Nikon 180-600mm lens ship date

[EricKlees]

I'll try that next time AF is not solid. I am not a fan of DX, I would rather have the extra pixels and crop after the fact

It's the same thing if you use DX crop more or just crop in post. The thing is if you can get solid AF lock and tracking in FX mode, you can crop as you need. What I mean is if you shot in FX you can crop to say 30MPs if you didn't want to go all the way to 19.2MPs which is what DX mode will give you. Again, I only do it to help the AF system. I would rather a tack sharp 19.2MP image rather a soft/softer 45MP image.

 

[SeanT]

At this point I'm ever less certain I need the lens like I convinced myself. I have my much-loved 500 PF back (thanks Phil) and it's just so good and light and ideal for any of my wildlife needs.

The videos showing the lack of acuity at 600 mm aren't helping.

 

[EricKlees]

At this point I'm ever less certain I need the lens like I convinced myself. I have my much-loved 500 PF back (thanks Phil) and it's just so good and light and ideal for any of my wildlife needs.

The videos showing the lack of acuity at 600 mm aren't helping.

That's why I'd have to use it before i buy it. 3 NPS friends ordered the 180-600mm. I said with it not being an S line lens, I had hoped it would be at least as sharp as the 500PF. Ricci's video stated it was sharper than the 200-500 but not as sharp as the 500PF.

I'll borrow one from a friend and try it out, not I'll probably still buy it for when I'm in places like Yellowstone and need something less then 500mm a large majority of the time

 

[RichF]

That's why I'd have to use it before i buy it. 3 NPS friends ordered the 180-600mm. I said with it not being an S line lens, I had hoped it would be at least as sharp as the 500PF. Ricci's video stated it was sharper than the 200-500 but not as sharp as the 500PF.

I'll borrow one from a friend and try it out, not I'll probably still buy it for when I'm in places like Yellowstone and need something less then 500mm a large majority of the time

Wonder if most of us could tell the difference in an image from a super sharp lens, say 600 TC versus 180-600 after processing, printing say 20x30 or 12x18, viewed from 3-5 feet. Pick a real subject, not a test chart No pixel peeking. Don't know the answer, never did the test

 

[Whiskeyman]

Yep…I think it works that way too…but from an engineering standpoint the AF pixels are the same but DX is only looking at fewer pixels…but with looking at fewer but identical pixels…the software shouldn’t do any better of a job…but enough people have noticed that BEAF for instance works better for distant birds in DX that I just accept it as a fact even though as an engineer it makes no sense to me. The software is still using the same algorithms to determine if it recognizes an eye…and if there are 60 pixels on the eye in FX there re 60 in DX…and ignoringnhalf of the frame means the camera is doing half the work since it doesn’t AFAIK change to a new algorithm in DX. I’ve had a long discussion previously here and also in other places…and none of us could come up with an explanation of why it’s better that made sense…so I just accept it as a fact and moved on. True…AF has fewer pixels to process…but it’s processing them with the same algorithm and at the same rate…and if it can handle processing the FF data then its loafing the other half of the time in DX. I’m sure Nikon knows why…they just haven’t told the rest of us.

I agree. I have been using DX mode on my Z9 since maybe march of 2022, or since I noticed it helps the AF recognize and track the subject since it is bigger in the EVF. Plus all the other reasons you've listed here. I really only use the DX mode if the AF doesn't seem to be that confident and the box is jumping a little, I then use DX mode. But if my AF is sticky, I will alwayus use FX for all my pixels and crop to what I need to. A lot of people dismiss the use of DX mode and even after explaining, they still dismiss it. One of those can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink it I guess.

One factor to consider is that lenses tend to fall off in sharpness toward the corners/edges of the image. Maybe the factor driving the difference in AF performance and IQ is the off-axis lens resolving capability. Of course, this is also dependent upon the chosen AF mode.

 

[Cameron T]

At this point I'm ever less certain I need the lens like I convinced myself. I have my much-loved 500 PF back (thanks Phil) and it's just so good and light and ideal for any of my wildlife needs.

The videos showing the lack of acuity at 600 mm aren't helping.

People keep saying this, but all the videos tend to show favorable results compared to the other lenses in the same class. What videos are you watching with 'lack of acuity'?

 

[Cameron T]

That's why I'd have to use it before i buy it. 3 NPS friends ordered the 180-600mm. I said with it not being an S line lens, I had hoped it would be at least as sharp as the 500PF. Ricci's video stated it was sharper than the 200-500 but not as sharp as the 500PF.

I'll borrow one from a friend and try it out, not I'll probably still buy it for when I'm in places like Yellowstone and need something less then 500mm a large majority of the time

I'd be shocked if a zoom half the cost was as sharp as one of the best primes ever made.

If that's what people expected, no wonder you were let down. Most of us didn't expect that though ,and for obvious reasons.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Wonder if most of us could tell the difference in an image from a super sharp lens, say 600 TC versus 180-600 after processing, printing say 20x30 or 12x18, viewed from 3-5 feet. Pick a real subject, not a test chart No pixel peeking. Don't know the answer, never did the test

That is a good question, Rich. Another is whether, or not, the average non-photographer would/could tell the difference, or if they would even care if they did.

 

[SCoombs]

Wonder if most of us could tell the difference in an image from a super sharp lens, say 600 TC versus 180-600 after processing, printing say 20x30 or 12x18, viewed from 3-5 feet. Pick a real subject, not a test chart No pixel peeking. Don't know the answer, never did the test

That is a good question, Rich. Another is whether, or not, the average non-photographer would/could tell the difference, or if they would even care if they did.

I think this is often a good question when comparing lenses, but I think it's also a potentially misleading consideration when we're talking about wildlife because so often wildlife photography is cropped and isn't using the full frame.

Take a top of the line event lens like the 70-200 2.8 and compare the same shots on the cheaper 70-180 2.8 and print/view them at normal sizes and I bet most average people wouldn't see the difference.

But take a super sharp $15000 telephoto lens and a $1500 consumer zoom and photograph wildlife and by the time you print/view the image often - not always but often - you'll have cropped it down, and while I know Steve talks about avoiding cropping at all costs I know a lot of other professionals out there regularly crop somewhat significantly. Now all of a sudden I bet that extra sharpness really is noticeable since to get the desired composition you've cropped to the point where it makes a difference.

 

[EricKlees]

Wonder if most of us could tell the difference in an image from a super sharp lens, say 600 TC versus 180-600 after processing, printing say 20x30 or 12x18, viewed from 3-5 feet. Pick a real subject, not a test chart No pixel peeking. Don't know the answer, never did the test

I never pay attention to test charts and MTF's. I only look at and compare real world images.

I know it's virtually impossible to tell the difference from the 600 TC to the 800PF side by side without then being marked which is which.

But this is why u said i want to borrow the lens and see what i see when i go out shooting for a day or 2

 

[ajrmd]

I think this is often a good question when comparing lenses, but I think it's also a potentially misleading consideration when we're talking about wildlife because so often wildlife photography is cropped and isn't using the full frame.

Take a top of the line event lens like the 70-200 2.8 and compare the same shots on the cheaper 70-180 2.8 and print/view them at normal sizes and I bet most average people wouldn't see the difference.

But take a super sharp $15000 telephoto lens and a $1500 consumer zoom and photograph wildlife and by the time you print/view the image often - not always but often - you'll have cropped it down, and while I know Steve talks about avoiding cropping at all costs I know a lot of other professionals out there regularly crop somewhat significantly. Now all of a sudden I bet that extra sharpness really is noticeable since to get the desired composition you've cropped to the point where it makes a difference.

That's true at some level and while acutance is one characteristic of a lens, other factors such as contrast, color, resistance to CA, flare, etc. are equally important. As an example, my Canon 100-500 was somewhat "less sharp" than my 500 f/4 IS II though what really distinguished the lens were those other factors. These manifested under certain shooting conditions and was especially evident when PP (mainly cropping). While my favorite WL image of the year was shot on my 100-500 with a crop body, in no way would this be my preferred combination.

In terms of the 180-600, I don't know of anyone in their right mind who would think that the lens will approach that of the 500 PF, 600 f/4, etc., though if it serves the users' needs then it is the right choice. I consider this lens' role as a more compact, all utility player much like my 100-500 which will complement my long prime on a second body or serve as a travel/hiking lens when the big white or big black might not be feasible. Even if I owned a 400 f/4.5 500 PF, 600 f/4, 800 PF I would still consider a 180-600 precisely because of its utility and if I were contemplating a 180-600, I would ensure that it paired with a longer prime for maximal returns.

 

[Anjin San]

the thing is, the EVF stream is a lower resolution than the frame. so it's downres'd. so it wouldn't be identical pixels

I read somewhere that it’s the recording stream and not the EVF stream that’s used which makes more sense to me…but if it’s the EVF maybe so…

 

[Anjin San]

You have to remember that the computer isn't like you and I in that we can look at a scene and immediately hone in on the part of it that we care about and ignore everything else, but a computer is actually processing all pixels equally - and, since it doesn't know how something may move in the frame it can't even locate the eye and then process only nearby pixels for the next cycle. It's got to analyze every single pixel every single cycle, so giving it fewer pixels to analyze lets it get through each cycle faster.

But…the AF cycle speed is fixed IIRC…but even if it does cycle faster it’s still the same pixels and AF sites being used for both FX and DX. As I said…I’ve had this discussion in some depth in several forums and the collective thinking of us could just shrug and say…it works better sometimes and while the engineer in us wants to know why sometimes you have to just accept…just because it is. No worries for me…there are lots of things I accept as correct and don’t fully understand.

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

No worries for me…there are lots of things I accept as correct and don’t fully understand.

Mostly my cats, certainly not my kids.

 

[Anjin San]

Wonder if most of us could tell the difference in an image from a super sharp lens, say 600 TC versus 180-600 after processing, printing say 20x30 or 12x18, viewed from 3-5 feet. Pick a real subject, not a test chart No pixel peeking. Don't know the answer, never did the test

I’m guessing that most of us would notice some small differences but more ‘just different than ‘better/worse’…but I haven’t done the test either. I have don comparisons of the 100-400, 400/4.5 (both with and without the TCs) and the 500PF at both 1:1 and screen display output sizes…and for the most part with an actual subject and not a line chart the differences at 1:1 were more ‘just differentk to my eye and whatever differences there were disappeared after down sampling for screen output. Given that…and my almost exclusive screen output destination…all of the other factors to consider are more important for me. Orders in at Nikon and B&H for me…and will test before the return by date and will cancel the second one once the first is shipped anyway…

And like the comment about non photographers…they’re even less likely to notice and even less than that to care.

 

[Anjin San]

One factor to consider is that lenses tend to fall off in sharpness toward the corners/edges of the image. Maybe the factor driving the difference in AF performance and IQ is the off-axis lens resolving capability. Of course, this is also dependent upon the chosen AF mode.

Certainly true…but like most of us I try and keep the subject in the DX box anyway…but I think a lot of people do too much pixel peeping and line chart comparisons and while they’re important…there’s a bunch of other factors that go into the buy/no buy decision. Much like the old joke about cocaine…maybe camera gear is God’s way of telling you that you have too much money. At least from my standpoint…the 1700 price is small compared to the Z9 and Z8 so I don’t have as much budgetary constraints as others might…and theres nothing wrong with budgetary constraints at all. But as Steve said in the video…it’s good enough for him to use professionally and while I’m 10l% sure he will say his long exotic primes are better…I’m pretty sure he agrees as well that sometimes better is the enemy of good enough...and I think he said in the video that sometimes the 600 prime or 800PF is just too long and he might just miss the shot while swapping to a shorter zoom.

 

[Anjin San]

Mostly my cats, certainly not my kids.

I understand cats perfectly…they have staff, not owners…which is one of many reasons I have no cats.

 

[John Navitsky]

I read somewhere that it’s the recording stream and not the EVF stream that’s used which makes more sense to me…but if it’s the EVF maybe so…

i am almost certain that it is NOT the recording stream. i recall a very Nikon source clearly stating it uses the same stream as the evf for subject detection. sorry, i wish i had kept track of the source

 

[Anjin San]

i am almost certain that it is NOT the recording stream. i recall a very Nikon source clearly stating it uses the same stream as the evf for subject detection. sorry, i wish i had kept track of the source

Ok…I don’t really remember either very well…but it’s still the same size pixels and even if the algorithm is processing them faster…that wouldn’t make it better that I can see, just faster…and the statements made re eye AF are that DX sometimes locks on when FX is having trouble and processing the same AF sites faster…is that really going to result in getting eye AF when FX didn’t work? Dunno.

 

[Garfield]

I don't know what AF is using, but I can say with certainty that AF is more reliable in when shooting video in DX vs. FX.

 

[SCoombs]

Ok…I don’t really remember either very well…but it’s still the same size pixels and even if the algorithm is processing them faster…that wouldn’t make it better that I can see, just faster…and the statements made re eye AF are that DX sometimes locks on when FX is having trouble and processing the same AF sites faster…is that really going to result in getting eye AF when FX didn’t work? Dunno.

Thom Hogan said this in an article that I can no longer find as stuff has moved around the site a bit.

The thing I suspect you may be missing based on comments above is that while you said the AF system is looking at the same pixels for FX/DX, that's probably not the case if, as Thom has said and camera behavior seems to confirm, the AF runs off the EVF. It would mean the AF has fewer than half as many pixels to analyze when in DX mode.

Even if it's not a question of speed, what that means is that there are fewer things for the AF to get distracted or confused by in DX. We all know mirrorless AF love to grab busy backgrounds, for instance, but in DX mode it would mean much less busy background for it to accidentally grab onto. A rough analogy may be to say that in DX mode the "signal to noise ratio" of subject vs. other stuff is higher.

EDIT: I just realized what is potentially a major point of confusion in terms of all of this. When you said that it's looking at the same pixels, I was thinking of the frame DX vs FX, but you may have been thinking of the AF area box which has the same number of pixels either way. However, if I understand correctly I don't think the subject detection works this way. I think subject detection is operating on the entire frame at all times. One point that confuses some new users of the Z AF system is that the subject detection will focus on an eye anywhere in the frame even if the AF box isn't on it. If you have the tiny 1x1 custom AF box on a cat's tail and the head is all the way at the other end of the frame, it might put the focus on the cat's eye even though the eye is nowhere near the box. it seems to work by detecting the subject anywhere in the frame and then checking for whether the AF box is on a part of that subject. Thus, in DX mode the subject detection algorithms have about half as many pixels to analyze as in FX no matter which AF area box one is using.

 

[EricKlees]

I don't know what AF is using, but I can say with certainty that AF is more reliable in when shooting video in DX vs. FX.

That is because the subject is larger in the EVF. It's the same when shooting in DX mode for Stills.

 

[Charles Loy]

BHphoto now shows shipping date Aug 31

Yep, I'll confirm you. Today they updated mine to: shipping 2023-08-31
Yesterday was showing shipping 2023-09-30

 

[John Navitsky]

just to summarize.

the z9 evf stream is 1.23MP [1], regardless of fx or dx mode our file output size/resolution/encoding.

so when you switch to dx mode and the subject is 40% larger in the evf frame, it occupies more of that 1.23MP. this, there are more pixels presented to the subject recognition engine.

the same would be true simply based on focal length and distance. basically small things are smaller in that 1.23MP that is being evaluated. so larger is better.

that said, normal caveats apply about nikon not really disclosing a lot of information on the topic, these are extrapolations based on how nikon has communicated how the evf stream works, and their disclosure that the subject recognition is based on the evf stream.

 

[Nextlife1]

Yep, I'll confirm you. Today they updated mine to: shipping 2023-08-31
Yesterday was showing shipping 2023-09-30

To be clear on my order (and I assume on yours too) they changed it to “will begin shipping Aug. 31” which is exactly what it says on the current listing for the lens if you were to order it today. So I don’t think this is specific to your or my order. I received my email confirmation 2 minutes after orders went live, but I won’t be certain I’ll get it in the first wave until I get an actual shipping notice. I’ve played this game many, many times with B&H……..