Z180-600 advice

[PaulNL]

Good day, a question. I have the Z180-600 lens with the Z 1.4 extender. If I set my Z8 to dx mode I have a range of 900 mm, if I use the lens with the extender in fx mode I have 840 mm but I can crop considerably. The lens with extender in dx mode gives very poor photos, so that is not an option. How can I best use the combo?

 

[ButlerKid]

Welcome to BCG! Glad you joined us!

 

[Nimi]

Good day, a question. I have the Z180-600 lens with the Z 1.4 extender. If I set my Z8 to dx mode I have a range of 900 mm, if I use the lens with the extender in fx mode I have 840 mm but I can crop considerably. The lens with extender in dx mode gives very poor photos, so that is not an option. How can I best use the combo?

What ISO are you shooting?

 

[PaulNL]

Thank you, the iso is round 500 - 2000 iso on a sunny day.

 

[Cameron T]

Good day, a question. I have the Z180-600 lens with the Z 1.4 extender. If I set my Z8 to dx mode I have a range of 900 mm, if I use the lens with the extender in fx mode I have 840 mm but I can crop considerably. The lens with extender in dx mode gives very poor photos, so that is not an option. How can I best use the combo?

Use the tc and crop if needed. Dx mode just applies a crop already to the image instead of you doing it in post.

I'm not sure why you're getting "poor photos" though, posting examples might help us help you there.

 

[Nimi]

Thank you, the iso is round 500 - 2000 iso on a sunny day.

Pushing a consumer-grade (however excellent) that much on crop, ISO, TC won't work in most conditions. As @Cameron T said, forgo the DX or TC, see whether there is more room to crop in post, clean up the image with noise reduction as needed.

 

[PaulNL]

I think you are right, with tc I have max reach and max crop. Three photos included, first is with tc and dx mode, second with tc fx mode, third is 600 with dx mode only.

 

[Cameron T]

I dunno about pushing it, I've posted some good images at 6400 iso with the tc and cropped in some, my copy holds up pretty well at least. But I'm also using good technique, etc.

 

[Nimi]

I dunno about pushing it, I've posted some good images at 6400 iso with the tc and cropped in some, my copy holds up pretty well at least. But I'm also using good technique, etc.

We agree, it's the DX/TC combo I think that stretches it. Plus technique of course. Btw, said as someone who couldn't pull it off...

 

[PaulNL]

It's not bad, technique is ok. Before this I had a 500 f4 with tc 1.4 and D500. Extremely sharp. Maybe I do have regrets. The photos without TC with fx mode are super sharp. Can't post the original ones because they are too big. But. I've been clicking for 40 years and have tons of photos.

 

[Warren D]

Many including my own self have found that the 180-600 is a bit sharper when stopped down 1/3 to 2/3 from wide open. I don't use tc's on consumer zooms, I've never liked the IQ and the f stop hit is more than I can bear. YMMV.....

 

[BLev65]

The lens is at its weakest when shot at 600mm. If you are adding a converter and then cropping after that, you are really stress-testing a lens.
You might find that if you set the 180-600 to 500mm w/ 1.4x attached and do some cropping after, you might produce a more pleasing image.

cheers,
bruce

 

[MrFotoFool]

I have never understood why manufacturers even include a DX mode in FX bodies. You can do the same cropping in post with a lot more control over the amount, so why do it in camera?

 

[Nimi]

I have never understood why manufacturers even include a DX mode in FX bodies. You can do the same cropping in post with a lot more control over the amount, so why do it in camera?

I never use DX, but it is said by people I trust that focus acquisition, eg eye detection is better.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I never use DX, but it is said by people I trust that focus acquisition, eg eye detection is better.

Interesting.

 

[ajrmd]

With all due respect, you're asking too much from this lens given your application. It yields best results when filling the frame and avoiding TC's. My advice is to go over to the thread on the 186 and look critically at some of the images. The ones which appear best employ those principles I mentioned. I appreciate what you're trying to accomplish and it's best shooting subjects that you can approach (fill the frame) rather than trying to periscope distant subjects. In shooting distant subjects, not only will your IQ degrade from the stacks of glass, but you'll be dealing with more atmospherics. There really is no substitute for getting closer.

 

[ChrisM]

The lens is at its weakest when shot at 600mm. If you are adding a converter and then cropping after that, you are really stress-testing a lens.
You might find that if you set the 180-600 to 500mm w/ 1.4x attached and do some cropping after, you might produce a more pleasing image.

cheers,
bruce

The weaker performance at 600mm wide open is a pity, it is a very attractive lens otherwise, versatile and affordable.
Would a Z400mm+1.4TC perform better wide open?
I am asking because I am evaluating what lens to get with a Z8 for a trip to Costa Rica in november.
I have decided to leave my Sony A1+600GM combo at home, because however great the images it would produce, it is too impractical for the 17 day guided trip in a small group at the tail of the rain season. It would bring too much physical and mental stress to drag such a large combo with me at all times.
I take it on all my shorter birding trips but for longer trips far away I am looking to add a fitting combo.
The 180-600 would be versatile, but I have a certain standard for IQ.
I would have gotten the 600PF if funds allowed, but its price together with a Z8 is a bit too steep.

 

[Cameron T]

I'd look at Steve's video about it to see how it compares. Even at 600, it's still good. I've posted many images here showing it's solid even with a tc.

I think people are nitpicking, or got bad copies.

 

[ChrisM]

I'd look at Steve's video about it to see how it compares. Even at 600, it's still good. I've posted many images here showing it's solid even with a tc.

I think people are nitpicking, or got bad copies.

Yes, I saw his video on the 180-600
I am not sure about the value of test chart shots at close range though.
I am more interested in how the 180-600 compares to the Z400+1.4TC in the field (the Z400 combo being 40mm shorter I know) in the sense of the images it will get you.

 

[BLev65]

The weaker performance at 600mm wide open is a pity, it is a very attractive lens otherwise, versatile and affordable.
Would a Z400mm+1.4TC perform better wide open?
I am asking because I am evaluating what lens to get with a Z8 for a trip to Costa Rica in november.
I have decided to leave my Sony A1+600GM combo at home, because however great the images it would produce, it is too impractical for the 17 day guided trip in a small group at the tail of the rain season. It would bring too much physical and mental stress to drag such a large combo with me at all times.
I take it on all my shorter birding trips but for longer trips far away I am looking to add a fitting combo.
The 180-600 would be versatile, but I have a certain standard for IQ.
I would have gotten the 600PF if funds allowed, but its price together with a Z8 is a bit too steep.

Chris,
I guess you want to consider what is most important to you... versatility or brute optical quality.
There was a time that I was shooting the 400 f4.5, 180-600, and 800PF. Once I got the 180-600, I stopped using the 400 f4.5 w/ and w/out converters... I valued the versatility more than the optics.
As to your question, the 400 f4.5 w/ and w/out the converter is sharper, faster, lighter than the 180-600... Note, the prime with converter is more than 2x the price of the zoom... so one would expect better optics and better AF motors. However, I contend that in most shooting situations, the differences would be indistinguishable unless you were doing a side-by-side test. That is, unless you have a point of comparison, you wouldn't see/know that a difference exists.
Here's my caveat... you are going to Costa Rica... if you are shooting under the canopy, which you will be doing (been 9 or 10 times), the extra stop of light will be valuable to you, as will the shallower depth of field at 400 f4.5.
Should you be curious, my obsession with traveling with all of my gear has led me to build a 3 lens / 3 body bag that can be transported on most planes... I sold my 400 f4.5, 800PF, and other gear to buy a Z-400 f2.8S. This lens packs w/ Z9 attached and Zemlin hood in shooting position. I have my 180-600 attached to the Zf on the other side and a 24-120. If I had the time, I would have sold/traded my 180-600 for the 100-400Z... not because the latter is better, but because of the size and weight.

cheers,
bruce

 

[abc123brian]

The weaker performance at 600mm wide open is a pity, it is a very attractive lens otherwise, versatile and affordable.
Would a Z400mm+1.4TC perform better wide open?
I am asking because I am evaluating what lens to get with a Z8 for a trip to Costa Rica in november.
I have decided to leave my Sony A1+600GM combo at home, because however great the images it would produce, it is too impractical for the 17 day guided trip in a small group at the tail of the rain season. It would bring too much physical and mental stress to drag such a large combo with me at all times.
I take it on all my shorter birding trips but for longer trips far away I am looking to add a fitting combo.
The 180-600 would be versatile, but I have a certain standard for IQ.
I would have gotten the 600PF if funds allowed, but its price together with a Z8 is a bit too steep.

Do you find the Sony 200-600mm to acceptable IQ? It seems that it would be the most cost effective option over buying a new camera and lens considering you would also want CFE Type B cards and extra batteries. I haven’t compared the Sony version to the Nikon, but from Steve’s video and some others it seems they are relatively comparable at the 600mm mark. I haven’t had a chance to compare my 400 4.5 with 1.4x with the 180-600 side by side but I have been happy with both. I normally shoot the 400mm by itself and it is fantastic but don’t use the TC enough to give feedback on the combo.

 

[ChrisM]

Do you find the Sony 200-600mm to acceptable IQ? It seems that it would be the most cost effective option over buying a new camera and lens considering you would also want CFE Type B cards and extra batteries. I haven’t compared the Sony version to the Nikon, but from Steve’s video and some others it seems they are relatively comparable at the 600mm mark. I haven’t had a chance to compare my 400 4.5 with 1.4x with the 180-600 side by side but I have been happy with both. I normally shoot the 400mm by itself and it is fantastic but don’t use the TC enough to give feedback on the combo.

That's a difficult question.
I had the 200-600G for a year but sold it after getting the 600GM.
I cannot fault the lens for its auto focus or sharpness, especially for it's price, but I don't like it's colors and contrast and neither it's OOF rendering.
The 600GM has very good bokeh and more refined colors and also better contrast, so for me it is a completely different lens, even if I know many like them both.

I used the D500+500pf for a few years prior to switching to Sony, and now that the Z8 is here, I would much rather return to Nikon colors and overall rendering for wildlife when I want to travel light, although I have zero intentions to ever sell the 600GM, it is a fantastic lens on the A1.

Perhaps a Z8 with Z400/4.5 and the 1.4TC would be best. I am going to sacrifice some versatility and get the hassle of attaching/removing the tc, but for low light it would be a real benefit.

 

[ajrmd]

That's a difficult question.
I had the 200-600G for a year but sold it after getting the 600GM.
I cannot fault the lens for its auto focus or sharpness, especially for it's price, but I don't like it's colors and contrast and neither it's OOF rendering.
The 600GM has very good bokeh and more refined colors and also better contrast, so for me it is a completely different lens, even if I know many like them both.

I used the D500+500pf for a few years prior to switching to Sony, and now that the Z8 is here, I would much rather return to Nikon colors and overall rendering for wildlife when I want to travel light, although I have zero intentions to ever sell the 600GM, it is a fantastic lens on the A1.

Perhaps a Z8 with Z400/4.5 and the 1.4TC would be best. I am going to sacrifice some versatility and get the hassle of attaching/removing the tc, but for low light it would be a real benefit.

Bruce and others have summarized the issues quite accurately.

With respect to your observations about the 200-600, I would largely concur that the colors and contrast were not great. In terms of bokeh, I attribute that largely to the product of the aperture along with the contrast/coatings. Of course, if one compares the 200-600, side-by-side against the 600GM, the distinctions in IQ are obvious though one has to process that in context against the price, size, and flexibility. If you were to perform that same test using the corresponding Nikon lenses I suspect you would likewise discern the differences though I think the 186 has better contrast than the 200-600 and is more resistant to ghosting/flaring. Overall, it just feels like a more substantial lens.

I appreciate the desire to "return to Nikon colors" and my preferences are Canon > Nikon > Sony, with the later being too yellow/green for my preference. Obviously, one can spend time in post to achieve the "look" they desire. In terms of traveling "light", I don't see Nikon as being the best option. Compared to the Z8, the A1 is smaller, lighter, has a better EVF, better AF, better battery life, etc. Admittedly, the Nikon PF lenses are pretty special though neither the Z8/Z9 can be considered "svelte". Perhaps, you need the Frankenstein Z to E adapter?

If you're considering a Z8 with a 400 4.5 + TC, perhaps you should look at the 600 PF as I suspect the IQ will be better with the later, won't penalize the AF speed, and the differences in f/ are really negligible. I guess the tradeoff is you lose the flexibility on the short end though you gain a true 600mm vs. 560.

Chris, the bottom line is you will need to decide for yourself and ruminating over videos and opinions (including mine) are no substitute for your own "hands on" experience.

 

[ChrisM]

Bruce and others have summarized the issues quite accurately.

With respect to your observations about the 200-600, I would largely concur that the colors and contrast were not great. In terms of bokeh, I attribute that largely to the product of the aperture along with the contrast/coatings. Of course, if one compares the 200-600, side-by-side against the 600GM, the distinctions in IQ are obvious though one has to process that in context against the price, size, and flexibility. If you were to perform that same test using the corresponding Nikon lenses I suspect you would likewise discern the differences though I think the 186 has better contrast than the 200-600 and is more resistant to ghosting/flaring. Overall, it just feels like a more substantial lens.

I appreciate the desire to "return to Nikon colors" and my preferences are Canon > Nikon > Sony, with the later being too yellow/green for my preference. Obviously, one can spend time in post to achieve the "look" they desire. In terms of traveling "light", I don't see Nikon as being the best option. Compared to the Z8, the A1 is smaller, lighter, has a better EVF, better AF, better battery life, etc. Admittedly, the Nikon PF lenses are pretty special though neither the Z8/Z9 can be considered "svelte". Perhaps, you need the Frankenstein Z to E adapter?

If you're considering a Z8 with a 400 4.5 + TC, perhaps you should look at the 600 PF as I suspect the IQ will be better with the later, won't penalize the AF speed, and the differences in f/ are really negligible. I guess the tradeoff is you lose the flexibility on the short end though you gain a true 600mm vs. 560.

Chris, the bottom line is you will need to decide for yourself and ruminating over videos and opinions (including mine) are no substitute for your own "hands on" experience.

I noticed the better contrast and overall more refined rendering of the Z180-600, including a more pleasing OOF rendering.
To avoid confusion: I have no plans to move away from the Sony A1+600GM that I also frequently use as a 840mm/f5.6 lens. I live near coastal and tidal areas halfway on one of the main bird migration routes from Siberia-Iceland to mid-Africa. Many of these migrating birds breed high up north and are not used to people, but make a stop on a few of our isles to rest and feed for a week or two before completing their journey. I go there several times each year and the A1+600GM with the 1.4TC is the perfect set-up for these trips. It took me many experiments with compromise set-ups to land where I am with this combo.

The coming trip to Costa Rica though (and there will be a few other trips in future) is, although a dedicated birding journey, also a vacation for me and my partner. To have the 600GM with me for 17 days could turn out great photography wise, but it just would not fit the profile for such a journey.
That, and knowing there will be more trips alike in future, is really the only reason for looking beyond my Sony combo. I have no wish for a Nikon 400TC or 600TC to replace my Sony 600/4.
Of course my past with the 500PF makes me look towards Nikon. Sony brought a 300GM, and I almost put myself on the pre-order list, until I realized that I really do not like 2xTC's and that 300mm is peanuts regarding a birding focal length on full frame.

Nikon lenses are much more suitable, and the 600PF would be the best for birding, but its price with a matching Z8 is a bit too steep for the short term and I cannot really envision if 600mm will not make me miss out on a lot of other wildlife in Costa Rica, I never went there before.
So that brought me to the 180-600 or the Z400 with 1.4TC.
Having owned the Sony 200-600, it takes a leap of faith to go for a consumer zoom and Bruce did raise a very valid point about needing a large aperture when under canopies.
So my last decision is whether to go for the ultimate versatilty of the 180-600 or go for the S line Z400 and practice installing/removing the TC, which I would be doing a lot.

Regarding the Z8: it was the very big and heavy Z9 that made me switch from the D500 to the Sony A1, but I use that camera often with a small Meike grip extender to give my pinky some grip. The Z8 looks very much like the A1 with the Meike grip. I have understood that a firmware update is underway to bring the Z8 AF to Z9 level, which is supposedly very good.

 

[abc123brian]

That's a difficult question.
I had the 200-600G for a year but sold it after getting the 600GM.
I cannot fault the lens for its auto focus or sharpness, especially for it's price, but I don't like it's colors and contrast and neither it's OOF rendering.
The 600GM has very good bokeh and more refined colors and also better contrast, so for me it is a completely different lens, even if I know many like them both.

I used the D500+500pf for a few years prior to switching to Sony, and now that the Z8 is here, I would much rather return to Nikon colors and overall rendering for wildlife when I want to travel light, although I have zero intentions to ever sell the 600GM, it is a fantastic lens on the A1.

Perhaps a Z8 with Z400/4.5 and the 1.4TC would be best. I am going to sacrifice some versatility and get the hassle of attaching/removing the tc, but for low light it would be a real benefit.

That makes sense and is a valid point. When I was using Canon DSLRs I had a couple lenses that were not as good IQ wise but I needed for flexibility and convenience in some instances I struggled to decide if I wanted t9 avoid the convenience for better IQ. It may be worthwhile to ask yourself the same with the Sony 200-600mm before making the more expensive option of adding the Nikon. If you pick up a Z8 do you have any option to try the Nikon 180-600 or 400mm 4.5 such as renting or borrow from a friend? Being able to make the decision on your own experience would be best. If not, I think my choice in the situation would be the 400mm + 1.4x because as a 400mm 4.5 is is fantastic and is quite excellent with the 1.4x. Steve and others had mentioned they thought the IQ of the 400mm + 1.4x was on par with the 500mm PF or at least very close when he tested it last year and that is the reason I went for it. It is a small and lightweight option easy for travel.