Nikon 180-600 Sharpness And AF Speed Tests!

[ajrmd]

Looking at these images they don't appear to be "soft" rather it seems you were shooting near MFD and the camera was focusing on something else than your intended target. The first image of the DF, the tail appears to be the focal point. In the second image, the flower appears to be in focus while the bee is just out of the DOF. My suggestion is to shoot some images of a target to assess the actual lens sharpness.

 

[Mark Hauser]

These pictures were not to determine the sharpness!
These were to show that you can also take photos outside with the soft lens and if you have no comparison, it is considered OK.
I would never use such images to judge the sharpness.
These have no meaning and are purely subjective.

Test charts were photographed to assess the sharpness!
At home with constant conditions.
Therefore clinical conditions and reproducible!
5 test runs at different times of the day, the lenses one after the other.
Always the full range i.e. 200(180)/300/400/500/600mm
In a series of tests, I took 3 pictures per zoom level and selected the best of them.
Camera completely manual, on tripod, VC off, sometimes manually focused, sometimes with pinpoint autofocus and one with area small.
Refocused at every zoom level!
Manual exposure correction so that every image had the same exposure as possible.

I did 5 series of tests because I couldn't believe the results!
And because I really wanted the 180-600, I tried to talk myself into it.
Normally I would have stopped after the second test and exchanged the lens.
Because I didn't want to accept this truth and I'm aware that I'll have to wait months for the replacement lens, I made this effort.

 

[Nextlife1]

These pictures were not to determine the sharpness!
These were to show that you can also take photos outside with the soft lens and if you have no comparison, it is considered OK.
I would never use such images to judge the sharpness.
These have no meaning and are purely subjective.

Test charts were photographed to assess the sharpness!
At home with constant conditions.
Therefore clinical conditions and reproducible!
5 test runs at different times of the day, the lenses one after the other.
Always the full range i.e. 200(180)/300/400/500/600mm
In a series of tests, I took 3 pictures per zoom level and selected the best of them.
Camera completely manual, on tripod, VC off, sometimes manually focused, sometimes with pinpoint autofocus and one with area small.
Refocused at every zoom level!
Manual exposure correction so that every image had the same exposure as possible.

I did 5 series of tests because I couldn't believe the results!
And because I really wanted the 180-600, I tried to talk myself into it.
Normally I would have stopped after the second test and exchanged the lens.
Because I didn't want to accept this truth and I'm aware that I'll have to wait months for the replacement lens, I made this effort.

Don’t beat yourself up about this—I have been through this exact experience on more than one occasion. Including with my first copies of both the 500 PF and Z100-400mm. And as you are obviously not a novice photographer don’t let people convince you it is just your technique. When I first got my 500 PF in the very first batch I took some shots around the house of my dog and two stuffed animals I use for testing, And as I looked at the shots I kept asking myself “are these sharp”? The next morning I went out very early (to get good light and avoid heat atmospherics) to an area where I have literally taken tens of thousands of photos of herons, egrets, terns and raptors over the last 15 years. Same thing—after each shot I asked myself “is this sharp”? Like you I found myself talking myself into it even though my brain knew it was not. And I so desperately wanted it to work as I had an international bird photography trip in a few months. Finally I knew I would not be happy and returned it to B&H, only to be told they would not send me a replacement but would put me at the end of their very long list! I panicked trying to find a replacement and ended up paying extra for a ”used” lens from MAP in Tokyo (which was indistinguishable from brand new). After receiving it the next morning I took it out to the same reserve and took a head shot of the first Snowy Egret I saw—when I looked at the shot I was truly blown away by the sharpness! There was not even a trace part of me questioning if it was sharp—it looked as good as my 400/2.8 at that moment. That lens went on to become my favorite all time lens and I still have it.

Interestingly enough the same thing happened with my Z100-400 which I also got in the first batch. Again I tried to convince myself it was sharp, but I knew it was not. Then I tried my TC14 on it and the results were absolute mush. In this case it took me a long time to get a replacement, but when I did I knew it was sharp after the first photo.

I had a very different experience with my 800 PF and 180-600, both of which I also got in the first shipment. Blown away by the first shot of each—not questioning the sharpness but being completely impressed by it. With my first copy of the Z 100-400 I had taken it to my local zoo and was questioning every shot. I took my 180-600 there yesterday and was drooling after every shot at how good they were.

I have come to refer to this as “lens angst” and a small part of me dreads having it happen whenever i get a new lens. But I have learned that if I am questioning shots that I know from experience should be sharp that I will never be satisfied and should return it. In cases where trusted reviewers like Steve have tested the lens and said it is good you should not have to talk yourself into it. Sure for someone who is starting out in photography. But for experienced photographers you know what sharp is. And you deserve to have a lens that whenever you use it you are impressed by the result, not questioning it. And I can assure you that a good copy of the 180-600 is impressively sharp.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Don’t beat yourself up about this—I have been through this exact experience on more than one occasion. Including with my first copies of both the 500 PF and Z100-400mm. And as you are obviously not a novice photographer don’t let people convince you it is just your technique. When I first got my 500 PF in the very first batch I took some shots around the house of my dog and two stuffed animals I use for testing, And as I looked at the shots I kept asking myself “are these sharp”? The next morning I went out very early (to get good light and avoid heat atmospherics) to an area where I have literally taken tens of thousands of photos of herons, egrets, terns and raptors over the last 15 years. Same thing—after each shot I asked myself “is this sharp”? Like you I found myself talking myself into it even though my brain knew it was not. And I so desperately wanted it to work as I had an international bird photography trip in a few months. Finally I knew I would not be happy and returned it to B&H, only to be told they would not send me a replacement but would put me at the end of their very long list! I panicked trying to find a replacement and ended up paying extra for a ”used” lens from MAP in Tokyo (which was indistinguishable from brand new). After receiving it the next morning I took it out to the same reserve and took a head shot of the first Snowy Egret I saw—when I looked at the shot I was truly blown away by the sharpness! There was not even a trace part of me questioning if it was sharp—it looked as good as my 400/2.8 at that moment. That lens went on to become my favorite all time lens and I still have it.

Interestingly enough the same thing happened with my Z100-400 which I also got in the first batch. Again I tried to convince myself it was sharp, but I knew it was not. Then I tried my TC14 on it and the results were absolute mush. In this case it took me a long time to get a replacement, but when I did I knew it was sharp after the first photo.

I had a very different experience with my 800 PF and 180-600, both of which I also got in the first shipment. Blown away by the first shot of each—not questioning the sharpness but being completely impressed by it. With my first copy of the Z 100-400 I had taken it to my local zoo and was questioning every shot. I took my 180-600 there yesterday and was drooling after every shot at how good they were.

I have come to refer to this as “lens angst” and a small part of me dreads having it happen whenever i get a new lens. But I have learned that if I am questioning shots that I know from experience should be sharp that I will never be satisfied and should return it. In cases where trusted reviewers like Steve have tested the lens and said it is good you should not have to talk yourself into it. Sure for someone who is starting out in photography. But for experienced photographers you know what sharp is. And you deserve to have a lens that whenever you use it you are impressed by the result, not questioning it. And I can assure you that a good copy of the 180-600 is impressively sharp.

Well said and if you use the preset for export and import to this forum it is an itty bitty file so it will not look the same as the original on your monitor at home.

 

[SCoombs]

Don’t beat yourself up about this—I have been through this exact experience on more than one occasion. Including with my first copies of both the 500 PF and Z100-400mm. And as you are obviously not a novice photographer don’t let people convince you it is just your technique. When I first got my 500 PF in the very first batch I took some shots around the house of my dog and two stuffed animals I use for testing, And as I looked at the shots I kept asking myself “are these sharp”? The next morning I went out very early (to get good light and avoid heat atmospherics) to an area where I have literally taken tens of thousands of photos of herons, egrets, terns and raptors over the last 15 years. Same thing—after each shot I asked myself “is this sharp”? Like you I found myself talking myself into it even though my brain knew it was not. And I so desperately wanted it to work as I had an international bird photography trip in a few months. Finally I knew I would not be happy and returned it to B&H, only to be told they would not send me a replacement but would put me at the end of their very long list! I panicked trying to find a replacement and ended up paying extra for a ”used” lens from MAP in Tokyo (which was indistinguishable from brand new). After receiving it the next morning I took it out to the same reserve and took a head shot of the first Snowy Egret I saw—when I looked at the shot I was truly blown away by the sharpness! There was not even a trace part of me questioning if it was sharp—it looked as good as my 400/2.8 at that moment. That lens went on to become my favorite all time lens and I still have it.

Interestingly enough the same thing happened with my Z100-400 which I also got in the first batch. Again I tried to convince myself it was sharp, but I knew it was not. Then I tried my TC14 on it and the results were absolute mush. In this case it took me a long time to get a replacement, but when I did I knew it was sharp after the first photo.

I had a very different experience with my 800 PF and 180-600, both of which I also got in the first shipment. Blown away by the first shot of each—not questioning the sharpness but being completely impressed by it. With my first copy of the Z 100-400 I had taken it to my local zoo and was questioning every shot. I took my 180-600 there yesterday and was drooling after every shot at how good they were.

I have come to refer to this as “lens angst” and a small part of me dreads having it happen whenever i get a new lens. But I have learned that if I am questioning shots that I know from experience should be sharp that I will never be satisfied and should return it. In cases where trusted reviewers like Steve have tested the lens and said it is good you should not have to talk yourself into it. Sure for someone who is starting out in photography. But for experienced photographers you know what sharp is. And you deserve to have a lens that whenever you use it you are impressed by the result, not questioning it. And I can assure you that a good copy of the 180-600 is impressively sharp.

When my 200-500 arrived I went out to photograph some critters in the neighborhood and found everything was extremely soft - not just a little, but clearly not at all sharp. I started testing, put out some staggered containers to check dof, fine tuning, etc. I couldn't get things sharp. It was my first telephoto and I knew there was am added skillset with these lenses so I wondered it it was my fault.

I went on a photography forum and asked for advice, sharing mantmy sample images including the DoF tests. Most people blamed me, said it was my hand holding (even when on a tripod) my poor technique, everything.

Eventually, acting against the advice of most of the people on that forum, I sent it back. It took about a month to get a new copy, but when it arrived and I took the first shot I was instantly certain the other lens had been defective. Saying the difference was night and day would be a vast understatement.

I see similar things all the time on forums and it frustrates me greatly. Anytime anyone asks about or reports a problem with equipment, many people flock to tell them it's their fault, that they've got bad technique, that it's user error, that equipment defects are very rare, etc. Keep in mind that with my experience the 200-500 was known to have had significant problems with bad copies for some production runs and still people collectively assumed first that I was the problem.

That doesn't mean it's never a user's error. Sometimes it is, but to I wish people would be a heck of a lot more open to the possibility it's not.

 

[Cameron T]

To be fair, I'd estimate 90%+ of the time, soft shots are user error or atmospherics (when talking about telephotos). Especially when they report they can get sharp shots with the gear.

My preferred test for people is to hand the combo to someone else who is familiar with the system (so don't hand me Sony gear). If they get more sharp shots, the odds of it being gear goes down dramatically.

 

[Ken Miracle]

When my 200-500 arrived I went out to photograph some critters in the neighborhood and found everything was extremely soft - not just a little, but clearly not at all sharp. I started testing, put out some staggered containers to check dof, fine tuning, etc. I couldn't get things sharp. It was my first telephoto and I knew there was am added skillset with these lenses so I wondered it it was my fault.

I went on a photography forum and asked for advice, sharing mantmy sample images including the DoF tests. Most people blamed me, said it was my hand holding (even when on a tripod) my poor technique, everything.

Eventually, acting against the advice of most of the people on that forum, I sent it back. It took about a month to get a new copy, but when it arrived and I took the first shot I was instantly certain the other lens had been defective. Saying the difference was night and day would be a vast understatement.

I see similar things all the time on forums and it frustrates me greatly. Anytime anyone asks about or reports a problem with equipment, many people flock to tell them it's their fault, that they've got bad technique, that it's user error, that equipment defects are very rare, etc. Keep in mind that with my experience the 200-500 was known to have had significant problems with bad copies for some production runs and still people collectively assumed first that I was the problem.

That doesn't mean it's never a user's error. Sometimes it is, but to I wish people would be a heck of a lot more open to the possibility it's not.

My 200-500 there was a significantly long run of the 200-500 that had some serious problems. I tried AF fine tuning on my DSLR at the time and it ran out of room. It went back to Nikon twice first time they said it was in tolerance and needed AF +19 I contacted a supervisor and said that was not an acceptable answer as it had serious panning focus issues also. They sent me a prepaid shipping label and I sent it in again. The day after I got it back I got a recall notice on it and another free shipping label this was to fix the panning issues which had not been fixed on either of the first 2 times in under warranty. The third time they got it right just in time to take it to Africa.

 

[Ken Miracle]

To be fair, I'd estimate 90%+ of the time, soft shots are user error or atmospherics (when talking about telephotos). Especially when they report they can get sharp shots with the gear.

My preferred test for people is to hand the combo to someone else who is familiar with the system (so don't hand me Sony gear). If they get more sharp shots, the odds of it being gear goes down dramatically.

Most common issues I see when I am helping bird photographers that are new to long focal length lenses are 1: that they do not know about atmospheric distortion and have not seen it as often since they did not try to photograph through so much of it. Many times they have tried to shoot from a vehicle with the AC or Heater on and created their own atmospheric distortion. 2: Slow ... very slow shutter speeds.

 

[Steve]

Most common issues I see when I am helping bird photographers that are new to long focal length lenses are 1: that they do not know about atmospheric distortion and have not seen it as often since they did not try to photograph through so much of it. Many times they have tried to shoot from a vehicle with the AC or Heater on and created their own atmospheric distortion. 2: Slow ... very slow shutter speeds.

Yup, I find those are the #1 and #2 most common issues as well.

 

[Cameron T]

Most common issues I see when I am helping bird photographers that are new to long focal length lenses are 1: that they do not know about atmospheric distortion and have not seen it as often since they did not try to photograph through so much of it. Many times they have tried to shoot from a vehicle with the AC or Heater on and created their own atmospheric distortion. 2: Slow ... very slow shutter speeds.

Absolutely.

Distortion is probably the one thing that people run into and have no idea prior. I remember a post on reddit about someone shooting out their window in the winter (with the lens and camera inside of their house) and being shocked at the image quality.

Slow shutter speeds also has an impact though varies based on lens and body combo (and how steady the person is). I recommend 1/1.5xfl for teles, until you've spent time pushing your limits and figuring out how steady you can be.

 

[SCoombs]

To be fair, I'd estimate 90%+ of the time, soft shots are user error or atmospherics (when talking about telephotos). Especially when they report they can get sharp shots with the gear.

My preferred test for people is to hand the combo to someone else who is familiar with the system (so don't hand me Sony gear). If they get more sharp shots, the odds of it being gear goes down dramatically.

I think that would be a good test and honestly is what I would have done immediately if I could. The issue is that I have to think people asking for help with a thing like this on the internet probably often don't have anyone who can do that for them. I certainly didn't.

 

[Cameron T]

I think that would be a good test and honestly is what I would have done immediately if I could. The issue is that I have to think people asking for help with a thing like this on the internet probably often don't have anyone who can do that for them. I certainly didn't.

It depends. I think people don't think about it, especially if you're not part of a photo club/etc (even if they exist in the area).

But yes, I understand it's not always possible either. It's just my preference for testing gear because I know other shooters near me.

I'd also add some clarity, and say that I'd just look for an increase in sharp shots. Eg if you get 2 out of 10 sharp at known 'good' (fast enough shutter speeds to keep up, etc) settings, but they get 5 or 6, that would be a clear indication vs them still maybe getting 3 out of 10. As always, stuff varies based on conditions, etc.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Absolutely.

Distortion is probably the one thing that people run into and have no idea prior. I remember a post on reddit about someone shooting out their window in the winter (with the lens and camera inside of their house) and being shocked at the image quality.

Slow shutter speeds also has an impact though varies based on lens and body combo (and how steady the person is). I recommend 1/1.5xfl for teles, until you've spent time pushing your limits and figuring out how steady you can be.

It has gotten progressively easier to use slower shutter speeds with advances of stabilization in camera combined with the Z lenses. @Steve has written about that several times and lowering ISO by starting with a get the shot higher shutter speed and then going lower to see how slow you can go.

I shoot hand held and I am blown away by how slow I can go on a sitting bird with my Z9 / Z800mm.

 

[Cameron T]

I agree. I've gotten good shots at 1/100th with my z9 and 150-600 (plus 1.4x tc).

 

[Nextlife1]

To be fair, I'd estimate 90%+ of the time, soft shots are user error or atmospherics (when talking about telephotos). Especially when they report they can get sharp shots with the gear.

My preferred test for people is to hand the combo to someone else who is familiar with the system (so don't hand me Sony gear). If they get more sharp shots, the odds of it being gear goes down dramatically.

I completely agree--provided I know I have a sharp copy of a lens. I can go out right now to areas I am totally familiar with and given our microclimates around here can get you a tack sharp shot, drive 5 minutes away and get you a mushy one. All with the same great lens. It's the reason I test any new lens under conditions I know should be sharp.

 

[ajrmd]

These pictures were not to determine the sharpness!
These were to show that you can also take photos outside with the soft lens and if you have no comparison, it is considered OK.
I would never use such images to judge the sharpness.
These have no meaning and are purely subjective.

Test charts were photographed to assess the sharpness!
At home with constant conditions.
Therefore clinical conditions and reproducible!
5 test runs at different times of the day, the lenses one after the other.
Always the full range i.e. 200(180)/300/400/500/600mm
In a series of tests, I took 3 pictures per zoom level and selected the best of them.
Camera completely manual, on tripod, VC off, sometimes manually focused, sometimes with pinpoint autofocus and one with area small.
Refocused at every zoom level!
Manual exposure correction so that every image had the same exposure as possible.

I did 5 series of tests because I couldn't believe the results!
And because I really wanted the 180-600, I tried to talk myself into it.
Normally I would have stopped after the second test and exchanged the lens.
Because I didn't want to accept this truth and I'm aware that I'll have to wait months for the replacement lens, I made this effort.

My comments were not an indictment and I think we all appreciate the clarification of your methodology. If you have performed static and reproducible tests on a tripod with remote trigger (or timer) with charts and the lens is level and square, and you're shooting at normal ISO's with a sufficient Tv and are still seeing unacceptable softness, then it is likely the lens or lens/camera interface or if you're having problems with other lenses as well, it could be the body. I am sorry that you received what appears to be a "bad" copy and hope that Nikon replaces it quickly. Also, I agree with the other general comments that the #1/#2 reasons for softness in telephoto/WL photos are atmospherics and Tv.

 

[Nimi]

These pictures were not to determine the sharpness!
These were to show that you can also take photos outside with the soft lens and if you have no comparison, it is considered OK.
I would never use such images to judge the sharpness.
These have no meaning and are purely subjective.

Test charts were photographed to assess the sharpness!
At home with constant conditions.
Therefore clinical conditions and reproducible!
5 test runs at different times of the day, the lenses one after the other.
Always the full range i.e. 200(180)/300/400/500/600mm
In a series of tests, I took 3 pictures per zoom level and selected the best of them.
Camera completely manual, on tripod, VC off, sometimes manually focused, sometimes with pinpoint autofocus and one with area small.
Refocused at every zoom level!
Manual exposure correction so that every image had the same exposure as possible.

I did 5 series of tests because I couldn't believe the results!
And because I really wanted the 180-600, I tried to talk myself into it.
Normally I would have stopped after the second test and exchanged the lens.
Because I didn't want to accept this truth and I'm aware that I'll have to wait months for the replacement lens, I made this effort.

Mind posting some of those test shots?

 

[Mark Hauser]

Don’t beat yourself up about this—I have been through this exact experience on more than one occasion. Including with my first copies of both the 500 PF and Z100-400mm. And as you are obviously not a novice photographer don’t let people convince you it is just your technique. When I first got my 500 PF in the very first batch I took some shots around the house of my dog and two stuffed animals I use for testing, And as I looked at the shots I kept asking myself “are these sharp”? The next morning I went out very early (to get good light and avoid heat atmospherics) to an area where I have literally taken tens of thousands of photos of herons, egrets, terns and raptors over the last 15 years. Same thing—after each shot I asked myself “is this sharp”? Like you I found myself talking myself into it even though my brain knew it was not. And I so desperately wanted it to work as I had an international bird photography trip in a few months. Finally I knew I would not be happy and returned it to B&H, only to be told they would not send me a replacement but would put me at the end of their very long list! I panicked trying to find a replacement and ended up paying extra for a ”used” lens from MAP in Tokyo (which was indistinguishable from brand new). After receiving it the next morning I took it out to the same reserve and took a head shot of the first Snowy Egret I saw—when I looked at the shot I was truly blown away by the sharpness! There was not even a trace part of me questioning if it was sharp—it looked as good as my 400/2.8 at that moment. That lens went on to become my favorite all time lens and I still have it.

Interestingly enough the same thing happened with my Z100-400 which I also got in the first batch. Again I tried to convince myself it was sharp, but I knew it was not. Then I tried my TC14 on it and the results were absolute mush. In this case it took me a long time to get a replacement, but when I did I knew it was sharp after the first photo.

I had a very different experience with my 800 PF and 180-600, both of which I also got in the first shipment. Blown away by the first shot of each—not questioning the sharpness but being completely impressed by it. With my first copy of the Z 100-400 I had taken it to my local zoo and was questioning every shot. I took my 180-600 there yesterday and was drooling after every shot at how good they were.

I have come to refer to this as “lens angst” and a small part of me dreads having it happen whenever i get a new lens. But I have learned that if I am questioning shots that I know from experience should be sharp that I will never be satisfied and should return it. In cases where trusted reviewers like Steve have tested the lens and said it is good you should not have to talk yourself into it. Sure for someone who is starting out in photography. But for experienced photographers you know what sharp is. And you deserve to have a lens that whenever you use it you are impressed by the result, not questioning it. And I can assure you that a good copy of the 180-600 is impressively sharp.

Thank you for your words and explanations.

I asked myself this exact question in my head.
Is that really sharp? This can really look better.
And that voice stayed in my head the whole weekend and finally made me give it back.
I'm just hoping and waiting until I get a new copy.

 

[Mark Hauser]

My comments were not an indictment and I think we all appreciate the clarification of your methodology. If you have performed static and reproducible tests on a tripod with remote trigger (or timer) with charts and the lens is level and square, and you're shooting at normal ISO's with a sufficient Tv and are still seeing unacceptable softness, then it is likely the lens or lens/camera interface or if you're having problems with other lenses as well, it could be the body. I am sorry that you received what appears to be a "bad" copy and hope that Nikon replaces it quickly. Also, I agree with the other general comments that the #1/#2 reasons for softness in telephoto/WL photos are atmospherics and Tv.

The correction wasn't because of you and I didn't want to step on your toes with it.
In other forums I always read that it must be my fault.
So I just wanted to make it clear that I did my best to get reproducible, correct values.
And that I'm not a beginner in photography either.
Even if I can't afford professional equipment.

Just a little joke on the side.
I'm German so there is only the correct way.
Strictly according to the manual.

 

[Nextlife1]

Thank you for your words and explanations.

I asked myself this exact question in my head.
Is that really sharp? This can really look better.
And that voice stayed in my head the whole weekend and finally made me give it back.
I'm just hoping and waiting until I get a new copy.

It looks like the lens is “flowing” as there was just a seemingly sizeable shipment in the U.S., so I am hopeful you will get a replacement soon. And there is reason to believe your next one will be a good copy—mine always has been when it has happened to me. And from what I can tell so far “bad” copies of this lens might not be as common as with some earlier lenses. I hope that you know with your first shot that the new one is sharp!

P.S. Being German you understand why I call this phenomenon lens “angst”…….

 

[Mark Hauser]

Mind posting some of those test shots?

Hello Nimi, I hope this can illustrate it for you.

Here is a set of comparison pictures I have cropped out different areas so they are comparable.
Center, topleft, rightmiddle always starting with 180-600 the next then 200-500 then another area.
However, the other sentences at other times of the day produce the same result. Just a little brighter because it's later in the day

I should also note that I photograph the corner or right with APC, so it only shows the APC area.
I can't say whether the quality decreases even further in the full format range.

And if you now consider that according to Cameralabs or Riccy tests, the 200-500 is significantly blurrier in the telephoto range than 180-600.
This is a very disappointing result.
Even stopped down to f8 it barely reaches 200-500 with the aperture wide open.

Center


Top left



rightcenter

 

[ChrisM]

It appears a bit strange at first when you read the considerable variation in how usres/reviewers rate the sharpness of the new 180-600mm lens, with image sharpness approaching an exotic prime at one end of the spectrum, and disappointing image sharpness even below older zooms at the other end.

Considering however that this lens has to be manufactured/assembled/tested and shipped to be in the stores for sale at €1999,-, it makes a lot of sense that there is a time limit on how long it is allowed to take to produce a copy, and that there will be considerable copy variation and that one will have to be motivated to ensure the possible purchase/return of multiple copies to get a good one that meets the raving reviews by testers that were lucky enough to get a very good one (possible pre-selected by Nikon?).

High end prime lenses are all carefully and individually calibrated without the clock ticking in the background, and unless something happens in (rough) transport, they will all perform equally. Withstanding rough transport and handling b.t.w. will also not be guaranteed with the 180-600mm in the same way as is the case with a high end prime. The price simply does not allow the same build and construction standards. Not neccessarily a deal breaker, but certainly something to take along into consideration.

With the Sony 200-600G, the stories werre very much the same, even with many disappointed users when coupling the lens with the A7RIV body and getting strings of soft images. AF performance level and consistency is also a possible concern, although Nikon users will mostly use a stacked sensor body with the 180-600, so I would expect less AF issues than with the Sony.

 

[apakett]

So…based on these tests once my 180-600 arrives…is there much of a case to be made for keeping the 100-400 as well as the 400/4.5? I’m keeping the prime because it’s the lightest option but it seems like the 100-400 is mostly the odd man out here unless it’s size and weight make a difference for a particular days shoot and even then only if the TC isn’t going to be used. For a 2 lens walking around the bird or wildlife sanctuary…it seems like the 180-600 and either the 70-200 or 24-120 is going to be the best combo and the shorter lens choice would depend on whether wide was going to be needed today for s9me landscape as well. It’s pretty amazing that the non S longer zoom out performs the S one at the lengths most of us wildlife shooters will be at. Like you, I’ve found the AF speed to be non much of a deal with any of these lenses anyway, particularly if one engages the focus limiter switch.

The 100-400 is lighter than he 180-600. For a lot of walking up and down hills where you need a zoom and 400mm is adequate you will want the 100-400. My suggestion is to keep all of them for awhile and see which ones get the most usage.

 

[apakett]

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:

Steve,
In the past have you noticed any difference between a Nikon loaner prototype lens and one purchased from production? My concern that those prototypes were hand tested and fine tuned for reviewers like you.

 

[Steve]

Steve,
In the past have you noticed any difference between a Nikon loaner prototype lens and one purchased from production? My concern that those prototypes were hand tested and fine tuned for reviewers like you.

The lens I tested was a production lens (it's my copy). I'm not allowed to test prototypes for sharpness, at least not comparatively.