Question about background rendering of Z 180-600mm

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).

J

JanH

Active member
Member's gallery
I have a question about the way my Z 180-600 mm renders the background, and especially out of focus branches. I find my copy plenty sharp, especially on static subjects. For reference a (slightly sharpened) 100% crop of my dog at 600 mm, f/8, ISO 450. But I would love to hear your impressions of some of the rendering of the OOF backgrounds/foreground of some included shots - all 100% crops SOC JPEGs, all 600mm f/6.3-f/8 and ISO 200-1100 - which I find more busy than I would like.
II_Z62_7449_01.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
II_Z62_7459.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
II_Z62_7454.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
II_Z62_7474.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
II_Z62_7186.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
I don't think it is a function of the lens as much as it is the focal length, f number, distance to subject and distance subject to background. It would be hard to attribute much effect to one lens vs another if all those factors were identical.
 
Member's gallery
In my experience, those types of background renderings are fairly common with PF lenses. Sometimes the background will be really nice, but twigs, bushes, etc can result in, to me, unpleasant OOF areas. That is one of the reasons I never fell in love with the 500 PF.

It really depends on what you shoot and what kind of backgrounds you have to deal with.
 
Member's gallery
As Bill noted above, increasing the distance between the subject and the background helps blur OOF backgrounds, regardless of the type of lens.
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
In my experience, those types of background renderings are fairly common with PF lenses. Sometimes the background will be really nice, but twigs, bushes, etc can result in, to me, unpleasant OOF areas. That is one of the reasons I never fell in love with the 500 PF.

It really depends on what you shoot and what kind of backgrounds you have to deal with.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the background looks like that of a PF lens, even though the 180-600 is not?
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
In my experience, those types of background renderings are fairly common with PF lenses. Sometimes the background will be really nice, but twigs, bushes, etc can result in, to me, unpleasant OOF areas. That is one of the reasons I never fell in love with the 500 PF.

It really depends on what you shoot and what kind of backgrounds you have to deal with.
Click to expand...
Thank you - I have to say that these backgrounds also strike me as characteristic of a PF lens. However, the 180-600mm is a conventional design and has not PF element.
 
Member's gallery
JanH said:
I will gladly agree that atmospherics play a role in these shots, but do they explain the background rendering in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Yes, bending and distortion of light can impact everything in an image, and that includes the out of focus areas. Additional sharpening can enhance the problem if the areas aren't completely out of focus, but only partially out of focus (vs completely blurred due to distance/etc).
 
Member's gallery
Nextlife1 said:
Are you saying the background looks like that of a PF lens, even though the 180-600 is not?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am just commenting on the characteristics of the background.....very similar to what sometimes occurs with PF lenses. I've never used a "super zoom" (200-500, 180-600, etc) so I don't know whether or not this type of background is to be expected under certain conditions. I've never seen it in the 70-200 f2.8 and the Z 100-400...with or without tele.
 
Member's gallery
JanH said:
I will gladly agree that atmospherics play a role in these shots, but do they explain the background rendering in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Yes, I've been shooting with long lenses for many years. I've had similar looking BG's from atmospherics with my 600 f4E both with and without a 1.4 tc. What was the longest focal length you have used before this? Longer focal lengths tend to compress all that atmosphere and I've noticed that aggressive sharpening in post to try to minimize the effects on the subject will exaggerate the out of focus elements in the BG.
While Karen is correct, this "look" is more like a pf lens, I've seen it with non-pf F mount lenses when atmospherics are raging.
 
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
It all looks like atmospherics to me, because in those shots (after the dog image) nothing looks truly 'sharp' to me.
Click to expand...
Agreed.... they all seem to have a lot of atmospheric distortion.

It also appears that all of these photos were taken at very far distances, where the subjects are relatively close to their backgrounds (in relation to the distances from which they were shot).
 
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
It all looks like atmospherics to me, because in those shots (after the dog image) nothing looks truly 'sharp' to me.
Click to expand...
Thanks - I agree. All of these subjects were far away and taken on a sunny and warm day. For reference, see one of the shots in full.
II_Z62_7459_01.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Warren D said:
Yes, I've been shooting with long lenses for many years. I've had similar looking BG's from atmospherics with my 600 f4E both with and without a 1.4 tc. What was the longest focal length you have used before this? Longer focal lengths tend to compress all that atmosphere and I've noticed that aggressive sharpening in post to try to minimize the effects on the subject will exaggerate the out of focus elements in the BG.
While Karen is correct, this "look" is more like a pf lens, I've seen it with non-pf F mount lenses when atmospherics are raging.
Click to expand...
The 180-600mm replaces a Tamron 100-400mm (f/4.5-6.3) which I have used for many years. I have not noticed this kind of rendering on that lens.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
Distant subjects + sunny days + heat haze = crummy backgrounds with ANY lens. :)
Click to expand...
Thanks Steve!
I can't remember whether your excellent review of the 180-600mm discusses the OOF characteristics of this lens, but my impression from the reviews in general is that those transitions are quite good. I was therefore a little surprised by these renderings. However, atmospherics and these subjects being far off and closer to the background than to me explains them.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Wade Abadie said:
Agreed.... they all seem to have a lot of atmospheric distortion.

It also appears that all of these photos were taken at very far distances, where the subjects are relatively close to their backgrounds (in relation to the distances from which they were shot).
Click to expand...
Thank you Wade. I had not realized how close these far off subject were to the backgrounds that bothered me. That helps.
 
Member's gallery
JanH said:
Thanks Steve!
I can't remember whether your excellent review of the 180-600mm discusses the OOF characteristics of this lens, but my impression from the reviews in general is that those transitions are quite good. I was therefore a little surprised by these renderings. However, atmospherics and these subjects being far off and closer to the background than to me explains them.
Click to expand...
Here are some of the backgrounds I captured for that review. All of the images below are with the pre-production lens. I have some new stuff as well, just haven't had a chance to process it. While I won't argue that the 600TC would most likely have a more pleasant background in most cases, the 180-600 does pretty well for that class of lens. I also think the F/6.3 limitation does come into play as well.

20230614-Z8D_0274.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

20230614-Z8D_1386-Enhanced-NR-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.



20230614-Z8D_2434-Enhanced-NR-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


20230614-Z8D_1184-Enhanced-NR-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


20230614-Z8D_2209.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
As a final note I'll also add that one of the tricks to using lenses like the 180-600 or any aperture-limited lens is learning how to overcome the limitations of that optic. You have to really learn the strengths and weaknesses of a given lens and make decisions in the field to deliberately play to those strengths and avoid situations where the lens isn't going to perform at a high level - or at least adjust when in those situations to make them favorable.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
Here are some of the backgrounds I captured for that review. All of the images below are with the pre-production lens. I have some new stuff as well, just haven't had a chance to process it. While I won't argue that the 600TC would most likely have a more pleasant background in most cases, the 180-600 does pretty well for that class of lens. I also think the F/6.3 limitation does come into play as well.
Click to expand...
One thing to note is that all of your shots are at f6.3 while most of the OP shots are at f8, while atmospherics are the major problem at play here it doesn't really help to stop down the lens where you start getting unwanted background detail. If I were taking the picture of the man in the field, I'd probably have gone for f6.3 to keep the foreground and background as OOF as possible, it might help to understand why f8 was used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top