Nikon 180-600 Sharpness And AF Speed Tests!

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
Thanks for another very informative video, really appreciate all the work you do for the photo community. Your results are probably going to be a surprise for many as the Z 180-600 mm has/had been downplayed as an inexpensive lens, and thus not to expect too much from it. Then, again, there isn't an expensive, high end, S level zoom in this focal length to compare it to. But, that it could still compare fairly well with much more expensive primes is a tip of the hat to Nikon. Now if Nikon could get my ordered lens on its way....
 
Member's gallery
NWGuy said:
Thanks for another very informative video, really appreciate all the work you do for the photo community. Your results are probably going to be a surprise for many as the Z 180-600 mm has/had been downplayed as an inexpensive lens, and thus not to expect too much from it. Then, again, there isn't an expensive, high end, S level zoom in this focal length to compare it to. But, that it could still compare fairly well with much more expensive primes is a tip of the hat to Nikon. Now if Nikon could get my ordered lens on its way....
Click to expand...
LOL, some of those results surprised me!
 
Member's gallery
JanH said:
Thank you so much Steve, your video is very complete and informative. I am glad I decided to preorder the lens early, and hope for its arrival in the not-too-far-off future. It was also good to see how well it takes the 1.4 TC, which I may add in the future.

My big question remains how well the AF of this lens will perform on the Z6II. I am trying not to expect too much, but hope it will improve on the Tamron 100-400mm, which is slow, not always consistent, and prone to hunting. I think it will take at least a Z6III for this lens to really perform as well as it can. It was good to see though that the AF speed did not suffer much on the Z7 (in good conditions).
Click to expand...
PS. I should add that Steve's comparison with the Z 100-400mm was very helpful to me.

I was considering this lens with the TC 1.4 because it is much more portable (if more expensive). But Steve's comparison confirms to me that the 180-600mm is the way to go, at least for wildlife (for landscape the 100-400mm would have the edge IMO because it has shorter focal lengths and is at least as sharp in the 100-2xxmm range)
 
Member's gallery
JanH said:
PS. I should add that Steve's comparison with the Z 100-400mm was very helpful to me.

I was considering this lens with the TC 1.4 because it is much more portable (if more expensive). But Steve's comparison confirms to me that the 180-600mm is the way to go, at least for wildlife (for landscape the 100-400mm would have the edge IMO because it has shorter focal lengths and is at least as sharp in the 100-2xxmm range)
Click to expand...
Same. Was planning to get the 100-400 to pair with my larger prime when it arrives, based on slightly smaller size, weight savings and lower f stop, but after seeing this video ordered the 180-600 for the sharpness and larger range (Have the 70-200 range covered at 2.8). Once again, Steve delivers. Thanks Steve.
 
Member's gallery
On a pure price/performance basis the 180-600 seems like a startling home run by Nikon. Amazing performance for the price. Still, there are other considerations. I think my default kit is going to stay as the 24-120 and 100-400, with the occasional inclusion of the 14-30. The reasoning boils down to size/weight and for lack of a better term 'nimbleness'. (I also already have the 100-400 :) ). If I was going out in search of small birds I'd take something longer, but I can fit the 24-120 and 100-400 in a sling bag...

Nice work on the comparisons.
 
Member's gallery
Steve, here is another suggestion for a sharpness comparison: 70-200mm f2.8S vs 100-400mm S at 100mm and 200mm and maybe longer too with tcs added.

I bought the S 100-400mm instead of the 70-200mm S. Maybe I need a 180-600mm and a 70-200mm instead of the 100-400mm.
 
Member's gallery
Well @Steve , you solved one of the mysteries we've all been wondering about i.e. "Why did it take Nikon so long to release this lens?" Now it's evident that they weren't going to release it until they could get it to match or exceed the performance of the Sony 200-600 o_O

By the way, hope you're ready for all of the wrath that's going to be heaped on you for saying that focus speed isn't as important in the field as people make it out to be :eek:
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
Well @Steve , you solved one of the mysteries we've all been wondering about i.e. "Why did it take Nikon so long to release this lens?" Now it's evident that they weren't going to release it until they could get it to match or exceed the performance of the Sony 200-600 o_O

By the way, hope you're ready for all of the wrath that's going to be heaped on you for saying that focus speed isn't as important in the field as people make it out to be :eek:
Click to expand...
LOL, I'm bracing myself - so far, no flames, but I'm ready! 🧑‍🚒
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
In this video, we'll do some tests to discover how sharp the Nikon 180-600 is - pitting it against six popular contenders. We'll compare the Nikon 180-600mm against the Nikon 100-400mm, Nikon 400mm F/4.5, Nikon 800PF, Nikon 500PF, Nikon 600mm TC And Sony 200-600!

Will it impress? Will it embarrass itself on the test chart? The only way to find out is to watch the video!

In addition, we'll also compare AF speeds between those lenses and see which is the fastest, which is the slowest, and where the 180-600 fits in.

Check it out:

Click to expand...
Thank you Steve! This is exactly what we all have been waiting for! I’m glad I ordered early for this lens.
 
Member's gallery
Would be interesting to see the 200-600 adapted to the Z9 for the AF speed.
My guess is the speed of the 200-600 in this test is down to the A1 more so than the lens.
I found the 200-600 to be a relatively slow focusing lens compared to the 600GM on A1.
If you still have your 600GM I wonder what speed it would clock on the A1 in that same test??

Biggest surprise to me in this test was the 100-400 not matching the 200-600 at 400mm. That is dissapointing in a much more expensive lens.

This testing also confirms my belief that TCs are best left at home or on the store shelf...unless it is built in I've pretty much stopped using them. But my reasoning is usually more because of AF hit rate than IQ.

Thanks for the detailed testing Steve!!! Looks like a great lens...it will go down as a wildlife classic like the Sony 2-6 has done over the past 4 years.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
Would be interesting to see the 200-600 adapted to the Z9 for the AF speed.
My guess is the speed of the 200-600 in this test is down to the A1 more so than the lens.
I found the 200-600 to be a relatively slow focusing lens compared to the 600GM on A1.
If you still have your 600GM I wonder what speed it would clock on the A1 in that same test??

Biggest surprise to me in this test was the 100-400 not matching the 200-600 at 400mm. That is dissapointing in a much more expensive lens.

This testing also confirms my belief that TCs are best left at home or on the store shelf...unless it is built in I've pretty much stopped using them. But my reasoning is usually more because of AF hit rate than IQ.

Thanks for the detailed testing Steve!!! Looks like a great lens...it will go down as a wildlife classic like the Sony 2-6 has done over the past 4 years.
Click to expand...
I too was really surprised at the 200-600 speed - although it may have been just because it was an easy target too. I have tested the 600GM and if I recall it was tied with the Nikon 600 (I'd have to do some digging to be sure, but that seems right).

I was also disappointed with the 100-400 @ 400mm. If Camera Labs hadn't come to the same conclusion, I would have thought something was wrong with my copy. It could be a distance thing too - all of these are sort of close-range. Maybe the 100-400 is better at longer distances???
 
Member's gallery
Another excellent video, Steve! Thank you so very much for creating it! For those of us slow learners (and adopters), what’s your impression of the 180-600 compared to the 200-500? I know you didn’t include it n your comparison tests for good reason, but thought I’d ask for your opinion anyway. I’m still shooting D850s with a 200-500 (as well as other lenses of course), but am seriously considering finally making the shift to the Z9 and 180-600 (can’t afford the Z 600 TC). As always, thanks so much for everything you do!
 
Member's gallery
Rassie said:
Agreed. Steve did some comparative tests on BCG a couple of years ago where he clearly showed the Nikkor 200-500mm lens to focus much slower than some other lenses. I fully expect the new 180-600mm will focus significantly faster than the 200-500mm.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but it sure would be nice to know just how much.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
It depends on what you need - the 100-400 is sharper than 180-600 at 200mm (and also goes down to 100mm with that same sharpness). So, if you need shorter focal lengths, it's worth having it.

I agree on keeping the 400 4.5 - I'm keeping mine. It's noticeably lighter and handy for when I want to keep the weight down when hiking.
Click to expand...
I’d keep my 100-400 just for it‘s reproduction ratio at close focus. I’m sure I’ve used it for more semi-macro shots than long distance telephotos anyway.

I wasn’t considering the 180-600 until I saw this video. The 100-400 was a disappointing comparison (at the longer end), particularly with the Tc, which I was thinking of getting but won’t bother now. My only doubt is the additional weight of the 180-600, I was never keen on the Sigma 150-600 for the same reason 🤔
 
Member's gallery
Fantastic! I 'should' be near receiving mine, but have been considering a cancel for the 100-400. I'll wait for it.
But the fantastic test was at short/close distance, wildlife is out yonder. Is that a concern, I ponder.
 
Member's gallery
Wes Peterson said:
Dang, should have tested against the 200-500. I feel like the 180-600 crowd is made up of ex- 200-500 shooters.
Click to expand...
Agreed, although I understand that Steve is limited by the lenses he owns, and he know longer owns the 200-500. But aside from the comparison with the Sony 200-600, I think Nikon shooters would find the comparison with the 200-500 of great interest. It’s basically the Z replacement for the 200-500. I suspect a good number of F mount owners on the fence about going mirrorless may be considering whether the 180-600 might make it worth jumping ship.
 
Member's gallery
Thank you Steve for another great video. Can’t wait for my copy to show up. I really trust your test and opinion. I’m also thankful for you setup guide. Would hate to try to figure out my Z9&Z8 without it. So worth the money. Keep up the great work.
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
Another excellent video, Steve! Thank you so very much for creating it! For those of us slow learners (and adopters), what’s your impression of the 180-600 compared to the 200-500? I know you didn’t include it n your comparison tests for good reason, but thought I’d ask for your opinion anyway. I’m still shooting D850s with a 200-500 (as well as other lenses of course), but am seriously considering finally making the shift to the Z9 and 180-600 (can’t afford the Z 600 TC). As always, thanks so much for everything you do!
Click to expand...
I don't have the 200-500 anymore, but based on my experience, this lens seems both faster and sharper to me. However, a test may prove otherwise - I'm just sort of guessing.
 
Member's gallery
Peter_P said:
I’d keep my 100-400 just for it‘s reproduction ratio at close focus. I’m sure I’ve used it for more semi-macro shots than long distance telephotos anyway.

I wasn’t considering the 180-600 until I saw this video. The 100-400 was a disappointing comparison (at the longer end), particularly with the Tc, which I was thinking of getting but won’t bother now. My only doubt is the additional weight of the 180-600, I was never keen on the Sigma 150-600 for the same reason 🤔
Click to expand...
I've had another thought about the 100-400 @ 400mm. It occurs to me (a little belated) that zooms tend to do better towards the center of their range and often aren't great at either extreme. So, maybe it shouldn't be as much of a surprise to me when the 180-600 edged it out. Maybe :)
 
Member's gallery
Charles Loy said:
Fantastic! I 'should' be near receiving mine, but have been considering a cancel for the 100-400. I'll wait for it.
But the fantastic test was at short/close distance, wildlife is out yonder. Is that a concern, I ponder.
Click to expand...
It could be - The prototype I used seemed fine at longer ranges, but my time with it was very limited. I'll be using this again soon :)
 
Member's gallery
ARClark said:
Agreed, although I understand that Steve is limited by the lenses he owns, and he know longer owns the 200-500. But aside from the comparison with the Sony 200-600, I think Nikon shooters would find the comparison with the 200-500 of great interest. It’s basically the Z replacement for the 200-500. I suspect a good number of F mount owners on the fence about going mirrorless may be considering whether the 180-600 might make it worth jumping ship.
Click to expand...
I might see if I can borrow one from Nikon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top