Kenny88
Active member
Oh! Thanks, I didn't know that fact - I assumed that Steve would have kept the 200-500mm and as part of his lens library.
Nikon 180-600 - Photo Share & Discussion Thread
- Thread starter MatthewK
- 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).
IMO…if you’re shooting Z bodies…the Z lenses are going to be an upgrade for a lot of reasons…designed with better optical software, new/better coatings, wider throat, more controls to customize, shorter zoom throws, etc. Tha doesn’t make F mounts no longer take good shots…just like the Zs don’t make older bodies no longer take good shots. But tech has marched on and I’m guessing most of us have either moved or are moving to Z bodies for all the new things they can do…and it makes sense to do the same with lenses.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?
And personally…we re all spending too much time comparing the polishing on our cannonballs and debating which mirror like finish is better…but that’s what the internet is for, right??
Fair points, but not everyone has transitioned to ML, myself included. Call me a relic or simply stubborn (I’m probably both), but I’m still trying mentally to justify the financial outlay that would be required for me to make the change, for what I do. I’m just an enthusiastic amateur, and my D850s do just about everything I need from a camera, as do my F-mount lenses. Do I wish that I had more advanced AF? Of course, but is it a make or break situation for me? Not really. Do I really want faster frame rates? Maybe, maybe not (I spend too much time already reviewing image files). Speaking personally then, what I’m especially interested in is better optics that will significantly improve the quality of my images. If Z-mount lenses offer enough of an edge, then I‘d definitely give more serious consideration to moving to a ML platform. Otherwise, the jury is out, for me at least.IMO…if you’re shooting Z bodies…the Z lenses are going to be an upgrade for a lot of reasons…designed with better optical software, new/better coatings, wider throat, more controls to customize, shorter zoom throws, etc. Tha doesn’t make F mounts no longer take good shots…just like the Zs don’t make older bodies no longer take good shots. But tech has marched on and I’m guessing most of us have either moved or are moving to Z bodies for all the new things they can do…and it makes sense to do the same with lenses.
And personally…we re all spending too much time comparing the polishing on our cannonballs and debating which mirror like finish is better…but that’s what the internet is for, right??
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with being a relic…I’m there too…or with stying with what one has because we are either too broke or too cheap to upgrade. But if using F mount bodies the pn the goodness or not of Z lenses compared to Fs is irrelevant since they don’t fit. The Z lenses are generally better, smaller, and lighter than F counterparts…but that may or may not be a reason to switch and I’m not going to look down at people that haven’t, won’t, or can’t…but I think that most but maybe it’s only 55 or 60% have moved partially or completely to Z.
Klocarolinanc
New member
I don’t understand why my photos look terrible. I had the 200 500 on my Z72 and it worked great. I used it on my Z8 and it works great. I just got the 180-600 it’s terrible. I seem to have noise, no matter what I do. I think I have a bad copy because I don’t know what’s wrong?I was not happy at the beginning... something was off concerning sharpness. Until the 180 600 I was using as long lens the 300 pf alone or with the 1.4 TC. IT WAS ME.I had to learn how to manage 600 mm and a bigger glass. After 2 weeks I love itNot too heavy, satisfactory, flexible. 600 mm f 6.3 1/800 s 11400 ISO on Z8.
View attachment 72729
Cameron T
Well-known member
Post examples. That's the only way anyone can help
Superb shots, George!
beautiful pictures !
thank you!!
Thanks Lance!
After looking at George’s set, I’m not sure what else people need to see. Those photos are spectacular. Razor sharp and beautifully exposed. I’ve seen the 200-500 give similar results but you can’t go to 600mm and you loose all the functionality of a Z lens. I have no skin in the game. I don’t own either lens and prefer primes but if I were to purchase one, I wouldn’t hesitate to get the 180-600.
Personally, I’m eyeing the 800 pf
Personally, I’m eyeing the 800 pf
I think "pixel peeping" has a radically undeserved bad name, or maybe a better way of putting it is that I'd say that while it's definitely possible to "pixel peep" and look at an image too closely, most of what people call pixel peeping isn't really pixel peeping. What a lot of review sites and videos do where they blow a photo up to 200% to compare things - that I'd say is pixel peeping and if you have to zoom in to that level to find a problem than I'd say the photo is fine.
Looking at photos at 75% or 85% or up to 100%, though, is I think an important tool for evaluating and comparison. The fact is that just about any lens one could possibly attach to the camera can produce shots that all look almost identical at the sizes photos often display on sites like this, but to me photos that look good at those sizes may be fine for Instagram or similar uses but if they don't look good when viewed at a larger size, too, then they're inadequate for a lot of things I care about a lot more than social media posts. This is why to me getting a higher resolution file if available and viewing at a larger size is essential to try to determine things like, for instance, whether a given lens will produce sharp enough images.
Some people insist there's more to a lens than sharpness and it's true that there is. There's more to a house than a roof, too but if you don't start out with a roof on top then it doesn't matter how good the rest of the house is, it's not going to be a good house to live in. I see sharpness like that: it's not all there is to a lens, but it's absolutely essential as a bare minimum.
Last edited:
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.
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 hahaAfter 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.
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.
ajrmd
Well-known member
I've been watching some more youtube videos which have confirmed what Steve observed and they have largely assuaged my fears. Reading these forums, one would think to avoid this lens like the plague but what I'm seeing suggests otherwise.
Thanks Ralph!!Awesome set George
Being a non-S "budget" lens, maybe there isn't as high of quality control, and there's copy variance. It's totally possible, and it sucks that is something we have to deal with. As it has been in the past, just make sure you get it from a reputable dealer so that you have returns if you get a copy you aren't satisfied with.
What I can guarantee, is that if I were to give this lens to you/anyone to test, or you land a good copy when you buy, you'll be completely satisfied with its performance, if not blown away
Last edited:
Being a non-S "budget" lens, maybe there isn't as high of quality control, and there's copy variance. It's totally possible, and it sucks that is something we have to deal with. As it has been in the past, just make sure you get it from a reputable dealer so that you have returns if you get a copy you aren't satisfied with.
What I can guarantee, is that if I were to give this lens to you/anyone to test, or you land a good copy when you buy, you'll be completely satisfied with its performance, if not blown away
Matthew, if more of the examples people were posting around the internet looked like yours I wouldn't be questioning this lens. You are definitely putting out the best results I've seen.
Kenny88
Active member
From my own perception of the lens so far after looking closely at some pictures I took of a subject at f6.3, f7.1 and f8.0, I believe that f8.0 is the sharpest - feather details are just a tad bit sharper, while at f6.3, the feathers slightly appear soft, and when I mean slightly, I mean very slight. Honestly, one wouldn't be able to see the difference WITHOUT pixel peeping at 100%+. f7.1 and f6.3 is VERY close as well, and so close that I'd probably save the fstop and shoot at f7.1 if I had to, or if conditions permit, go to f8 for sure. Post processing at f6.3 will likely bring it up to the sharpness of f7.1/f8.0 as is.
I'm hoping others can conclude the same as I have.
I'm hoping others can conclude the same as I have.
Kenny88
Active member
Sadly, I think this might be the case - in Steve's videos, he says the same - his results might differ from others due to copy variation.Being a non-S "budget" lens, maybe there isn't as high of quality control, and there's copy variance. It's totally possible, and it sucks that is something we have to deal with. As it has been in the past, just make sure you get it from a reputable dealer so that you have returns if you get a copy you aren't satisfied with.
What I can guarantee, is that if I were to give this lens to you/anyone to test, or you land a good copy when you buy, you'll be completely satisfied with its performance, if not blown away
I don't know what Nikon does in terms of quality control, and if it's different for their S lens or more expensive lenses, I think they really really need to stop discriminating that. A budget lens might not be a budget lens for some folks and we can't all afford a 600mm or 800mm prime, so Nikon needs to recognize that and treat all their consumers equally.
Just for the heck of it I tried a moon shot at the park this morning, I got there before sunrise. This was handheld, click on image for full size. Not too shabby for 1/60th of a second.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
So detailed... I think I can see Neil Armstrong's footprints
Well I have to disagree here that's Alan Shepard prints from Apollo 14, he had on Reeboks, Neil had on NASA boots. As you can see if you really zoom in the prints are Reeboks!So detailed... I think I can see Neil Armstrong's footprints
You’re right…zooming in is good tp check for things…but going in to 1:1 which I think is the generallyaccepted definition of peeping and judging lens A vs B sharpness seems like a fools errand to me..Yes…ypu might see differences but when looking at the ctual zoom for print or downsampled for screen…the majority of those perceived sharpness differences disappear…and then better becomes the enemy of good enough.
I think this is probably true for many types of photography, but for wildlife photography in particular - and possibly sports, too - I think viewing at greater levels of zoom can be essential because you're often cropping and sometimes are cropping significantly so that the extra sharpness you can discern between one lens or another may be the difference between an image that can be cropped and processed into something worthwhile or usable and one that can't.
We always try to avoid cropping and some people often can depending on a lot of factors, some of which can be mitigated by improvements in skill and craft but others which are based on things that are harder to change like the locations available to a person.
Some of my favorite images I've taken were done on an old 70-300 DX lens that doesn't stand up well to cropping at all but looks plenty sharp because I was able to largely fill the frame. Others were taken on my 200-500 and look great even at decent sizes even though I had to crop somewhat heavily because the copy is sharp enough to bear it but which wouldn't be usable photos if my lens were not as sharp as it is when viewed at a larger size, even if it were hard to tell the difference from the non-cropped original.