Considering purchase - Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 lens

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).

Karl Gillard

Karl Gillard

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Good afternoon all! I’m considering purchase of the Nikon 180-600mm lens (when available) for use with my Z9 camera. Anyone that has one, I’d appreciate any comments as to whether you like it or not, sharpness,quality, etc. I’m located in SW Louisiana and know of no one that has one to look at, so your honest opinions matter. Thanks much! Karl
 
Member's gallery
Karl Gillard said:
Good afternoon all! I’m considering purchase of the Nikon 180-600mm lens (when available) for use with my Z9 camera. Anyone that has one, I’d appreciate any comments as to whether you like it or not, sharpness,quality, etc. I’m located in SW Louisiana and know of no one that has one to look at, so your honest opinions matter. Thanks much! Karl
Click to expand...
It’s a step up from the 200-500 in terms of AF speed, weight, focal length range, and Z body connectivity, although my copy was not appreciably sharper in the center. It did get sharper when stopping down to f/8. I found IQ noticeably lower than that of my 500 PF, 500E and 800 PF. For me, the tradeoff of greater flexibility of the 180-600 zoom vs the better IQ and AF speed of my primes was not enough for me to keep it. However, my copy may have had some issues as some others seemed to have had better luck.
 
Member's gallery
ARClark said:
It’s a step up from the 200-500 in terms of AF speed, weight, focal length range, and Z body connectivity, although my copy was not appreciably sharper in the center. It did get sharper when stopping down to f/8. I found IQ noticeably lower than that of my 500 PF, 500E and 800 PF. For me, the tradeoff of greater flexibility of the 180-600 zoom vs the better IQ and AF speed of my primes was not enough for me to keep it. However, my copy may have had some issues as some others seemed to have had better luck.
Click to expand...
I have several F-lenses that I’m using with the FTZ II: 14-30 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 105micro f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 300PF, 500PF, and 800 f/5.6, but looking for another zoom for general “walk around” use when I don’t feel like lugging the 800 and tripod. The only Z lenses I have are a 50 and 24-200. I appreciate the info!
 
Member's gallery
Karl Gillard said:
Good afternoon all! I’m considering purchase of the Nikon 180-600mm lens (when available) for use with my Z9 camera. Anyone that has one, I’d appreciate any comments as to whether you like it or not, sharpness,quality, etc. I’m located in SW Louisiana and know of no one that has one to look at, so your honest opinions matter. Thanks much! Karl
Click to expand...
I have this lens and I use it with my Z8 & Z9. As said in a prior post, it’s definitely a step up from the 200-500 in terms of weight and autofocus speed. In my experience it’s sharpest from 400mm to 500mm. However, Nikon’s primes will always produce sharper images.

I can comfortably shoot handheld for a couple of hours but if I’m going to be out longer I use a monopod with a wimberley mh-100 gimbal head. I’ve attached an arca swiss compatible plate to the lens foot. For security I attach a strap to the attachment lugs on the lens collar and I have the strap around my neck. I’ve not had the lens foot loosen from the gimbal head, though.

In most cases I find image quality to be good but not great, but others disagree and rate their IQ higher. On overcast days autofocus will struggle a bit but a nudge of the focus ring will usually get it locked in.

Regardless, for the price it’s a great value. I’m keeping my copy.
 
Member's gallery
Karl Gillard said:
I have several F-lenses that I’m using with the FTZ II: 14-30 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 105micro f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 300PF, 500PF, and 800 f/5.6, but looking for another zoom for general “walk around” use when I don’t feel like lugging the 800 and tripod. The only Z lenses I have are a 50 and 24-200. I appreciate the info!
Click to expand...
If you can live with a shorter focal length I think the 100-400 lens is outstanding. It’s light, well balanced, and produces beautiful image quality. It pairs well with the 1.4 TC but the f/8 maximum aperture limits its usefulness to sunny conditions.
 
Member's gallery
Charles Loy said:
I got very lucky, I assume, as mine is sharp 180 all the way to 600. Serious step-up in all good from my 200-500 lens. Get it!, asap
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it wasn’t sharp throughout the range of focal lengths, just that it appears sharpest to me between 400mm and 500mm. These kind of evaluations are always subjective, of course. 😊
 
Member's gallery
JAJohnson said:
If you can live with a shorter focal length I think the 100-400 lens is outstanding. It’s light, well balanced, and produces beautiful image quality. It pairs well with the 1.4 TC but the f/8 maximum aperture limits its usefulness to sunny conditions.
Click to expand...
Kinda sums up where I think the 100-400 slots into the lineup, and also why I ended up parting with mine once I obtained the 180-600.

In my opinion, I feel that the 100-400 should be intended for use without the 1.4 TC, and if one finds themselves constantly needing the TC, they should go for the 186, especially if this will be their only long lens. F/8 at 560mm, coupled with the fact the lens is at its weakest at the tele-end, so it’s not ideal. I was always shooting it with the 1.4, so the move to the 186 was a no-brainer.

The 186, at least my copy, is excellent. I have no qualms about shooting it even though I have “better” performing primes.. better is emphasized because while the primes score higher on bench tests and brick wall contests, I’ve yet to see where the differences amount to anything shooting in the real world.
 
Member's gallery
It's a fantastic lens and I say just get it. People get hung up on the fact that it is not S line, but in my opinion that has nothing to do with lack of sharpness. Maybe it is because it has a variable aperture (but then again so does 100-400) or maybe it is not as robustly sealed as S line? Who knows, all I know is that it is amazingly sharp in spite of what so many people here say. (I have a feeling some of them are just assuming it is not sharp becuase of the low price and non-S designation).

I just got back from Spain and it was ideal for the wildlife portion of the trip. I know you cannot tell everything from photos posted on a forum, but here is an out of camera JPEG with the original and then a crop at actual pixels. Sure looks sharp to me.

DSC_7637.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

DSC_7637 pixel.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
JAJohnson said:
I have this lens and I use it with my Z8 & Z9. As said in a prior post, it’s definitely a step up from the 200-500 in terms of weight and autofocus speed. In my experience it’s sharpest from 400mm to 500mm. However, Nikon’s primes will always produce sharper images.

I can comfortably shoot handheld for a couple of hours but if I’m going to be out longer I use a monopod with a wimberley mh-100 gimbal head. I’ve attached an arca swiss compatible plate to the lens foot. For security I attach a strap to the attachment lugs on the lens collar and I have the strap around my neck. I’ve not had the lens foot loosen from the gimbal head, though.

In most cases I find image quality to be good but not great, but others disagree and rate their IQ higher. On overcast days autofocus will struggle a bit but a nudge of the focus ring will usually get it locked in.

Regardless, for the price it’s a great value. I’m keeping my copy.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the info, JA! I’ve got primes that are tack sharp; it’s the versatility I’m looking for more than anything to use without the FTZ. I’m sure it’ll be more than adequate for my needs. When we go on a short vacation or cruise, I can load the Z9, 24-200, and 180-600 in a small backpack and have just about everything I need.
 
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
Great lens, not much else to say about it from my time shooting with it. No issues to speak of, sharp, internal zoom.

The only negative is lack of arca swiss foot, but I put a kirk plate on it and solved the problem. Very small negative.
Click to expand...
Yes, typical of Nikon. I’ve had to replace all the feet on my larger zooms, so this’ll fit right in. Thanks Cameron!
 
Member's gallery
John_DE said:
I own both the 180-600 and the 100-400. To me, the 180-600 is just as sharp as the 100-400. Both have their place.

I find the 180-600 to be an excellent lens for the price.
Click to expand...
Yes, John, that was what caught my eye too. I’ve already got thousands $$$$ tied up in F-lenses, so brand new for $1600 is a deal…haha!
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
It's a fantastic lens and I say just get it. People get hung up on the fact that it is not S line, but in my opinion that has nothing to do with lack of sharpness. Maybe it is because it has a variable aperture (but then again so does 100-400) or maybe it is not as robustly sealed as S line? Who knows, all I know is that it is amazingly sharp in spite of what so many people here say. (I have a feeling some of them are just assuming it is not sharp becuase of the low price and non-S designation).

I just got back from Spain and it was ideal for the wildlife portion of the trip. I know you cannot tell everything from photos posted on a forum, but here is an out of camera JPEG with the original and then a crop at actual pixels. Sure looks sharp to me.

View attachment 83728
View attachment 83729
Click to expand...
Hey Foto
MrFotoFool said:
It's a fantastic lens and I say just get it. People get hung up on the fact that it is not S line, but in my opinion that has nothing to do with lack of sharpness. Maybe it is because it has a variable aperture (but then again so does 100-400) or maybe it is not as robustly sealed as S line? Who knows, all I know is that it is amazingly sharp in spite of what so many people here say. (I have a feeling some of them are just assuming it is not sharp becuase of the low price and non-S designation).

I just got back from Spain and it was ideal for the wildlife portion of the trip. I know you cannot tell everything from photos posted on a forum, but here is an out of camera JPEG with the original and then a crop at actual pixels. Sure looks sharp to me.

View attachment 83728
View attachment 83729
Click to expand...
Hey FotoFool, my old 200-500 was a tack driver and regretted getting rid of it. I love the versatility of a zoom. Good shot by the way! Thanks!
 
Member's gallery
It looks like you've made your decision, and I think you are choosing wisely. I hope the following lays support to your decision about purchasing the 180-600... I have and use the 400 f2.8TC. The prime is my go to lens whenever I have the opportunity to use a tripod or shoot from a blind. I use the 400 f2.8 whenever I can. My "second" wildlife lens is my 180-600. I use the 180-600 whenever I am planning to hike or shoot from a kayak, canoe, or other less stable watercraft. I have have absolutely no hesitation about using the 180-600 and have never taken a shot with it that made me say... "if only this lens was sharper."

regards,
bruce
 
Member's gallery
I am very happy with mine. I also have the 100-400mm which is a good lens but I really don’t like it with a tc. In my experience, the 180-600 handles a tc better than the 100-400 comparing real world images between them. I wouldn’t hesitate to take the 180-600mm as my primary lens on a shoot. Steve has a video out where he compares the sharpness to other lenses that is worth checking out. He seemed happy with the IQ,
 
Member's gallery
I will join in with those who say to get it. I will also say I do not think it is just good for the price. It is the price that allowed me to get it. I am 77, retired, and living on a fixed income. I have to admit that my fixed income is not bad, but it will not allow me to spend 10k on a lens and then still afford to travel anywhere to use it. I will also own up to the fact that at 77 my eyes are not seeing ANY difference in sharpness from pictures taken in the field.
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
It looks like you've made your decision, and I think you are choosing wisely. I hope the following lays support to your decision about purchasing the 180-600... I have and use the 400 f2.8TC. The prime is my go to lens whenever I have the opportunity to use a tripod or shoot from a blind. I use the 400 f2.8 whenever I can. My "second" wildlife lens is my 180-600. I use the 180-600 whenever I am planning to hike or shoot from a kayak, canoe, or other less stable watercraft. I have have absolutely no hesitation about using the 180-600 and have never taken a shot with it that made me say... "if only this lens was sharper."

regards,
bruce
Click to expand...
Thanks much Bruce! As a matter of fact, it’ll see quite a bit of use in my Native kayaks!
 
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
I am very happy with mine. I also have the 100-400mm which is a good lens but I really don’t like it with a tc. In my experience, the 180-600 handles a tc better than the 100-400 comparing real world images between them. I wouldn’t hesitate to take the 180-600mm as my primary lens on a shoot. Steve has a video out where he compares the sharpness to other lenses that is worth checking out. He seemed happy with the IQ,
Click to expand...
Thanks Brian! I really couldn’t justify the range of the 100-400 considering all the other lenses I have in that range.
 
Member's gallery
Wink Jones said:
I will join in with those who say to get it. I will also say I do not think it is just good for the price. It is the price that allowed me to get it. I am 77, retired, and living on a fixed income. I have to admit that my fixed income is not bad, but it will not allow me to spend 10k on a lens and then still afford to travel anywhere to use it. I will also own up to the fact that at 77 my eyes are not seeing ANY difference in sharpness from pictures taken in the field.
Click to expand...
Thanks Wink! I’m 70 and also retired (twice), so I know what you mean about “fixed income”. Even though I sell a print every now and then, it’s just for fun….my passion! The days of not thinking for a moment about spending several thousand dollars on “fun” have finally past. And sharpness….well, let’s just say it depends on the pdescription of the glasses…🤣😂!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top