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
SCoombs said:
But Bruce, unless this example is very heavily cropped or the smaller output size for the forum did more harm to the photo than is typical - in which case I retract what I'm about to say - my 200-500 would take a photo in these conditions that would completely blow this away. There's very little feather detail; with my old F mount lens there would be. The feathers on the head are all mooshed together like someone was doing an oil painting and smeared the canvas; with my old F mount lens they wouldn't be.

When I look at this photo I think of the 70-300 that came with my D5600, not a lens I'm going to spend almost $2,000 on and surely not one that is going to be mentioned in the same breath as the 800pf.

I very much want to be absolutely clear that I'm not criticizing you as the photographer. The photo itself looks great where everything you were in control of is concerned.

When I look at it to judge the lens, though, even given the conditions you mention I just don't see it, and here's the thing: you mention that you see people questioning the lens and think part of that is that early samples have portrayed the lens poorly, but to me a huge part of it - here, on DPreview, and especially on FredMiranda - is that when people have questioned how sharp the lens is, two or three people have posted a photo that is, IQ-wise and sharpness-wise, unimpressive and even outright bad (I wouldn't by any means say this owl shot has outright bad IQ!) and cite it as a photo that proves just how sharp it is. That's the big part of it, to me: not just that there are shots out there which aren't the sharpest, but that people keep posting obviously soft shots as examples to disprove suspicions that the lens is soft.

I'm just not sure what it is about this lens where the standards people seem to evaluate it based upon seem - at least from what people are saying about the examples I see posted - so drastically lower than the standards people seem to use to evaluate most other lenses, even less expensive ones.t

Again to reiterate: this is the kind of shot that would get me to hire you as a photographer - but it's not the kind of shot that would get me to spend money on this lens!
Click to expand...
This is the problem that I have mentioned with the 2mb limit for images. Not suggesting Steve should change that, as people have the option to link images from websites that provide much better presentation. Since it has the auto exif I assume it was uploaded directly. I don't think you will ever satisfy yourself until you find someone in Wisconsin that you can go out and shoot one with.
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
But Bruce, unless this example is very heavily cropped or the smaller output size for the forum did more harm to the photo than is typical - in which case I retract what I'm about to say - my 200-500 would take a photo in these conditions that would completely blow this away. There's very little feather detail; with my old F mount lens there would be. The feathers on the head are all mooshed together like someone was doing an oil painting and smeared the canvas; with my old F mount lens they wouldn't be.

When I look at this photo I think of the 70-300 that came with my D5600, not a lens I'm going to spend almost $2,000 on and surely not one that is going to be mentioned in the same breath as the 800pf.

I very much want to be absolutely clear that I'm not criticizing you as the photographer. The photo itself looks great where everything you were in control of is concerned.

When I look at it to judge the lens, though, even given the conditions you mention I just don't see it, and here's the thing: you mention that you see people questioning the lens and think part of that is that early samples have portrayed the lens poorly, but to me a huge part of it - here, on DPreview, and especially on FredMiranda - is that when people have questioned how sharp the lens is, two or three people have posted a photo that is, IQ-wise and sharpness-wise, unimpressive and even outright bad (I wouldn't by any means say this owl shot has outright bad IQ!) and cite it as a photo that proves just how sharp it is. That's the big part of it, to me: not just that there are shots out there which aren't the sharpest, but that people keep posting obviously soft shots as examples to disprove suspicions that the lens is soft.

I'm just not sure what it is about this lens where the standards people seem to evaluate it based upon seem - at least from what people are saying about the examples I see posted - so drastically lower than the standards people seem to use to evaluate most other lenses, even less expensive ones.

Again to reiterate: this is the kind of shot that would get me to hire you as a photographer - but it's not the kind of shot that would get me to spend money on this lens!
Click to expand...
But there are folks out there with the lens that are posting images that show the capability of this lens, and is able to produce sharp pictures with great detail. I suppose what we're seeing here is lens variance, or some folk that believe what they see in an image is sharp, while others don't - all subjective to one's view. I for one am experiencing this len's ability sharp/great IQ photos.
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
But Bruce, unless this example is very heavily cropped or the smaller output size for the forum did more harm to the photo than is typical - in which case I retract what I'm about to say - my 200-500 would take a photo in these conditions that would completely blow this away. There's very little feather detail; with my old F mount lens there would be. The feathers on the head are all mooshed together like someone was doing an oil painting and smeared the canvas; with my old F mount lens they wouldn't be.

When I look at this photo I think of the 70-300 that came with my D5600, not a lens I'm going to spend almost $2,000 on and surely not one that is going to be mentioned in the same breath as the 800pf.

I very much want to be absolutely clear that I'm not criticizing you as the photographer. The photo itself looks great where everything you were in control of is concerned.

When I look at it to judge the lens, though, even given the conditions you mention I just don't see it, and here's the thing: you mention that you see people questioning the lens and think part of that is that early samples have portrayed the lens poorly, but to me a huge part of it - here, on DPreview, and especially on FredMiranda - is that when people have questioned how sharp the lens is, two or three people have posted a photo that is, IQ-wise and sharpness-wise, unimpressive and even outright bad (I wouldn't by any means say this owl shot has outright bad IQ!) and cite it as a photo that proves just how sharp it is. That's the big part of it, to me: not just that there are shots out there which aren't the sharpest, but that people keep posting obviously soft shots as examples to disprove suspicions that the lens is soft.

I'm just not sure what it is about this lens where the standards people seem to evaluate it based upon seem - at least from what people are saying about the examples I see posted - so drastically lower than the standards people seem to use to evaluate most other lenses, even less expensive ones.

Again to reiterate: this is the kind of shot that would get me to hire you as a photographer - but it's not the kind of shot that would get me to spend money on this lens!
Click to expand...
I'm not going into this debate with you any longer...
I've posted my work from the lens on FM as well. I am highly doubtful that the 200-500 could produce a better image. Having owned three, I know what the lens can produce. However, I recognize that you are extremely happy with your lens. I suggest that you keep it, use it, and protect it.
I have been photographing nature and wildlife since I was a researcher in the Pribilof Islands, AK in 1986. I have shot everything from Nikon, Contax, Leica, Hasselblad, Toyo, Mamyia, Canon, and Pentax. I have owned and used countless varieties and brands 300mm f2.8 ED (AF, VR, IS, AiS), and Nikon 400mm f3.5 EdIF, 600mm f4 AFSII, 500PF, 200-400VR, 200-500, 300 f4 D,AFS,PF, 400 f4.5S, and 800PF. I publish my work, I do fine art galleries, I write articles for magazines, and I teach photography. I pretty much know what a sharp photo looks like... if not, I should just ditch the gear and learn how to fish.
This image was shot with a Z8 in FX and is about 37MP downsized for BCG and FM.
I have seen a lot of work with the 200-500 from others as well as myself... the lens is good but it is no better than the 180-600. Furthermore, as I have said many times... there is more to a photograph than how sharp it is. If you would like, I would be happy to pose crop of the face so you can see the feather detail... but as I keep saying, there is more to a photograph than how sharp the image is.

good shooting,
bruce
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
I'm not going into this debate with you any longer...
I've posted my work from the lens on FM as well. I am highly doubtful that the 200-500 could produce a better image. Having owned three, I know what the lens can produce. However, I recognize that you are extremely happy with your lens. I suggest that you keep it, use it, and protect it.
I have been photographing nature and wildlife since I was a researcher in the Pribilof Islands, AK in 1986. I have shot everything from Nikon, Contax, Leica, Hasselblad, Toyo, Mamyia, Canon, and Pentax. I have owned and used countless varieties and brands 300mm f2.8 ED (AF, VR, IS, AiS), and Nikon 400mm f3.5 EdIF, 600mm f4 AFSII, 500PF, 200-400VR, 200-500, 300 f4 D,AFS,PF, 400 f4.5S, and 800PF. I publish my work, I do fine art galleries, I write articles for magazines, and I teach photography. I pretty much know what a sharp photo looks like... if not, I should just ditch the gear and learn how to fish.
This image was shot with a Z8 in FX and is about 37MP downsized for FM.
I have seen a lot of work with the 200-500 from others as well as myself... the lens is good but it is no better than the 180-600. Furthermore, as I have said many times... there is more to a photograph than how sharp it is. If you would like, I would be happy to pose crop of the face so you can see the feather detail... but as I keep saying, there is more to a photograph than how sharp the image is.

good shooting,
bruce
Click to expand...
I'd be curious to see a tighter crop, but that's because I just like owls and haven't managed to find one myself yet (much like some eagles around here, I seem to be cursed with bad luck for them).
 
Member's gallery
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.
CropZ8L_6906-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
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
View attachment 72912
Click to expand...
Nice picture. Thanks for the crop, it's cool to see them closer up in some detail.
 
Member's gallery
BarkingBeansCoffee said:
This is the problem that I have mentioned with the 2mb limit for images. Not suggesting Steve should change that, as people have the option to link images from websites that provide much better presentation. Since it has the auto exif I assume it was uploaded directly. I don't think you will ever satisfy yourself until you find someone in Wisconsin that you can go out and shoot one with.
Click to expand...
I agree the 2mb limit can sometimes hamper a photo shared, but I don't think it always or even usually does. It does make it so you can't view a photo at a zoomed in size and really evaluate it in the fullest detail, but I think you can still generally appreciate photos for west they are. For instance, the 600pf photos Matthew shared in his other thread look great even if I can't blow them up to see just howbgreat they are.
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
I agree the 2mb limit can sometimes hamper a photo shared, but I don't think it always or even usually does. It does make it so you can't view a photo at a zoomed in size and really evaluate it in the fullest detail, but I think you can still generally appreciate photos for west they are. For instance, the 600pf photos Matthew shared in his other thread look great even if I can't blow them up to see just howbgreat they are.
Click to expand...
You can‘t compare sharpness of photos on this site. As you know, a lot has to do with how they are handled when uploaded. I’ve had original photos that are razor sharp look very soft when uploaded. Others have looked almost as good on the forum as the original photo on my computer. It’s a waste of energy to attempt to analyze the quality of a lens by analyzing the quality of the uploaded image. If you read Bruce’s post carefully, he mentioned that the owl was soaking wet and that is why the feather detail was lost.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
I'm not going into this debate with you any longer...
I've posted my work from the lens on FM as well. I am highly doubtful that the 200-500 could produce a better image. Having owned three, I know what the lens can produce. However, I recognize that you are extremely happy with your lens. I suggest that you keep it, use it, and protect it.
I have been photographing nature and wildlife since I was a researcher in the Pribilof Islands, AK in 1986. I have shot everything from Nikon, Contax, Leica, Hasselblad, Toyo, Mamyia, Canon, and Pentax. I have owned and used countless varieties and brands 300mm f2.8 ED (AF, VR, IS, AiS), and Nikon 400mm f3.5 EdIF, 600mm f4 AFSII, 500PF, 200-400VR, 200-500, 300 f4 D,AFS,PF, 400 f4.5S, and 800PF. I publish my work, I do fine art galleries, I write articles for magazines, and I teach photography. I pretty much know what a sharp photo looks like... if not, I should just ditch the gear and learn how to fish.
This image was shot with a Z8 in FX and is about 37MP downsized for BCG and FM.
I have seen a lot of work with the 200-500 from others as well as myself... the lens is good but it is no better than the 180-600. Furthermore, as I have said many times... there is more to a photograph than how sharp it is. If you would like, I would be happy to pose crop of the face so you can see the feather detail... but as I keep saying, there is more to a photograph than how sharp the image is.

good shooting,
bruce
Click to expand...

I'm really not trying to debate with you, so I apologize if I've offended. I'm really just trying to discuss this lens - that is part of the thread title, after all: "& Discussion Thread" - because camera equipment is an interest of mine (as it is for all of us I'd imagine!) and because at some point in the next month I'm going to have to sell the lens I have now and replace it with the 180-600, the 500pf, or some other option and researching what these lenses are producing is an important part of that decision and trying to talk to users of the different lenses and dig a bit deeper into their experiences is an important part of that research. The fact is that I'm not happy with my lens. The AF is inadequate and its rendering at distance falls short of what I know other lenses of a similar range are capable of.

The truth is I am really perplexed by the reaction I've seen to this one. Most lenses I look at the discussions and threads and my eyes agree with everyone else's: I see in the photos about what everyone else does. With the 180-600 I've definitely seen some people question it, but a huge number of people are praising it extensively in a way that just doesn't agree with what my eyes show me when I see the photos people are putting out there. I'm really unsure how to take this and it just makes me question myself and ask what I'm missing... but then I look at discussions of other lenses of a similar price point and I see photos that look similar to the 180-600 samples and most people say they're not sharp and indeed I agree - they're not - but when photos that look the very same are posted from the 180-600 a lot of people gush over its sharpness and I am trying to understand what is going on.

Here are a few photos I quickly dug up from my Lightroom catalog searching for shots of ISO 3200 or greater. In addition to matching or exceeding the ISO, all of them will have been in worse lighting I am sure because I am pretty much never shooting in lighting that is not terrible. They're all more extreme crops than the owl photo and I've gone through and removed any sharpening or toned down any sharpening-like features that I may have applied when I originally processed them (for instance, the Blue Jay looks better in my real edit than here, but I toned down the dehaze slider for this post because it introduces a sharpening-like effect). So they're all in poor lighting, the same or higher ISO, and all more extreme crops than the owl and I'd say they've all got far more detail and sharpness. (The one exception is my owl, which is only ISO 2500 and not as extreme a crop but I wanted to share because it's also an owl).

Again, I'm not trying to butt heads here: I'm trying to understand the way these lenses compare and to me these all all far sharper than the owl in similar conditions and more extreme crops, and far sharper than most of other photos from the 180-600 I've seen.

Cardinal.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
BlueJay.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Cardinal 2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Chipmunk.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Woodpecker.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Finch.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Owl.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Again, this isn't meant to be an argument. I'm exploring these lenses and so many people say the lenses aren't even close - you said as much yourself here - and yet I certainly agree, but the other way around - and that really throws me.
 
Member's gallery
Ralph said:
You can‘t compare sharpness of photos on this site. As you know, a lot has to do with how they are handled when uploaded. I’ve had original photos that are razor sharp look very soft when uploaded. Others have looked almost as good on the forum as the original photo on my computer. Its a waste of energy to attempt to analyze the quality of a lens by analyzing the quality of the uploaded image.
Click to expand...

As I said, I agree sometimes, but for instance Matthew's photos look great at 2MB.

But you're right - there's always a question. Fortunately, most of the images of the 180-600 (and any other lenses) I am looking at are posted on sites like dpreview or FredMiranda or other places where you can see the full resolution or even the literal original file.
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
As I said, I agree sometimes, but for instance Matthew's photos look great at 2MB.

But you're right - there's always a question. Fortunately, most of the images of the 180-600 (and any other lenses) I am looking at are posted on sites like dpreview or FredMiranda or other places where you can see the full resolution or even the literal original file.
Click to expand...
There are too many variables at work. Your best bet is to get a whole of one and shoot it yourself. Possibly borrow or rent for a day.
 
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...
I agree with the commentary on the IQ debates…and saying that the 200-500 (or whatever) would have produced a better shot in this situation is an unprovable claim at best and hyperbole at worst. We’ve seen many, many good shots in varying light with the lens and ll the hoopla about it and the new 600 are pointless.
 
Judging from everyone’s posts, it seems folks generally are very pleased with the 180-600. From those of you with experience with the 200-500, how does the IQ of the 180-600 compare to that lens?
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
I agree with the commentary on the IQ debates…and saying that the 200-500 (or whatever) would have produced a better shot in this situation is an unprovable claim at best and hyperbole at worst. We’ve seen many, many good shots in varying light with the lens and ll the hoopla about it and the new 600 are pointless.
Click to expand...
I've posted in this very thread multiple shots from the 200-500 in similar or worse conditions that I'd say are vastly superior in IQ, yet people keep dismissing idea that this lens might be superior without addressing these.PhotographyLife also posted in their comparison various controlled shots where the 200-500 had better IQ. Again, I see lots of dismissals of the idea that the 180-600 may not be as good but nobody making these comments seems to address those examples.

If the examples I or PhotograpphyLife are worse in IQ, it should be easy to give specific reasons why. I really don't understand what it is about this lens that people are motivated enough to disagree with comments that question its sharpness but at the same time don't want to engage the issue from the standpoint of evidence.
 
Member's gallery
“If the examples I or PhotograpphyLife are worse in IQ, it should be easy to give specific reasons why. I really don't understand what it is about this lens that people are motivated enough to disagree with comments that question its sharpness but at the same time don't want to engage the issue from the standpoint of evidence.”

I’ve just looked back on your posts and what a strange obsession you have with this lens! It’s an affordable lens for many to get into wildlife, birds or whatever else they like where they need the reach. Just like the 200-500 did when it came out. If they then became obsessed with sharpness they can then look at other options. Here in the UK I don’t think we tend to dissect camera gear like you guys do, maybe it’s because we don’t have the wildlife subjects like other countries and the weather is mostly against us. We’d love bears, eagles, wolves etc roaming around the UK but they left centuries ago lol. I only posted a couple of images because it said photo share and discussion, I didn’t realise it was for pulling them to pieces because there was not enough detail for you. I never get involved in these types of topics. Theirs a lot of happy people using this lens, the same goes for the 200-500.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Here's a selection, for this thread, using this lens which I think is a winner. First 2 are in the back yard the rest from the park.

backyard091423_0172.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


backyard091423_0592.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


hbsp091823_0527.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

hbsp091823_0705.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

hbsp091823_1209.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

hbsp091823_1270.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

hbsp100223_0345.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
hbsp100623_0267.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Edit: Yes I used to own the 200-500 but sold after I got the 500pf
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
Judging from everyone’s posts, it seems folks generally are very pleased with the 180-600. From those of you with experience with the 200-500, how does the IQ of the 180-600 compare to that lens?
Click to expand...
I own both lenses and I believe that both lenses are able to delivery quality images - like the 200-500mm, having good lighting really helps and more so given that the 180-600mm is at f6.3. I really don't see any difference in IQ between the 2, but keep in mind that I'm still subjecting the lens to its frequent use, but so far I have not seen any issues.
 
Member's gallery
Second thought - I wished that Steve did a comparison between the 200-500mm vs the 180-600mm to settle any doubts or assumptions. That would be a very good comparison I think since I suspect that people who purchase the newer lens would want to see if it's worth an upgrade. Steve? ;)
 
Kenny88 said:
Second thought - I wished that Steve did a comparison between the 200-500mm vs the 180-600mm to settle any doubts or assumptions. That would be a very good comparison I think since I suspect that people who purchase the newer lens would want to see if it's worth an upgrade. Steve? ;)
Click to expand...
Agree! But, Steve did mention that he couldn’t include the 200-500 in the comparison because he no longer owns one. Maybe if someone were willing to donate one to the cause?
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
I've posted in this very thread multiple shots from the 200-500 in similar or worse conditions that I'd say are vastly superior in IQ, yet people keep dismissing idea that this lens might be superior without addressing these.PhotographyLife also posted in their comparison various controlled shots where the 200-500 had better IQ. Again, I see lots of dismissals of the idea that the 180-600 may not be as good but nobody making these comments seems to address those examples.

If the examples I or PhotograpphyLife are worse in IQ, it should be easy to give specific reasons why. I really don't understand what it is about this lens that people are motivated enough to disagree with comments that question its sharpness but at the same time don't want to engage the issue from the standpoint of evidence.
Click to expand...
As has been noted…it’s really hard to make much of a judgement on IQ with the downsampled and compressed shots here…but having looked at your 200-500 shots…they’re fine…just as the 180-600 are. We all think our shots are the best ever…but you’re comparing apples to oranges shots…and there are so few straight shooters in any review business particularly in the journalism business that its hard to trust most of them. Steve and a few others we’ve learned to trust. As I said…your shots looked fine but your pronouncement that they’re better in feather detail and whatever else you said is (a) just your opinion and more importantly (b) completely subjective. I’m not trying to irritate anybody including you as we are all friends here…but without essentially identical shots at the same exposure settings by reasonably equivalent users and looked at on a monitor and not the web such declarations are presumptive to me. Perhaps the reason people disagree is that Steve has said it’s just fine used properly and we are seeing the admittedly downsampled and compressed shots and they look pretty darned good. Remember…the 80/4 rule applies to a good shot. Nobody is dismissing the 200-500 as a bad lens…it was fine in its day but had some issues. I never had one so no personal experience…but the Tamron G2 was back then generally considered to be as good and I did have one of those…and my 500PF was definitely better than the Tamron so better than the equivalent 200-500 as well…and it’s pretty much been shown that the Z mounts are better across the board. Pricewise…the 200-500 and 180-600 are to me in the same ballpark price point…and given the wider throat, shorter flange distance, and newer/better optical design software we have today…I would expect the 180-600 to be better if you’re looking at lens test charts. But I don’t care bout shooting lens test charts…I care about real subjects…and have seen mostly excellent shots from the 180-600 here and elsewhere…just as I have from the 200-500, but pixel peeping isn’t much for me either, I care if I like the pose, lighting, and PP to make a nice image a whole lot more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top