Like I said…zooming in there may be some differences…but at output a lot of it disappears and then it’s a better is the enemy of good enough debate…and good enough varies by user.
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).
Just for the record this was in Thoms review last week
"The second lens that gets mentioned is the 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR (on an FTZ adapter). You'll probably be selling your 200-500mm, if that's what you're using. At 500mm wide open the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR is clearly better, plus you can go to 600 (still better)!
Here is the full review just in case anyone wants to look;
https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount...t-lens-reviews/nikon-180-600mm-f56-63-vr.html
"The second lens that gets mentioned is the 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR (on an FTZ adapter). You'll probably be selling your 200-500mm, if that's what you're using. At 500mm wide open the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR is clearly better, plus you can go to 600 (still better)!
Here is the full review just in case anyone wants to look;
https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount...t-lens-reviews/nikon-180-600mm-f56-63-vr.html
I read his review when it was published and actually found it pretty striking how much less enthusiastic it was than his 200-500 review. The 180-600 review is full of qualifiers like "for the price" and "considering the price point" and a line with such muted praise as "for its price its arguably knocking it out of the park." That's two qualifiers on piled on top of one another: he couldn't bring himself to simply say it was knocking it out of the park, and he couldn't even go so far as to say it was knocking it out of the park for the price point - he had to put that "arguably" in there.
It's true that he says he finds it better than the 200-500, but it's impossible not to notice that in that 200-500 review he was clearly blown away whereas in this one he's constantly tempering his praise, qualifying it, etc. In fact, where sharpness is concerned he says that it's "somewhere in the very good range," repeating "very good" over and over and withholding his "excellent" rating or anything greater. In his 200-500 review? He says it's an "excellent performer." In fact, he even says readers would be "stunned" by the sharpness.
Does it matter that the 200-500 was released a few years ago when super telephoto zooms were as a general rule not as well regarded as they are now? Maybe it does, a bit. Ultimately, though, it's clear that regardless of how he rates the two lenses now he was a lot more impressed by the 200-500 than he is by the 180-600. I've read Thom's reviews of various lenses and in that context the 180-600 review really does just come across like he's having to think more about how to say things positively than others where it's clear that his stream of consciousness is just positive.
Still, I'll say thus: he says the 180-600mm is better wide open at 500mm, and I'm not so sure I've seen many examples posted from the lens at 500mm - many or most people are posting stuff at 600. I'd be curious to see 500mm examples; maybe it would change my mind a bit. As I've made clear, with one or two exceptions I'm thoroughly unimpressed by anything I've seen at 600.
It's true that I have high standards. Here's an example of a photo my wife thinks is fine or fantastic and I think is awful:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I admit it doesn't look half bad at the size it's showing up here on the forum. The problem is that it's enough of a crop that you can't view it any larger without it starting to really show its limitations and so for posting on social media or entering into a photo contest as a 4x6 it might be a decent photo while for many other things it's just going to be totally inadequate.
You're right that we can sometimes make the perfect the enemy of the good and this is something to be careful of. I think all of us may appreciate the perspective of looking at photos that would have been considered top notch in the past. I recently came across an issue of Natural Geographic from the 1970s and looking at some of the wildlife photos in there is kind of funny and surprising: some of the very worst photos many of us have taken are vastly superior to what was good enough to print in the world's premier publication of this sort back then!
...but here's the thing: those photos were fitting for Natural Geographic back then because they were better than the quality of most other photos of their own era. They'd never get a second look today. Now I'm not looking for or expecting to have a photo published in Natural Geographic (though I wouldn't turn it down!
), but the way I see things is this: it's 2023 and the quality of photos I take has to stand up against the quality of photos others are taking in 2023, not in 1973 or 2003 or even 2013. In general camera equipment - even lower end affordable stuff - is so good these days that anything short of near perfection really isn't good enough. I fully understand that some people are extremely happy with photos of all levels of quality. I see the shots people proudly post in various forums and reddit and Facebook and Instagram and many of them would be instant deletes for me. If someone is happy with a given quality of photo, I'm sincerely very happy for them! For me, though, I am not satisfied with shots of, for instance, the quality of the one I posted here. It's just not going to get me where I want to go. I don't necessarily mean that from the standpoint of professional aspiration - though sure I'd like to advance my photography in that realm - but I really just mean it from the standpoint of personal achievement.
I have a feeling this shot, if taken with, say, a 500pf or something better, would stand up a lot better to the crop I've had to do on it. Now of course you're not going to get that same level of quality from a $1700 zoom lens - but since I do find the versatility of the zoom very helpful and so I'd like to stick with a zoom if possible, then I certainly want to make sure that the quality is as good as it can be. I will be pushing my lens to its limits and so its limits really do make a difference to me. Just a little bit more sharpness and this swallow photo would be pretty good to me - while just a little bit less and I wouldn't even have saved it when I culled from that day's shots.
You are totally entitled to your opinion! Remember this though, Nikon has put out a lot of amazing glass in the last year or two so to have qualifiers about a $1700 lens that competes against recently released lenses way more expensive is totally understandable. Perhaps when the 200-500 came out there wasn't a flurry of amazing releases fresh in his mind to compare it against so maybe no qualifiers were needed. I'll just say whatever works and your happy with is fine, enjoy it!! I'm not posting here to argue about which is best although my opinion is it's the 180-600 since I've owned both, your opinion is different and that's the end of it as far as I am concerned!
Last edited:
Here are a couple from the back yard yesterday...
Ruby-throated Hummingbird on Firecracker plant
Gulf Fritillary butterfly on Lantana
Ruby-throated Hummingbird on Firecracker plant
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Gulf Fritillary butterfly on Lantana
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Both are fantastic!
Everyone knows those ‘moon landings’ were filmed in a studio backlot…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!
Hey thanks!Both are fantastic!
Arci
Active member
I had just a couple of hours to test this 180-600, but first impressions are good and in line with my expectations.
For that price, nowadays, it's a deal.
For that price, nowadays, it's a deal.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
fcotterill
Well-known member
I agree with Thom Hogan's intimation that the 180-600 is about to take over from the 200-500. Both zooms give the wildlife photographer remarkable value for money, particularly in less weight and the well known advantages of a zoom (over a series of primes).
He recently baptised his copy in Botswana, where it passed his tests:
".... for its price it is arguably knocking it out of the park, even more than the 200-500mm f/5.6E did in the DSLR days. Stop the 180-600mm lens down to f/6.3 at 180mm or f/7.1 at 600mm and it generates hard to beat sharpness against almost any competition other than the full-on exotics."
fcotterill
Well-known member
You are totally entitled to your opinion! Remember this though, Nikon has put out a lot of amazing glass in the last year or two so to have qualifiers about a $1700 lens that competes against recently released lenses way more expensive is totally understandable. Perhaps when the 200-500 came out there wasn't a flurry of amazing releases fresh in his mind to compare it against so maybe no qualifiers were needed. I'll just say whatever works and your happy with is fine, enjoy it!! I'm not posting here to argue about which is best although my opinion is it's the 180-600 since I've owned both, your opinion is different and that's the end of it as far as I am concerned!
2015 was a notable year for Nikkor telephotos: 300 PF in the January, 500 f4E, 600 f4E in July... Just before the 200-500, which received much interest.
2015 was also 2 years before the D850 launched with it's 45mp sensor, which has become a widely used resolution at which to pixel peep ;-)
The first significantly sharper telephoto zooms followed 1-2 years later; the 70-200 f2.8E in Oct, 2017 and 180-400 f4E TC14 in Jan, 2018 (then the 500 PF at the end of the boreal summer, close to "Zed Day").
Brad Hill, in particular, waxed lyrical about the qualities of the 180-400 TC (not least aperture independent sharpness), which replaced his 300 PF, 400 f2.8E and 500 f4.
Thom Hogan's reviews were also highly complementary for both these new zooms, and included: "... In some quick side-by-side shooting with the 200-500mm f/5.6E, the 180-400mm f/4 easily shows why it costs so much. As good as the 200-500mm f/5.6E is for its price—and it's one of my "bargain" lens picks—someone shooting a D850 is just going to see more detail, better resolved, and with fewer issues. Plus focus speed on the more expensive lens is what you'd expect: significantly faster, both to acquire and track."
Last edited:
Clearly your wife is correct…they always are
. I agree, everybody’s standards and wants are different…but for me that shot is perfectly fine. I don’t enter contests and rarely to never print…almost all of my output gets PP and the. Exported 1024 wide for the blog and at that size viewed on a laptop or 4K display the 1:1 differences just aren’t there for the on screen viewing.Perhaps it’s just time passes mBack when the 200-500 came out there weren’t a whole lot of super tele options that were affordable so gushing over it seemed justified at the time. Today there are a lot more options and while admittedly prime better than zoom generally and more expensive better than less expensive generally…a lot of it depends on what a person wants. I had the zoom on order and saw no reason from an IQ standpoint based on images here and elsewhere …but decided light was important and I’m going to be at 600 with the zoom more often than not…so the 600PF and the 100-400 on the other body makes a lighter overall but still flexible combo. I’ll even use the tC with the 100-400 because for screen output it’s more than good enough and it’s lighter. Also have the 400/4.5, again for weight reasons when a single lens is all I want to take, but unless the smaller length makes it an easier fit into the bag it might not get used all that much anymore.
Here are a few shots I took with my 180-600, I am a wedding and portrait photographer getting into wildlife and birds simply for my own pleasure and my love for the outdoors so I'm still learning post processing etiquette when it comes to these creatures/situations, this was simply just for my own curiosity and I have to say I was impressed with the IQ of this lens. I did end up selling it this week and picked up a 400 f/4.5, not so much for a desire for increased IQ but for lighter weight and easier hand holdability... Hopefully I did this right and the EXIF info comes through.
The birds are from a walk along the beach with my wife and just taking some quick snaps here and there, the piper with the bubbling water was to show how the lens does with specular highlights and there's some interesting christmas tree light ones in there that some tweaking in LR probably could have taken care of but wanted to share nonetheless, the moon was actually 98.7% full and was shot with my 1.4 TC and DX mode and the final sunset images with fisherman was while I was doing a family photo shoot and saw that guy in the far distance with the sunset and thought it would make a great shot, I got a whole series of him casting out into the surf which turned out splendidly.
The birds are from a walk along the beach with my wife and just taking some quick snaps here and there, the piper with the bubbling water was to show how the lens does with specular highlights and there's some interesting christmas tree light ones in there that some tweaking in LR probably could have taken care of but wanted to share nonetheless, the moon was actually 98.7% full and was shot with my 1.4 TC and DX mode and the final sunset images with fisherman was while I was doing a family photo shoot and saw that guy in the far distance with the sunset and thought it would make a great shot, I got a whole series of him casting out into the surf which turned out splendidly.
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.
Not much to shoot around here right now. Went down to the year round duck pond that's usually a sure thing. Wasn't much going on. Got one flyby. Unfortunately not in front of the trees.
1)
2)
3)
1)
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
2)
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
3)
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
A few from yesterday... lot's of distracting vegetation conspired against me, but he is a beautiful buck on the chase.
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.
Here are 100% crops from the pics above, by the way, I thought the lens did extremely well looking directly into the sun. Lower left of the image shows 100% crop area of main image.
In this shot I was surprised to see so much detail in the fisherman's rod, the guide posts can be clearly seen
In this shot, focus locked onto the bird with challenging light and not very big in the frame but still nice to see the detail in the bird
In this shot I was surprised to see so much detail in the fisherman's rod, the guide posts can be clearly seen
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
In this shot, focus locked onto the bird with challenging light and not very big in the frame but still nice to see the detail in the bird
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
JanH
Active member
While this lens certainly has a bit of a learning curve for me, I am very happy with the results I am getting if I use it carefully. The following are all full pictures followed with crops taken with the Z6II
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.
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.
Went out to tyhe park this morning, here are some of the photos I got.
Juvenile Bald Eagle
Adult
Adult in the blue
Taking a break in an old dead tree
Juvenile Bald Eagle
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Adult
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Adult in the blue
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Taking a break in an old dead tree
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
JanH
Active member
Great shots for a morning stroll George!
George, I think every photo I've seen you post of images with 180-600 are spectacular and could be in a coffee table book. Nikon would do well to point people in your direction, your post processing technique is stellar and something I aspire to learn to help make my images pop
Thank you Jan!!Great shots for a morning stroll George!
Hey thanks very much, really nice of you to say! I only show the good ones though!George, I think every photo I've seen you post of images with 180-600 are spectacular and could be in a coffee table book. Nikon would do well to point people in your direction, your post processing technique is stellar and something I aspire to learn to help make my images pop