Nikon 180-600 - Photo Share & Discussion Thread

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).

Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
A couple from today. Again, I don't know why people 'dis this lens. I was just walking around and was very pleased with the images. The first two are barely cropped, the third is severely cropped and it's of a bird which is rare around here - a red headed woodpecker.

View attachment 86809View attachment 86806View attachment 86808
Click to expand...
Nice shots. I also saw a red headed woodpecker on my travels to arkansas (super far away, didn't get a great shot), but it was cool.
 
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
Ironically, for fun I just printed out a copy of the Red Headed Woodpecker moments ago. Cropping vertically, which was more pleasing, the original file 8256 x 5504 yielded an image of only 1613 x 2419. Running it through Topaz Gigapixel and doubling, produced a 3226 x 4838 image. I just made a reasonably large print (12 x 18) and it is lovely. Again, I don't understand all of the hate for this lens and even with a monster crop of nearly 90%, one could generate a nice print.
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
Ironically, for fun I just printed out a copy of the Red Headed Woodpecker moments ago. Cropping vertically, which was more pleasing, the original file 8256 x 5504 yielded an image of only 1613 x 2419. Running it through Topaz Gigapixel and doubling, produced a 3226 x 4838 image. I just made a reasonably large print (12 x 18) and it is lovely. Again, I don't understand all of the hate for this lens and even with a monster crop of nearly 90%, one could generate a nice print.
Click to expand...

The more I dig into things with my own copy, the more I think I am getting a handle on the very different views of or reactions to this lens that are out there. I think there are several factors at play.

One is that I think there has got to be some sample variation. There are just too many disparate reports about too many specific things. For example, a lot of people swear their copy is very sharp wide open, but there's also a large group who insist that it's pretty soft wide open but sharpens up very well at 7.1. Similarly, lots of people say specifically that at 600mm it's very sharp, while lots of others say it's just quite soft at 600mm. You're saying that you've gotten great results even with extreme crops, whereas I've found that the lens can indeed produce great results but that using as many pixels as possible is one of the essential keys to getting good results from this lens.

Another is all of those specific factors mentioned above. Based on reading many reports I am getting the impression that for any given copy of this lens there may be a very specific set of factors needed to get its best performance. If a person's lens produces great results when shot at f8 when shorter than 550mm with a full frame and VR off at high shutter speeds and mediocre shots otherwise, they might take a lot of pretty disappointing photos before - or without ever - figuring that combination of factors out and go on forums saying how lousy the lens was for them. This is especially true because a lot of users of this lens have experience with the 200-500, which a lot of users seemed to find to work well essentially regardless of how they used it.

A third is the simple fact that different people have different standards for what they consider good performance. I think, for instance, that I've seen some pretty incredible photos posted in different places from this lens, BUT in an overwhelming majority of cases even with the photos that look great on first glance you can see a little softness creeping in on the eye if you look closely, a softness that will become more apparent the more cropping that is necessary. One way of describing it might be that if someone is the sort of person that only ever views their photos at full size they may love the lens whereas if someone is the sort of person who is more prone to trying to view the smaller details they won't like it as much. Another way of describing this might be to say that it's a level of acuity which would have been considered sharp 10 years ago but which in the Z era is probably on the somewhat softer side. I think that broadly speaking there are people who don't think anything of this and others who are really bothered by it.

I'm working on a fuller write-up now that I was planning to post in a few days as a sort of review/comparison, but suffice it to say for now that I've found I can get some very nice shots with my copy of the 180-600 if I shoot stopped down, paying very careful attention to the VR, making sure I don't have to crop much, shooting relatively close subjects, and with a willingness to sharpen more than usual in the editing stage. If I try to "cheat" on any of those "ifs," my results tend to be more on the disappointing side.

Here are a few of the nicer examples I have managed to get when following all or most of these "rules," though in the example at least of the wood duck there was some cropping involved and I think it starts to show even here if you have a discerning eye.

As I said I'll likely be posting about my experiences soon but I think the overall summary will be that with the other two lenses I will be comparing to (the 200-500 and the 500pf, one of which is obviously a higher grade of lens and the other is of a similar tier) there just seems to me more room for shooting in different conditions or circumstances without having to try to stick to a specific formula.

NZ8_1262-Enhanced-NR-Edit-Edit-4.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
NZ8_2948-Edit-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
NZ8_8275.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 

Attachments

  • NZ8_1262-Enhanced-NR-Edit-Edit-3.jpg
    NZ8_1262-Enhanced-NR-Edit-Edit-3.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 38
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
The more I dig into things with my own copy, the more I think I am getting a handle on the very different views of or reactions to this lens that are out there. I think there are several factors at play.

One is that I think there has got to be some sample variation. There are just too many disparate reports about too many specific things. For example, a lot of people swear their copy is very sharp wide open, but there's also a large group who insist that it's pretty soft wide open but sharpens up very well at 7.1. Similarly, lots of people say specifically that at 600mm it's very sharp, while lots of others say it's just quite soft at 600mm. You're saying that you've gotten great results even with extreme crops, whereas I've found that the lens can indeed produce great results but that using as many pixels as possible is one of the essential keys to getting good results from this lens.

Another is all of those specific factors mentioned above. Based on reading many reports I am getting the impression that for any given copy of this lens there may be a very specific set of factors needed to get its best performance. If a person's lens produces great results when shot at f8 when shorter than 550mm with a full frame and VR off at high shutter speeds and mediocre shots otherwise, they might take a lot of pretty disappointing photos before - or without ever - figuring that combination of factors out and go on forums saying how lousy the lens was for them. This is especially true because a lot of users of this lens have experience with the 200-500, which a lot of users seemed to find to work well essentially regardless of how they used it.

A third is the simple fact that different people have different standards for what they consider good performance. I think, for instance, that I've seen some pretty incredible photos posted in different places from this lens, BUT in an overwhelming majority of cases even with the photos that look great on first glance you can see a little softness creeping in on the eye if you look closely, a softness that will become more apparent the more cropping that is necessary. One way of describing it might be that if someone is the sort of person that only ever views their photos at full size they may love the lens whereas if someone is the sort of person who is more prone to trying to view the smaller details they won't like it as much. Another way of describing this might be to say that it's a level of acuity which would have been considered sharp 10 years ago but which in the Z era is probably on the somewhat softer side. I think that broadly speaking there are people who don't think anything of this and others who are really bothered by it.

I'm working on a fuller write-up now that I was planning to post in a few days as a sort of review/comparison, but suffice it to say for now that I've found I can get some very nice shots with my copy of the 180-600 if I shoot stopped down, paying very careful attention to the VR, making sure I don't have to crop much, shooting relatively close subjects, and with a willingness to sharpen more than usual in the editing stage. If I try to "cheat" on any of those "ifs," my results tend to be more on the disappointing side.

Here are a few of the nicer examples I have managed to get when following all or most of these "rules," though in the example at least of the wood duck there was some cropping involved and I think it starts to show even here if you have a discerning eye.

As I said I'll likely be posting about my experiences soon but I think the overall summary will be that with the other two lenses I will be comparing to (the 200-500 and the 500pf, one of which is obviously a higher grade of lens and the other is of a similar tier) there just seems to me more room for shooting in different conditions or circumstances without having to try to stick to a specific formula.

View attachment 86842View attachment 86840
Click to expand...
I think your images are fairly representative of what the lens can achieve with proper exposure, subject size, good light, etc. Will this lens rival a 600 f/4? Nope, but I think it receives an unjustified, bad wrap. Interestingly, in a parallel thread a user compares a 800 PF against the 600 f/4 and concludes with blurry, low light, small subject, extreme subject distance that the 800 PF is junk.

When I purchased the Canon 100-500, I was a bit put off when I measured it against my Canon EF 500 f/4 II and 600 f/4 II. Comparatively, it suffered from flare, lesser acutance, and images fell apart when cropping significantly or when shooting distant subjects. But once, I understood the lens and its appropriate application, I was able to achieve great results and in the end the 100-500 became one of my favorite lenses because of its size, utility, and performance.

Anyone who points the 180-600 at a small bird, in overcast light, 60+ yards away, crops, and expects to have a high resolution, high dynamic range image are fooling themselves. However, if that same person understands the application or "rules" as you describe them, they can end up with some really high quality and satisfying images.
 
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
One is that I think there has got to be some sample variation. There are just too many disparate reports about too many specific things. For example, a lot of people swear their copy is very sharp wide open, but there's also a large group who insist that it's pretty soft wide open but sharpens up very well at 7.1. Similarly, lots of people say specifically that at 600mm it's very sharp, while lots of others say it's just quite soft at 600mm.

…suffice it to say for now that I've found I can get some very nice shots with my copy of the 180-600 if I shoot stopped down, paying very careful attention to the VR, making sure I don't have to crop much, shooting relatively close subjects, and with a willingness to sharpen more than usual in the editing stage. If I try to "cheat" on any of those "ifs," my results tend to be more on the disappointing side.
Click to expand...
What’s been written in the two paragraphs above ring absolutely true given my experience with the 180-600 lens.

And beautiful images posted, too!
 
Member's gallery
Curious to know what sharpening others are using during post processing. I'm finding I'm using around: Amount between 50-80, radius 1.0, detail 20 and masking 20 in LR Classic. This is in addition to LR Denoise AI at around 30-50 level. Obviously image dependent and the less cropping (more of the subject filling the frame requires less.
 
Member's gallery
Spring Migration/Warbler Season is underway. Out yesterday with the 186+800PF combo, and they just work splendidly together if you don't mind lugging a backpack out with you. Getting the tight portrait style shots with the 800PF is intoxicating, but after a while the sameness gets boring, so the 186 steps in and delivers "wide angle" environmental compositions. These Gnatcatchers aren't afraid to come in close, and the 186 was perfect for those occasions. This is exactly how I envisioned the 186 supporting the 800PF; the 100-400 was just too short for this work, often leaving me frustrated by the chasm of range between 400 and 800, due to being forced to change lenses more frequently.

NIKON Z 8untitled_20240424_654-Enhanced-NR-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
just got my 2nd copy of the 186. nothing was wrong with my original copy - I just shift my kit around a lot

impressed as always with this lens. it punches way above its weight class for only $1700

this is all bright midday (12PM) lighting, so I was not expecting the pics to be this good

I think I got my best pic ever of the bluebird with it today

Z91_7048_DxO - Copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z91_7135_DxO - Copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z91_7180_DxO - Copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z91_7266_DxO - Copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z91_7353_DxO - Copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z91_7426_DxO - Copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
just got my 2nd copy of the 186. nothing was wrong with my original copy - I just shift my kit around a lot

impressed as always with this lens. it punches way above its weight class for only $1700

this is all bright midday (12PM) lighting, so I was not expecting the pics to be this good

I think I got my best pic ever of the bluebird with it today

View attachment 87648View attachment 87649View attachment 87650View attachment 87651View attachment 87652View attachment 87653
Click to expand...

What's with the shutter speed 10/10000? We're you at 1/1000?
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
The more I dig into things with my own copy, the more I think I am getting a handle on the very different views of or reactions to this lens that are out there. I think there are several factors at play.

One is that I think there has got to be some sample variation. There are just too many disparate reports about too many specific things. For example, a lot of people swear their copy is very sharp wide open, but there's also a large group who insist that it's pretty soft wide open but sharpens up very well at 7.1. Similarly, lots of people say specifically that at 600mm it's very sharp, while lots of others say it's just quite soft at 600mm. You're saying that you've gotten great results even with extreme crops, whereas I've found that the lens can indeed produce great results but that using as many pixels as possible is one of the essential keys to getting good results from this lens.

Another is all of those specific factors mentioned above. Based on reading many reports I am getting the impression that for any given copy of this lens there may be a very specific set of factors needed to get its best performance. If a person's lens produces great results when shot at f8 when shorter than 550mm with a full frame and VR off at high shutter speeds and mediocre shots otherwise, they might take a lot of pretty disappointing photos before - or without ever - figuring that combination of factors out and go on forums saying how lousy the lens was for them. This is especially true because a lot of users of this lens have experience with the 200-500, which a lot of users seemed to find to work well essentially regardless of how they used it.

A third is the simple fact that different people have different standards for what they consider good performance. I think, for instance, that I've seen some pretty incredible photos posted in different places from this lens, BUT in an overwhelming majority of cases even with the photos that look great on first glance you can see a little softness creeping in on the eye if you look closely, a softness that will become more apparent the more cropping that is necessary. One way of describing it might be that if someone is the sort of person that only ever views their photos at full size they may love the lens whereas if someone is the sort of person who is more prone to trying to view the smaller details they won't like it as much. Another way of describing this might be to say that it's a level of acuity which would have been considered sharp 10 years ago but which in the Z era is probably on the somewhat softer side. I think that broadly speaking there are people who don't think anything of this and others who are really bothered by it.

I'm working on a fuller write-up now that I was planning to post in a few days as a sort of review/comparison, but suffice it to say for now that I've found I can get some very nice shots with my copy of the 180-600 if I shoot stopped down, paying very careful attention to the VR, making sure I don't have to crop much, shooting relatively close subjects, and with a willingness to sharpen more than usual in the editing stage. If I try to "cheat" on any of those "ifs," my results tend to be more on the disappointing side.

Here are a few of the nicer examples I have managed to get when following all or most of these "rules," though in the example at least of the wood duck there was some cropping involved and I think it starts to show even here if you have a discerning eye.

As I said I'll likely be posting about my experiences soon but I think the overall summary will be that with the other two lenses I will be comparing to (the 200-500 and the 500pf, one of which is obviously a higher grade of lens and the other is of a similar tier) there just seems to me more room for shooting in different conditions or circumstances without having to try to stick to a specific formula.

View attachment 86842View attachment 86840View attachment 86841
Click to expand...
i love the contrast !
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
Don't we have enough threads that are focused on critiquing the quality of a lens? I chose to post in this thread because it was titled "Photo Share."
Anyway... like I said, heavily overcast/ISO3200/ 1/200. If I could, I would have put the lens on a tripod rather than rely on my arms... Here's a crop... note the composition of the original picture, as the owl is well off center because this is how I chose to compose it. Also, BCG definitely re-compresses images, so they always look a little softer than they do on my monitor... but I post my work to share it, not for optical testing purposes.
I hope this helps.
bruce
Edited Commentary: I know a lot of people have already seen this, but I want to edit the post with the following comment. This is not how I intended to display this owl, in fact I find the obsession about sharpness, feather details, and microcontrast to be nothing but boring and measurebating. A photo of nature and wildlife is so much more than how many barbs are present on the facial disk or streaks of minute feathers. I actually hope you take a moment to look at the picture on page one. This is a male owl, a mate to a female that I photographed the night before. Autumn is ending, winter is coming, and they are preparing to nest. In photo one you can see that it was a rainy night and a cold morning. The owl was seen early in the morning was the unfortunate victim of a photographer who happened to see it and disturb it. Nature photography is about nature, the struggles of life and death, and the beauty that emerges in spite of the struggle.
View attachment 72912
Click to expand...
oh wow ! that's cool!
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
Sweet, we get some actual sunlight today! I love dreary overcast as much as the next photographer, but it's nice to switch it up from time to time. On the other hand, perhaps the less-than-ideal conditions are beneficial because it gives you a chance to see how the lens performs when you don't have the perfectly lit, sunny day conditions. Make lemonade, I guess 🤷‍♂️

Now that it's winter, the variety of bird photos to share is going to drop drastically, so I'm hesitant to share the same Junco and Nuthatch shots for fear of boring everyone 😌 Especially at the present, when most of my shots have been made for comparisons w/ the 600PF, as well as to assess lens sharpness/clarity/performance, so I'm taking whatever birds I can get in front of me in my backyard area, and they're not the most exciting haha

After each outing with the 180-600, I'm expecting to finally find some fault or weakness in the resultant photos, but even under these blah conditions, the lens just keeps delivering. Sharpness and clarity are phenomenal, along with color rendition and bokeh. I pretty much think this is the best zoom I've ever used.

Compared to the 600PF: I'm having trouble in post trying to find any discernible differences in the photos. Someone with a more exacting eye may be able to pick out some nits, but I can't. Were someone to need advice on which to choose, I'd base my recommendations purely on the size/weight/cost, not IQ.

View attachment 73190View attachment 73191
Click to expand...
love the contrast cold and warm colors
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top