Nikon z 180-600 with 1.4 TC

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).

M

Many Feathers

Active member
Member's gallery
I continue to be amazed and thank all of you and Steve Perry for his incredible books and videos. I am now using the Z 180-600 with 1.4 TC in my backyard. This little bluebird baby just learned about bathing and flew up in the tree to preen his feathers. Taken with the Z8 at 840mm, 1/2500, f/9, ISO 8000! (using Steve Perry's workflow for noise reduction in LR). Cropped, of course. I just can't get over the detail! How does the subject detection find this little bird in a tree with lots of brown branches?! My brother keeps telling me I'm cheating! Soooo much fun!!!! I also now use a monopod and the Wimberly Monopod Gimbal, which I wouldn't have done without reading about it here. It allows me to use the 180-600, because that lens is pretty heavy for me. So thanks!!! And know that your comments and Steve's instructions are bring much joy to my backyard birding pursuits :) :) :)
 

Attachments

  • 20240617-87837-Enhanced-NR-2.jpg
    20240617-87837-Enhanced-NR-2.jpg
    495.5 KB · Views: 332
Member's gallery
Agree. Some people say you cannot use a teleconverter with this lens. Some even say the lens on its own is not sharp at 600mm which is absolutely not true in my experience. While I find it acceptable with Z1.4x when needed, I do find the Z2x unacceptable. Here is the thread with my test:

Z 180-600 Teleconverter Test

BACKGROUND I started in Nikon Z system with a Z8 and Z 70-200 f2.8. Soon after got a used Z 2x to get to 400mm (a setup that works well). Eventually got Z 180-600 f5.6-6.3. Recently purchased used Z 1.4x to get closer to distant coyote pups with the longer lens. Photos and results follow, but...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
Agree. Some people say you cannot use a teleconverter with this lens. Some even say the lens on its own is not sharp at 600mm which is absolutely not true in my experience. While I find it acceptable with Z1.4x when needed, I do find the Z2x unacceptable. Here is the thread with my test:

Z 180-600 Teleconverter Test

BACKGROUND I started in Nikon Z system with a Z8 and Z 70-200 f2.8. Soon after got a used Z 2x to get to 400mm (a setup that works well). Eventually got Z 180-600 f5.6-6.3. Recently purchased used Z 1.4x to get closer to distant coyote pups with the longer lens. Photos and results follow, but...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
Click to expand...
I agree with you too. I bought the 2x TC and tried it with the 400, f/4.5 and the 100-400 and thought it too soft and returned it. I still want to do my own comparison with the 100-600 cropped to the same size as with the 1.4 TC, like you did. Course, there IS that loss of light as you mentioned in your post. And if it's close, then why use the TC? But... I think if you crop the 840mm image (taken with the TC) compared to the 600mm (without the TC) cropped the same way, there might be a pretty big difference. Have you tried that?
 
Member's gallery
Many Feathers said:
I agree with you too. I bought the 2x TC and tried it with the 400, f/4.5 and the 100-400 and thought it too soft and returned it. I still want to do my own comparison with the 100-600 cropped to the same size as with the 1.4 TC, like you did. Course, there IS that loss of light as you mentioned in your post. And if it's close, then why use the TC? But... I think if you crop the 840mm image (taken with the TC) compared to the 600mm (without the TC) cropped the same way, there might be a pretty big difference. Have you tried that?
Click to expand...
Yes I tried it. That was the last set of images in my post (the cactus blossom).
 
Member's gallery
I have the 180 -600 attached to my Z9 and use the Wimberly monopod as per Steve's guidance. Recently I took out the much maligned 2.0 TC and thought I might give it one more chance. While not a good choice for BIF's I was pleasantly surprised at the results for static larger birds.

GBH fishing takeoff 6478.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

2.
GBH with 2 fish 6249.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Taken from a distance of ~ 150 ft.
 
Member's gallery
I've been using this 180-600+1.4x combo on a Z7ii since February and I'm still impressed with the quality on a lot of shots for this "budget" setup.

The only downside is sometimes the chromatic aberration (blue on whites) is too thick to properly correct, even with manual correction.
No complaints on sharpness for sure.
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
Yes I tried it. That was the last set of images in my post (the cactus blossom).
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed that you were cropping those down to near pixel level. I see no difference, then, between using the TC or just cropping...although it may be because of looking at the small jpegs online. If that's the case, why ever use the 1.4 TC with the 180-600? I suppose it might give you better initial autofocus, but couldn't you do the same thing with switching to DX mode?
 
Member's gallery
I have been very interested in this thread to get a bit more reach without the expense of a Z800 (and apologies if this is a little off-topic) but since moving from a D850 + Sigma 150-600 to a Z8 + Z 180-600 I feel that IQ has fallen off a cliff. Some of it I can put down to lack of familiarity with the Z8’s AF system but using single point AF with a static target and enough shutter speed to mitigate any camera shake and at low ISO, the images are all softer than with the Sigma.

I can only assume that I have a ‘bad copy’ of the Z lens if there is such a thing as it’s not a phenomenon I’ve come across before. I did have concerns about my Sigma 500 f4 on the Z8 but it's better than the Z180-600 unless of course it’s possibe to have a ‘bad copy’ of a Z8 but that’s not something I’ve read about in the forum before.
 
Member's gallery
tigger4t said:
I have been very interested in this thread to get a bit more reach without the expense of a Z800 (and apologies if this is a little off-topic) but since moving from a D850 + Sigma 150-600 to a Z8 + Z 180-600 I feel that IQ has fallen off a cliff. Some of it I can put down to lack of familiarity with the Z8’s AF system but using single point AF with a static target and enough shutter speed to mitigate any camera shake and at low ISO, the images are all softer than with the Sigma.

I can only assume that I have a ‘bad copy’ of the Z lens if there is such a thing as it’s not a phenomenon I’ve come across before. I did have concerns about my Sigma 500 f4 on the Z8 but it's better than the Z180-600 unless of course it’s possibe to have a ‘bad copy’ of a Z8 but that’s not something I’ve read about in the forum before.
Click to expand...
The Z 180-600 should absolutely be sharper than the Sigma 150-600. Something is off for sure. Have you tried doing controlled tests (eg static subject with a tripod)? And - at the risk of stating the obvious - have you ensured vibration reduction is turned on in the camera menu?
 
Member's gallery
Many Feathers said:
Do you have any examples you can post?
Click to expand...

All of these were taken with the Z8 - the Jackdaw andTern with the Z 180-600 and the Oystercatcher for comparison with the Sigma 500mm f4. All images started off being cropped to 4000px wide and then shrunk as necessary to meet forum limits. All images were adjust by +1.5 stops but other than that are unchanged e.g. no sharpening, de-noise, etc.

To me, the Oystercatcher is acceptably sharp as I would expect from a prime lens but the two taken with the Z 180-600 are just not what I expected from the lens. I don't think my expectations are set too high as I have taken sharper images with my old Sigma 150-600 Contemporary.

Z81_0120_600.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z81_1064_600.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z81_0294_500.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
The Z 180-600 should absolutely be sharper than the Sigma 150-600. Something is off for sure. Have you tried doing controlled tests (eg static subject with a tripod)? And - at the risk of stating the obvious - have you ensured vibration reduction is turned on in the camera menu?
Click to expand...
Thanks - VR is on and the Z8 is set up pretty much in line with Steve's guide although I prefer a slightly different fn button setup. I took the attached test shot at 540mm from around 40 feet but I'm not sure how useful it will be after reduction to forum limits.

I am assuming that if the Z8 is actively tracking a bird that it has a good focus lock and that I should be able to get sharp images. I am taking the Z8 and Z180-600 back to the shop today to get it checked out but I would really like to try another copy for comparison.

Nikon Z 180-600 f6.3 Z8.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
tigger4t said:
All of these were taken with the Z8 - the Jackdaw andTern with the Z 180-600 and the Oystercatcher for comparison with the Sigma 500mm f4. All images started off being cropped to 4000px wide and then shrunk as necessary to meet forum limits. All images were adjust by +1.5 stops but other than that are unchanged e.g. no sharpening, de-noise, etc.

To me, the Oystercatcher is acceptably sharp as I would expect from a prime lens but the two taken with the Z 180-600 are just not what I expected from the lens. I don't think my expectations are set too high as I have taken sharper images with my old Sigma 150-600 Contemporary.

View attachment 92930View attachment 92932View attachment 92931
Click to expand...
Simon, The lighting is very poor. Try again when you have a day with good lighting behind you. I have rarely had acceptable images with this kind of lighting.
 
Member's gallery
Ralph said:
Simon, The lighting is very poor. Try again when you have a day with good lighting behind you. I have rarely had acceptable images with this kind of lighting.
Click to expand...
Thanks but the ISOs are pretty low and light was quite flat and I've had acceptable (and better) images under similar conditions many times before. UK weather is still predictably dull !

That said I find this camera/lens combination has higher contrast that my D850 and Sigma
 
Member's gallery
tigger4t said:
Thanks but the ISOs are pretty low and light was quite flat and I've had acceptable (and better) images under similar conditions many times before. UK weather is still predictably dull !

That said I find this camera/lens combination has higher contrast that my D850 and Sigma
Click to expand...
Even though the iso is low the light is still scattered and even though the sun may be behind you with all those clouds it acts like backlighting and can reduce image quality at least from my experience. But I bow to your experiences in the UK.😉
 
Member's gallery
tigger4t said:
Just taken the Z180-600 into Wex Cambridge who supplied it and their simple test showed that focus is very soft so it's an exchange on Friday as I declined to have it sent away for calibration. Thanks to everyone who commented
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, what was their test?
 
Member's gallery
tigger4t said:
It was very basic - two shots of the same thing in the store - one with with my lens and one with another copy - mine was visibly softer than their lens. Not the most technical test for sure but the difference was evident and the result was what I wanted.
Click to expand...
I hope all the autofocus possibilities were set up the same way on both cameras, i.e. subject detection on or off, small or large area, etc.
 
Member's gallery
Many Feathers said:
I hope all the autofocus possibilities were set up the same way on both cameras, i.e. subject detection on or off, small or large area, etc.
Click to expand...
All subject detection off, AF-S and single point - like for like, it was basic, not careless.

EDIT - I should have mentioned that it was just my Z8 body being used with just the lenses beings swapped - hence the 'careless' comment :)
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
tigger4t said:
All subject detection off, AF-S and single point - like for like, it was basic, not careless.
Click to expand...
That’s great—hope you get a good copy next! I have had “bad” copies of 3 Nikon lenses—the F-mount 70-200/2.8, the 500 PF, and the Z-mount 100-400S. In each case it was obvious after the first shot with the “bad” lens that something was wrong, and in each case it was obvious after the first shot with the replacement lens that all was right. Nikon lenses have gotten so good, when the copy is right, that I know if I am not wowed by the lens after shooting it in known “okay“ conditions that it is not me but the lens. That was my experience with my copy of the 180-600–first shot of my dog wowed me with its sharpness. And that was confirmed with 3 weeks of shooting in Botswana In December.

i think if you get a good copy you will love it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top