My "journey" with the Nikon 180-600, featuring the 500pf

[SCoombs]

For several years I shot with the Nikkor 200-500 on a D500, a Z7ii, and eventually a Z8. The lens was not perfect, but I generally got good results and have had more than one person tell me that my copy was exceptionally sharp for the model. For what it's worth, Reikan FoCal rated it as high as a 94 or a 97 (I forget which).

Moving to the 180-600, which I received this past February, I was initially quite disappointed by comparison. Generally, my results were markedly soft. I posted about this a few times here and elsewhere. After a lot of experimenting, I began to get better results and my opinions of the lens improved somewhat. I discovered a few things whether about the lens model in general I can't say but certainly about my personal copy:

1. Performance wide open is usually very soft, but stopping down to f7.1 makes a huge difference and going all the way to f9 yields generally sharp results most of the time.
2. Unlike my 200-500, high shutter speeds and VR don't mix on at least my 180-600. Turning it off once you get to ~1000 or higher seems to make a noticeable difference in image quality.
3. Sharpening in post has made a big difference. I never had to do this on my 200-500, but on my 180-600 I definitely have.

Still, my opinion improved only "somewhat" because having to shoot at f9 to get the best out of the lens is quite a compromise, so in late March I decided to buy a used Nikon 500pf lens and see what that experience was like. One might initially assume that there would be no contest between a vaunted prime and a consumer grade super-zoom, but the experience hasn't been that straightforward.

My initial reactions to the 500pf were as follows:

1. Initial reaction was that the 500pf was much sharper. No surprise there, but it didn't wind up being quite that simple. More below.
2. The general user experience on the 180-600 continues to strike me as better. Maybe it's just because of the added weight or maybe it's the greater radius of the lens barrel, or maybe it's the more modern design aesthetic of the Z-series lens, but the 180-600 feels more robust in my hands and makes me feel more at ease when using it. Now it definitely isn't actually more robust, but as far as the feel goes, I prefer it.
3. Related to #2, the autofocus "feels" smoother on the 180-600. It's clear that the 500pf has faster AF, but when I put my eye to the camera and press the AF-on button and the camera starts tracking some animal's eye the little green box just seems to almost "glide" around the viewfinder while the 500pf feels, though not bad, definitely not as smooth. It isn't by any means jerky or jumpy, but it's almost as if the refresh rate for the AF box is greater with the 180-600 than with the 500pf so that I am seeing greater fps when the system is redrawing that AF box.
4. I have not shot with a more premium long telephoto before but I have read many people talk about a lens like the 500pf or the even more expensive exotic primes providing a "3D pop" that is hard to articulate but makes images stand up from lower tiered lenses. I did notice something of this "pop" in my first days of shooting it.

When I finally got the chance, I started taking both the 180-600 and the 500pf out to test them on, as far as possible, the same subjects in the same conditions. I'd go into my back yard with both lenses and shoot one for a bit before swapping to the other. I'd go to a local park/pond with both and try to swap back and forth more often, even to try to photograph the same subject in the very same position with both lenses back to back. I went to the local zoo and shot one before immediately swapping to the other to make as close a comparison as possible. It was in all of this that I started to get results which left me - and to a certain degree continue to leave me - a bit unsure of things.

After my first few times out I began to realize with a bit of "disappointment" that almost all of the photos I had which I actually wanted to keep had been with the 180-600 rather than the prime which I was expecting to easily win out. Now in these cases the fact is that so much of it was just a matter of which lens I happened to have attached when an animal did a memorable thing or gave a good pose. Still, it was hard not to take note of the fact that I was building up a small collection of 180-600 shots I really liked and had little to show with the 500pf.

As I tried to do more direct comparisons in order to avoid this element of luck, I was struck even more significantly by the unexpected fact that much of the time I just can't tell the difference between these lenses, at least if I give the 180-600 the unfair advantage of shooting stopped down vs. the 500pf shooting wide open. That is, of course, a pretty big difference. Still, to the viewer who knows nothing of how the photo came to be, the results would not really be dissimilar.

For instance, here are two shots taken minutes apart of the very same bird in the very same place at about the very same distance:

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

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

If anything, I might even say the 180-600 version is slightly sharper here, though it's hard to really say and I suspect there was even a little bit of distortion at play here and evaporation going on to compound matters. The lighting is also slightly more flattering for the 180-600 image, which could throw perception of slightly. It's also worth noting that these are crops down to about 40% from a DX frame.

A similar comparison I was able to do in the morning hours: (I got a lot of robins when I was trying to do this):

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

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

In this case, the 500pf version looks better to me, but again it sure is close - and it has an advantage: the 500pf shot is 75% of a DX frame, the 180-600 version is only 50% of a DX frame.

I also shot some test charts during this time. They didn't look nearly as close as the shots in the field. 500Pf is on the right:

Let's be clear that this is not the perfect test, at least not as I've presented it. The lighting, for instance, is clearly different between the two, but the reality is that I did these tests several times and while I kept things consistent during each test, I did not organize them very well for future reference and so for this example I found a quick example of each. What's important is that the difference here is generally representative of the difference I saw with each test. Sometimes the two were a little closer and sometimes maybe a little further apart, but generally it was within this range. Also take note that here the 500pf is at 5.6 whereas the 180-600 is stopped down to 7.1.

I also came across a few cases out in "regular use" (at the zoo, anyways) where the difference was more clearly noticeable:

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

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

I find the 500pf photo much sharper here. Note that these were taken moments apart with the bird standing in almost the same spot. Also note that the 180-600 version has been enhanced by LR, whereas the 500pf version has received no additional sharpening or enhancement. Why the need to denoise? It was shot at f9 instead of f5.6. In other words, apart from the obvious visual difference in sharpness between the two photos, there are also a number of other ways in which 180-600 shot had to be taken with some compromises to even get what I got. Also note that these, like all the photos I'm posting here, are some of the better examples from sequences of shots and that they're generally representative of the other shots in the sequence.

This increasingly seems like a more clear cut choice! Yet it's not so simple, because as I shot more I found that I was happier with many of the shots from the 180-600. (Continuing as a reply to this post for the sake of a few more photo examples).

 

[SCoombs]

For example, recently the park was full of nesting geese and goslings fresh out of the eggs. I got quite a few shots I was happy with from the 180-600 while I thought some of the 500pf shots were just not quite right. Here is a 180-600 shot and one of the 500pf shots that was actually to my liking. Again, the 500pf is shot here wide open, the 180-600 is at f9, so there's a definite handicap at work here. The 180-600 shot has also been sharpened in post (just in Lightroom, nothing fancy).

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

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

Going through all my images from this day, I started to notice something: in many cases I found the 500pf shots to look front focused, getting the beak moreso than the eyes. (They were all shot with bird eye detect). I did a bunch of testing with some stuffed animals at home and started to suspect I needed to dial in some kind of positive fine tuning. I had also previously started to get this impression when shooting the cat around the house with the lens, but I abandoned the idea after deciding it wasn't consistent enough a pattern and had been shooting with no AF fine tune. Here the pattern seemed pretty strong, though. I noticed it especially with the eagles at the zoo:

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

The beak looks quite nicely sharp; the eyes just out of focus. I'm not sure if I've chosen the best example photo here but suffice it to say I had dozens following this trend. Thus, I decided to dial in a +2 and go back to try again. While I can't say it was perfectly consistent, I feel like there was a definite trend of improvement:

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

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

The thing that's odd about this is that when I got the lens I ran it through FoCal three or four times and each time got the same result: a recommended fine tuning of -1. In other words, it said the lens was slightly backfocusing, whereas I am thinking that I am getting better results by treating it as though it was front-focusing. The reality is that it's very hard to judge. I went to the zoo that second day and took hundreds of photos of the eagles, geese, more goslings, a pair of robins that made for very cooperative models, and some other things, all with the AF tune on and then with it off... hundreds of each subject each way. I then imported every single photo and looked at each one. Was there a pattern? Overall... sortof. There were plenty of examples with the AF fine tune on and with the AF finetune off where things looked right, whereas I didn't see very many at all where it was looked to miss focus with it on. In other words, the hit rate was slighly higher with the +2 dialed in but perhaps not higher enough I'd have noticed if I wasn't specifically looking for this.

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

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

Yet just as how I have found "intangibly" the 180-600 to have given me more keepers in my various testing, I found I liked the photos - especially of the eagle and goslings - far better on this day with the tuning on then on the prior day with it off. Yet are there other explanations? I felt like I was getting a bit of thermal distortion on the first day, for instance... just a tiny, tiny bit, but was that perhaps affecting the focus? If so, it didn't really affect the 180-600 in the same way, and this is a key to where I am after all of this:

The 500pf, when it hits its peak, is producing much better images than the 180-600. Meanwhile, my 180-600 is not nearly as disappointing as I first thought, but with the important caveat that it needs to be stopped down considerably to get the best results. On the other hand, even after messing the the fine tuning I am finding the 500pf to be a little more inconsistent in terms of landing that tack-sharp focus. Even when I had much better success the second day, it was still prone to miss more than I'd expect. On the other hand, the 180-600 seems - seems, and I will be doing more testing soon to try to verify - to land its focus where it should be a bit more regularly, but when it does this the image quality is of course not reaching what the 500pf can accomplish.

So this is my experience putting these two lenses up against one another. I will only be keeping one and will have to decide soon.

 

[fcotterill]

Interesting and thorough report. Commendable tenacity to find answers! Thank you.

Don't have the 180-600, although a friend reported that his copy on the Z8 had sidelined his 500 PF for bird photography. Nevertheless, the lab comparisons tell us the 500 PF is significantly better, according to MTF data

Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S Review - Page 3 of 5

This hands-on review covers everything you need to know about the Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8, including extensive field and lab tests.

photographylife.com

I use my 500 PF routinely on the Z9, and with high quality results. The MILC Autofocus has the bonus to go to 700 f8 is useful, and an advantage versus the otherwise excellent 400 f4.5S. Optimum sharpness wide open - AIS - is a big positive of the 500 PF. No fine-tuning is needed with either of my 500 PF combinations, but perhaps copy variation might explain your experience.

.... pertinently, your experience concurs with a note by Thom Hogan, that the 500 PF is the rare exception, as it can require fine-tuning on Z cameras. "A word of warning: I've seen this lens need AF Fine-tuning on the Z cameras, though my lens/cameras seem close to perfect, so we did not adjust AF Fine-tuning options."

Best Telephoto Options in the Z Mount | Thom Hogan

What's the best telephoto option for a Z camera at 200-800mm?

www.zsystemuser.com

 

[Patty]

So, you are shooting in DX not FX and you are cropping in quite a bit? That right there can cost you resolution. I've been shooting with the 180-600 for a couple of weeks now and I have no complaints. I got some sharp images even with high ISO (higher than I typically like to shoot). I don't like to shoot in DX if I can help it because I know I lose a lot of resolution. I went on a field trip a couple of years ago with my 70-200mm (a nice sharp lens) and my D810. I used the DX mode to get a shot of a heron. I still had to crop a bit. The image degraded. That lens is a fast lens too. So, I didn't have to worry about noise. I understand that using DX is helpful to getting a shot of something that's happening and one needs to get the shot but I much prefer to shoot in FX unless the subject fills the frame for DX.

 

[aringer]

Interesting review, thanks. I have the Z8 and I use it extensively with my 500 FL f4, but the size and weight is getting annoying for travel and hiking, especially when I add the adapter and 1.4TC. I'm contemplating getting the Z line 600 6.3 but afraid of loosing that IQ I'm used to with the f4. And unfortunately, the trade-in value is so low right now, that getting the 600 f4 is out of the question for me.

 

[AlainCh2]

For several years I shot with the Nikkor 200-500 on a D500, a Z7ii, and eventually a Z8. The lens was not perfect, but I generally got good results and have had more than one person tell me that my copy was exceptionally sharp for the model. For what it's worth, Reikan FoCal rated it as high as a 94 or a 97 (I forget which).

Moving to the 180-600, which I received this past February, I was initially quite disappointed by comparison. Generally, my results were markedly soft. I posted about this a few times here and elsewhere. After a lot of experimenting, I began to get better results and my opinions of the lens improved somewhat. I discovered a few things whether about the lens model in general I can't say but certainly about my personal copy:
....


So this is my experience putting these two lenses up against one another. I will only be keeping one and will have to decide soon.

Thanks for the interesting review!





About variances between copies:
I have a 180-600Z from September '23. I use it with 1.4TC on the Z30 & Zf in [Dx Mode] when I need reach.

Curiously, there are days that my copy gives better images and is sharper at 600mm
On other days, and that are the majority, pics are just good....
....but so far I have no idea why !

It's pretty sharp at 400. Spectacular at 300mm on par with my 70-300E.

Sometimes it's not satisfying at 600, while on other occasions it's perfectly fine.
Bad days are more than the good ones and that's amplified by the TC and Dx Mode

____

I asked a friend about his copy, and we decided to compare shots switching both 180-600Z on our bodies, and using the same subject.
He has a Z9 so he shot both his and mine, and I did the same on the Zf.
> For my lens it was a bad day.
At home, he checked his shots, and I checked mine.

My copy is sharper under 400mm.
Both give similar results at 500mm
His copy is sharper at 600mm. > you don't need to pixel peep to see that.

I have a great doubt about Atmo lens condition, but no scientific proof
( when it's fresh the results seem better, on hot days worse )

 

[MJR]

The first thing that crossed my mind when reading your post was are you using a tripod when trying to compare the differences. I like the freedom of hand holding and rarely use my 3 tripods and 2 mono-pods. I think that when doing test shots especially charts that you have to eliminate the possible movement that hand holding can induce. I had the 200-500 lens which I really liked but found it a beast to hand hold for any length of time, like waiting for a bird to fly. I then sold the 200-500 and bought the 500 PF which I loved because you can hand hold it all day long without fatigue setting in. I subsequently now own the 600 PF and the 500 PF stays home. I looked at the 180-600 and the price point is very tempting but didn't buy it because of my experience with the 200-500. Just too heavy compared to the PF Lenses. I believe your looking at IQ between the 2 lenses which is a valid consideration, however there are to many variables that can influence the difference, hence my first question are you eliminating camera shake by using a tripod ?

 

[ARClark]

Interesting review, thanks. I have the Z8 and I use it extensively with my 500 FL f4, but the size and weight is getting annoying for travel and hiking, especially when I add the adapter and 1.4TC. I'm contemplating getting the Z line 600 6.3 but afraid of loosing that IQ I'm used to with the f4. And unfortunately, the trade-in value is so low right now, that getting the 600 f4 is out of the question for me.

The 500E FL f/4 is a great lens, but it is relatively heavy by today’s standards. The 500 f/5.6 PF is almost as good but much lighter, smaller, cheaper and offers a shorter MFD for closeups. I don’t have the Z600 f/6.3, but from reviews, its IQ appears to be about on par with the 500 PF, albeit a third of an f-stop slower but longer and with no need for an adapter. It might serve as a nice Z alternative to your 500 FL at a more approachable price than the 600 TC.

BTW, I’ve got the 800PF, and am very happy with it for bird photography. It offers about the same IQ as the 500 FL and a 1.4x TC. The main downside for me is the long focal length and 16’ MFD that can be limiting at times.

 

[macwalter]

I don’t have the 180-600 as it is a bit too big for my taste. However I do have the 500pf and used it extensively on the d850 for several years. The bare lens is the sharpest lens I own and unlike the 400f4.5 it is best wide open. I didn’t care for the 1.4tc on the d850. Upon getting the z8 my feeling were more mixed. It is still very sharp but for me there is some magic lost using the FTZ adapter. The lens feels less solid to me although now the 1.4 tc works better. Compared to my 400 f4.5 with the 1.4tc handholding in the real world I don’t see much loss of sharpness with this combo. Especially if I can stop down on the 400 to say f7.1 at 560mm. I also notice that the AF while fast on the z8 with the 500of seems a bit hard, almost like the camera processor is a bit too strong. I noticed this even more on the 70-200 f2.8 fl and sold it to get the z70-200 which is smooth as glass. Also my sense is the z glass generally does better in the mid frame and corners than the older f glass. I have decided to get the 600z pf and sell the 500pf. For me the z glass feels better in the hand.

 

[SCoombs]

The first thing that crossed my mind when reading your post was are you using a tripod when trying to compare the differences. I like the freedom of hand holding and rarely use my 3 tripods and 2 mono-pods. I think that when doing test shots especially charts that you have to eliminate the possible movement that hand holding can induce. I had the 200-500 lens which I really liked but found it a beast to hand hold for any length of time, like waiting for a bird to fly. I then sold the 200-500 and bought the 500 PF which I loved because you can hand hold it all day long without fatigue setting in. I subsequently now own the 600 PF and the 500 PF stays home. I looked at the 180-600 and the price point is very tempting but didn't buy it because of my experience with the 200-500. Just too heavy compared to the PF Lenses. I believe your looking at IQ between the 2 lenses which is a valid consideration, however there are to many variables that can influence the difference, hence my first question are you eliminating camera shake by using a tripod ?

I have done test chart shots both with a tripod and without. The tripod helps minimize things like camera shake, while the handheld shot is more like what I'd actually be doing with the lens in the day to day. I dn't know if I could give an elaborate description of the differences, but the same lens came out ahead in each.

 

[SCoombs]

I don’t have the 180-600 as it is a bit too big for my taste. However I do have the 500pf and used it extensively on the d850 for several years. The bare lens is the sharpest lens I own and unlike the 400f4.5 it is best wide open. I didn’t care for the 1.4tc on the d850. Upon getting the z8 my feeling were more mixed. It is still very sharp but for me there is some magic lost using the FTZ adapter. The lens feels less solid to me although now the 1.4 tc works better. Compared to my 400 f4.5 with the 1.4tc handholding in the real world I don’t see much loss of sharpness with this combo. Especially if I can stop down on the 400 to say f7.1 at 560mm. I also notice that the AF while fast on the z8 with the 500of seems a bit hard, almost like the camera processor is a bit too strong. I noticed this even more on the 70-200 f2.8 fl and sold it to get the z70-200 which is smooth as glass. Also my sense is the z glass generally does better in the mid frame and corners than the older f glass. I have decided to get the 600z pf and sell the 500pf. For me the z glass feels better in the hand.

I can entirely understand what you're trying to say about the AF. I haven't used it on a DSLR camera, but compared to other lenses I've used on the Z8 the 500pf AF seems "harsh." It is fast, but it's almost like it's so fast that when it misses it misses really hard, like if it goes too far past a subject it just FLIES past it and racks to the other end. I've actually found that if I have a subject that for whatever reason the AF is having trouble quite getting (like something with no contrast to it) that on every other lens I have had the best success with manually adjusting focus close to where it needs to be before engaging the AF to get a good lock, but with the 500pf on the Z8 I have had better success resetting the focus very far from where it needs to be and then engaging the AF. It's like if it's too close the AF just revs up so hard that it goes past where it needs to.

 

[SCoombs]

So, you are shooting in DX not FX and you are cropping in quite a bit? That right there can cost you resolution. I've been shooting with the 180-600 for a couple of weeks now and I have no complaints. I got some sharp images even with high ISO (higher than I typically like to shoot). I don't like to shoot in DX if I can help it because I know I lose a lot of resolution. I went on a field trip a couple of years ago with my 70-200mm (a nice sharp lens) and my D810. I used the DX mode to get a shot of a heron. I still had to crop a bit. The image degraded. That lens is a fast lens too. So, I didn't have to worry about noise. I understand that using DX is helpful to getting a shot of something that's happening and one needs to get the shot but I much prefer to shoot in FX unless the subject fills the frame for DX.

Yes, I realize this is true, and yet at the same time cropping can be a fact of life at times with wildlife. My experience has essentially been that when I do try to crop in, whether from FX or DX, the 180-600 seems to give me less usable images than I got from my 200-500 or from the 500pf.

 

[macwalter]

I can entirely understand what you're trying to say about the AF. I haven't used it on a DSLR camera, but compared to other lenses I've used on the Z8 the 500pf AF seems "harsh." It is fast, but it's almost like it's so fast that when it misses it misses really hard, like if it goes too far past a subject it just FLIES past it and racks to the other end. I've actually found that if I have a subject that for whatever reason the AF is having trouble quite getting (like something with no contrast to it) that on every other lens I have had the best success with manually adjusting focus close to where it needs to be before engaging the AF to get a good lock, but with the 500pf on the Z8 I have had better success resetting the focus very far from where it needs to be and then engaging the AF. It's like if it's too close the AF just revs up so hard that it goes past where it needs to.

That is interesting as I found the AF to be in your words harsh as well. I didn’t have problems with it focusing but I did find that the sharpness compared to the 400 f4.5 with a 1.4tc wide open to be not much better and it should be. On the d850 it was divine. Steve claims I will LOVE the 600pf which I have just ordered. Also I found the condition even worse with the 70-200 f2.8 fl. It really hit hard and I worried over time it would become a problem. I think you do lose something with the FTZ adapter, maybe I’m just fantasizing. In any case I like the feel of the z lenses and having 3, soon to be 4 I am overall more happy.

 

[Chappy]

Good review. I think the z lenses are and upgrade over the previous f mount Nikon lenses.

I had the sigma 150-600 sport and I tried the 200-500 of a couple of friends a couple of different times and it wasn't as sharp as the Sigma. I gave it several tries as i liked the smaller size and lighter weight of the 200-500 and i had seen a lot of folks results that I thought matched my Sigma. I thought it was probably copy variation. Then in 2018 I bought a 300pf. I loved the 300pf and when the 500 pf was announced I preordered it. Fast forward to 2021 and all the lenses worked better on my Z9. I still had the Sigma 150-600 and it was better with the Z9 but a couple of years and some health issues made the Sigma too much for me to handle when hiking or handholding.

In the two year time frame i purchased a 70-200 S, a 100-400S and a 24-70S. With each lens i purchased I felt the Z mount lenses were better than my old G mount lenses. The 70-200 f2.8 g and 24-70 f2.8 were showing their age and decided to sell them as i thought they would lose value quickly and they did. When the 600pf was announced i preordered as soon as I could. After getting the lens I was able to sell the 500pf very quickly. After 4 years and a ton of usage and a couple of trips to Nikon for some minor repairs I sold the lens for $2,000. Now I have the 600pf and am very happy with it. It is smoother than the 500pf with af and I think faster at intial acquisition. Paired with the z9 or z8 it is an incredible combo for me. Most of my shots with the old Sigma were at 600mm and my experience with the 500pf just made me think the 180-600 was not for me. It is sharper and faster than my 100-400 but it is no slouch.

 

[Jadiehl]

For several years I shot with the Nikkor 200-500 on a D500, a Z7ii, and eventually a Z8. The lens was not perfect, but I generally got good results and have had more than one person tell me that my copy was exceptionally sharp for the model. For what it's worth, Reikan FoCal rated it as high as a 94 or a 97 (I forget which).

Moving to the 180-600, which I received this past February, I was initially quite disappointed by comparison. Generally, my results were markedly soft. I posted about this a few times here and elsewhere. After a lot of experimenting, I began to get better results and my opinions of the lens improved somewhat. I discovered a few things whether about the lens model in general I can't say but certainly about my personal copy:

1. Performance wide open is usually very soft, but stopping down to f7.1 makes a huge difference and going all the way to f9 yields generally sharp results most of the time.
2. Unlike my 200-500, high shutter speeds and VR don't mix on at least my 180-600. Turning it off once you get to ~1000 or higher seems to make a noticeable difference in image quality.
3. Sharpening in post has made a big difference. I never had to do this on my 200-500, but on my 180-600 I definitely have.

Still, my opinion improved only "somewhat" because having to shoot at f9 to get the best out of the lens is quite a compromise, so in late March I decided to buy a used Nikon 500pf lens and see what that experience was like. One might initially assume that there would be no contest between a vaunted prime and a consumer grade super-zoom, but the experience hasn't been that straightforward.

My initial reactions to the 500pf were as follows:

1. Initial reaction was that the 500pf was much sharper. No surprise there, but it didn't wind up being quite that simple. More below.
2. The general user experience on the 180-600 continues to strike me as better. Maybe it's just because of the added weight or maybe it's the greater radius of the lens barrel, or maybe it's the more modern design aesthetic of the Z-series lens, but the 180-600 feels more robust in my hands and makes me feel more at ease when using it. Now it definitely isn't actually more robust, but as far as the feel goes, I prefer it.
3. Related to #2, the autofocus "feels" smoother on the 180-600. It's clear that the 500pf has faster AF, but when I put my eye to the camera and press the AF-on button and the camera starts tracking some animal's eye the little green box just seems to almost "glide" around the viewfinder while the 500pf feels, though not bad, definitely not as smooth. It isn't by any means jerky or jumpy, but it's almost as if the refresh rate for the AF box is greater with the 180-600 than with the 500pf so that I am seeing greater fps when the system is redrawing that AF box.
4. I have not shot with a more premium long telephoto before but I have read many people talk about a lens like the 500pf or the even more expensive exotic primes providing a "3D pop" that is hard to articulate but makes images stand up from lower tiered lenses. I did notice something of this "pop" in my first days of shooting it.

When I finally got the chance, I started taking both the 180-600 and the 500pf out to test them on, as far as possible, the same subjects in the same conditions. I'd go into my back yard with both lenses and shoot one for a bit before swapping to the other. I'd go to a local park/pond with both and try to swap back and forth more often, even to try to photograph the same subject in the very same position with both lenses back to back. I went to the local zoo and shot one before immediately swapping to the other to make as close a comparison as possible. It was in all of this that I started to get results which left me - and to a certain degree continue to leave me - a bit unsure of things.

After my first few times out I began to realize with a bit of "disappointment" that almost all of the photos I had which I actually wanted to keep had been with the 180-600 rather than the prime which I was expecting to easily win out. Now in these cases the fact is that so much of it was just a matter of which lens I happened to have attached when an animal did a memorable thing or gave a good pose. Still, it was hard not to take note of the fact that I was building up a small collection of 180-600 shots I really liked and had little to show with the 500pf.

As I tried to do more direct comparisons in order to avoid this element of luck, I was struck even more significantly by the unexpected fact that much of the time I just can't tell the difference between these lenses, at least if I give the 180-600 the unfair advantage of shooting stopped down vs. the 500pf shooting wide open. That is, of course, a pretty big difference. Still, to the viewer who knows nothing of how the photo came to be, the results would not really be dissimilar.

For instance, here are two shots taken minutes apart of the very same bird in the very same place at about the very same distance:

View attachment 87519

View attachment 87521

If anything, I might even say the 180-600 version is slightly sharper here, though it's hard to really say and I suspect there was even a little bit of distortion at play here and evaporation going on to compound matters. The lighting is also slightly more flattering for the 180-600 image, which could throw perception of slightly. It's also worth noting that these are crops down to about 40% from a DX frame.

A similar comparison I was able to do in the morning hours: (I got a lot of robins when I was trying to do this):

View attachment 87522

View attachment 87523

In this case, the 500pf version looks better to me, but again it sure is close - and it has an advantage: the 500pf shot is 75% of a DX frame, the 180-600 version is only 50% of a DX frame.

I also shot some test charts during this time. They didn't look nearly as close as the shots in the field. 500Pf is on the right:

View attachment 87524
Let's be clear that this is not the perfect test, at least not as I've presented it. The lighting, for instance, is clearly different between the two, but the reality is that I did these tests several times and while I kept things consistent during each test, I did not organize them very well for future reference and so for this example I found a quick example of each. What's important is that the difference here is generally representative of the difference I saw with each test. Sometimes the two were a little closer and sometimes maybe a little further apart, but generally it was within this range. Also take note that here the 500pf is at 5.6 whereas the 180-600 is stopped down to 7.1.

I also came across a few cases out in "regular use" (at the zoo, anyways) where the difference was more clearly noticeable:

View attachment 87527

View attachment 87529

I find the 500pf photo much sharper here. Note that these were taken moments apart with the bird standing in almost the same spot. Also note that the 180-600 version has been enhanced by LR, whereas the 500pf version has received no additional sharpening or enhancement. Why the need to denoise? It was shot at f9 instead of f5.6. In other words, apart from the obvious visual difference in sharpness between the two photos, there are also a number of other ways in which 180-600 shot had to be taken with some compromises to even get what I got. Also note that these, like all the photos I'm posting here, are some of the better examples from sequences of shots and that they're generally representative of the other shots in the sequence.

This increasingly seems like a more clear cut choice! Yet it's not so simple, because as I shot more I found that I was happier with many of the shots from the 180-600. (Continuing as a reply to this post for the sake of a few more photo examples).

Interesting comparison, but in my limited testing none of my AF lenses hold a candle to the Z mounts…across the board.

 

[macwalter]

I can honestly say that even my 500pf is not as good as my z glass. Even the 100-400 zoom is excellent and the primes are even better. Maybe it’s the bodies that contribute as the z8 is so good.

 

[Doomrider74]

Interesting read as I've just ordered a Z8 (I've been using a D500 to date) and only have a 500pf at the moment. I was going to try and save up for the Z600pf next, but the 180-600 is definitely appealing, largely due to the price.

 

[macwalter]

I just got the 600pf today as I was hesitant to spend 5k on an f6.3 lens but it is really good so my 500pf will go on sale. I need to do some BIF on it but I doubt there will be a problem.

 

[ajrmd]

As I have remarked in other threads, there is way too much angst over the lenses and choices. The way that I see it is that Nikon offers a plethora of really outstanding and comparatively affordable choices for WL photographers that no other system provides. Steve published his updated version of his "kit" that he took to Africa which included the 600 f/4 TC, 100-400, and 24-120. A great combination, to be sure. Depending on your budget, where you live, what you shoot, and what one prefers there are a host of great WL combinations (but not limited to), 186 + 800 PF, 100-400 + 600 PF, 100-400 + 400 f/2.8, 100-400 + 600 f/4 TC, 70-180 + 186, 70-180 + 400 f/4.5, etc. etc. etc. Choose what works for you.

 

[macwalter]

I agree it all depends on what you can afford and what your willing to carry.