Nikon 180-600 Sharpness And AF Speed Tests!

[Fishboy1952]

Thank you Steve! Another great video. I must admit, I am a little surprised at how well the 180-600 hangs with the others, especially lenses like the 600 f4. There obviously is a difference but it’s not to the level I expected. I have one on order from Nikon and am still waiting (non NPS). I primarily shoot the 500PF now with a Z9 so I really liked that comparison. Looking forward to shooting raptors with it! Thanks for all that you do!

 

[Steve]

Thank you Steve! Another great video. I must admit, I am a little surprised at how well the 180-600 hangs with the others, especially lenses like the 600 f4. There obviously is a difference but it’s not to the level I expected. I have one on order from Nikon and am still waiting (non NPS). I primarily shoot the 500PF now with a Z9 so I really liked that comparison. Looking forward to shooting raptors with it! Thanks for all that you do!

I think the big thing with primes is also their ability to handle lower light. Although it is clearly sharper across the board, I think the main reason we pay the big bucks (at least my reason LOL) is that it can be that sharp at F/4 - allowing better low-light shooting and subject isolation. Still, I have a feeling my "go to" kit will be the 600 TC and the 180-600.

 

[Nimi]

I don't need a 160-600, but maybe now I do ?

 

[SCoombs]

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.

I'd be very curious, too. It's mildly interesting to hear "equal to the Sony" because I hear people praise the Sony, but I have no real experience with it so it's also of limited value to me. At this point my real decision is probably between the 180-600 and something like the 500pf. Obviously the 500pf will be sharper, but the zoom has the versatility of a zoom. In replacing my 200-500 I don't need $3500+ worth of sharpness, but I do need reliability in the ~$1500 worth of sharpness, which is what I feel like I am really lacking and constantly fighting with the 200-500. I get sharp photos with it at times, but boy do I ever have to take hundreds just to get one or two that are okay. Meanwhile I know others spend time culling their hundreds of sharp shots to find those handful that are pristine and perfect, or to pick the one with the best wing position or facial expression out of their dozens or hundreds of acceptably sharp choices. I'm never in a position to choose my favorite wing position or background because I am having to take the ones that wind up sharp.

As I type this I'm also going through a bunch of photos from a morning out at a fair with the family, some photos taken with my 200-500, others with the 70-180/2.8. The 200-500 sections is like searching for a needle in a haystack, just trying to get the ones that are usable. The 70-180 sections are so different: 85-90% of them are sharp and I just need to pick the ones I like the best.

For instance, this (molting?) cardinal (

https://flic.kr/p/2p3gHyo

) We've all probably seen sharper, but it's plenty good enough for me. This is from a pair that is always around my backyard. I tried to get a photo of the male at the very same time as this, but they were awful. I even tried increasing the shutter speed after reviewing on the LCD and seeing they looked poor and wondering if it was motion blur since I was keeping the SS down at that time, but still to no avail. Bear in mind this is in my yard in a location where I've never really noticed IQ problems due to heat or atmospherics, and on a day when I'd be less likely to expect that sort of thing even if I were at a more susceptible location. I did find one that was... okay and that's also on that flickr page, but it still in my view doesn't compare to the female shot and with not clear reason as to why there's a difference (he's on a single roof in the one photo I found that was okay and so someone might suggest it's too hot on that surface, but I've also got plenty of terrible photos of him on the same branch as the female).

Everything I've read and heard about the 500pf makes me believe I'd get that kind of reliability from it - of course, at the expense of the zoom. In fact, I've even found a number of other people who specifically report their experience of moving from the 200-500 to the 500pf and finding exactly what I am looking for: that suddenly, a much higher percentage of their shots were consistently sharp and in focus. Yet I do like the zoom on the 200-500: it's very useful and I have absolutely gotten good shots I'd have missed if I were locked in at 500mm. That's why what I really want to know is how the lens performs compared to the 200-500: with the 180-600 would I be getting the strengths of the old F mount lens without (or with significantly less) of its weaknesses? Or, would I be getting a slightly sharper, slightly faster native Z mount lens that still leaves me frustrated with too many missed shots?

I think that's really want I need to figure out and would like to somehow see in a comparison.

 

[Abinoone]

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.

Absolutel!

 

[BLev65]

Steve,
I really appreciate your thoughtful approach to these comparisons and the controlled manner in which they were made. As always, your reviews are among the best available and your own work adds a level of credibility that is missing from other reviewers.
As many others have commented, it looks like Nikon really produced an amazing lens. Striking is the fact that they are selling this for under $2000 US. They have produced a credible wildlife capable super zoom for less money than Sony, Canon, and even Fuji's offering. While Nikon once was the most expensive in the non-Leica market, they have become the price leader.
While I would love to add the lens to my bag, I'm just not interested in giving up my 400 f4.5... it's just that good. I've opted to buy the 70-180 f/2.8 for short focal lengths and work with the 400 and 800PF... all of this and 3 bodies fit in my bag, a point that allows me to easily photograph most wildlife subjects near the car or miles in the field.

Once again... another great video!
regards,
bruce

 

[Lance B]

Another brilliant video and thanks, Steve. I was sitting on the fence on whether to get this lens, but have decided to get it after this video.

 

[PeggyBaker]

@Steve are you sure you weren't an engineer in a previous life? Masterful job. Just got my 180-600 and am very happy with it based on the short time i've had it. Cashed in my 100-400 and will have to make due with the 70-200s and the 400 4.5. Braving the Okefenokee swamp this week so it should get a good workout. And the closer shots seemed ok to me.

 

[John Navitsky]

thanks for the video. the big surprise for me was the 100-400 af speed. i knew it was slower than the 400 4.5, but i didn’t realize by how much.

random thoughts.

did you have subject detection turned off? if not it seems like it could impact af speed somewhat

it might also be interesting to do af speed tests at different focal lengths

great review!

 

[Len Shepherd]

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!

One detail not tested was "close focus" ability - though covering too many details in a video can make it overly complicated, especially for a primarily birds forum.

At minimum focus distance the Nikon 180-600 covers a 6 inch wide subject at 2.4 meters (7 ft 9 inches) and the Sony covers a 7.5 wide inch wide subject at the same MFD. This can give the Nikon an advantage with small birds, or many other small subjects that can be difficult to approach.

With the 1.4x the Nikon performs well relative to no converter and covers a 4.2 inch wide subject.

I consider the 160-600 a bit big and heavy for butterflies and insects. For me this is where the lighter 100-400 moves ahead, covering a 4 inch wide subject without a converter at 2 feet 5 inches MFD, or a 2.9 inch wide subject with a 1.4x converter.

A question for Steve.
How wide is your test target?
I understand it is smaller than some and about the size of a herring gull.
Lens resolution can vary with focus distance, though generally I find much less so than with 25 year old designs, especially with more than one AF motor (each moving different lens elements) in many recent lens designs.

Nit picking perhaps, ideally the Nikon 180-600 AF speed comparison could have started from a 7.5 inch wide Sony subject size. This might bring the Nikon AF speed in your "minimum focus to infinity test" to 0.7 seconds.
Even so with approximate pre-focus as you say AF acquisition is much quicker and seems to me at least 20 times faster than a minimum focus to infinity comparison.

 

[GregWCIL]

Dang, should have tested against the 200-500. I feel like the 180-600 crowd is made up of ex- 200-500 shooters.

I’m sure a little effort on your part will find some older comparisons of the 209-500 vs lens such as the 500pf. You can extrapolate from there.

 

[Wes Peterson]

I’m sure a little effort on your part will find some older comparisons of the 209-500 vs lens such as the 500pf. You can extrapolate from there.

By that logic he really only needed to test it against 1 lens and everyone could have extrapolated from that comparison.

 

[Len Shepherd]

By that logic he really only needed to test it against 1 lens and everyone could have extrapolated from that comparison.

Steve tested against a wide range of lenses he currently owns.

It seems harsh to me to suggest a test against lenses he does not own.

 

[MarkG]

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:

Great video. Regarding the AF speed comparison 180-600 vs 200-600, if I heard correctly in the video it was done MFD to infinity? Since they have different MFDs and different max magnification, perhaps an interesting comparison would be fixed close distance to infinity for both.

Since Nikon has lower MFD it may have longer effective travel for the focus group.

 

[John_DE]

Thanks for a great test providing all of the data on how the various lenses perform. I’ve definitely added the 180-600 as my wildlife zoom.

 

[Wes Peterson]

Steve tested against a wide range of lenses he currently owns.

It seems harsh to me to suggest a test against lenses he does not own.

As if I had any knowledge of steve's personal lens lineup before I made the suggestion.

Can you at least admit that the 200-500 is the most comparable lens in the Nikon lineup to the 180-600?

 

[Steve]

thanks for the video. the big surprise for me was the 100-400 af speed. i knew it was slower than the 400 4.5, but i didn’t realize by how much.

random thoughts.

did you have subject detection turned off? if not it seems like it could impact af speed somewhat

it might also be interesting to do af speed tests at different focal lengths

great review!

All at the longest focal length, and yes, subject detection is off (so is VR) for ALL tests

 

[Steve]

One detail not tested was "close focus" ability - though covering too many details in a video can make it overly complicated, especially for a primarily birds forum.

At minimum focus distance the Nikon 180-600 covers a 6 inch wide subject at 2.4 meters (7 ft 9 inches) and the Sony covers a 7.5 wide inch wide subject at the same MFD. This can give the Nikon an advantage with small birds, or many other small subjects that can be difficult to approach.

With the 1.4x the Nikon performs well relative to no converter and covers a 4.2 inch wide subject.

I consider the 160-600 a bit big and heavy for butterflies and insects. For me this is where the lighter 100-400 moves ahead, covering a 4 inch wide subject without a converter at 2 feet 5 inches MFD, or a 2.9 inch wide subject with a 1.4x converter.

A question for Steve.
How wide is your test target?
I understand it is smaller than some and about the size of a herring gull.
Lens resolution can vary with focus distance, though generally I find much less so than with 25 year old designs, especially with more than one AF motor (each moving different lens elements) in many recent lens designs.

Nit picking perhaps, ideally the Nikon 180-600 AF speed comparison could have started from a 7.5 inch wide Sony subject size. This might bring the Nikon AF speed in your "minimum focus to infinity test" to 0.7 seconds.
Even so with approximate pre-focus as you say AF acquisition is much quicker and seems to me at least 20 times faster than a minimum focus to infinity comparison.

This was more of a sharpness and speed test than an overall comparison, so I didn't even look at minimum focus distances and reproduction ratios between the lenses. I might in a future, more comprehensive review though. In this case, I had so many questions about sharpness and speed I just wanted to get something out

The test target is 17 x 11 inches, so about the size of a herring gull, as you say. I did mention in the beginning of the video that distance might have an effect so I agree 100% - different distances might change the outcomes (I also concur that I think this is more with older lens designs). My issue is that I like more controlled tests and longer range tests have to be done outdoors (my basement isn't long enough LOL). As you know, as soon as you go outside, you have to worry if heart distortion - even a minor amount - is affecting your results. What I really need is a large, long warehouse space I can borrow with a larger target.

The speed comparisons are tricky. On one hand, I could do them all from a set minimum distance, but then people might argue that for one lens that minimum distance is still very close (or at) a particular lenses' minimum focus distance anyway and not the other one - giving the second lens an advantage. I think in the specific case of the Sony vs Nikon zooms it does make sense though.

My bigger reason is more practical (and to be fair I should talk about this in the video). I think the the vast, vast majority of cases, we're not starting out at minimum focus distance and heading out to infinity for a subject anyway. However, the reason I use that as my test methodology is because when we miss the target and the lens starts to hunt, it does go through the entire range (assuming no range limiter is on, of course). This can have a significant, real-world impact on how quickly you can require focus in a fast moving situation.

 

[Steve]

Great video. Regarding the AF speed comparison 180-600 vs 200-600, if I heard correctly in the video it was done MFD to infinity? Since they have different MFDs and different max magnification, perhaps an interesting comparison would be fixed close distance to infinity for both.

Since Nikon has lower MFD it may have longer effective travel for the focus group.

See the last part of my response to Len above

 

[ARClark]

I might see if I can borrow one from Nikon.

Steve, I really appreciate you doing the various lens comparisons. It's very informative. However, regarding the 200-500, I have a follow up question concerning its AF speed and how it compares to the 180-600 based on AF measurements you did of the 200-500 in an earlier review.

Since you didn't have a 200-500 to compare to the 180-600, I remembered that you did AF speed comparisons between the 500 PF and 200-500 in your earlier 500 PF Review. The 200-500 AF speed was measured at 0.83 second, which is about the same as the 180-600 (0.8 second) in the current review. Interestingly, however, the 500 PF was measured at 0.4 seconds in that earlier review versus 0.57 seconds in this 180-600 comparison. Can you comment on 1) the differences in the 500 PF AF speeds between these two reviews and 2) whether any meaningful comparison can be made between the 200-500's measured AF speed in that older 500 PF review and the AF speed of the 180-600 in this current review? I'm assuming there are some differences in the AF speed measurement methodologies between the two reviews that might invalidate that comparison, but I didn't want to speculate. Your answer here could also be helpful to others that might try to make the same comparison.

Thanks!

 

[SCoombs]

Steve, I really appreciated you doing the various lens comparisons. It's very informative. However, regarding the 200-500, I have a follow up question.

Since you didn't have a 200-500 to compare to the 180-600, I remembered that you did AF speed comparisons between the 500 PF and 200-500 in your earlier 500 PF Review. The 200-500 AF speed was measured at 0.83 second, which is about the same as the 180-600 (0.8 second) in the current review. Interestingly, however, the 500 PF was measured at 0.4 seconds in that earlier review versus 0.57 seconds in this 180-600 comparison. Can you comment on the differences in the 500 PF AF speeds between these two reviews and whether any meaningful comparison can be made between the 200-500's measured AF speed in that older 500 PF review and the AF speed in the current 180-600 review? I'm assuming there are some differences in the AF speed measurement methodologies between the two reviews that might invalidate that comparison, but I didn't want to speculate. Your answer here could also be helpful to others that might try to make the same comparison.

Thanks!

I'm also interested in this. The most significant thing I was always looking at in terms of whether or not to replace my 200-500 with this has been whether it would be an improvement in AF speed because it has caused problems for me in maintaining focus on moving subjects once an initial lock has been acquired (regardless of how I have the "subject tracking with lock on" settings configured). I can get a lock for BIF, for instance, and the Z8 shows solid tracking as the subject moves and I track it, but inevitably the bird is out of focus or the focal plane is where the bird would have been a moment before a photo. If I have my kids go out in a field, get a focus lock, then track them as they run, many shots are out of focus with my 200-500, while another lens like the 70-180 gives most in focus. Those two aren't directly comparable for lots of reason, of course, but what it shows is that the camera AF is up to the task and any shortcomings are the lens.

This means that when I see that the 180-600 has almost the same measured time as the 200-500, even with that extra 100mm of range to cover, it makes me worry. Steve, I know you and others have said it feels faster than the 200-500, and that the 200-500 was serviceable with BIF, but then the objective measure shows it as about the same speed and, of course, my experience (one I've found repeated a lot online) has been that my 200-500 can struggle to track fast moving subjects.

 

[John Navitsky]

remember the time was from a certain point to a certain tree with a certain amount of ambient light so unless everything was the same, the times may not be comparable.

 

[Darrellhar]

I have to be honest that I can rarely see a difference when these types of tests are done. Not sure if it's just my eyes or what You Tube does to the videos, or the resolution that I watch You Tube at so I have to trust your eyes and expertise on that front. I have the 100-400 and got my 180-600 last week. I've been impressed with both. I'm more of a landscape and sports shooter than most that are here. They both resolve the high MP of the Z9 extremely well in my mind and the short throw for the 180-600 is such a huge upgrade over the 200-500. Nice to have that extra 120mm in the range as well. Looking forward to taking the 180-600 out with 1.4 TC to capture some birds before they all fly south for the winter. Thank you for the review. You are one of the few on YT you can trust these days.

 

[Steve]

Steve, I really appreciate you doing the various lens comparisons. It's very informative. However, regarding the 200-500, I have a follow up question concerning its AF speed and how it compares to the 180-600 based on AF measurements you did of the 200-500 in an earlier review.

Since you didn't have a 200-500 to compare to the 180-600, I remembered that you did AF speed comparisons between the 500 PF and 200-500 in your earlier 500 PF Review. The 200-500 AF speed was measured at 0.83 second, which is about the same as the 180-600 (0.8 second) in the current review. Interestingly, however, the 500 PF was measured at 0.4 seconds in that earlier review versus 0.57 seconds in this 180-600 comparison. Can you comment on 1) the differences in the 500 PF AF speeds between these two reviews and 2) whether any meaningful comparison can be made between the 200-500's measured AF speed in that older 500 PF review and the AF speed of the 180-600 in this current review? I'm assuming there are some differences in the AF speed measurement methodologies between the two reviews that might invalidate that comparison, but I didn't want to speculate. Your answer here could also be helpful to others that might try to make the same comparison.

Thanks!

My testing evolved a bit.

With the 200-500 and 500PF, I watched for movement in the little window and timed the first moment to the last. However, now I use an ATOMOS and I think it's a little more accurate. With the "window" method, the camera may have still been making a final, minor adjustment when I thought it has stopped. When using the feed from the viewfinder via the ATOMOS, I have a more accurate way to test. In addition, I'm also using 60 FPS instead of 30FPS for better accuracy.

Still, I think the old test was valuable from a relative comparison standpoint between the two lenses since the methodology was the same, but I don't think it should be used to compare the current results since I think my current methods are more accurate.

Also, I think it's possible that on top of off of the above, just the differences in the scene itself may influence things. Time of year (leaves on the target trees or not), atmospherics (haze, heat distention), etc. can affect the lock on speed. When I do the tests for a given comparison, I do them all at the same time. However, it's possible that if I did those same tests under different conditions on another day I'd get slightly different results. In the end, I'm relying on the cameras ability to lock on and confirm focus with the attached lens to end the test.

In the end, each test should be taken as a relative speed test against its current competitors in the current conditions and not as a definitively constant time.

 

[Steve]

I'm also interested in this. The most significant thing I was always looking at in terms of whether or not to replace my 200-500 with this has been whether it would be an improvement in AF speed because it has caused problems for me in maintaining focus on moving subjects once an initial lock has been acquired (regardless of how I have the "subject tracking with lock on" settings configured). I can get a lock for BIF, for instance, and the Z8 shows solid tracking as the subject moves and I track it, but inevitably the bird is out of focus or the focal plane is where the bird would have been a moment before a photo. If I have my kids go out in a field, get a focus lock, then track them as they run, many shots are out of focus with my 200-500, while another lens like the 70-180 gives most in focus. Those two aren't directly comparable for lots of reason, of course, but what it shows is that the camera AF is up to the task and any shortcomings are the lens.

This means that when I see that the 180-600 has almost the same measured time as the 200-500, even with that extra 100mm of range to cover, it makes me worry. Steve, I know you and others have said it feels faster than the 200-500, and that the 200-500 was serviceable with BIF, but then the objective measure shows it as about the same speed and, of course, my experience (one I've found repeated a lot online) has been that my 200-500 can struggle to track fast moving subjects.

I wonder if there's more going on though. The 200-500 should easily be able to keep up with running kids. I wonder if it's more about the accuracy of the focus motors in that lens than the speed itself. When the camera focuses, it sends a signal to the motor to focus a certain distance, and then continues to do so when shooting AF-C. However, if the motor in the lens doesn't go the exact amount the camera asked for, it can result in AF inconsistency. My guess (and that's all it is) is that the 180-600 with it's newer design and tech is probably less subject to those kinds of variations (although, in my experience, no lens is totally immune).