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

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).

BLev65

BLev65

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
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
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
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
Click to expand...
thank you - interesting read. btw - beautiful bear collection on your site.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks Bruce, Brad Hill's sustained commitment to his testing is impressive. True to form. Exhaustive
He has a formidable list, which is still missing a couple (including the 70-200 f2.8E, 70-300 AFP, 180-400 TC14).
Hopefully he expands the comparisons to include the 120-300 f2.8E and more of the primes, but basically none of the candidates in the lineup has a notable problem to hold back the quality of images.
 
Member's gallery
In reviewing the 180-600, Brad states "And here I am referring to how it performs with the Z TC-1.4X when shot at its maximum focal length (of 600mm). Simply put, of the 6 current "real" Z pathways to the 800mm(ish) focal length, the Z 180-600mm plus Z TC-1.4X is clearly the weakest. Note that when I say "real pathways to the 800mm(ish) focal length" I am excluding one possible option - the Z 100-400mm plus Z TC-2x"...

This makes sense since his finding are so similar to Steve's. In that, the 180-600 is at its sharpest around 500mm. Personally I have found myself not exceeding about 520mm but I haven't tried the 1.4x on it in the 500ish ranges, mainly due to the light and aperture restrictions. I'd be interested to see tests in this category and well as other's images using the 1.4x on the 180-600 when shot at those focal lengths around 500mm (700mm).
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
Thanks Bruce, Brad Hill's sustained commitment to his testing is impressive. True to form. Exhaustive
He has a formidable list, which is still missing a couple (including the 70-200 f2.8E, 70-300 AFP, 180-400 TC14).
Hopefully he expands the comparisons to include the 120-300 f2.8E and more of the primes, but basically none of the candidates in the lineup has a notable problem to hold back the quality of images.
Click to expand...

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Field Tests: The AF-S Nikkor 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR

Field Tests by Brad Hill - Wildlife Photographer. Field test of the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. Nikon Cameras, Nikon Lenses, Nikon Accessories.
naturalart.ca naturalart.ca

Update... re-reading your post, I realize you actually meant comparisons for the 180-600 etc. I agree, hoping he adds these lenses to his review; he does mention them in his preview, including the 120-300, but interestingly not the 180-400.
 
Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
...his finding are so similar to Steve's. In that, the 180-600 is at its sharpest around 500mm. Personally I have found myself not exceeding about 520mm...
Click to expand...
I used the Sony 200-600 for a while (but sold it due to weight). It was the sharpest lens I have owned and was tack sharp all the way out to 600mm. I have not used the Nikon 180-600, but based on things I am reading online, the Sony is sharper than the Nikon. (I was using it on an A74 if that makes a difference).
 
Member's gallery
For those of us who use Arca Swiss tripod attachments, the Tamron has another advantage in that the tripod foot is already compatible and you don't have to buy a replacement. People on photo forums routinely criticize the major camera manufacturers for not making their feet Arca Swiss (even though Tamron and Sigma do), yet our criticism seems to fall on deaf ears.
 
Member's gallery
There is a wealth of detail in these sections, and he's linked the summaries to earlier reviews... (For what it's worth, my 180-400 TC is not going anywhere, notwithstanding the excellence of the 400 f4.5S and 100-400 S 🙂 )

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Stuff I Use Part II: Lenses

Camera gear and related accessories regularly used by Brad Hill in the field. Part II - Lenses I currently use or have used.
naturalart.ca naturalart.ca

e.g. http://naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/fieldtest_Nikkor_180-400.html
fcotterill said:
Thanks Bruce, Brad Hill's sustained commitment to his testing is impressive. True to form. Exhaustive
He has a formidable list, which is still missing a couple (including the 70-200 f2.8E, 70-300 AFP, 180-400 TC14).
Hopefully he expands the comparisons to include the 120-300 f2.8E and more of the primes, but basically none of the candidates in the lineup has a notable problem to hold back the quality of images.
Click to expand...

MMoretti said:

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Field Tests: The AF-S Nikkor 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR

Field Tests by Brad Hill - Wildlife Photographer. Field test of the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. Nikon Cameras, Nikon Lenses, Nikon Accessories.
naturalart.ca naturalart.ca

Update... re-reading your post, I realize you actually meant comparisons for the 180-600 etc. I agree, hoping he adds these lenses to his review; he does mention them in his preview, including the 120-300, but interestingly not the 180-400.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
To me the most interesting part was the poor performance of the 100-400 that I have, :mad:, along with the 180-600 which, but for the weight, would seem to be the go too.

Speaking of the 180-600 he says:

How sharp is this lens? Well...here's a good frame of reference that many users and potential buyers will be able to relate to: There's almost no difference between the central region sharpness of the Z 100-400mm and the Z 180-600mm up to about 250mm. But at longer focal lengths the 180-600mm definitely pulls away from the 100-400 in sharpness (especially on the edges), and by the time you get to 400mm the Z 180-600mm is significantly (and noticeably) sharper than the Z 100-400 (with the extreme edges dramatically sharper on the 180-600).
Click to expand...

I don't recall this great of difference from Steve's video but have not gone back to it.
 
Member's gallery
Pat Cassity said:
In reviewing the 180-600, Brad states "And here I am referring to how it performs with the Z TC-1.4X when shot at its maximum focal length (of 600mm). Simply put, of the 6 current "real" Z pathways to the 800mm(ish) focal length, the Z 180-600mm plus Z TC-1.4X is clearly the weakest. Note that when I say "real pathways to the 800mm(ish) focal length" I am excluding one possible option - the Z 100-400mm plus Z TC-2x"...

This makes sense since his finding are so similar to Steve's. In that, the 180-600 is at its sharpest around 500mm. Personally I have found myself not exceeding about 520mm but I haven't tried the 1.4x on it in the 500ish ranges, mainly due to the light and aperture restrictions. I'd be interested to see tests in this category and well as other's images using the 1.4x on the 180-600 when shot at those focal lengths around 500mm (700mm).
Click to expand...
I think both Brad and Steve are reinforcing a general truth about teleconverters. Unless they are integrated into the actual lens design, like the 180-400, 400 f2.8S, 600 f4S, they are short term "emergency" tools for when one has little choice. However, the plan to buy a lens with the idea that you will always attach a converter will, in the long run, be a formula for disappoint.
Case in point... prior to acquiring the 180-600, I was using the 400 f4.5S, 800PF, and the 1.4x converter. I never affixed the 1.4x to the 800PF, but would occasionally use the converter with the 400 f4.5. The performance of the converter with the 400 f4.5 was good enough if I was not cropping a lot. Once I hit DX crop territory, I began to see the shortcomings and thus resisted its use.
Ultimately, when a friend decided to sell his new (only used twice) 180-600 for $1600, I jumped on it. I made the decision because I did not want to rely on converters. So, if I found the 400 f4.5S w/ 1.4x "adequate" at best, I knew that I would not even contemplate using it with the 180-600.
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.
As with others, I am looking forward to seeing how all three of these lenses stack up against those with over-lappping focal lengths.
cheers,
bruce
 
Member's gallery
BarkingBeansCoffee said:
To me the most interesting part was the poor performance of the 100-400 that I have, :mad:, along with the 180-600 which, but for the weight, would seem to be the go too.

Speaking of the 180-600 he says:



I don't recall this great of difference from Steve's video but have not gone back to it.
Click to expand...
Copy variation matters, and it's possible Brad got a softer copy than Steve got, and maybe his copy of the 180-600 is worse than mine too (I find mine good at 600, even with a tc)
 
Member's gallery
BarkingBeansCoffee said:
To me the most interesting part was the poor performance of the 100-400 that I have, :mad:, along with the 180-600 which, but for the weight, would seem to be the go too.

Speaking of the 180-600 he says:



I don't recall this great of difference from Steve's video but have not gone back to it.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what I said as well, although I wouldn't call the performance with the 100-400 "poor". Still, from about 300mm on, you're better off with the 180-600.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
"Poor performance" ? You know it's funny how great the 100-400 was just awhile ago before Steve said the 180-600 was slightly better. The only thing I would say definitively is the 100-400 is way better at 100mm - 180mm and as for the rest of the range I doubt that I'd see any difference. Honestly, I don't care that someone says another lens is better. I've always been happy with the results of the 100-400 and that's what's important to me. Never have I thought it was lacking somehow.
 
Member's gallery
MikeS said:
"Poor performance" ? You know it's funny how great the 100-400 was just awhile ago before Steve said the 180-600 was slightly better. The only thing I would say definitively is the 100-400 is way better at 100mm - 180mm and as for the rest of the range I doubt that I'd see any difference. Honestly, I don't care that someone says another lens is better. I've always been happy with the results of the 100-400 and that's what's important to me. Never have I thought it was lacking somehow.
Click to expand...
I agree on the "poor performance"part and kind of missed that in my response above. I agree that while the 180-600 is better, the 100-400 is still just fine at the longer focal lengths.
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
I think both Brad and Steve are reinforcing a general truth about teleconverters. Unless they are integrated into the actual lens design, like the 180-400, 400 f2.8S, 600 f4S, they are short term "emergency" tools for when one has little choice. However, the plan to buy a lens with the idea that you will always attach a converter will, in the long run, be a formula for disappoint.
Case in point... prior to acquiring the 180-600, I was using the 400 f4.5S, 800PF, and the 1.4x converter. I never affixed the 1.4x to the 800PF, but would occasionally use the converter with the 400 f4.5. The performance of the converter with the 400 f4.5 was good enough if I was not cropping a lot. Once I hit DX crop territory, I began to see the shortcomings and thus resisted its use.
Ultimately, when a friend decided to sell his new (only used twice) 180-600 for $1600, I jumped on it. I made the decision because I did not want to rely on converters. So, if I found the 400 f4.5S w/ 1.4x "adequate" at best, I knew that I would not even contemplate using it with the 180-600.
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.
As with others, I am looking forward to seeing how all three of these lenses stack up against those with over-lappping focal lengths.
cheers,
bruce
Click to expand...
Yah Bruce,
I agree about the firm boundaries to image quality of the 400 f4.5S with the ZTC14 - IQ drops with cropping.
However, I've found the TC14s work well on all the fast exotics I've owned and field tested, but only when one respect subject distances and minimizes cropping. (And atmospherics too of course). These are 200 f2G VRII, 300 f2.8G VRII, 400 f2.8E FL and 800 f5.6E FL. The quality with TC2 III of the latter 2 primes is very good, and there is no discernable impact of the TC14 III at all unless one pixel peeps.

These results have used, in respective tenures, D5, D6, D850, D780, D500, Z7 and recently Z9. The MILC AF obviously removes the AFFT factor - and the ZTC14 is the best TC yet in that category IME
I also agree fully with everyone above that "poor performer" confers a very different meaning in 2023 with these S Line Nikkors compared to a few years ago, let alone 2 decades ago.
Today, the standard of image quality with almost all Z lenses is impressive - even the non-S Z 24-200 travel zoom. Each has a few weak factors but hell.... we are living in remarkable times.

[Edited] Besides constraints on what's practical with a TC, the common high standard we enjoy for IQ of these Z Nikkors allows us to select our lenses on other important factors - including focal range, speed and ergonomics.

Categorizing The Z Nikkors | Thom Hogan

Categorizing the Nikkor Z lenses
www.zsystemuser.com
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I wasn't long ago that Brad hill raved about the 100-400

Based on my early findings the Nikkor 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR S is simply an exceptional lens. Based on how ALL my other Z series lenses have performed I expected the 100-400mm to be sharp. But it's even sharper than I expected. Based on my past history with variable aperture zooms I expected to see moderately large differences in the quality of the out-of-focus zones, with the very high end lenses I was comparing the 100-400mm against to exhibit noticeably better bokeh. This simply wasn't the case...the bokeh of the 100-400 is the best I have ever seen on a variable aperture zoom (and completely on par with all the lenses I compared it against). For me, this is the biggest surprise that the 100-400 has delivered. I'm still shocked that the 100-400 is offering the same critical sharpness-bokeh ratio (and overall image quality) as a trio of lenses that collectively cost many, many times the price of the 100-400.
Click to expand...

Everything is relative. The 180-600 did not make the 100-400 a bad lens. And the 180-600 is ergonomically handicapped compared to the 100-400. 'll keep my 100-400 'warts and all" along with the 600PF.
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
Yah Bruce,
I agree about the firm boundaries to image quality of the 400 f4.5S with the ZTC14 - IQ drops with cropping.
However, I've found the TC14s work well on all the fast exotics I've owned and field tested, but only when one respect subject distances and minimizes cropping. (And atmospherics too of course). These are 200 f2G VRII, 300 f2.8G VRII, 400 f2.8E FL and 800 f5.6E FL. The quality with TC2 III of the latter 2 primes is very good, and there is no discernable impact of the TC14 III at all unless one pixel peeps.

These results are using, in respective tenures, D5, D6, D850, D780, D500, Z7 and recently Z9. The MILC AF obviously removes the AFFT factor - and the ZTC14 is the best yet in that category IME
I also agree fully with everyone above that "poor performer" confers a very different meaning in 2023 with these S Line Nikkors compared to 2 decades ago, even more recently. Today's standard of image quality with almost all these lenses is impressive - even the non-S Z 24-200 travel zoom. Each has a few weak factors but hell.... we are living in remarkable times.

Perhaps TC performance is the stronger differentiator, which we see in primes vs zooms. Here the S Line exotics are more tolerant of a TC but only subject to keeping within distinct boundaries (cropping, distance).
This levelling of the IQ field brings more important factors to the fore in selecting lenses - including focal range, speed and ergonomics.

Categorizing The Z Nikkors | Thom Hogan

Categorizing the Nikkor Z lenses
www.zsystemuser.com
Click to expand...
This is the 400 4.5 with 2.0 TC and 50% crop. I hardly see any IQ loss.

2023_10_19_Test-0811-Enhanced-NR-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
jerrylwatson said:
This is the 400 4.5 with 2.0 TC and 50% crop. I hardly see any IQ loss.

View attachment 74442
Click to expand...
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
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
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
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by distance. I was 800mm and then cropped. I also use a Kaze polarizer (CPL) filter over snow and water which helps. There are times when the subject is just too far away. All and all I do not see getting rid of the 400 or TCs. I will not be shooting test charts. The lens performs more than adequate for my needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top