Z180-600 advice

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).

The MTFs provided by Nikon confirm what many here are saying, reviews and my own experience with them. From sharpness and contrast perspective they are both excellent, but the 400 (as you'd expect) is better. Duh.

My interpretation is that the zoom would have softer corners than the prime, although hardly discernable. However, when cropped or with a TC, or when shooting really detailed subjects, the difference would be noticeable, certainly TC+Crop. On a 24mp body there is probably no difference.

For those not familiar with reading it, the lines measure sharpness and contrast (big components of IQ), 1 along the vertical axis being maximum (good) and the horizontal axis being distance from center in mm. A straight line higher that 0.9 is really good. The red is for 10 lines/mm and blue is 30 lines/mm. The solid is for the diagnol and the dashed is for lines perpendicular to the diagnol.


MTF Comparison.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
The MTFs provided by Nikon confirm what many here are saying, reviews and my own experience with them. From sharpness and contrast perspective they are both excellent, but the 400 (as you'd expect) is better. Duh.

My interpretation is that the zoom would have softer corners than the prime, although hardly discernable. However, when cropped or with a TC, or when shooting really detailed subjects, the difference would be noticeable, certainly TC+Crop. On a 24mp body there is probably no difference.

For those not familiar with reading it, the lines measure sharpness and contrast (big components of IQ), 1 along the vertical axis being maximum (good) and the horizontal axis being distance from center in mm. A straight line higher that 0.9 is really good. The red is for 10 lines/mm and blue is 30 lines/mm. The solid is for the diagnol and the dashed is for lines perpendicular to the diagnol.


View attachment 79933
Appreciate that you included the MTF charts for the native 400 f/4.5 as well as one for the 180-600. There are a couple of points namely, the comparison would have been more valid had it included the 400 f/4.5 + 1.4x TC versus the 180-600. I've looked for it, though haven't found one, though I have included a .gif of the effect on a 70-200 f/2.8 S. Also, I've included a copy of the MTF for the 186 at both ends.

The big question is how will the 1.4x TC impact the sharpness of the 400 f/4.5? That's difficult to say though given that the 400 f/4.5 is a prime, I suspect that the differences would be negligible as compared to the 70-200 or for any zoom. Even so, it is important to consider that TC's impact more than just sharpness and can have effects on AF speed, lens communication, flare, bokeh, etc.

Finally, let me say that MTF's are one measure of lenses' performance, namely static measures of optical properties, typically at a single aperture. In my experience, distinctions between MTF's and actual field performance, i.e. capturing images in real life do not necessarily hold. I think Steve (as have others) have demonstrated that well.

1860000.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.






8doq88.gif
 
Last edited:
Appreciate that you included the MTF charts for the native 400 f/4.5 as well as one for the 180-600. There are a couple of points namely, the comparison would have been more valid had it included the 400 f/4.5 + 1.4x TC versus the 180-600. I've looked for it, though haven't found one, though I have included a .gif of the effect on a 70-200 f/2.8 S. Also, I've included a copy of the MTF for the 186 at both ends.

The big question is how will the 1.4x TC impact the sharpness of the 400 f/4.5? That's difficult to say though given that the 400 f/4.5 is a prime, I suspect that the differences would be negligible as compared to the 70-200 or for any zoom. Even so, it is important to consider that TC's impact more than just sharpness and can have effects on AF speed, lens communication, flare, bokeh, etc.

View attachment 79968





View attachment 79969
100%. But we (me) don't know what focal length they used for their Tele designation on the 180-600. It's probably not 600, just like "wide" is not 180. And to your point on comparisons, the 400 should be stepped down a little. From my experience using lenses and always correlating my impressions to MTF, as well as my optics background, I find that OEM charts always present "best case." My experience in the field correlates, but never exceeds what the chart says. Also from my experience, TCs hurt "lesser" optics more than they do "better" ones.

One counter-intuitive conclusion for the 180-600 on a 45mp body is to possibly NOT fill the frame at 600, but leave a little more room for cropping out the edges for edge-to-edge sharpness in highly-detailed scenes.

They are both very good lenses and I don't think there is anything like the 180-600 at this price point. Nikon cursed us with an amazing range of lenses covering 100-800.
 
Appreciate that you included the MTF charts for the native 400 f/4.5 as well as one for the 180-600. There are a couple of points namely, the comparison would have been more valid had it included the 400 f/4.5 + 1.4x TC versus the 180-600. I've looked for it, though haven't found one, though I have included a .gif of the effect on a 70-200 f/2.8 S. Also, I've included a copy of the MTF for the 186 at both ends.

The big question is how will the 1.4x TC impact the sharpness of the 400 f/4.5? That's difficult to say though given that the 400 f/4.5 is a prime, I suspect that the differences would be negligible as compared to the 70-200 or for any zoom. Even so, it is important to consider that TC's impact more than just sharpness and can have effects on AF speed, lens communication, flare, bokeh, etc.

Finally, let me say that MTF's are one measure of lenses' performance, namely static measures of optical properties, typically at a single aperture. In my experience, distinctions between MTF's and actual field performance, i.e. capturing images in real life do not necessarily hold. I think Steve (as have others) have demonstrated that well.

View attachment 79968





View attachment 79969

Also, I used the Z70-200 2.8 S with the 1.4 all this week and I cannot detect any difference with and without, even pixel peeping. But the Z70-200 2.8 is a whole different level as zooms go.
 
The folks over at PL have a nice comparative assessment of the 180-600 against a handful of Nikon lenses along with their imatest measurements. It's worth viewing: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-180-600mm-f-5-6-6-3-vr/3. Also, I would point you to PL's real-life comparison of a ton of Nikon teles which includes the 186 and 400 f/4.5 + TC. I won't editorialize on the images/shooting conditions, however assuming that the tests were done properly they are largely consistent with what other people have found and in particular the 186 demonstrates really competitive center sharpness which starts falling off towards the periphery (consistent with the MTF and not unlike Steve's testing). Again, the images are limited, though I think they will provide a useful comparison. https://photographylife.com/best-nikon-z-super-telephoto-lens

My personal situation may not be applicable to others though when I was waiting for the 180-600 I went out and purchased a 400 f/4.5. It's a heck of a lens in terms of size/performance. The challenge was that the 400 mm FL was not very useful for my subjects and while slapping a tc on yielded solid images, once I received the 180-600, its utility/flexibility trumped the 400 without compromising the IQ that much. Selling it, helped to fund another Z8 which provided me much more utility than keeping the lens. Again, YMMV.
 
The folks over at PL have a nice comparative assessment of the 180-600 against a handful of Nikon lenses along with their imatest measurements. It's worth viewing: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-180-600mm-f-5-6-6-3-vr/3. Also, I would point you to PL's real-life comparison of a ton of Nikon teles which includes the 186 and 400 f/4.5 + TC. I won't editorialize on the images/shooting conditions, however assuming that the tests were done properly they are largely consistent with what other people have found and in particular the 186 demonstrates really competitive center sharpness which starts falling off towards the periphery (consistent with the MTF and not unlike Steve's testing). Again, the images are limited, though I think they will provide a useful comparison. https://photographylife.com/best-nikon-z-super-telephoto-lens

My personal situation may not be applicable to others though when I was waiting for the 180-600 I went out and purchased a 400 f/4.5. It's a heck of a lens in terms of size/performance. The challenge was that the 400 mm FL was not very useful for my subjects and while slapping a tc on yielded solid images, once I received the 180-600, its utility/flexibility trumped the 400 without compromising the IQ that much. Selling it, helped to fund another Z8 which provided me much more utility than keeping the lens. Again, YMMV.
I love their reviews, they post a lot of very useful sample images as well.
All in all, there is no way around the fact that you get what you pay for. The 180-600 has great contrast and colors, especially compared to many of the other super zooms, including the Sony 200-600G. It does not have the exiting resolution of the better prime lenses, but it enables you to fill the frame far better than a 300 or 400mm lens and is a single comprehensive package. When you can fill much of the frame, the great colors and contrast shine.
I can totally understand why you would prefer it over the hassle of a short lens with TC.

Myself, I am going to give it a bit of time to sink in. I see advantages in the Z400 and optional TC, as well as in the 180-600. I will have to wait anyhow, since the 180-600 is not in stock anywhere. I have no idea how long that will take, but I assume that it should arrive in the shops again within a few months. I only intend to use the Z8 with lens for the trip to Costa Rica in november, but want a few months at the least to thouroughly get to know the Z8 before that.
 
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?
Sometimes while shooting at high frame rates, DX mode avoids buffer clogging for fast acquisitions since the image size is significantly reduced in DX mode.
 
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.
The 180-600 doesn't even get close to comparing with the 500/4, and it never will regardless of DX or any TC. Best of luck.
 
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.
Renting an equipment is always a good option for equipment that’s too pricey. I would suggest https://www.lensrentals.com/
They have top quality equipment fast secure shipping and excellent customer service and support
 
What ISO are you shooting?
You did not say if you are using a tripod, if not, you might try that with the 180-600 with 1.4 and the DX mode. I use the same exact combination and have no problem; I have used both the 1.4 and 2.0 on my Z8 180-600. The details are not great with the 2.0. I did try it in DX mode and with the 2.0 it was not great.
 
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.
Have you watched Steve's video on sharpness comparisons?
 
I also would have thought that post cropping would be superior to FX to DX mode. Maybe when switching to DX mode, the camera CPU looks at less pixels, speeding up the AF?
Depending on the degree of crop. They are identical if the resulting mp is identical.
 
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?
Generally speaking…the TC will provide better (I.e., more detailed and sharper) shots than crop mode at 1:1 because it puts more pixels on target…but from a practical standpoint once downsampled to screen res output size the differences just disappear. Bokeh might be a bit different as well…but generally a longer length had better bokeh anyway so TC still wins, particularly the Z ones.
 
Brad Hill noted on his website that the recently released DxO optics modules for the Z 180-600 mm lens improve the results from the lens, including with the Z 1.4x TC.

I used them with DxO Pure Raw 3 on some Z9 files taken with the Z 180-600 on a recent trip to Point Reyes. Liked the results, but did not do any systematic testing. The optics modules are also used by DxO PhotoLab Elite (version 7 is what I have). I used DxO Pure Raw on my raw files (HE* raw), exporting a DNG to Adobe Camera Raw and then to Photoshop. The DxO Deep Prime XD noise reduction also worked well on high ISO files.

The flexibility afforded by the Z 180-600 was great for Point Reyes wildlife, particularly on a trip that was involved both wildlife and landscapes. I generally used the Z 180-600 on my Z9 for wildlife and the Z 24-70 f2.8 and Z 70-200 on my Z8 for landscape and other non-wildlife shots. I did take a few non-wildlife shots with the Z 180-600 too, and was pleased with the results.

[corrected typo]
 
Last edited:
I never use DX, but it is said by people I trust that focus acquisition, eg eye detection is better.
On Z9, the subject detection works better as the subject fills more of the frame. Also, DX images are 1/2 the size of FX so more room on memory card and in buffer. I shoot my Z9 in DX very often!
 
Using a TC at best has no negative impact on image quality although more often than not most TC lens combo compromises image quality.

I guess it would be fair to say that the TC at best has no negative impact on how the lens renders, but the combined system (optics and sensor) may benefit from a TC as the equivalent/re-scaled resolution can increase.

For instance, PL tested the 600mm pf and found it to render somewhere around 3303 line widths pr picture height at the center (f/6.3). Cropped to DX, this would be around 2202 lw/ph. However, when you mount a TC, it resolves a bit more in full frame, around 2443 lw/ph (11% more). That's likely a combination of optics and sensor behavoiur. Yes, these are obviously minor differences, but even on a 45 MP camera, you still benefit from using a TC in full frame mode versus cropping in to DX mode without the TC.

Of course you also loose some light so you may have to increase ISO or lower the shutter speed, leading to potentially more noise or subject motion blur. You will recover some of the noise if you then downsample to e.g. DX resolution, while gaining a little in acuity.

But in the end, other factors probably will impact the image quality more.
 
Last edited:
It is a given that using TC's will cost IQ.
However, to put this in a slightly different context, here is an interesting comparison.
The guys at Photographylife do a pretty good job with lab testing lenses for a long time now and tjhat was the reason for me to collect all this data in a little spreadshoeet that allows me to do some more focused comparisons.

I think nobody here will argue against the F-Mount 180-400 f/4 TC being a top notch lens. And yes, the Z 180-600 takes a dip at 600mm. But interestingly its values at 600mm are on par with this 180-400 TC with the integrated TC engaged. As IO wasn't sure about the validity of the comparison I asked and Spencer Cox confirmed that the test results were comparable, bcause they were taken with a comparable test setup.

From this perspective I find it pretty remarkable, that a € 2k lens is able to do that compared to a € 12k lens.
Taking into account that with growing focal length other factors start to outweigh the sheer resolution of a lens as most relevant criteria to get decent images, I find it simply not realistic to expect outstanding IQ of this € 2k lens when getting punished with a TC behind it. If I want top IQ beyond 600mm combined with a reasonable quantity of light coming out at the rear end, I simply have to open the wallet again and buy something suitable for the job.

Exactly for this reason I kept my old and heavy 500 f4G with the TC-14E. These two were lucky enough to spend some time in the calibration bench at Nikon together, so that they really fine together. Based on the tests mentioned above the 700mm f5.6 combo still delivers significantly better resolution that the 180-600 alone at 600mm.

I love the 180-600 for its versatility and the agiliity it gives me on walkaround days. But if I have to push the limits in difficult lighting conditions and most likely more stationary work (hide, tesnt) I prefer to take take "the big one". Eitherr I have more reach and still better IQ than the 180-600 or I have the advantage of 1,3 stops of light with f/4 against f6.3 at 500mm.

And there is something else I hope I will be able to test soon. In DSLR times the combination of the 500 f4g with a TC-17E meant looking at a red flag, not so much because of the resolution but because of an unrealiable AF. Now, with the AF capabilities of a Z8 this hurdle might not be there anymore and this combo would then provide a 850mm f/6.7 combo that is on par with the 180-600 at 600mm in terms of rfesolution.

Of course I am dreaming of a Z 400 f2.8 TC plus a separate TC2.0x, because this lens definitely has the resolution headroom to do that, but IMHO getting an old 500 f4G of a 500 f4 FL with good TC's could be a tempting combo for many, even on a Z - as long as you don't need 800+ mm to go for a run with it ;).
 
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 am a Sony user, but Sony full frame cameras come with a crop mode and while I never use it on, for example, my A9II because it's 24MP, with the A1 and especially the A7RIV, I use it frequently for wildlife and bird photos because, as has been said, the crop mode allows faster AF acquisition and keeps the buffer from filling as quickly. Also, if I intend to crop later anyway, it makes the memory card last longer.
 
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?

Well, there might be one or two reason left. If you are sure that you can't get closer anyway, you don't have the risk not to have the target(s) completely in the frame, the scene is rather runpredictable and with a lot of action, and you are limited in memory, with 20 fps DX can make a big difference.
The other thing is, that a considerable amount of users report that the AF in difficult scenraios can be ever so slightly swifter in DX mode, especially in modes where automatic target searching is involved.
But coming back to your comment, you are right. These aspects definitely can't be the reason for camera manufacturers to offer a DX mode. It's more that the users may find good reasons to use it, because it's there :D.
 
Well, there might be one or two reason left. If you are sure that you can't get closer anyway, you don't have the risk not to have the target(s) completely in the frame, the scene is rather runpredictable and with a lot of action, and you are limited in memory, with 20 fps DX can make a big difference.
The other thing is, that a considerable amount of users report that the AF in difficult scenraios can be ever so slightly swifter in DX mode, especially in modes where automatic target searching is involved.
But coming back to your comment, you are right. These aspects definitely can't be the reason for camera manufacturers to offer a DX mode. It's more that the users may find good reasons to use it, because it's there :D.

I'm sure part of it was that crop cameras had and have fans for their increase in reach for distant subjects and with a DX style mode, manufacturers can give people the best of crop and full frame in one camera.
 
Back
Top