through trees and brush and sitting birds backlighted or deep in a bush or tree.

I have used a Nikon Z800 pf since 5-1-22 and a Z180-600 since 9-5-23. Each has it's use but the Z800 beyond 16.5 feet (it's minimum focal distance) is always my choice. The Z180-600 comes out to play only if I have a reason to know I want a wider field of view or I anticipate birds closer than 16.5 feet with happens rarely here in this part of Idaho.

 

[MLB01]

What is the opinion of everyone that the Tamaron 150-500 Z mount is a good option when considering this lens over the Nikon 180-600?

 

[Cameron T]

I only think it is if you can't manage the weight of the 180-600. Otherwise I consider it considerably worse as a general purpose wildlife lens.

Worse being relative, to be clear. It's a good lens still

 

[Patrick M]

I don’t think that there is a “bad” Z lens. The F range developed over a very long period of time, and the cameras developed enormously too. The Z range has the benefit of development expertise and knowledge.

Everybody has their own style, for want of a better word, so a lens that one finds to be good, another will have another that’s better. They’re all good though.

If I’m in doubt, I’ll rent….and if it suits, and I have the funds, I might buy. Renting showed me I didn’t like the 100-400 or the 400f4 Not because they were in any way other than superb, but they didnt suit MY style. In the other hand, the z180-600 just suits me, and at an economic cost that I can justify.

 

[MLB01]

I only think it is if you can't manage the weight of the 180-600. Otherwise I consider it considerably worse as a general purpose wildlife lens.

Worse being relative, to be clear. It's a good lens still

"Worse" in what respect? Reviews from Brad summarize as minimal differences in optics and sharpness at both 400 and 500 mm, with the 180-600 somewhat better at the extreme edges at 500mm.

 

[Cameron T]

"Worse" in what respect? Reviews from Brad summarize as minimal differences in optics and sharpness at both 400 and 500 mm, with the 180-600 somewhat better at the extreme edges at 500mm.

Slower and less reach. The 180-600 is already what I personally consider the edge of acceptable light for wildlife shooting (especially early am).

Giving up 100mm and taking away a third of a stop of light is just going backwards. the 100-500 also can't (to my knowledge) take a TC, which is another negative in my books.

 

[MLB01]

Slower and less reach. The 180-600 is already what I personally consider the edge of acceptable light for wildlife shooting (especially early am).

Giving up 100mm and taking away a third of a stop of light is just going backwards. the 100-500 also can't (to my knowledge) take a TC, which is another negative in my books.

Slower?? Brad Hill and Adrian Alford saw little difference In AF performance between these two lenses. If 100mm of extra reach is critical for your needs you have a point, but I will take less weight and compactness over 100mm of extra reach for my needs, with minimal differences in optical performance in all focal lengths up to 500mm. But as a prior post commented, all based on ones need to fit their photography style. Yes, cannot take a TC and VR is better in the Nikon.

 

[Cameron T]

Slower refers to smaller aperture, not AF speed in this context.

And in my original post I referenced weight being the only advantage to the 100-500. I still believe that's true.

 

[MLB01]

Slower refers to smaller aperture, not AF speed in this context.

And in my original post I referenced weight being the only advantage to the 100-500. I still believe that's true.

I guess why we have so many choices when it comes to Z mount lenses. Not one size fits all.