I have the 100-400 and TCs. For wildlife I would think the auto focus speed and sharpness would be the most important knowing all the specifations (weight, minimum aperture, etc.).
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).
SCoombs
Well-known member
First of all, plenty of websites let you post the exact files you're producing from Lightroom or Dxo or Photoshop or whatever, even down to keeping the same file name, all at whatever resolution you like. In other words, it's you can look at what people are producing with a given set of equipment exactly as they produced it.
Second, these photos are literally the only thing one can use for decision making short of buying a copy oneself and taking the loss if you aren't satisfied - or, I suppose, renting a lens (if one is even available) in which case you're probably still spending as much on the rental as the depreciation if you bought and sold one.
Third, there is great value in numbers. Seeing a hundred random photos from a lens and comparing how they look relative to the thousands of other photos you've seen from other lenses is vastly more useful and reliable than looking at one pair of even perfectly controlled A/B photos.
The bottom line is that one can right now go and easily find thousands of photos taken with 200-500s, 500pfs, 70-300s, 70-200s, 400s, 600, 800s, etc. and most of us have seen thousands or more such photos, and in the past week or so as more and more images from this new lens have been posted I've yet to really see one that matches the better examples of IQ from any of those lenses. That's not definitive, by any means, but when you can't even one example that matches out of maybe a hundred plus samples from a new lens it's at least makes you want to slow things down and see what other examples people will produce before you decide to spend a bunch of money.
Rick Kibbey
Well-known member
Anjin, go back to the photos of the bird of paradise that I posted in this forum. There is a definite difference to the 100-400 with 1.4TC vs the 180-600. I wish, that day, I had thought of also throwing in a like photo of the 100-400 in DX mode so that we would see a 600mm to 600mm comparison. If you're not using 600-900mm lengths, then you don't need the 180-600. BUT...if you need that once in a while, the 180-600 is perfect in your kit. I don't use my 800 prime often but when I need it, it's nice to have. Only the 800 prime is almost $5K more than the 180-600 so it's only a matter of money and your use case. If you have something that you can use that can be bumped up to 600mm and you don't use it much, I think your answer is obvious. If you need longer and the price doesn't break the bank, then the 180-600 works well. My two cents but listen to your inner self. As my wife tells me often on matters like this, "think with your brain, not your heart." Want is a heart decision. Need is a brain decision. And sometimes if it's worth it to you, you just go with it and get the darned thing. Good luck on a decision.
I said before in my comments that I am waiting for Steve to make a detailed review of this lens and maybe compare it to the 100-400 mm. I returned the lens because I could not take a decision whether to keep it or go with the 100-400mm. And since I have the z600 tc, the 400 mm f4.5 and the 70-200 f 2.8 with a tc,I can cover for now almost all reach. Off course nothing replace the flexibility of a zoom lens, for that reason, I am waiting for Steve’s review. And I said it before, Steve is the only one I trust when it comes to review, because he is honest.
The only things I mentioned is that I was not until now impressed with the photos I see on internet in general. And of course we can’t compare the Z 180- 200 mm with the 600 mm tc at 600 mm. Both lenses are different and the price is way more expensive for the 600 tc.
I am sorry if my comment was not well stated, maybe because English is not my primary language and I did not express my thought in a good way. My apology.
Unless you're an IT professional(aka coder) and/or unless the poster specifies what pixel dimensions they uploaded how do you know? It's easy enough to test. Post an image of your own and see if it occupies the same real estate on your screen viewing the web version compared to the uploaded version viewed at 100 percent in your PP software of choice.
So I guess that's a yes to the original question i.e."Surely you folks don't make quality judgements based on photos posted on the internet?". OK
Last edited:
My apologies. I did zero in on:
And perhaps characterized it out of context with the rest of your comments.
NicholasN
Active member
The photo in question that you took that I did not see much CA is 68954 taken with the 180-600.??
Rick would like your input comparing it to the 100-400.
After using the 180-600 for 4 days my impressions have been good, I have listed my good and bad points below and these are based on a preliminary viewing without stating the obvious benefits that a zoom has, however I will need to go through the images I have taken thoroughly.
My thoughts are Only compared to my 80-400mm AF/s G lens ( which I thought was a very fast focusing lens and probably faster than the 100-400 Z lens).
1. Sharper centre and especially edges.
2. Not as instant to initiate focus but still fast.
3. Tracks BIF just as well.
4. More CA on shinny bright backgrounds?! - No CA on normal images.
5. No fringing on tracked BIF images with VR ON (my 80-400 was terrible).
6. More contrast and color (may have to dial this down).
7. Much better VR
8. Balances well, Love the internal zooming of lens.
9. Aperture f6.3 at 600mm is sharper than I thought and don’t need to stop down to get ultimate sharpness (Impressive).
10. And can I say a joy to use despite being heavier.
I have not regretted my purchase at all.
SCoombs
Well-known member
You know because the sites tell you how they work. You also know because when you upload the file it is the very same file and can be downloaded from the site and is identical. You also know because you can download other people's photos and see that they are the full 45.7 MP or whatever it is for a given camera. It's not really that difficult to sort out!
On what basis do you make your decisions or encourage others to make their decisions on? Viewing photos taken with a camera product is the only way to judge it. What you're saying is like arguing you can't judge a restaurant's food by eating it and instead you have to wait for a chef to write a review of the place.So I guess that's a yes to the original question i.e."Surely you folks don't make quality judgements based on photos posted on the internet?". OK
No further explanation necessary. Question asked and answered. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Cheers.You know because the sites tell you how they work. You also know because when you upload the file it is the very same file and can be downloaded from the site and is identical. You also know because you can download other people's photos and see that they are the full 45.7 MP or whatever it is for a given camera. It's not really that difficult to sort out!
On what basis do you make your decisions or encourage others to make their decisions on? Viewing photos taken with a camera product is the only way to judge it. What you're saying is like arguing you can't judge a restaurant's food by eating it and instead you have to wait for a chef to write a review of the place.
Or encourage their spouse to take up quilting. If there's a hobby that isn't general aviation and is more expensive than photography, it has to be quilting.Congrats on retiring. Encourage everyone you know to keep working. It pays society's bills and keeps them out of our way
Just trust me without asking me how I know this... Please.
I believe it. We know several quilters. High dollar machines, traveling to shows/conferences, etc. When we were in the market for a house we looked at one that had knocked out a bedroom wall in order to fit the owner's quilting machine.Or encourage their spouse to take up quilting. If there's a hobby that isn't general aviation and is more expensive than photography, it has to be quilting.
Just trust me without asking me how I know this... Please.
Colonial Photo (CP) is a great store! I purchased my first SLR, a Nikon FM, from them in 1978 or 1979. Since then, I've bought a few more items from them. Now that my parents aren't in the Orlando area, I don't go as often, but I try to drop by whenever I'm near Orlando and they're open.
I used to couple the trip to CP with a side trip to Beefy King on Bumby Avenue. I hope that they are still in business, as they make their roast beef sandwiches by carving the meat off of a big beef roast behind the counter. So good!
Maybe I need to get back down there soon!
Patrick, I agree with you based upon what I've read and seen online, but would additionally attribute the IQ improvements to the improved Z-mount lens quality and also the improved AF of the Z cameras; the improvement is really a "team effort" of all the components.
We know a quilter who had a building constructed on their property for the sole purpose of quilting. That building is nicer than their house!
As much as that cost, it cost still more to fill it with all of her quilting supplies and fabric. I've been in a lot of fabric stores with less fabric than this "quilt shed" has. My wife wants one; and she may just get it before I die on the job, still working to pay for her "quilt shed."
But back to the subject of this thread, I'm beginning to regret my purchase of the Z-mount 70-200 2.8 after reading through this thread. What I'm reading is that the 100-600 is an impressive lens, both in IQ and price. When it was announced, I figured that it would have greater optical and performance compromises than it seems to really have. I'm pleased to have been mistaken concerning this.
Last edited:
It is indeed a case of the whole being better than the sum of the parts. Pretty much across the board Nikon f-mount telephoto lenses produce sharper results on Z bodies. F-mount TCs don't degrade IQ as much when used on Z bodies. And pretty much across the board the new Z lenses out perform their f-mount counterparts(e.g. Z 100-400 vs AF-S 80-400G).
I have to say I'd still be shooting DSLR if the Z9 hadn't been released with a high rez sensor. And would have been missing out on a step change improvement in equipment performance. Though in fairness ignorance is bliss and I'd not have known any better
Cyprio42
Active member
I'd originally put the deposit down for the 800mm Z, but decided to cancel. I just said keep the deposit for the upcoming 200-600 that was on the roadmap and when it was announced I contacted LCE and I was in the first batch.Wow, 12 months ago!… no wonder you got it so quick!
After thinking about this some more you're absolutely correct regarding the validity of the data. Even with a lot of variation due to random subjects shot under random conditions with random technique if the data set is large enough it still provides a statistically valid data set. As far as whether it's more valuable than a smaller data set of well controlled results depends on the method of analysis. What you describe is an intuitive evaluation of large numbers of images. My own preference(due to my background) is detailed analysis of less but "higher quality" data. Neither is right or wrong, Just different methods for different personalities. One of those right brain/left brain things.
I will say though that your restaurant analogy is a bad one. Looking at other people's images isn't like tasting the food. It's more like reading reviews. You don't get to taste the food until you commit and sit down at the table. No matter how good the reviews are or how good the food looks in pics on FB, you never really know until you take that first bite
Controlled indoor test and comparison - maybe not perfect but I think it confirms what people are experiencing that the lens is a good one.
SCoombs
Well-known member
I'm with you in liking detailed analysis of good data. Professionally I teach calculus and statistics and I in my personal life I regularly put those tools to use in analyzing things like product comparisons, etc. I didn't intend in my comments to discount these sorts of analysis if there's at least some kind of sample size at play. Rather, I was only trying to say that I trust a thousand uncontrolled photos over one or two peoples' detailed analysis of 4 or 5 photos each - which is about all we're likely to get until another few months have passed I'd imagine. There's just way too many ways that one or two people's detailed analysis could go wrong or reach an erroneous conclusion while it's much, much harder for a few hundred random photos to badly misrepresent the reality. You may not get the same level of depth in a conclusion from looking at a few hundred random shots as you might looking over someone's elaborate controlled test, but you're not going to have the conclusion wind up being totally off, either. In other words, one or two people's detailed tests may be able to tell you whether the lens is a 9.5 or a 9.6 out of 10 while the mass of internet samples may only be able to tell you if it's an 8 or a 9, but if the internet samples tell you it's a 9/10 you can probably be pretty confident that in reality it's an 8.8 to a 9.2, while the one detailed analysis is just one analysis and so you run a much greater risk that when it makes you think the lens is a 9.4/10 it's really a 7.5.After thinking about this some more you're absolutely correct regarding the validity of the data. Even with a lot of variation due to random subjects shot under random conditions with random technique if the data set is large enough it still provides a statistically valid data set. As far as whether it's more valuable than a smaller data set of well controlled results depends on the method of analysis. What you describe is an intuitive evaluation of large numbers of images. My own preference(due to my background) is detailed analysis of less but "higher quality" data. Neither is right or wrong, Just different methods for different personalities. One of those right brain/left brain things.
I will say though that your restaurant analogy is a bad one. Looking at other people's images isn't like tasting the food. It's more like reading reviews. You don't get to taste the food until you commit and sit down at the table. No matter how good the reviews are or how good the food looks in pics on FB, you never really know until you take that first bite
I agree the restaurant analogy was not great. I knew it wasn't great at the time but was trying to get something posted before I had to leave for the day.
So basically we've been speaking the same language without understanding each other. Imagine thatI'm with you in liking detailed analysis of good data. Professionally I teach calculus and statistics and I in my personal life I regularly put those tools to use in analyzing things like product comparisons, etc. I didn't intend in my comments to discount these sorts of analysis if there's at least some kind of sample size at play. Rather, I was only trying to say that I trust a thousand uncontrolled photos over one or two peoples' detailed analysis of 4 or 5 photos each - which is about all we're likely to get until another few months have passed I'd imagine. There's just way too many ways that one or two people's detailed analysis could go wrong or reach an erroneous conclusion while it's much, much harder for a few hundred random photos to badly misrepresent the reality. You may not get the same level of depth in a conclusion from looking at a few hundred random shots as you might looking over someone's elaborate controlled test, but you're not going to have the conclusion wind up being totally off, either. In other words, one or two people's detailed tests may be able to tell you whether the lens is a 9.5 or a 9.6 out of 10 while the mass of internet samples may only be able to tell you if it's an 8 or a 9, but if the internet samples tell you it's a 9/10 you can probably be pretty confident that in reality it's an 8.8 to a 9.2, while the one detailed analysis is just one analysis and so you run a much greater risk that when it makes you think the lens is a 9.4/10 it's really a 7.5.
I agree the restaurant analogy was not great. I knew it wasn't great at the time but was trying to get something posted before I had to leave for the day.
What kind of plate/size are people using to mount on tripod? Thanks
Kirk KLP-360 two boats and a QD socket
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.
I appreciate the quick response. Thanks