I was in the later batch.
Just spoke to Becky & understand I’m number 15 on the list, so a bit further down than I thought!
I’m sure it will be worth the wait
Did you manage to get out with it yet?
Nikon 180-600mm First Impressions
- Thread starter Rick Kibbey
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Just spoke to Becky & understand I’m number 15 on the list, so a bit further down than I thought!
I’m sure it will be worth the wait
Did you manage to get out with it yet?
I did and was truly impressed. Even with the 2x Teleconverter the images were sharp.I was in the later batch.
Just spoke to Becky & understand I’m number 15 on the list, so a bit further down than I thought!
I’m sure it will be worth the wait
Did you manage to get out with it yet?
I shared a few earlier, something i never do normally…
z180-600 a few initial tests with Z8
Overall, it's certainly heavy, but not much more so than the z70-200. Hand holding to catch planes going overhead is a trial. All images heavily cropped but no other changes. I'm pretty impressed by how sharp this thing is at 1200mm!
bcgforums.com
I traded in the 200-500f/5.6, was it better than that?I did and was truly impressed. Even with the 2x Teleconverter the images were sharp.
I shared a few earlier, something i never do normally…
z180-600 a few initial tests with Z8
Overall, it's certainly heavy, but not much more so than the z70-200. Hand holding to catch planes going overhead is a trial. All images heavily cropped but no other changes. I'm pretty impressed by how sharp this thing is at 1200mm!
Really surprised to hear that it worked well with the 2x TC as was always led to believe that the 200-500mm f/5.6 shouldn’t be paired with a TC 1.4 or 2x!
Glad you like it & look forward to seeing some more images.
The 2 Z converters are apparently much better than the F ones. I own the 2x but rented the 1.4 with the z100-400 in July and was very impressed - there was no degradation in image quality at allI traded in the 200-500f/5.6, was it better than that?
Really surprised to hear that it worked well with the 2x TC as was always led to believe that the 200-500mm f/5.6 shouldn’t be paired with a TC 1.4 or 2x!
Glad you like it & look forward to seeing some more images.
After I received mine last week, I returned back . I did not even open the box. Since I have both the 600 tc and the 400 f 4.5 and I am very impressed with the quality of both lenses, I could not see that the utility of the 180-600 for now. I decided to ask Nikon to loan me the 180-600 and the 100-400 to try them side by side and see which one will be better for me. I did not see much of detailed review and comparaison between these two lenses. I also have the 70-200 mm f2.8 which with 1.4 tc get me to 280mm.
Most of my photography is done early morning and late afternoon. i also like to photograph wildlife in golden and blue hours. So I need wide , sharp and fast lenses, and I don‘t feel that the 180-600 can delivers what I want. Maybe I made a mistake and I will regret returning it, but for now I feel that I made the good decision.
Most of my photography is done early morning and late afternoon. i also like to photograph wildlife in golden and blue hours. So I need wide , sharp and fast lenses, and I don‘t feel that the 180-600 can delivers what I want. Maybe I made a mistake and I will regret returning it, but for now I feel that I made the good decision.
SCoombs
Well-known member
I'm definitely not close to the front of any lines, but I'm a bit on the fence looking at all of the examples posted. Maybe it's just the downsizing people have to do to post here, but even samples on other forums with higher res photos I feel like almost every example I am seeing is just sortof a bit soft compared to other options that exist. I could very, very easily be wrong here as there are limited examples and I might just be nitpicking too much - hard to say for now. As more examples are posted it will become easier to judge.
I totally agree with you. I have not seen yet a photo that it is very sharp with soft and nice background. At the same time I know for the price that this lens cost, we can't compare it with prime lenses. For me I prefer to get better quality lens and keep it longer.
The pictures posted from the 180-600 reminds me of my new 24-120/4 which renders nice looking images. Can’t complain, but it definitely doesn’t have the same punch the 24-70/2.8 has.
NicholasN
Active member
It has got good contrast, actually a bit more than my AF/S 80-400mm G lens - I tested them both and also noticed the 180-600mm has got good sharpness across the frame. It might just be my copy but I have to say that I did not expect it to be as good as my 80-400 which is an awesome lens for me. I am only a little disappointed in the focus acquisition, which is not slow but I just feel I like the instant sound and movement of my 80-400 - saying that the 180-600 is extremely smooth and silent so may be it feels it’s not acquiring quick enough - I have to do more tests but the few sets of images I looked at on the back of the LCD (which I thought it did not acquire focus on) - It actually did !
Because of the downsizing on this forum, I would not use these comparisons to make a decision. You will need to see originals. Or wait for Steve to do his comparison.
I have full confident with Steve review. That is why I could not make a decision to keep the lens. I am waiting for his full review of this lens and also for a comparaison with the 100-400 mm. I heard good stuff about the last one.
SCoombs
Well-known member
You're right about this. I would say that this heron headshot is the sharpest I've seen anywhere from this lens, and I do think it is indeed quite good: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1823063/0#16332667
However, a lot of the other photos in that thread strike me as the sort that look really good initially - especially when I viewed them on my phone - but show their flaws a lot more clearly if you open up the full sized file. That said, some of them do look really very good when smaller, and I it looks like there's been very little if any processing for noise or sharpening, so it's possible that some of what I'm seeing is just the need to do that stuff.
ajrmd
Well-known member
So, I just heard from my peeps in the US regarding the 180-600. Unlike Europe and the UK, it seems that they received a small allocation, sufficient only to fulfill the orders for NPS members exclusively. They still have a large waiting list of Nikon users who pre-ordered the lens, with no update as to when they might receive additional shipments.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
fwiw, it's not actually information, but past experience suggests once the initial shipment starts, they tend to deliver batches of the product about every month
Cameron T
Well-known member
This seems to be exactly what I'd noticed, which is frustrating given how much bigger (in raw numbers) the US is
Some US non-NPS members have them and BH was willing to tell me end of Sept. I ordered at 12:20am ET.
ajrmd
Well-known member
Right? I hope I have it in time for fall birding and it doesn’t turn into another nearly year wait like it did with the 800 PF. Heck, how long does it take to make the 180-600’s ShamWow case, unlike the nice one I have for my 800 PF? ;-)
Cameron T
Well-known member
I expect it'll be 4 years from road map announcement (so October) before most of us get one, which is rather annoying. Can't change it, but nikon clearly isn't making enough for demand, which is embarrassing for them I'd say.
I ordered approximately the same time as you. Same response from B&H. I’m hoping for delivery in a few weeks.
I was away when it shipped so my camera shop held it and shipped so I would get it today. I got home at 12;30pm, lens came around 2 and I went outside for a couple hours and took a few. Not many birds, it was 91 and felt like 102. More tomorrow but so far I can say it is slower than 400/2.8TC (no kidding) and 800pf. Not bad though I would say so far close to the 100-400 in speed but t his is up to 600mm so that's nice.
Here's a few;
Rubty throated Hummingbird
Another Hummer
Light was horriblle as it usually is between 2pm and 4pm in the afternoon in the south! Will play again tomorrow morning!
Here's a few;
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Rubty throated Hummingbird
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Another Hummer
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Light was horriblle as it usually is between 2pm and 4pm in the afternoon in the south! Will play again tomorrow morning!
Surely you folks don't make quality judgements based on photos posted on the internet? That's pretty poor data to be using for decision making. There have been several threads here on BCG discussing the difficulties/vagaries of how posted images appear. It is possible to post images that offer meaningful comparison(e.g. relative sharpness) between two lenses but posters rarely take the time/trouble to shoot the same target/FOV/lighting. Most people simply pick a random/convenient subject, take a couple of shots, and throw them out there. Typically the only information published on-line that is of any value is the opinion of someone with an established track record(i.e. his/her opinions consistently match my own experience). I consider @Steve to be one such source and when he posts review/comparison videos I don't even pay attention to the included images. At least not in the context of evaluating lens quality. I enjoy the images for their own sake but the only information I'm after is what he has to say about the lens. If he says lens x is just as sharp as lens y I'm confident that he is objective and knows what he's talking about. Images as they appear on YouTube are neither here nor there. I understand that folks like them have to include them to keep the content interesting. But the images are entertainment, not data.
Since there are so many inquiring minds who want to know someone should start a thread dedicated to demonstrating IQ with this lens rather than the random comments sprinkled here and there in different threads.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
fwiw, a 180-600 group got started on FB and there's some reasonable pictures being posted there
Ordered thru NPS on the 21st at 7:00 am. Just received this message today 9/7/23
Part of it is downsizing here…but really…this is a less than 1800 lens…and comparing it to the expensive primes seems a bit unfair to me. Ai pixel peeping levels in LR…I’m positive the higher priced spreads look better…but one needs to look at images at output resolution…screen or print and compare those. I think that an honest appraisal would find the differences a lot less…and then one needs to factor cost, convenience, style, and all the other myriad things that go into lens selection before deciding which lens is for them…or for them for what they’re doing today. I’ve already got both the 400/4.5 and the 100-400…and am really not interested much in the expensive primes but it’s not really the actual price but the bang for the buck, would they really improve my almost all screen output, the lack of flexibility because the expensive heavy prime means I leave other things behind and that is limiting unless one either knows exactly what you’ll see today or are only interested in great gray owls or whatever. One needs to consider things like background bokeh, are you making money doing photography, how much you’re willing to spend 8f you’re not making money and can business expense it, etc. When mine gets here…I need to do some comparison shots in the yard with and without the TCs and see what difference it makes for me…but I can easily see this as an almost commando wildlife kit along with say the 24-120 for closer opportunities. Not quite as light as the 40l/4.5, TC, and 24-120 which is my real commando wildlife kit…but a lot more flexible so it’s a matter of what am I willing to carry today. If the 180-600 is truly better than the 100-400 which most comparisons have indicated is true (albeit non scientific so far but I’m not really much interested in lines per mm or whatever those graphs are in) then for me the 100-400 becomes largely redundant unless I need zoom for flexibility and also light.