Nikon 180-600 Z lens test shots

[rarebird]

Got my 180-600 lens a few weeks ago and have not been impressed with its backyard sharpness. Had it tested and recalibrated by Nikon and took a couple of shots today in bad light (and when it stopped raining for a short while here in Oz.)
I am a bit happier with it now but more work to be done. The two images attached are straight out of the camera (RAW converted to JPEG in LR) but cropped. No other processing. Hand held and in VR Sports mode.
Hopefully some better light and more practise will get me nearer to (but not the same as) my 500PF.

 

[SCoombs]

I, too, have been underwhelmed by my 180-600, though I would say that my results generally look better than what you have here. One thing I found helpful was autofocus tuning using FoCal software. I have also found that a bit of sharpening in post has been helpful, though this is something I've never felt the need to do before with other lenses. Also, I've definitely found stopping down to f/9 to make a difference, annoying as it may be.

I'd be curious to hear you describe your experience with having Nikon look at the lens. What was the process like? What did you say to them, and what did they say about it to you?

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.

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.

 

[rarebird]

Nice shots. I will play around with the stopping down and see how it goes and some better light.
I originally used FoCal to fine tune however the results were inconsistent so I sent the lens back to the supplier along with the test shots who in turn sent the lens to Nikon.
Nikon had the lens for three weeks and I have only had it back for a few days. The accompanying notes said "tested and recalibrated to factory specs."
I rang and enquired as to what that entailed but could not get past the gatekeeper who assured me the lens would now be within their acceptable parameters.
I have yet to retest it with FoCal.
Cheers.

 

[Len Shepherd]

Nice shots. I will play around with the stopping down and see how it goes and some better light.
I originally used FoCal to fine tune however the results were inconsistent so I sent the lens back to the supplier along with the test shots who in turn sent the lens to Nikon.
Nikon had the lens for three weeks and I have only had it back for a few days. The accompanying notes said "tested and recalibrated to factory specs."
I rang and enquired as to what that entailed but could not get past the gatekeeper who assured me the lens would now be within their acceptable parameters.
I have yet to retest it with FoCal.

Why use Focal?

If you apply a new perceived Focal correction - it will mess up the Nikon factory setting - with the potential for focus problems with the lens.

A problem with the body is improbable unless perhaps the body mount has become twisted because of the way Z bodies focus.

 

[rarebird]

Fair comment.

 

[SCoombs]

Why use Focal?

If you apply a new perceived Focal correction - it will mess up the Nikon factory setting - with the potential for focus problems with the lens.

A problem with the body is improbable unless perhaps the body mount has become twisted because of the way Z bodies focus.

This seems to suggest a misunderstanding of how FoCal works., as well as perhaps what it means to say that Nikon has recalibrated the lens.

The calibration Nikon has done is not at all the same thing that FoCal calibration does, and FoCal calibration has nothing to do with any potential problem with the body.

When Nikon calibrates a lens they are adjusting internal parameters for a lens' AF systems which are inaccessible to the end user, to FoCal, or to anyone else.

When FoCal "calibrates," all it is doing is observing differences in focus accuracy for different settings of AF fine tuning, a setting which operates on top of and entirely distinct from whatever internal calibration Nikon has done. It can't "mess up" anything Nikon has done.

If Nikon's calibration is like going into an engine and adjusting the spark plug gaps, FoCal's is like having the driver adjust how much air is in the car's tires. It might yield a better ride, but it's something that is working on top of and dependent upon what was done to the engine and something that can't effect or change what was done to the engine in any way.

The idea of using AF fine tuning on a mirrorless camera is in large part based on the idea that even within a fully "factory specced" lens there will be natural variations in the absolute position that the lens' AF motors drive to for any calculated FoCal distance and tries to get the camera to essentially send different measures for focal distances to the lens so as to make sure the lens is always working with more reliable ranges. In other words, it doesn't alter what the lens does at all, but sort of measures where the lens - however it is internally calibrated by the factory - is most accurate and has the camera body try to work in that most accurate space.

 

[bleirer]

You might give a trial of DXO Pureraw 4 or Photolab 7, if they have a profile for that lens. The lens correction sliders are quite good.

DxO Supported Cameras & Lenses

DxO PureRAW and DxO PhotoLab process RAW files from more than 500 digital cameras, all calibrated in our laboratories.

www.dxo.com

 

[madone]

This seems to suggest a misunderstanding of how FoCal works., as well as perhaps what it means to say that Nikon has recalibrated the lens.

The calibration Nikon has done is not at all the same thing that FoCal calibration does, and FoCal calibration has nothing to do with any potential problem with the body.

When Nikon calibrates a lens they are adjusting internal parameters for a lens' AF systems which are inaccessible to the end user, to FoCal, or to anyone else.

When FoCal "calibrates," all it is doing is observing differences in focus accuracy for different settings of AF fine tuning, a setting which operates on top of and entirely distinct from whatever internal calibration Nikon has done. It can't "mess up" anything Nikon has done.

If Nikon's calibration is like going into an engine and adjusting the spark plug gaps, FoCal's is like having the driver adjust how much air is in the car's tires. It might yield a better ride, but it's something that is working on top of and dependent upon what was done to the engine and something that can't effect or change what was done to the engine in any way.

The idea of using AF fine tuning on a mirrorless camera is in large part based on the idea that even within a fully "factory specced" lens there will be natural variations in the absolute position that the lens' AF motors drive to for any calculated FoCal distance and tries to get the camera to essentially send different measures for focal distances to the lens so as to make sure the lens is always working with more reliable ranges. In other words, it doesn't alter what the lens does at all, but sort of measures where the lens - however it is internally calibrated by the factory - is most accurate and has the camera body try to work in that most accurate space.

Well if you used FoCal and are getting those results, I just may have to do the same cause I am NOT seeing anything close to the sharpness you are getting in your samples.
Your lens/camera looks like its pretty dialed in now. IMHO

 

[nmerc_photos]

interesting that OP and the 2nd commenter find these to be underwhelming. the shots all look good to me on a 55" 4K monitor.

what were you expecting for a non S-line, cheap lens? where specifically does it underwhelm?

 

[ajrmd]

interesting that OP and the 2nd commenter find these to be underwhelming. the shots all look good to me on a 55" 4K monitor.

what were you expecting for a non S-line, cheap lens? where specifically does it underwhelm?

I guess next to a $15k 600 mm f/4 Z lens, the $1.6k 186 is a bit underwhelming. Did I mention the $15k lens doesn't zoom and is a beast? The 600 f/4 is a great lens though, for sure.

 

[aolander]

It's my understanding that it would be unusual for a mirrorless lens and camera to require focus tuning. I think there's more going with the OP's images than just poor lens calibration. Technique? You don't show the EXIF data.

Look on FM for images shot with the 180-600mm. There are many very sharp images there.

Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread

Starting the inevitable 180-600 image thread. Only had a few minutes with it as I had to go to work a few minutes after it showed up but I had to t...

www.fredmiranda.com

 

[Steve]

Careful with tuning. Only do it if you are seeing consistent front focusing or back focusing. In those cases it helps, for random mis-focus (both front and back) it's worse than doing nothing. In short, make sure you're fixing the right issue.

Also, I agree - I think those two images are on the slightly soft side. The 180-600 isn't going to give you 600TC level sharpness, but it's usually better than that. I do feel like there is something more going on. Were these shot form a car, house, etc? Was the lens warm, the air cool, and the lens hood on? It doesn't scream heat distortion, but that's almost always the first place to look.

Also, I'd recommend using a tripod for testing - even with VR, hand-holding is a huge variable.

 

[nmerc_photos]

I guess next to a $15k 600 mm f/4 Z lens, the $1.6k 186 is a bit underwhelming. Did I mention the $15k lens doesn't zoom and is a beast? The 600 f/4 is a great lens though, for sure.

I think we would all hope that is the case lol. If the lens that is 1/10 the price was as good, there'd be no reason to buy the big prime.

 

[SCoombs]

interesting that OP and the 2nd commenter find these to be underwhelming. the shots all look good to me on a 55" 4K monitor.

what were you expecting for a non S-line, cheap lens? where specifically does it underwhelm?

I'd say the shots I posted look decent whereas the OP's definitely look quite underwhelming.

The thing about the ones I posted, though, is that they're the absolute cream of the crop I've seen from the lens  and most of them are stopped down to f9 and they're mostly from very, very close subjects and they all took a fair amount of careful sharpening in post to look this way.

This is disappointing to me because they're all no better to worse than what I get from my 200-500 wide open of subjects at a wider range of distances and with no sharpening in post at all. In other words, to me the lens is underperforming a several years old F mount lens that's worth less than half the price and even new cost about 25% less.

The other thing is that all the time I used that 200-500 it was very frustrating how inconsistent the focus was. It would hit great shots, yes, but on any given shot there was a bit of a dice roll if it was going to hit the mark or not. I heard two different suggestions about this from longtime users, experts, and Nikon insiders. Some said that this was because my lens was not quite right, while others said this was just normal for a consumer grade lens. I had hoped the first group was right, because while I understand a less expensive product wi have its downsides and imperfections, the kind of inconsistency I was seeing (even in more controlled conditions) seemed a bit hard to accept. Yet I see the same thing in this 180-600, suggesting that to not have focus fluctuate over a significant range I need to spend $5000, which is indeed disappointing.

 

[nmerc_photos]

I'd say the shots I posted look decent whereas the OP's definitely look quite underwhelming.

The thing about the ones I posted, though, is that they're the absolute cream of the crop I've seen from the lens  and most of them are stopped down to f9 and they're mostly from very, very close subjects and they all took a fair amount of careful sharpening in post to look this way.

This is disappointing to me because they're all no better to worse than what I get from my 200-500 wide open 9f subjects are a wider range of distances and with no sharpening in post at all. In other words, to me the lens is underperforming a several years old F mount lens that's worth less than half the price and even new cost about 25% less.

The other thing is that all the time I used that 200-500 it was very frustrating how inconsistent the focus was. It would hit great shots, yes, but on any given shot there was a bit of a dice roll if it was going to hit the mark or not. I heard two different suggestions about this from longtime users, experts, and Nikon insiders. Some said that this was because my lens was not quite right, while others said this was just normal for a consumer grade lens. I had hoped the first group was right, because while I understand a less expensive product wi have its downsides and imperfections, the kind of inconsistency I was seeing (even in more controlled conditions) seemed a bit hard to accept. Yet I see the same thing in this 180-600, suggesting that to not have focus fluctuate over a significant range I need to spend $5000, which is indeed disappointing.

Thank you for elaborating.

I've never used the 200-500 (or any DSLR equipment) so I have nothing to base off there. I just know that the 180-600 surpassed my own expectations at such a cheap price point, and I've seen some absolutely stunning pictures posted on Flickr and the FM forums with the 186.

I now understand why you would disappointed, for sure. Especially if you have to stop down, get close to the subject, sharpen, and probably get them right in the center of the frame (sharpness falls off at the edges I've seen/heard).

Appreciate the feedback and hope you find something that works for you.

 

[SCoombs]

Careful with tuning. Only do it if you are seeing consistent front focusing or back focusing. In those cases it helps, for random mis-focus (both front and back) it's worse than doing nothing. In short, make sure you're fixing the right issue.

I'm not a technical expert, but have you read or at least heard Reikan's explanation of why fine tuning might benefit a mirrorless system? It's essentially based on the idea that even with a mirrorless system there will be natural hardware or mechanical level variations in a lens' AF from one focus acquisition to the next which may result in inconsistent focus going both ways.

 

[Steve]

I'm not a technical expert, but have you read or at least heard Reikan's explanation of why fine tuning might benefit a mirrorless system? It's essentially based on the idea that even with a mirrorless system there will be natural hardware or mechanical level variations in a lens' AF from one focus acquisition to the next which may result in inconsistent focus going both ways.

The problem is, AF Fine Tuning only calibrates for front or back focusing, not both. If it's going both ways, there's usually something else wrong. I wonder if they meant it can correct for either, not necessarily both at once. The camera just doesn't allow for that.

 

[Cameron T]

Could also be a margin of error issue with the focus motors, and how far that margin is (and what it's allowed to be) for a given lens. Say if it's supposed to be at position 1000 (numbers used as references only, I have no idea how it works) plus or minus 5 for what is considered "in good order". Some lenses that are out of spec might be plus or minus 10, or 0 to minus 10, etc.

That all assumes a good test bench and target though, which in real life situations becomes more variable and much more prone to user problems.

 

[Steve]

Could also be a margin of error issue with the focus motors, and how far that margin is (and what it's allowed to be) for a given lens. Say if it's supposed to be at position 1000 (numbers used as references only, I have no idea how it works) plus or minus 5 for what is considered "in good order". Some lenses that are out of spec might be plus or minus 10, or 0 to minus 10, etc.

That all assumes a good test bench and target though, which in real life situations becomes more variable and much more prone to user problems.

That's all correct

However, what AFFT does is to correct a consistent error. So, using your point system, let's say a lens is at -10. If we want to correct that, we need to put in +10. That's the essence of AFFT. In fact, in my mirrorless AF book I talk about this quite a bit.

On the other hand, if a lens is at one point -10 for one photo and then at another +10 for the next shot - and we're adding +10 with AFFT - it becomes problematic. In this scenario, sometimes we're spot on, but most of the time we're back focused - more so than we would have been had we left the camera alone.

I'm not saying it's impossible not to need tuning with mirrorless or that there aren't lenses / cameras out there that won't benefit from it. The point I want to make is that AFFT should be used to correct for consistent front or back focusing. If the lens is all over the place, there's probably something else at play. In addition, people have tendency to see a soft photo and vilify the gear and not their technique (I'm absolutely, positively not referring to anyone in this thread, just making a general observation). It's always best to eliminate all variables of technique before looking at the gear.

 

[Woodpecker]

However, what AFFT does is to correct a consistent error. So, using your point system, let's say a lens is at -10. If we want to correct that, we need to put in +10. That's the essence of AFFT. In fact, in my mirrorless AF book I talk about this quite a bit.

May be, I was just lucky with the components I have got when changing tpo Z, but one of the first things that made me happy was that I could forget AFFT, while in DSLR times I had to do it with all tele lense combos - and again each time something went through the Nikon service. Whether it's a new Z lens or my oldie 500 f4g with and without TC everything bang on

 

[SCoombs]

That's all correct

However, what AFFT does is to correct a consistent error. So, using your point system, let's say a lens is at -10. If we want to correct that, we need to put in +10. That's the essence of AFFT. In fact, in my mirrorless AF book I talk about this quite a bit.

On the other hand, if a lens is at one point -10 for one photo and then at another +10 for the next shot - and we're adding +10 with AFFT - it becomes problematic. In this scenario, sometimes we're spot on, but most of the time we're back focused - more so than we would have been had we left the camera alone.

I'm not saying it's impossible not to need tuning with mirrorless or that there aren't lenses / cameras out there that won't benefit from it. The point I want to make is that AFFT should be used to correct for consistent front or back focusing. If the lens is all over the place, there's probably something else at play. In addition, people have tendency to see a soft photo and vilify the gear and not their technique (I'm absolutely, positively not referring to anyone in this thread, just making a general observation). It's always best to eliminate all variables of technique before looking at the gear.

I was going to say this but Cameron beat me to it. I can't find the post now, but I recall Reikan had something which looked at the idea you guys are talking about now.

The idea was that let's say the perfect focus position for a given shot is 650 (whether that's a real number that would be used or not). Now say that your lens has a margin of error of +/- 10 on either side of the perfect focus position - e.g., if told to drive the motor to 650 the lens might wind up anywhere between 640 and 660 - AND let's say that other elements of the AF system in the camera body also have some margin of error of +/- 10. You could have it work out so that the camera is saying 655 and the lens drives to its lower extreme at 645 and so it's off from the correct value of 650 but only a bit. On the other hand, you could have an extreme situation where the camera body hits its upper extreme at 660 and the lens then hits its upper extreme so it winds up at 670 and so your plane of focus is much further off. It could happen the other way, too, so that you get a front focus instead of a back focus.

BUT this all assumes the margin of error is symmetrical around the correct point. If I understand correctly, Reikan gives some reasons why this might not be the case in their posts about mirrorless AF. So the camera body's margin of error could be more like +8 above and -4 below. While the lens might be symmetrical or it may have its own front or back focusing tendency. It was described as though the idea in these cases would be that AFFT is essentially trying to get the margins of error to line up in a way that gets the "amalgamated" margin of error to be as symmetrical as possible and so to minimize the distance around the ideal focus point that the lens might wind up at on any given shot. The way I understand it this might be able to minimize focus errors on both sides of the ideal focal plane because it could shift things so that instead of the extreme errors for either part of the system having the potential to cumulatively swing things, say, 20 units on either side it might ensure the maximum total swing is 10 on either side, or something like that. They explained it better than I am but I can't find the post right now.

 

[SCoombs]

May be, I was just lucky with the components I have got when changing tpo Z, but one of the first things that made me happy was that I could forget AFFT, while in DSLR times I had to do it with all tele lense combos - and again each time something went through the Nikon service. Whether it's a new Z lens or my oldie 500 f4g with and without TC everything bang on

This was one of the main reasons I switched to the Z system. I'd say that my experience has been that the difference is that whereas with my F mount equipment a failure to fine tune might have resulted in focus that was way off and essentially looked as though something was extraordinarily wrong with the lens or camera or both, with my Z equipment it's been more that straight out of the box I don't get terrible, awful out of focus images, but a slight adjustment to the fine tuning can improve the sharpness of my images by a lesser amount but an amount I appreciate. So, I do feel like the headache is gone and the whole idea of AFFT is, while useful, not a stress-inducing frustration like it once was.

 

[Steve]

BUT this all assumes the margin of error is symmetrical around the correct point. If I understand correctly, Reikan gives some reasons why this might not be the case in their posts about mirrorless AF. So the camera body's margin of error could be more like +8 above and -4 below. While the lens might be symmetrical or it may have its own front or back focusing tendency. It was described as though the idea in these cases would be that AFFT is essentially trying to get the margins of error to line up in a way that gets the "amalgamated" margin of error to be as symmetrical as possible and so to minimize the distance around the ideal focus point that the lens might wind up at on any given shot. The way I understand it this might be able to minimize focus errors on both sides of the ideal focal plane because it could shift things so that instead of the extreme errors for either part of the system having the potential to cumulatively swing things, say, 20 units on either side it might ensure the maximum total swing is 10 on either side, or something like that. They explained it better than I am but I can't find the post right now.

Sure, I can see that in the case of asymmetrical errors. It's similar to what I have recommend with Nikon's Auto AF Fine Tuning - take a series of photos and average out the values. Still, I question how often that happens. In my experience with my own gear and helping others with theirs, it's almost always a case of front or back focus and not a little of both. The amount of front or back focus can vary - maybe the camera always back focuses but sometimes more than others - but it's usually one or the other. Normally if it's bouncing around a little in front and a little in back that zero mark is usually a pretty good place to leave it.

Back to the OP's problem - I guess I'm just not convinced that what I'm seeing is something that would be resolved with fine tuning - I always like to keep that as the very last resort, especially with mirrorless cameras. I'd really like to see evidence of front or back focusing and what I'm seeing is an overall softness. I feel like there are too many loose variables in play at the moment. (I think the problem is that, over the years, I've seen so many people use AFFT and mess up what was an otherwise fine system - some would get it right, but man, there was a lot that didn't).

 

[SCoombs]

Sure, I can see that in the case of asymmetrical errors. It's similar to what I have recommend with Nikon's Auto AF Fine Tuning - take a series of photos and average out the values. Still, I question how often that happens. In my experience with my own gear and helping others with theirs, it's almost always a case of front or back focus and not a little of both. The amount of front or back focus can vary - maybe the camera always back focuses but sometimes more than others - but it's usually one or the other. Normally if it's bouncing around a little in front and a little in back that zero mark is usually a pretty good place to leave it.

Back to the OP's problem - I guess I'm just not convinced that what I'm seeing is something that would be resolved with fine tuning - I always like to keep that as the very last resort, especially with mirrorless cameras. I'd really like to see evidence of front or back focusing and what I'm seeing is an overall softness. I feel like there are too many loose variables in play at the moment. (I think the problem is that, over the years, I've seen so many people use AFFT and mess up what was an otherwise fine system - some would get it right, but man, there was a lot that didn't).

To me the first photo looks about like what I've come to expect from my 200-500 and now my 180-600 for moving subjects this distance/size in the frame. Meanwhile the second looks to me very much like thermal haze, especially with the water right there.

For instance, here's a crop of a slightly larger such subject. This looks better than the OP's photo, but this has been through various processing to improve the result and yet the softness, which is more pronounced in the straight-out-of-camera file, is still clearly noticeable:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Here's the very best BIF image I've managed to get from my 180-600, which is definitely better but still not that great and is also after processing, including Topaz sharpening, something I'm generally not a huge fan of and rarely use but which in this case at least gave me something:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Steve]

To me the first photo looks about like what I've come to expect from my 200-500 and now my 180-600 for moving subjects this distance/size in the frame. Meanwhile the second looks to me very much like thermal haze, especially with the water right there.

For instance, here's a crop of a slightly larger such subject. This looks better than the OP's photo, but this has been through various processing to improve the result and yet the softness, which is more pronounced in the straight-out-of-camera file, is still clearly noticeable:View attachment 84614

Here's the very best BIF image I've managed to get from my 180-600, which is definitely better but still not that great and is also after processing, including Topaz sharpening, something I'm generally not a huge fan of and rarely use but which in this case at least gave me something:

View attachment 84615

I see what you mean about the goose and I agree. It's a little off. The mallard looks pretty good to me, considering web size and all. I'd keep it I see decent feather detail and the eye is crisp.

You may very well be correct about thermal haze - it's probably the most common culprit for this kind of softness. I can't say 100% for sure, but it's likely.

For the most part, I've been happy with my 180-600 results, although much of those are at close range (and you know me, I'm very careful with heat distortion )