Photography Life - tests - 8 Nikkor Telephotos

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
SCoombs said:
I don't have access to a 180-600 yet, so this kind of report is helpful. My big hesitation can be explained this way: here are a few of the shots from my 200-500 that I think highlight its sharpness. I may be wrong, but I just feel like I have not really seen examples from the 180-600 that match this level of sharpness. Maybe a few, but it's honestly hard to judge because the vast majority of examples posted even on sites that allow for full res uploads have been downsampled by the photographer to restrict how large you can view them...
Click to expand...
Many of these 200-500 images were clearly over sharpened .jpgs and several missed the AF on the eye. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from these shots and interestingly many images I've posted on this site and elsewhere which have been razor sharp in the RAW (and even .jpg) appear less than impressive when processed for display on websites. The same is true regarding videos where differences in acutance are difficult to convey. Personally, I rely on the opinions of those I trust, such as Steve and then confirm them myself by testing and using the gear. If you have a 200-500 or 100-400 that you are happy with, then enjoy it and continue to use it. When (and if) my 180-600 arrives, I'll put the lens through its paces and if I don't like the handling, performance, and image quality, then it will be quickly returned in favor of something else.

This reminds me a lot of the conversation regarding the 70-180 versus the 70-200. All I kept hearing was how soft the 70-180 was, how the bokeh wasn't nearly as nice, etc., etc. When I landed a copy to use, I was so taken by it's size, weight, and relative performance that I much preferred it over the 70-200 (which I sold). The beauty in Nikon's line up is that they are really coming with an extensive number of lenses in a variety of builds and price ranges. Ultimately, you'll have to weigh the relative value an determine what fits your requirements, budget, and style of shooting.
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
Many of these 200-500 images were clearly over sharpened .jpgs and several missed the AF on the eye. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from these shots and interestingly many images I've posted on this site and elsewhere which have been razor sharp in the RAW (and even .jpg) appear less than impressive when processed for display on websites. The same is true regarding videos where differences in acutance are difficult to convey. Personally, I rely on the opinions of those I trust, such as Steve and then confirm them myself by testing and using the gear. If you have a 200-500 or 100-400 that you are happy with, then enjoy it and continue to use it. When (and if) my 180-600 arrives, I'll put the lens through its paces and if I don't like the handling, performance, and image quality, then it will be quickly returned in favor of something else.

This reminds me a lot of the conversation regarding the 70-180 versus the 70-200. All I kept hearing was how soft the 70-180 was, how the bokeh wasn't nearly as nice, etc., etc. When I landed a copy to use, I was so taken by it's size, weight, and relative performance that I much preferred it over the 70-200 (which I sold). The beauty in Nikon's line up is that they are really coming with an extensive number of lenses in a variety of builds and price ranges. Ultimately, you'll have to weigh the relative value an determine what fits your requirements, budget, and style of shooting.
Click to expand...
Did you find the 70-180 to be soft?
 
Member's gallery
jerrylwatson said:
Did you find the 70-180 to be soft?
Click to expand...
At the wider end (70-120 or so) and shooting wide open it is noticeably softer than the 70-200 towards the edges. At the longer end of the FL, this gap narrows significantly as does stopping down, though that in some respects defeats much of the lens' utility. Overall, sharpness, resistance to CA/flare, and bokeh are very good. Unless one is comparing the images directly against the 70-200, it would be difficult to find fault. Again, there are tradeoffs in every design and the 70-180 is no exception. Overall, I find hand holding and carrying the 70-180 for extended periods much easier and infinitely more discrete than its big brother.


Thom's review is largely accurate though I think it needs a bit of perspective. Here is another review with some images shot in poorer quality light which I think is a reasonable representation of the len's performance.

 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
dabhand16 said:
Why not hire one?
Click to expand...

A fair thought I suppose, but two reasons.

First, I'm looking to replace my current lens sooner rather than later because every day I haven't done it yet is more missed opportunities. As hard as it is to buy a copy for oneself, I imagine it will be even longer before they'll be available to rent.

Second, and more importantly, while I've rented lenses in the past the reality is that it's still pretty expensive. I think renting a lens makes a lot of sense if you're going on a trip or otherwise have some temporary need to use a lens that you don't own, but it's never made sense to me as a way to try one out before buying because the cost of renting is always a decent percentage of the cost of the lens anyways. For instance, I just checked lensrentals and while the 180-600 is not available for rent yet, whenever they do get some in to rent the are listing a price of $91 for a week. In one way that's certainly a lot less than the cost of the lens, but it's still about $100 out of the budget and when a budget is already tight, an extra $100 is and extra $100 you are losing.
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
A fair thought I suppose, but two reasons.

First, I'm looking to replace my current lens sooner rather than later because every day I haven't done it yet is more missed opportunities. As hard as it is to buy a copy for oneself, I imagine it will be even longer before they'll be available to rent.

Second, and more importantly, while I've rented lenses in the past the reality is that it's still pretty expensive. I think renting a lens makes a lot of sense if you're going on a trip or otherwise have some temporary need to use a lens that you don't own, but it's never made sense to me as a way to try one out before buying because the cost of renting is always a decent percentage of the cost of the lens anyways. For instance, I just checked lensrentals and while the 180-600 is not available for rent yet, whenever they do get some in to rent the are listing a price of $91 for a week. In one way that's certainly a lot less than the cost of the lens, but it's still about $100 out of the budget and when a budget is already tight, an extra $100 is and extra $100 you are losing.
Click to expand...
Doesn't Wisconsin have a Wisconsin Photography group on FB. There is a 180-600 group. Even better, join, ask if you can do a meet up. Offer to bring lunch or a bottle of something, and let the person try one of your lens'. Free - well almost - just lunch and not the wait of, or cost of, a full rental.
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
Many of these 200-500 images were clearly over sharpened .jpgs and several missed the AF on the eye. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from these shots and interestingly many images I've posted on this site and elsewhere which have been razor sharp in the RAW (and even .jpg) appear less than impressive when processed for display on websites. The same is true regarding videos where differences in acutance are difficult to convey. Personally, I rely on the opinions of those I trust, such as Steve and then confirm them myself by testing and using the gear. If you have a 200-500 or 100-400 that you are happy with, then enjoy it and continue to use it. When (and if) my 180-600 arrives, I'll put the lens through its paces and if I don't like the handling, performance, and image quality, then it will be quickly returned in favor of something else.

This reminds me a lot of the conversation regarding the 70-180 versus the 70-200. All I kept hearing was how soft the 70-180 was, how the bokeh wasn't nearly as nice, etc., etc. When I landed a copy to use, I was so taken by it's size, weight, and relative performance that I much preferred it over the 70-200 (which I sold). The beauty in Nikon's line up is that they are really coming with an extensive number of lenses in a variety of builds and price ranges. Ultimately, you'll have to weigh the relative value an determine what fits your requirements, budget, and style of shooting.
Click to expand...
The photo of the mallard has missed focus on the eye, but I strongly disagree that these are oversharpened. I think they look excellent in terms of image quality (my point being that the image quality looks a lot better to me than almost all examples I've seen from the 180-600), and more critically, I didn't apply sharpening to any of them. Most of these were edited before I understood that you could or why you'd want to apply sharpening in post-processing. In fact I just went back and checked and in most of these I didn't even adjust the texture slider (which is not sharpening but produces a sharpening-like effect). I edited the white balance, may have adjusted the colors and the exposures, may have masked a bit to adjust colors/exposures, and in a few (but not all) cases removed noise. Sharpening wise, these are all imported into LR and exported without anything being done.
 
Member's gallery
BarkingBeansCoffee said:
Doesn't Wisconsin have a Wisconsin Photography group on FB. There is a 180-600 group. Even better, join, ask if you can do a meet up. Offer to bring lunch or a bottle of something, and let the person try one of your lens'. Free - well almost - just lunch and not the wait of, or cost of, a full rental.
Click to expand...
I've been looking into Wisconsin photography clubs or groups and so far haven't found anything that's really made me think it would be that helpful. Wisconsin is a big place and most of what I've found are very far away even for being in the same state. I have not come across a group on FB, but I will look into it.
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
I've been looking into Wisconsin photography clubs or groups and so far haven't found anything that's really made me think it would be that helpful. Wisconsin is a big place and most of what I've found are very far away even for being in the same state. I have not come across a group on FB, but I will look into it.
Click to expand...
Try the 180-600 group first. That's your best bet.
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
At the wider end (70-120 or so) and shooting wide open it is noticeably softer than the 70-200 towards the edges. At the longer end of the FL, this gap narrows significantly as does stopping down, though that in some respects defeats much of the lens' utility. Overall, sharpness, resistance to CA/flare, and bokeh are very good. Unless one is comparing the images directly against the 70-200, it would be difficult to find fault. Again, there are tradeoffs in every design and the 70-180 is no exception. Overall, I find hand holding and carrying the 70-180 for extended periods much easier and infinitely more discrete than its big brother.


Thom's review is largely accurate though I think it needs a bit of perspective. Here is another review with some images shot in poorer quality light which I think is a reasonable representation of the len's performance.

Click to expand...
I feel like the 70-180 has been plenty sharp and my experience with it has been pretty consistent with samples I've seen others post online (which of course plays into my thoughts on the 180-600, since I don't see why I wouldn't expect it to be consistent with its samples as the 70-180 and other lenses I've had have been).

I've not really used the 70-180 for wildlife but have been extremely impressed with its sharpness for other things. Overall it's been the sharpest lens I've owned and blows my 200-500 away (not that they're the same sort of lens and should perfectly compare, but I mention it only because as the 200-500 is primary lens I shoot the first comparison that came to mind when I tried the 70-180 was that one).

A few samples:
53268861570_fd3fefc21c_h.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.



53268750634_fde83ebc5e_h.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


53274743739_d98917ec13_h.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
I think I'm in that group, but I'm not sure what I'd find there since it's a worldwide group.
Click to expand...
You don't get what you don't ask for - Post saying you want to meet up with someone with the lens; you'll bring lunch etc and something they can try. Just ask. As Chick Hearn used to say for the Lakers - No Harm No Foul. Well in this case you might want foul.
 
Member's gallery
A few posters have alluded to this, but I think it is important to keep in mind that Z 180-600 owners have relatively little experience with their lenses and F 200-500 owners have had years to get to know how to get the most out of their lenses. I have little doubt that photos taken with the Z 180-600 will tend to look sharper in 6 months than what we are seeing now. Owners will have a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their lenses. And firmware updates might refine the VR and focusing characteristics of the Z 180-600, which could also help improve sharpness.
 
Member's gallery
I am really surprised at this review. I usually find Photography Life’s reviews very accurate and useful. To me, this one was anything but! Also, some of the information seem to differ with Steve’s, especially in regards to the 180-600 at 500mm. I have much more confidence in Steve’s assesment.
 
Member's gallery
I wrote the following on FredMiranda's forum and copying it in here because I think it is as relevant here as it was there... apologies to those who have already seen these thoughts...
"I have shot and owned 6 of the tested lenses (200-500, 500PF, 100-400Z, 400 f4.5, 180-600, and 800PF), and currently own the 3 last Z-lenses on the latter list. The conclusions from PhotographyLife match my own... all of the lenses are very good, can be used in the field, and will produce publishable and printable images. One's post-processing skill can make up for any optical deficiencies.
In my experience a few things impact your final images more than the brute optical quality of the lens. In no particular order, I have found that the speed and distance of your subject, the flexibility you require, the amount of available light, and the mass you are willing to carry are more important than the optics.
With over a year of experience with both the 400 f4.5 and 800PF, I am comfortable claiming that they perform as well as anyone could possibly want. If money were no object, I'd take the 400 f2.8S w/2x converter over the other two lenses, but not because of an optical deficiency. My desire for the 400 f2.8S relates the opportunity to shoot at f/2.8 and the fact that I would only need one large lens instead of two.
With respect to the 180-600, one needs to begin with the recognition that this is a compromise optic. It is many lenses in one and is inexpensive when considering the internal zoom and range. I have been using mine for a week and found that it does not focus as fast as my other two telephoto lenses, but it does not focus slowly either. Optically, it performs better at 600mm f/8, but will render sharp enough images at f6.3. This compromise optic is perfect for travel or going out on a multi-opportunity shoot that might require the use of wide angles and mid telephoto lenses. To emphasize this point, I now have two bags prepped... one for the 800 and 400, and the other for the 180-600 w/ my 70-180 and 17-28... different kits for different situations.

Apologies for the ramble, as there are lot's of random thoughts here..
Bottom line... Nikon has done an amazing job giving telephoto shooters options."
cheers,
bruce
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
I wrote the following on FredMiranda's forum and copying it in here because I think it is as relevant here as it was there... apologies to those who have already seen these thoughts...
"I have shot and owned 6 of the tested lenses (200-500, 500PF, 100-400Z, 400 f4.5, 180-600, and 800PF), and currently own the 3 last Z-lenses on the latter list. The conclusions from PhotographyLife match my own... all of the lenses are very good, can be used in the field, and will produce publishable and printable images. One's post-processing skill can make up for any optical deficiencies.
In my experience a few things impact your final images more than the brute optical quality of the lens. In no particular order, I have found that the speed and distance of your subject, the flexibility you require, the amount of available light, and the mass you are willing to carry are more important than the optics.
With over a year of experience with both the 400 f4.5 and 800PF, I am comfortable claiming that they perform as well as anyone could possibly want. If money were no object, I'd take the 400 f2.8S w/2x converter over the other two lenses, but not because of an optical deficiency. My desire for the 400 f2.8S relates the opportunity to shoot at f/2.8 and the fact that I would only need one large lens instead of two.
With respect to the 180-600, one needs to begin with the recognition that this is a compromise optic. It is many lenses in one and is inexpensive when considering the internal zoom and range. I have been using mine for a week and found that it does not focus as fast as my other two telephoto lenses, but it does not focus slowly either. Optically, it performs better at 600mm f/8, but will render sharp enough images at f6.3. This compromise optic is perfect for travel or going out on a multi-opportunity shoot that might require the use of wide angles and mid telephoto lenses. To emphasize this point, I now have two bags prepped... one for the 800 and 400, and the other for the 180-600 w/ my 70-180 and 17-28... different kits for different situations.

Apologies for the ramble, as there are lot's of random thoughts here..
Bottom line... Nikon has done an amazing job giving telephoto shooters options."
cheers,
bruce
Click to expand...
Your WL kit differs from mine and perhaps that has a lot to do with different styles of shooting. My everyday set up is a 800 f/6.3 on one body and a soon to be 180-600 on the other ((using the 100-400 now). For travel it will be a WA, 70-180, 100-400, 600 f/6.3. Yes, the options are tremendous.
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
A fair thought I suppose, but two reasons.

First, I'm looking to replace my current lens sooner rather than later because every day I haven't done it yet is more missed opportunities. As hard as it is to buy a copy for oneself, I imagine it will be even longer before they'll be available to rent.

Second, and more importantly, while I've rented lenses in the past the reality is that it's still pretty expensive. I think renting a lens makes a lot of sense if you're going on a trip or otherwise have some temporary need to use a lens that you don't own, but it's never made sense to me as a way to try one out before buying because the cost of renting is always a decent percentage of the cost of the lens anyways. For instance, I just checked lensrentals and while the 180-600 is not available for rent yet, whenever they do get some in to rent the are listing a price of $91 for a week. In one way that's certainly a lot less than the cost of the lens, but it's still about $100 out of the budget and when a budget is already tight, an extra $100 is and extra $100 you are losing.
Click to expand...

I take your points 100%, but it would solve your dilemma and you will no longer have to agonise over it.

If you are concerned about missing opportunities you need to get a lens that is immediately available because you will be missing opportunities while you are on the waiting list too.
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
Your WL kit differs from mine and perhaps that has a lot to do with different styles of shooting. My everyday set up is a 800 f/6.3 on one body and a soon to be 180-600 on the other ((using the 100-400 now). For travel it will be a WA, 70-180, 100-400, 600 f/6.3. Yes, the options are tremendous.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I am unique in how or what I choose to photograph, but I am as drawn to landscapes as I am to wildlife. I rarely leave my house thinking... oh, this is a wildlife day. As a result, I like to carry a kit that will allow me photograph everything from sweeping landscapes to tight portraits of wildlife. Furthermore, I really enjoy what I like to call "small ball." The latter are patterns and abstracts in nature. I love to photograph leaf litter, wet rocks, and tree bark. I describe myself as a nature generalist, and I prefer to shoot from pre-sunrise until the sun is about mid sky. This penchant for mornings over afternoons also requires access to a wider aperture.
When I'm out for a day where hiking is at a minimum, I'll pack my 800PF w/Z9, 400 f4.5 w/Z8, Z6II, 70-180, 17-28, and 1.4X in my ThinkTank Backlight 36L.
If I'm heading out to go on a long hike, am pursuing deer, or looking to photograph winter waterfowl, I'll go with my "smaller kit." The smaller kit is also what I'd take on an international trip if small birds are not my focus. For example, tomorrow I'll be heading out to look for deer exhibiting pre-rut behavior. This will require a 2-3 mile hike through brush and graded trails. As such, I'll be taking my Z9 w/ 180-600, Z8 w/400 f4.5, Z6II, 70-180, and 17-28. I'll leave the 800mm lens and 1.4x home. All of this gear will pack nicely in my "original recipe" F-Stop Tilopa... my absolute favorite bag.

cheers,
bruce
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
I found it odd in their test the 180-600 did worse with the 1.4x than the 100-400 with the 2x, but copy variation might have impacted this some.

It's been the opposite in other tests (though using a 2x tc is a last resort for me personally).
Click to expand...
I love these types of forums! "Table racing" test results is so much fun in both the car world and the camera world!

Lens "tests" remind me of car review articles where folks who will never own one debate, for example, whether the Bugati Veron is a superior ride to the Ferrari Testa Rosa based upon comparing just the engine dyno tuning test results. Absolutely and totally irrelevant to anything to do with using the vehicles, or lenses in this case, but it makes for interesting, not really relevant discussions if one isn't a professional driver, or photographer. At the end of the day, a few miles over the speed limit is all most of us will ever drive and there's a huge difference between 75 mph and 250 mph.

When I visit great museum or galleries, I have never discovered the section where they post the lab test images. They must be popular because they always seem to be sold out of them no matter how current or hyped the lens in question. I can't find the lab test section on Getty images sale listings either.

However, both Getty and the MMOA have hundreds and hundreds of really old and some kind of newer photographs that are somewhat to very out of focus and very soft around the edges with very noticeable vignetting that are considered priceless. Some are downright black in the corners and have been in the museums for a hundred years or longer. I guess it's one of those "eye of the beholder" things if every image ever created is only ever acceptable if it is perfect from edge to edge and corner to corner. Anyone who looks really, really, really close on their computer when pixel peeping knows that no image ever as sharp on the edges as it is in the center even with the best photographer releasing the shutter. Physics is funny that way.

Th Mona Lisa even looks bad up close. There are brush strokes all over it when you look at it really close and it's not really sharp or smooth. Soft edges and dark corners become invisible when viewing art from the proper distance. Which lens shoots the prettiest test charts has never found a relevant spot in my heart when I'm in the field trying to create background and subject separation. When I adjust the settings it all changes anyways.

Everyone ignores the disclaimer "your results may vary". Most of us will NEVER appreciate the full range of the artistic extremes or the true value of good or bad of any laboratory test unless we are the ones performing the test. True testing happens when a dedicated photographer attaches a lens to their camera of choice and composes, exposes and releases the shutter and then shows their peers the results.

I am on my way out the door to do that right now.

Debating lens lab tests is much like comparing Steve Perrys result's shooting any consumer telephoto lens on a body he was using 10 years ago to create beautiful works of art and giving a 10 year old who has never touched a camera before the most expensive professional lens on the best body made today with the best test results ever recorded and expecting the kid to produce better results that a world famous professional simply because the kids gear got better lab test results.

Maybe some others have heard this said before...lenses don't create soft images. Photographers do. If better pool sticks gave us better eyes we'd all be world champions and nobody who played us would get a turn to shoot because we would never miss;)

Love the debate. Keep it up.
 
Member's gallery
Bob Hullinger said:
I love these types of forums! "Table racing" test results is so much fun in both the car world and the camera world!

Lens "tests" remind me of car review articles where folks who will never own one debate, for example, whether the Bugati Veron is a superior ride to the Ferrari Testa Rosa based upon comparing just the engine dyno tuning test results. Absolutely and totally irrelevant to anything to do with using the vehicles, or lenses in this case, but it makes for interesting, not really relevant discussions if one isn't a professional driver, or photographer. At the end of the day, a few miles over the speed limit is all most of us will ever drive and there's a huge difference between 75 mph and 250 mph.

When I visit great museum or galleries, I have never discovered the section where they post the lab test images. They must be popular because they always seem to be sold out of them no matter how current or hyped the lens in question. I can't find the lab test section on Getty images sale listings either.

However, both Getty and the MMOA have hundreds and hundreds of really old and some kind of newer photographs that are somewhat to very out of focus and very soft around the edges with very noticeable vignetting that are considered priceless. Some are downright black in the corners and have been in the museums for a hundred years or longer. I guess it's one of those "eye of the beholder" things if every image ever created is only ever acceptable if it is perfect from edge to edge and corner to corner. Anyone who looks really, really, really close on their computer when pixel peeping knows that no image ever as sharp on the edges as it is in the center even with the best photographer releasing the shutter. Physics is funny that way.

Th Mona Lisa even looks bad up close. There are brush strokes all over it when you look at it really close and it's not really sharp or smooth. Soft edges and dark corners become invisible when viewing art from the proper distance. Which lens shoots the prettiest test charts has never found a relevant spot in my heart when I'm in the field trying to create background and subject separation. When I adjust the settings it all changes anyways.

Everyone ignores the disclaimer "your results may vary". Most of us will NEVER appreciate the full range of the artistic extremes or the true value of good or bad of any laboratory test unless we are the ones performing the test. True testing happens when a dedicated photographer attaches a lens to their camera of choice and composes, exposes and releases the shutter and then shows their peers the results.

Debating lens lab tests is much like comparing Steve Perrys result's shooting any consumer telephoto lens on a body he was using 10 years ago to create beautiful works of art and giving a 10 year old who has never touched a camera before the most expensive professional lens on the best body made today with the best test results ever recorded and expecting the kid to produce better results that a world famous professional simply because the kids gear got better lab test results.

Maybe some others have heard this said before...lenses don't create soft images. Photographers do. If better pool sticks gave us better eyes we'd all be world champions and nobody who played us would get a turn to shoot because we would never miss;)

Love the debate. Keep it up.
Click to expand...
That's a lot of words to completely miss the point of the topic we're on here. The point of a test should be to be objective, and provide clear and concise repeatable results.

Of course you (or I, or Steve, or a 4 year old) can make incredible images with any level of gear. But that's not the point of this discussion, or the point of testing lenses to compare them. In a topic about lens tests, of course I (or others) will note things that seem odd about the test. There are plenty of ways to take good images, and plenty of topics to talk about it without regard to the technical aspects of photography. There's also topics like this to discuss the technical side.

Just my two cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top