Nikon 180-600mm First Impressions

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).

Member's gallery
Mike Delgado said:
I appreciate the quick response. Thanks
Click to expand...
Full name is
Kirk KLP-360-2NL Quick Release Lens Plate for Nikon Z 70-200 VR S Lens
the 2NL refers to the two fixing screws ( I typed ‘bolts’ but auto-correct made it kboats’ : )


Additionally I got a QD base plate for the Z8 which is very nice too.
IMG_1931.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Rick Kibbey said:
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.
Click to expand...
No doubt the one with the Tc will be different…and maybe even worse at 1:1 in LR…but is the difference at final output be it screen or print (a) noticeable and (b) is it really a better worse at output or more just different? I use 560 enough that the longer zoom belongs in my kit…and whether it’s again better/worse or just different at output than the 400/4.5 and TC I’ve not determined yet since my 180-600 isn’t in my hand. My overall point was that for most of us the expensive long primes fall well into want instead of need and really almost into luxury vs want…but you’re right…beauty is in the eye of the beholder and one guys nice to have is another lady‘s I must have this. I use more than 400 enough and the general consensus of most early looks is that the 180-600 is ‘better’ than the 100-400 that I think the 100-400 will be the odd man out in most of my use case…but whether it gets sold or kept for those occasions when lighter and I need the zoom but not more than 400 is needed I dunno. I’m not knowcking primes or expensive at all…they’re great and if you’re making money at photography then they’re no bra8ners…but everybody else IMO they’re wants not needs…and one weighs all the factors….IQ, weight, cost, flexibility, where the output goes, percentage of time they’ll get use, what gets left behind etc etc…when deciding what to do.
 
Member's gallery
You have hit the issue square in the eyes and only you can make that determination. I for one love both lenses and for now will keep both. I think the 180-600 will be the go to lens unless I need lighter. I’m toiling with this very issue now as I decide on my long lens choices for a trip to Africa next year. Only time will tell. Good luck in your decision and I send you good vibes you are happy with your decision. Regards Rick.
 
Member's gallery
NicholasN said:
Do you know if there is a version without the 2 screws on the base, so it sits flat when I place the camera/lens on a flat surface I don’t need to remove the plate?
Click to expand...
The screws on the base can be removed. They are safety limit screws so you don't slide the plate too far forward or back on the mounting surface. They are useful but you can remove them.
 
Member's gallery
Rick Kibbey said:
This test was way more scientific than my photo comparisons. But…bottom line, the lens is a keeper.
Click to expand...
Yep…I’m really glad I ordered it…and I hate the rest of you who’ve already got one😎😎…but really my fault since I didn’t order until Aug 15 so no worries. As I said in on of the other threads…this is clearly a great lens…especially for my purposes and my only real question at this point is whether the 100-400 stays because it is duplicative of a lot of the range…but then it’s lighter and smaller and that might be worth keeping it for since we are well enough that I don’t need to sell it but would do so if I’m not using it at all…and the 400/4.5 is staying because it’s the lightest of the 3 and along with the TC and the 24-120 which effectively gives me 180 at a DX crop make an excellent 2 lens light travel kit…and it’s still very good with the 2x TC for my purposes. While the video isn’t a Steve level…hes got history with us here obviously…he still seems to have taken a lot of the same precautions Steve will and I actually agree with his choice of a model over the focus chart because I’m not really a lines per mm person. I’m really astounded that it is as good with the tC relative to the 800PF…and outside of the aperture I think cancelling mo order for the 800 back when was the fight choice for my needs.
 
Member's gallery
jerrylwatson said:
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.).
Click to expand...
I have the 180-60mm and I think up to 400mm the AF speed is fast. At 500mm it’s relatively fast/ok and 600mm it’s adequate a little slower than the other focal ranges, may need to occasionally re press the af button (I do wish it was as fast at 600mm as my 80-400mm is at 400mm, but hey! we cant have everything).
As to image sharpness it’s sharp at 600mm f6.3 where some have said it’s not as sharp and stopping down to f8 to achieve sharp images - I did not find this even looking at images at 300% to see the difference.
As to image quality it’s surprisingly a great lens especially for its price, cameralabs review replicates my findings too, although they state virtually no CA, I have found some especially with backlit subjects. My only concern is the Color fringing that I can see with moving backlit subjects (especially BIF) only with VR ON, I need to do some more testing here. Cameralabs has an image of a baboon which shows this.
Overall I am very happy with the lens.
 
Member's gallery
NicholasN said:
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.
Click to expand...
Point 4 - I found blue fringing on the right side with backlit subjects and none on the left (decentered - dont know).
Point 5 - As above but with VR ON It made it worse, weird as this next bit may sound this was normally whilst tracking right to left, It was ok left to right and with VR OFF. Tried this many many times.
Ultimately I sent the lens back.
 
Member's gallery
NicholasN said:
Point 4 - I found blue fringing on the right side with backlit subjects and none on the left (decentered - dont know).
Point 5 - As above but with VR ON It made it worse, weird as this next bit may sound this was normally whilst tracking right to left, It was ok left to right and with VR OFF. Tried this many many times.
Ultimately I sent the lens back.
Click to expand...
I’m out of town until 7 Nov. retired 31 Aug and are taking several retirement trips to celebrate. I’ll do one when I get back.
 
Member's gallery
NicholasN said:
I have the 180-60mm and I think up to 400mm the AF speed is fast. At 500mm it’s relatively fast/ok and 600mm it’s adequate a little slower than the other focal ranges, may need to occasionally re press the af button (I do wish it was as fast at 600mm as my 80-400mm is at 400mm, but hey! we cant have everything).
As to image sharpness it’s sharp at 600mm f6.3 where some have said it’s not as sharp and stopping down to f8 to achieve sharp images - I did not find this even looking at images at 300% to see the difference.
As to image quality it’s surprisingly a great lens especially for its price, cameralabs review replicates my findings too, although they state virtually no CA, I have found some especially with backlit subjects. My only concern is the Color fringing that I can see with moving backlit subjects (especially BIF) only with VR ON, I need to do some more testing here. Cameralabs has an image of a baboon which shows this.
Overall I am very happy with the lens.
Click to expand...
I concur - I am hard pressed to see any difference between f6.3 and f8.0 without having to try to convince myself there's a difference
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top