Nikon 180-600 Z lens test shots

[Steve]

Here are a few I like. Under real scrutiny, I'm sure if I took these with the 600TC I'd like the sharpness better, but I've been happy with the results from this lens. Still, I haven't used it extensively.

Note, I do want to mention that I did have to add a bit more sharpening and texture to these than I typically do with my primes. However, you can pull out the sharpness IMO. I think that's part of the tradeoff for using the less expensive optic. All that said, I still think the OP's shots aren't right - the lens should do better than what he's getting.

Note #2 - also, in looking at this images in the shadow box at the site and comparing them to the ones on my computer, they look ever so slightly sharper on my computer for some reason. No idea why...

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.

 

[ajrmd]

Here are a few I like. Under real scrutiny, I'm sure if I took these with the 600TC I'd like the sharpness better, but I've been happy with the results from this lens. Still, I haven't used it extensively.

Note, I do want to mention that I did have to add a bit more sharpening and texture to these than I typically do with my primes. However, you can pull out the sharpness IMO. I think that's part of the tradeoff for using the less expensive optic. All that said, I still think the OP's shots aren't right - the lens should do better than what he's getting.

Note #2 - also, in looking at this images in the shadow box at the site and comparing them to the ones on my computer, they look ever so slightly sharper on my computer for some reason. No idea why...

Those are fairly representative of what one can expect to achieve in good light, while filling the frame. I just returned from a week in FL shooting a variety of birds and was grateful for this $1.6k marvel.

 

[rarebird]

In my original post I mentioned that the lens had gone back to Nikon primarily due to the inconsistency in focussing when using FoCal. In a series of photos from -15 to +15 there would be one or two out of sync with the others eg a - 5 between a +10 and +12 so it was difficult to find the sharpest point. This has been touched upon in discussion. Now the lens has been tested, recalibrated etc and I have read and taken in the extensive comments in this thread, I will work on technique, settings, atmospheric condions (humidity is running at 94% here at the moment) etc and see how it goes.
Thanks for all comments and photos.

 

[Steve]

In my original post I mentioned that the lens had gone back to Nikon primarily due to the inconsistency in focussing when using FoCal. In a series of photos from -15 to +15 there would be one or two out of sync with the others eg a - 5 between a +10 and +12 so it was difficult to find the sharpest point. This has been touched upon in discussion. Now the lens has been tested, recalibrated etc and I have read and taken in the extensive comments in this thread, I will work on technique, settings, atmospheric condions (humidity is running at 94% here at the moment) etc and see how it goes.
Thanks for all comments and photos.

Out of curiosity, have you retested with FoCal and has it been more consistent?

 

[SCoombs]

It's worth noting that I have also had the issue with FoCal having "spats" of an inability to get consistent focus. Overall it's rated my copy as high as 81 for sharpness and averages in the mid 70s, but for focus consistency most tests wind up with a rating very low, often it just gives a zero rating.

Here's what I'd say is the most notable focus issue I've found in real world use: I somewhat consistently, even on the best shots, get this vaguely "motion blurish" softness to them. I can't imagine my technique is at issue, as I've not had this problem with the harder to handle 200-500 or the MUCH harder to handle Sigma 150-600 Sport. I've also spent a lot of time trying to rule out actual motion blur (which is why the goose in my example above was shot at 1/5000) by pushing shutter speeds. I've not yet investigated turning VR on/off thoroughly enough to say with certainty that it isn't the issue, but my initial impressions is that setting it to on/sport/off doesn't seem to make much difference.

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.

 

[madone]

Out of curiosity, have you retested with FoCal and has it been more consistent?

Also, how was your experience with sending it in?! Did they charge you? Did you send samples and they agreed? Did you say it took 3 weeks?

 

[Steve]

It's worth noting that I have also had the issue with FoCal having "spats" of an inability to get consistent focus. Overall it's rated my copy as high as 81 for sharpness and averages in the mid 70s, but for focus consistency most tests wind up with a rating very low, often it just gives a zero rating.

Here's what I'd say is the most notable focus issue I've found in real world use: I somewhat consistently, even on the best shots, get this vaguely "motion blurish" softness to them. I can't imagine my technique is at issue, as I've not had this problem with the harder to handle 200-500 or the MUCH harder to handle Sigma 150-600 Sport. I've also spent a lot of time trying to rule out actual motion blur (which is why the goose in my example above was shot at 1/5000) by pushing shutter speeds. I've not yet investigated turning VR on/off thoroughly enough to say with certainty that it isn't the issue, but my initial impressions is that setting it to on/sport/off doesn't seem to make much difference.

View attachment 84637View attachment 84638
View attachment 84639

That is weird. It's almost like an element is just out of place or something.

 

[rarebird]

Also, how was your experience with sending it in?! Did they charge you? Did you send samples and they agreed? Did you say it took 3 weeks?

No charge, no samples and very limited feedback other than already mentioned. 3 weeks, yes.

 

[rarebird]

Out of curiosity, have you retested with FoCal and has it been more consistent?

Not yet. Lousy weather here. Been raining for many days.

 

[SCoombs]

That is weird. It's almost like an element is just out of place or something.

I half want to see what happens if I send it in, but based on a lot of reports I've read I get the impression it may be especially unlikely to see any fix if it's something that would essentially require reassembling the lens.

 

[MrFotoFool]

There have been a couple threads now with people saying their Z 180-600 is disappointing in terms of sharpness. If your images are not sharp then clearly it would be a disappointment, so I don't mean to negate your own experience. All I can say is that is not my experience at all. And since someone mentioned the F mount 200-500 I will say that I bought one, tested it, and returned it because the sharpness was unacceptable. In my experience the Z 180-600 on my Z8 is much sharper than the F 200-500 on my old D850. In fact I would call the Z 180-600 amazingly sharp and on par with any lens I have owned (with the caveat that I have never owned a 500 f4 or a 600 f4). However I did own the 500 f5.6 PF and this lens is as good as that. I have only had it about two months (maybe just under), but here are two JPEG's straight out of camera with no post processing. One is original (downsized for site) and one is cropped to actual pixels. I would feel comfortable blowing up a print from this lens to any size I want, up to the biggest I do which is 40x60 inches.

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.

 

[ajrmd]

One possibility ito consider in these OOF images is whether the zoom or control ring (usually MF) are inadvertently being bumped during the photo. If I remember correctly, the 186 is only partially parfocal. If one factors out the heavily cropped shots, those taken in marginal light, atmospherics, etc. I suspect that many of these OOF images have a reasonable explanation. Then again, with 25 lens elements in a relatively inexpensive lens, there may be one or two lenses out there where the elements are not perfectly in alignment. If I remember correctly when Cameralabs tested a sample lens they found that it AF'ed repeatedly with a high degree of AF accuracy (99.2%). My real world experience seems to support this.

 

[SCoombs]

One possibility ito consider in these OOF images is whether the zoom or control ring (usually MF) are inadvertently being bumped during the photo. If I remember correctly, the 186 is only partially parfocal. If one factors out the heavily cropped shots, those taken in marginal light, atmospherics, etc. I suspect that many of these OOF images have a reasonable explanation. Then again, with 25 lens elements in a relatively inexpensive lens, there may be one or two lenses out there where the elements are not perfectly in alignment. If I remember correctly when Cameralabs tested a sample lens they found that it AF'ed repeatedly with a high degree of AF accuracy (99.2%). My real world experience seems to support this.

At least in my case, I can say there's definitely no knocking of the rings. For one thing, I have my camera set to activate focus peaking whenever the MF ring is engaged, so I'd notice it instantly if it happened, and as for the zoom ring, I've very frequently gotten it turned all the way until it "knocks" at 600mm and the EXIF data confirms that the shots are indeed at 600.

My take on the overall question of the lens' sharpness has been an unpopular one in the instances that I've voiced it, but essentially I've thought since the first units started shipping and the first images started showing up online that a very large number of them were soft. When you look here and on Fredmiranda and DPreview (where images are not resampled) and in various other places where people post photos there are a good selection of stunning images from the lens... but there are also a lot of pretty soft examples, and take it for what it's worth but I think a lot of those soft examples are from users who have come into discussions like this one and said, "this lens isn't soft, look at these very sharp examples" before posting a series of images that I'd consider to be very soft. (I sincerely have nobody in particular in mind with that comment). I've also seen people praise the lens' sharpness and post examples which it is very easy to see have been somewhat heavily processed with Topaz.

Therefore I really do think that it's more than a handful of copies that are somewhat soft. It's also worth noting that in addition to the threads people have posted expressing disappointment in the lens' sharpness (thread which I've seen a bit of an uptick in recently) there have also been a pretty healthy number of people who haven't started threads but have mentioned in one discussion or another (often not even in discussions about the lens in particular) that they received and returned the lens after being disappointed. I think you're ultimately right here: it's a somewhat complex lens that's being produced for a fairly low price point so maybe there is variation here - I'd just say that based on the evidence I've seen it's more than one or two.

I have a somewhat open perspective on this in part because I've been on both ends of things with my 200-500. The first one I received was awful and clearly just a bad copy. It wasn't just soft - it was straight up incapable of achieving anything close to sharp focus, even with painstakingly cautious manual focusing. When I posted about it on Dpreview the majority of comments insisted my technique must be bad and offered other criticisms placing the blame on me, but lo and behold after returning it and receiving a new copy I could get beautifully sharp shots with the very same me behind the viewfinder. Then it turns out that my 200-500 was in fact not just more sharp but incredibly sharp. Whereas MrFotoFool above unfortunately got a copy bad enough that he didn't keep it, I have had people on other forums joke that Nikon must have secretly made an S-line version of the 200-500 and sent it to me because they think some of the examples I've posted are so sharp.

This is all why my impression based on looking at the many hundreds of photos people have posted and either participating or at least observing many discussions like this over the past few months is that there are some great copies of this lens and there are also some disappointing copies and I think I've wound up with one of the disappointing copies, though not as disappointing as the ones some people have received. At the same time, Reikan FoCal has rated my copy as between 78-81 in peak sharpness, which they say means it's got sharpness above average for other copies people have run through the software. If my copy really is above average, or even just average, then that suggests that the really awesome copies are indeed the minority. (For what it's worth, FoCal rates my raved-about 200-500 as high as 94).

How could that be, given all the people out there happy with their copies? Well, remember what I said above: there are a LOT of replies across the various photography forums where people post soft examples as evidence in favor of the lens being very sharp. It may just be the age old reality that people have different standards for sharpness and that, in my view anyways, quite a lot of people have relatively low standards for sharpness. I really do get it: this is a lower cost lens for the technical specs it's trying to offer so there is the need to be reasonable with expectations. Maybe my expectations have just been set a bit higher by a few years of shooting with my "S-line" 200-500, or maybe I'm underwhelmed by at a lot of the highly-praised samples out there because people share them with comments like, "it looks just like it came from my 600 f4," but whatever the reason I do rate most - not all, but most - of the examples I've seen from the lens - mine and others' - as not living up to even modest expectations.

 

[Len Shepherd]

Careful with tuning. Only do it if you are seeing consistent front focusing or back focusing. In those cases it helps,

+ 1
This implies a photographer perceiving a problem - which on investigation might not be the lens - knows how to recognise front or back focus.

for random mis-focus (both front and back) it's worse than doing nothing. In short, make sure you're fixing the right issue.

Agreed.

Also, I agree - I think those two images are on the slightly soft side.

Agreed

The 180-600 isn't going to give you 600TC level sharpness, but it's usually better than that.

Part agreed.
"Part" because I do not have access to the 600 f4.
I do have the 400 f6.3, the Plena and the 85mm f1.2 to set the highest resolution standard possible from 45 MP - when combined with excellent technique.

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

I regard a good tripod as essential when critical comparison between lenses at 200% or more (on a good monitor) is the aim.

What standard do I expect from my 180-600?
Comfortably more resolution than needed for a top quality A3 print - with a probability of a good A2 print - with my level of technique.

Some images posted seem not to be reaching this standard - even though many 180-600 owners achieve it.

For relative novices - the odds off good resolution improve significantly when everything is right - such as
1/ good light with good contrast
2/ a shutter speed at least twice the focal length - 1/1200 at 600mm - though not always possible.
This is where 10 fps or faster with the hope of at least 1 shot sharp can be useful.
Going back in better light etc if possible is often a better solution.
3/ small birds shorter than about 6 inches in length move very fast - 1/2400 may ideally be needed to limit loss of sharpness due to subject movement
4/ often overlooked by relative novices - a subject with detail where AF has a good chance of being accurate
5/ good health and physical strength - at age just over 80 I cannot hand hold a 600 as steadily as I could when age 75.

Those fortunate enough to own a range of lenses, a good tripod and a resolution test target can easily establish what level of resolution is possible with their equipment.

Results at test sites I respect indicate for resolution nothing from Nikon beats the Plena at around f5.6-f8, and nothing in longer focal lengths beats the 400 f2.8 S at f5.6-11.

I cannot afford the 400 f2.8 - and at age over 80 even if I could afford it I could not carry it far.
VR in the 180-800 probably has slightly less capability than other S long focal length lenses - probably because of the lowish price point it does not support synchro-VR.
f6.3 is not an ideal starting point - and stopping down a little improves resolution on most lenses brings up shutter speed problems.

When I help other photographers with similar perceived problems at 1 to 1 level the problem is usually resolved showing them in good light with the right hand holding technique on a subject where AF should work well results are dramatically better.

If a lens does not have the resolution it should compared to other lenses it is easy to send it back with comparison photos with other lenses.

If a lens consistently mis-focusses by a mile I consider it naive to presume fine tune can help - because fine tune is for fine tune only and cannot adjust for consistent mis focus by a mile. Again it is easy to send it back accompanied by test shots using another lens.

 

[RockvilleBob]

If the 180-600 has firmware perhaps Nikon, in its efforts to respond to user comments through firmware, will explore upgrades if IQ can be improved. I hope IQ at the high end was not sacrificed to go to 180 from 200 - a next to useless change for my photography. On the flip side - for the cost of this lens it has outstanding bang for the buck. You have to remember what you paid versus what you get. It would be nice to be able to use Sigma or Tamron zooms in this range on the Z.

 

[ajrmd]

At least in my case, I can say there's definitely no knocking of the rings. For one thing, I have my camera set to activate focus peaking whenever the MF ring is engaged, so I'd notice it instantly if it happened, and as for the zoom ring, I've very frequently gotten it turned all the way until it "knocks" at 600mm and the EXIF data confirms that the shots are indeed at 600.

My take on the overall question of the lens' sharpness has been an unpopular one in the instances that I've voiced it, but essentially I've thought since the first units started shipping and the first images started showing up online that a very large number of them were soft. When you look here and on Fredmiranda and DPreview (where images are not resampled) and in various other places where people post photos there are a good selection of stunning images from the lens... but there are also a lot of pretty soft examples, and take it for what it's worth but I think a lot of those soft examples are from users who have come into discussions like this one and said, "this lens isn't soft, look at these very sharp examples" before posting a series of images that I'd consider to be very soft. (I sincerely have nobody in particular in mind with that comment). I've also seen people praise the lens' sharpness and post examples which it is very easy to see have been somewhat heavily processed with Topaz.

Therefore I really do think that it's more than a handful of copies that are somewhat soft. It's also worth noting that in addition to the threads people have posted expressing disappointment in the lens' sharpness (thread which I've seen a bit of an uptick in recently) there have also been a pretty healthy number of people who haven't started threads but have mentioned in one discussion or another (often not even in discussions about the lens in particular) that they received and returned the lens after being disappointed. I think you're ultimately right here: it's a somewhat complex lens that's being produced for a fairly low price point so maybe there is variation here - I'd just say that based on the evidence I've seen it's more than one or two.

I have a somewhat open perspective on this in part because I've been on both ends of things with my 200-500. The first one I received was awful and clearly just a bad copy. It wasn't just soft - it was straight up incapable of achieving anything close to sharp focus, even with painstakingly cautious manual focusing. When I posted about it on Dpreview the majority of comments insisted my technique must be bad and offered other criticisms placing the blame on me, but lo and behold after returning it and receiving a new copy I could get beautifully sharp shots with the very same me behind the viewfinder. Then it turns out that my 200-500 was in fact not just more sharp but incredibly sharp. Whereas MrFotoFool above unfortunately got a copy bad enough that he didn't keep it, I have had people on other forums joke that Nikon must have secretly made an S-line version of the 200-500 and sent it to me because they think some of the examples I've posted are so sharp.

This is all why my impression based on looking at the many hundreds of photos people have posted and either participating or at least observing many discussions like this over the past few months is that there are some great copies of this lens and there are also some disappointing copies and I think I've wound up with one of the disappointing copies, though not as disappointing as the ones some people have received. At the same time, Reikan FoCal has rated my copy as between 78-81 in peak sharpness, which they say means it's got sharpness above average for other copies people have run through the software. If my copy really is above average, or even just average, then that suggests that the really awesome copies are indeed the minority. (For what it's worth, FoCal rates my raved-about 200-500 as high as 94).

How could that be, given all the people out there happy with their copies? Well, remember what I said above: there are a LOT of replies across the various photography forums where people post soft examples as evidence in favor of the lens being very sharp. It may just be the age old reality that people have different standards for sharpness and that, in my view anyways, quite a lot of people have relatively low standards for sharpness. I really do get it: this is a lower cost lens for the technical specs it's trying to offer so there is the need to be reasonable with expectations. Maybe my expectations have just been set a bit higher by a few years of shooting with my "S-line" 200-500, or maybe I'm underwhelmed by at a lot of the highly-praised samples out there because people share them with comments like, "it looks just like it came from my 600 f4," but whatever the reason I do rate most - not all, but most - of the examples I've seen from the lens - mine and others' - as not living up to even modest expectations.

I appreciate your passion over this though your findings run counter to all of the static, objective testing, in-field results by professionals, and my personal experience with the lens. Perhaps you received a copy with the lens elements out of alignment, a defective AF motor, VR, etc. The bottom line is if you are not happy with the lens, exchange it or return it for something else such as a 100-400, 400 f/4.5, 600 f/6.3, etc.

 

[Pixelated]

Just went out and took a very quick shot of a Goldfinch using the Z 180-600mm. Unfortunately it was very windy outside, so not ideal conditions to test lens sharpness. Ran it through DXO Pure Raw 4 on the lowest sharpening setting. Scaled down to 1200x800 in PS.

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

• Camera: NIKON CORPORATION NIKON Z 9
• Lens: NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR
• Focal Length: 600mm
• Shutter Speed: 2000
• F/Stop: F/6.3
• ISO: 1000
• Exposure Bias: -.3

Here is a 100% crop.

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

The image looks sharper on my computer. I have tuned lenses on my D850 and D500 in the past, but see no need with the 180-600mm or any other Z lenses I use.

-Greg

 

[Steve]

Just went out and took a very quick shot of a Goldfinch using the Z 180-600mm. Unfortunately it was very windy outside, so not ideal conditions to test lens sharpness. Ran it through DXO Pure Raw 4 on the lowest sharpening setting. Scaled down to 1200x800 in PS.

View attachment 84704

• Camera: NIKON CORPORATION NIKON Z 9
• Lens: NIKKOR Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR
• Focal Length: 600mm
• Shutter Speed: 2000
• F/Stop: F/6.3
• ISO: 1000
• Exposure Bias: -.3

Here is a 100% crop.
View attachment 84705

The image looks sharper on my computer. I have tuned lenses on my D850 and D500 in the past, but see no need with the 180-600mm or any other Z lenses I use.

-Greg

Looks plenty sharp to me

 

[SCoombs]

I went outside today and got some of the genuinely sharpest images I've seen from this lens. What did I do differently? I'm not sure. These were taken in direct sunlight, but it's not as though most of my other examples were in terrible light. I have to think the Z8 can handle focusing accurately in reasonably well lit but just not direct sunlight. The other change is that I pushed the shutter speed to 1/2500, thinking maybe these small songbirds are twitching too much. I guess that would make sense, but I've generally gotten sharp photos of songbirds before with much lower shutter speeds, so it would almost be as if for some reason this lens was taking faster shutter speeds to achieve the same results as other lenses I've used at these focal lengths. Also, while I did get more of these in this very nice focus this time, there were also plenty that had that softness I have been used to.

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.

 

[ajrmd]

I went outside today and got some of the genuinely sharpest images I've seen from this lens. What did I do differently? I'm not sure. These were taken in direct sunlight, but it's not as though most of my other examples were in terrible light. I have to think the Z8 can handle focusing accurately in reasonably well lit but just not direct sunlight. The other change is that I pushed the shutter speed to 1/2500, thinking maybe these small songbirds are twitching too much. I guess that would make sense, but I've generally gotten sharp photos of songbirds before with much lower shutter speeds, so it would almost be as if for some reason this lens was taking faster shutter speeds to achieve the same results as other lenses I've used at these focal lengths. Also, while I did get more of these in this very nice focus this time, there were also plenty that had that softness I have been used to.

As we have said, this lens doesn't have the coatings that an "S" lens has and with 25 optical elements, it needs light for best results. Again, YMMV but I am glad to have this tool in my toolbox. Though this isn't my favorite shot for a number of reasons (and it could have benefited from being stopped down) it illustrates that even wide open, the lens is reasonably sharp and renders well even in a low resolution image.

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.

 

[SCoombs]

As we have said, this lens doesn't have the coatings that an "S" lens has and with 25 optical elements, it needs light for best results. Again, YMMV but I am glad to have this tool in my toolbox. Though this isn't my favorite shot for a number of reasons (and it could have benefited from being stopped down) it illustrates that even wide open, the lens is reasonably sharp and renders well even in a low resolution image.
View attachment 84710

I admit I am no expert on all the details of the technology. Can you explain how the coatings make a difference here in a way which could result in some of the more poor results we've discussed? I thought that the coatings essentially helped to control dust and moisture and flaring. What about them would cause a softer image in cases where things like flaring are not a concern?

Second, why is a high quantity of light all that much more of an important factor for sharp photos from this 25 element lens vs. say the 600pf with 20 or the 500 pf with 19?

 

[ajrmd]

I admit I am no expert on all the details of the technology. Can you explain how the coatings make a difference here in a way which could result in some of the more poor results we've discussed? I thought that the coatings essentially helped to control dust and moisture and flaring. What about them would cause a softer image in cases where things like flaring are not a concern?

Second, why is a high quantity of light all that much more of an important factor for sharp photos from this 25 element lens vs. say the 600pf with 20 or the 500 pf with 19?

We would need an optical engineer to explain the nuances though there are many factors in play including lens and element design, composition (what it is made of), coatings, etc. All of this affects light transmission, and every factor has the potential of introducing optical aberrations. The aberrations can affect color, contrast, acutance, etc. In general, a greater number of surfaces increases the likelihood of aberrations and when one has those elements moving in space (as in a zoom as opposed to a prime lens) the challenges increase. When designing a lens, the engineer has to contend with physics, budget, production limitations, etc. The 180-600 is a comparatively inexpensive lens and likely includes a lot of compromises. Short answer from a photographer with a background in engineering, but I am by no means an expert in optics.

 

[Alistair]

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.

How deep a crop are these, what shutter speed, what is the ISO? Apologies but I cannot see the EXIF data. You are right about better light. You will note that every sharp picture shown in this thread has light directly falling on the subject's eye.

 

[Alistair]

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

The duck image looks great to me, especially for 1/2000 sec. The goose image is a little too heavily processed to tell much but I suspect the shape the bird has adopted in that frame has confused the AF and it has lost the location of the eye.

 

[Alistair]

It's worth noting that I have also had the issue with FoCal having "spats" of an inability to get consistent focus. Overall it's rated my copy as high as 81 for sharpness and averages in the mid 70s, but for focus consistency most tests wind up with a rating very low, often it just gives a zero rating.

Here's what I'd say is the most notable focus issue I've found in real world use: I somewhat consistently, even on the best shots, get this vaguely "motion blurish" softness to them. I can't imagine my technique is at issue, as I've not had this problem with the harder to handle 200-500 or the MUCH harder to handle Sigma 150-600 Sport. I've also spent a lot of time trying to rule out actual motion blur (which is why the goose in my example above was shot at 1/5000) by pushing shutter speeds. I've not yet investigated turning VR on/off thoroughly enough to say with certainty that it isn't the issue, but my initial impressions is that setting it to on/sport/off doesn't seem to make much difference.

View attachment 84637View attachment 84638
View attachment 84639

I am not familiar with these species, but perched birds rarely are still, especially when they are feeding. Constant small quick movements of the head. FWIW to me, this is what these images look like. The shutter speed is nearly enough to freeze the movement but not quite. In these circumstances I will usually take a burst of images and mostly get one critically sharp where the subject is perfectly still, sometimes using a slower shutter speed depending upon circumstances.