I couldn't be happier with my 180-600 considering its price point. Sharp with excellent IQ.
NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR Sharpness Variability
- Thread starter Atterbud
- Start date
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).
I used Z8 with this lens and it is very sharp, even at 600mm. If that is your only concern I would say go for it and don't worry. The only reason I sold mine is weight became a bit much after walking around with it for a while, so I bought the lighter 600PF from someone on this site. If you are used to the Canon 100-500, please note this will be bigger and heavier.
Mine has been sharp from day one. However it does not lock focus as quickly as the Z 600 6.3. Still, a great lens
Roy
Well-known member
The Nikon 180-600 is great value.
I would have preferred a fixed aperture but everything is a compromise.
Under 525mm the lens outperforms most more expensive lenses ...
macwalter
Well-known member
I think as long as you can handle it, the 180-600mm would be just fine accepting that it is not as fast or light or sharp as the pf prime.
my personal view is that I would consider a refurbished body form Nikon but I would hesitate to buy used or refurbished glass. I think the odds go up in terms of getting a mediocre copy and there is always the risk of gray market. Unless it’s a real steal price wise get a new one.
my personal view is that I would consider a refurbished body form Nikon but I would hesitate to buy used or refurbished glass. I think the odds go up in terms of getting a mediocre copy and there is always the risk of gray market. Unless it’s a real steal price wise get a new one.
I’ve purchased refurbished lenses (F and Z) from Nikon USA and I’ve been very happy with them. There’s no worry about getting a gray market lens and they meet Nikon’s standards for new product. Only the warranty is a compromise: 90 days vs 1 year for new.
Mark Hauser
Well-known member
My first copy of the 180-600 was softer than my old 200-500
i send it back and get month later a new version that was sharper as my old lens.
There is a certain series spread
And if you read the old 180-600 treads here, I wasn't the only one
The first lens was not to soft and if i had no real world comparison again my old 200-500 i never give it back
as you can read in the tread starting on page 6 my first post.
You can see my comparison pictures below.
It really bothered me at the time to spend €2000 and then have something worse than before
The difference was visible from an image view of 60% and clearly distinguishable from 80%.
Here are the old post.
i send it back and get month later a new version that was sharper as my old lens.
There is a certain series spread
And if you read the old 180-600 treads here, I wasn't the only one
The first lens was not to soft and if i had no real world comparison again my old 200-500 i never give it back
as you can read in the tread starting on page 6 my first post.
You can see my comparison pictures below.
It really bothered me at the time to spend €2000 and then have something worse than before
The difference was visible from an image view of 60% and clearly distinguishable from 80%.
Here are the old post.
Hello everyone here in this forum.
And hello Steve
I've been following you Steve on YT for a few years now.
Thank you for all the great videos.
I signed up here to see if there were similar reviews of the 180-600 that I saw.
Unfortunately I sent my lens back
and hope to replace it with a new one soon.
The lens I had showed visibly more blur at 200/500 and 600 mm compared to my old 200-500.
My 200-500 was also sharper cropped to 600mm.
300 and 400 mm were comparable
I wasn't able to achieve comparable sharpness performance in many test series. During my 2 days of trials.
My copy clearly contradicted what Cameralabs says and also what Riccy Talks or Steve show in their videos.
It would have to be significantly sharper than the 200-500 in the telephoto range.
So there seems to be significant fluctuations in quality.
The lens itself is worlds better than the 200-500 in terms of handling. The focus area that can be controlled with one hand is a dream and the manual focus is a blessing compared to the old one
The focus is super fast compared to the old one and very reliable.
The only thing I find worse than the 200-500 is the tripod collar
It cannot be adjusted so finely that it remains just rotatable.
I will replace this if alternatives are available.
reg. mark
Dagny
Member
I have a Z 180-600 that was unsharp at higher focal lengths with max open aperture. I sent it to Nikon for warranty repair, got it back in a week and it was like a different lens! They changed the flange that mounts to the camera, an internal circuit board, and recalibrated the AF in the lens. My feeling is lens originally has some poor quality components - which was not detected by Nikon before they shipped it. Poor quality control. Once repaired, I was happy with the lens. And the price point is great.
I shoot a Z9, have the f mount 300PF and 500PF lenses. Just ordered a 800PF - wanted one for a while, there was a $500 promotion and my finances just barely made this possible.
So, if you have s soft 180-600 send it to Nikon for repairs while it is under warranty!
I shoot a Z9, have the f mount 300PF and 500PF lenses. Just ordered a 800PF - wanted one for a while, there was a $500 promotion and my finances just barely made this possible.
So, if you have s soft 180-600 send it to Nikon for repairs while it is under warranty!
gvrao88
New member
I have used Z8+180-600 in my recent trip to Kenya. 95% of my shots , including some fast action shots yielded excellent results. Please check the attached, The leopardess was shot in low light.
Attachments
macwalter
Well-known member
My view on used gear is mixed. While I would consider a used camera body, I would not buy a used lens unless I could try it first as my feeling is if someone is selling it, they probably aren’t happy with the performance in some way. As mentioned there is likely some variation in quality of these lower price point lenses especially. That being said I talked a friend recently into selling his d500 and Tamron 150-600 and going to the z8 amd the 180-600. He is a happy guy. Good photographer too. I would consider one but it is too heavy for how I go out and I absolutely love the 600pf which also works very well with the 1.4tc. However if I were to go to Africa I’d need to take my 100-400 as well where one could just use the 180-600 for all. I would prefer refurbished from Nikon over a used copy of lens or camera body.
That's a tough question to post on social media. I think you can see from the responses here that in skilled hands the lens is quite good, but occasionally it is possible to have a bad copy. Usually bad copies are the result of damage - not design. Current manufacturing for camera lenses has such tight tolerances that lens variation at the factory is small. But it is possible and manufacturing issues are normally so small you won't notice. Damage or major issues are pretty obvious, so it is important to try any new gear and make sure it works properly.
The biggest issue with social media posts is you don't know the quality of the photographer, their technique, and the appropriateness of tests vs. other sources of error.
When I test a camera or lens, I start with the easy stuff. I want to confirm that it is working properly or focusing properly in situations that are controlled and repeatable. It might be a field test, but any real decisions are using proper test targets. After confirming the basics of performance, I can try other situations where technique, lighting, and other factors enter the evaluation. But my goal is to make sure I can render sharp images with test targets at relatively close distances. Lens quality issues are not normally intermittent - they should affect every shot. You are a lot more likely to have a problem with a lens that has been used for a year or two (due to damage, bumps, etc.) than one that is new and produced with normal tolerances.
The biggest issue with social media posts is you don't know the quality of the photographer, their technique, and the appropriateness of tests vs. other sources of error.
When I test a camera or lens, I start with the easy stuff. I want to confirm that it is working properly or focusing properly in situations that are controlled and repeatable. It might be a field test, but any real decisions are using proper test targets. After confirming the basics of performance, I can try other situations where technique, lighting, and other factors enter the evaluation. But my goal is to make sure I can render sharp images with test targets at relatively close distances. Lens quality issues are not normally intermittent - they should affect every shot. You are a lot more likely to have a problem with a lens that has been used for a year or two (due to damage, bumps, etc.) than one that is new and produced with normal tolerances.
macwalter
Well-known member
I’m not very scientific in terms of testing gear but for me I go out in the field and shoot with the lens and see how it does, how quickly it can acquire the subject, how does it feel in the hands, weight, balance etc. then at home I look closely at the results on my big monitor zooming in to 3-4 hundred percent. I also know from my current gear what I can expect to get with the new lens and my own limitations. If the new gear falls into what I am hoping for, it’s a keeper. As I handhold 95% of the time I can’t expect to get every bit of what the lens can offer, but I do set my standards fairly high. This is why I prefer primes. That are sharper,lighter and faster.