Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
p.12 #1Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
George DeCamp wrote:
So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.Thank you sir, your comments are much appreciated! I've tried to post a little of each to show what the lens has to offer. If people like it fine, if not that's ok too! 
Spoken like a man confident in his work. Well deserved I say.
1bwana1 wrote
Great images George. I really have a hard time imagining anyone thinking that they need sharper, better exposed images of birds that these. Great shots both static and in flight. I think images of this quality should make the vast majority of photographers happy as far as image quality is concerned.So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.
Spoken like a man confident in his work. Well deserved I say.
Sep 18, 2023 at 04:45 PM
p.12 #2Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
1bwana1 wrote:
So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.Thank you sir, your comments are much appreciated! I've tried to post a little of each to show what the lens has to offer. If people like it fine, if not that's ok too! Spoken like a man confident in his work. Well deserved I say.
Thank you again!
George DeCamp wrote
1bwana1 wrote
Great images George. I really have a hard time imagining anyone thinking that they need sharper, better exposed images of birds that these. Great shots both static and in flight. I think images of this quality should make the vast majority of photographers happy as far as image quality is concerned.So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.
Thank you again!
Sep 18, 2023 at 05:12 PM
p.12 #3Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
I'm liking it so far. This is at 600mm f6.3 shutter 2500 from about 30 ft. Cropped of course.
Edited on Sep 19, 2023 at 09:46 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Sep 19, 2023 at 09:46 AM · View previous versions
Sep 18, 2023 at 06:04 PM
duncang
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.12 #4Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
CanadaMark wrote:
So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.I think these are very nice images, but let's not neglect that these are relatively low megapixel renders which force a relatively small size for viewing. Files like this are good for some things but thee's also value in having larger, higher resolution files and those are a lot more demanding on a lens and reveal deficiencies much more. For instance, the files shared here wouldn't make for good prints.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.Many ~100% or heavy crops have already been posted in this thread and they are very sharp, despite the fact that no software even has profile support for the lens yet (meaning, it will only improve). There are at least two links in this thread to highly detailed controlled testing, both with 200% crops that again show the same thing, as well as comparisons to the competition and Nikon's own telephoto lineup. Those tests reveal that the 180-600 holds up well to Nikon's highly regarded 100-400S and 400/4.5S, all triple corroborated by the controlled testing done by Ricci, Steve Perry,...Show more →
Steve Perry - he couldn't tell the difference between the Sony 200-600 and the 800pf - he spends quite some time in his video scratching his head over his inability to tell the difference between them. By inference if he thinks the 180-600 is sharper than the Sony it must also be sharper than the 800PF.
A reputable tester - yep sure.
CORRECTION:
Apologies to Steve Perry - it was not him who made that claim but this guy linked earlier in the thread.
Edited on Sep 19, 2023 at 02:33 PM · View previous versions
SCoombs wrote
1bwana1 wrote
Great images George. I really have a hard time imagining anyone thinking that they need sharper, better exposed images of birds that these. Great shots both static and in flight. I think images of this quality should make the vast majority of photographers happy as far as image quality is concerned.So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.
Steve Perry - he couldn't tell the difference between the Sony 200-600 and the 800pf - he spends quite some time in his video scratching his head over his inability to tell the difference between them. By inference if he thinks the 180-600 is sharper than the Sony it must also be sharper than the 800PF.
A reputable tester - yep sure.
CORRECTION:
Apologies to Steve Perry - it was not him who made that claim but this guy linked earlier in the thread.
Edited on Sep 19, 2023 at 02:33 PM · View previous versions
Sep 19, 2023 at 07:12 AM
p.12 #5Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
duncang wrote:
So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.I think these are very nice images, but let's not neglect that these are relatively low megapixel renders which force a relatively small size for viewing. Files like this are good for some things but thee's also value in having larger, higher resolution files and those are a lot more demanding on a lens and reveal deficiencies much more. For instance, the files shared here wouldn't make for good prints.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.Many ~100% or heavy crops have already been posted in this thread and they are very sharp, despite the fact that no software even has profile support for the lens yet (meaning, it will only improve). There are at least two links in this thread to highly detailed controlled testing, both with 200% crops that again show the same thing, as well as comparisons to the competition and Nikon's own telephoto lineup. Those tests reveal that the 180-600 holds up well to Nikon's highly regarded 100-400S and 400/4.5S, all triple corroborated by the controlled testing done by Ricci, Steve Perry, and Gordon @ Cameralabs, which are all in agreement. Steve is the only one I have seen who has done a proper comparison to the Sony 200-600 and we see that once again, at least with his copies, the Nikon is slightly sharper which also matches my own impression after having used both.
Every other professional review I have read or watched is very positive, despite some having questionable test methods. History tells us that sample variation exists but is minor and requires careful examination to reveal. I guess my question for you is what are you looking for? Is there something in particular you're waiting to see? I am starting to get the impression that you are searching for a reason to not like the lens, which is obviously fine if you don't, but every reputable tester so far has shown it is an excellent performer.Steve Perry - he couldn't tell the difference between the Sony 200-600 and the 800pf - he spends quite some time in his video scratching his head over his inability to tell the difference between them. By inference if he thinks the 180-600 is sharper than the Sony it must also be sharper than the 800PF.
A reputable tester - yep sure.
But does it even really matter though?
CanadaMark wrote
SCoombs wrote
1bwana1 wrote
Great images George. I really have a hard time imagining anyone thinking that they need sharper, better exposed images of birds that these. Great shots both static and in flight. I think images of this quality should make the vast majority of photographers happy as far as image quality is concerned.So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.
Every other professional review I have read or watched is very positive, despite some having questionable test methods. History tells us that sample variation exists but is minor and requires careful examination to reveal. I guess my question for you is what are you looking for? Is there something in particular you're waiting to see? I am starting to get the impression that you are searching for a reason to not like the lens, which is obviously fine if you don't, but every reputable tester so far has shown it is an excellent performer.
A reputable tester - yep sure.
But does it even really matter though?
Sep 19, 2023 at 07:36 AM
p.12 #6Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
duncang wrote:
So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.I think these are very nice images, but let's not neglect that these are relatively low megapixel renders which force a relatively small size for viewing. Files like this are good for some things but thee's also value in having larger, higher resolution files and those are a lot more demanding on a lens and reveal deficiencies much more. For instance, the files shared here wouldn't make for good prints.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.Many ~100% or heavy crops have already been posted in this thread and they are very sharp, despite the fact that no software even has profile support for the lens yet (meaning, it will only improve). There are at least two links in this thread to highly detailed controlled testing, both with 200% crops that again show the same thing, as well as comparisons to the competition and Nikon's own telephoto lineup. Those tests reveal that the 180-600 holds up well to Nikon's highly regarded 100-400S and 400/4.5S, all triple corroborated by the controlled testing done by Ricci, Steve Perry, and Gordon @ Cameralabs, which are all in agreement. Steve is the only one I have seen who has done a proper comparison to the Sony 200-600 and we see that once again, at least with his copies, the Nikon is slightly sharper which also matches my own impression after having used both.
Every other professional review I have read or watched is very positive, despite some having questionable test methods. History tells us that sample variation exists but is minor and requires careful examination to reveal. I guess my question for you is what are you looking for? Is there something in particular you're waiting to see? I am starting to get the impression that you are searching for a reason to not like the lens, which is obviously fine if you don't, but every reputable tester so far has shown it is an excellent performer.Steve Perry - he couldn't tell the difference between the Sony 200-600 and the 800pf - he spends quite some time in his video scratching his head over his inability to tell the difference between them. By inference if he thinks the 180-600 is sharper than the Sony it must also be sharper than the 800PF.
A reputable tester - yep sure.
Your response says everything. Many of us have been following him for a long time and respect his perspective and see his evaluations as about as unbiased as it gets. He has both Sony and Nikon systems and uses both extensively. That you dismiss his so easily says a lot about you, and I don't think you have the details right either.
CanadaMark wrote
SCoombs wrote
1bwana1 wrote
Great images George. I really have a hard time imagining anyone thinking that they need sharper, better exposed images of birds that these. Great shots both static and in flight. I think images of this quality should make the vast majority of photographers happy as far as image quality is concerned.So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.
Every other professional review I have read or watched is very positive, despite some having questionable test methods. History tells us that sample variation exists but is minor and requires careful examination to reveal. I guess my question for you is what are you looking for? Is there something in particular you're waiting to see? I am starting to get the impression that you are searching for a reason to not like the lens, which is obviously fine if you don't, but every reputable tester so far has shown it is an excellent performer.
A reputable tester - yep sure.
Your response says everything. Many of us have been following him for a long time and respect his perspective and see his evaluations as about as unbiased as it gets. He has both Sony and Nikon systems and uses both extensively. That you dismiss his so easily says a lot about you, and I don't think you have the details right either.
Sep 19, 2023 at 08:22 AM
p.12 #7Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
Perry doesn't really claim that the 180-600 or 200-600 is sharper than the other; there are subtle differences in areas of the frame depending on focal length and side but the overall conclusion isn't supporting one's superiority over the other at least where the test charts are concerned. "Neck and neck" is what he said several times.
He does quite clearly note that the 800 PF is sharper than the 180-600 with 1.4X TC outside of the center.
However, at another distance things may again be different. Comparing two zoom lenses makes it difficult to call one over the other because there are different apertures, distances, focal lengths, parts of the frame that need to be evaluated and the results between the two can go in different ways at different settings. This is also true of lens samples within the same brand and model.
IMO Perry has a good understanding of what he is doing.
duncang wrote:
So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.I think these are very nice images, but let's not neglect that these are relatively low megapixel renders which force a relatively small size for viewing. Files like this are good for some things but thee's also value in having larger, higher resolution files and those are a lot more demanding on a lens and reveal deficiencies much more. For instance, the files shared here wouldn't make for good prints.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.Many ~100% or heavy crops have already been posted in this thread and they are very sharp, despite the fact that no software even has profile support for the lens yet (meaning, it will only improve). There are at least two links in this thread to highly detailed controlled testing, both with 200% crops that again show the same thing, as well as comparisons to the competition and Nikon's own telephoto lineup. Those tests reveal that the 180-600 holds up well to Nikon's highly regarded 100-400S and 400/4.5S, all triple corroborated by the controlled testing done by Ricci, Steve Perry, and Gordon @ Cameralabs, which are all in agreement. Steve is the only one I have seen who has done a proper comparison to the Sony 200-600 and we see that once again, at least with his copies, the Nikon is slightly sharper which also matches my own impression after having used both.
Every other professional review I have read or watched is very positive, despite some having questionable test methods. History tells us that sample variation exists but is minor and requires careful examination to reveal. I guess my question for you is what are you looking for? Is there something in particular you're waiting to see? I am starting to get the impression that you are searching for a reason to not like the lens, which is obviously fine if you don't, but every reputable tester so far has shown it is an excellent performer.Steve Perry - he couldn't tell the difference between the Sony 200-600 and the 800pf - he spends quite some time in his video scratching his head over his inability to tell the difference between them. By inference if he thinks the 180-600 is sharper than the Sony it must also be sharper than the 800PF.
A reputable tester - yep sure.
He does quite clearly note that the 800 PF is sharper than the 180-600 with 1.4X TC outside of the center.
However, at another distance things may again be different. Comparing two zoom lenses makes it difficult to call one over the other because there are different apertures, distances, focal lengths, parts of the frame that need to be evaluated and the results between the two can go in different ways at different settings. This is also true of lens samples within the same brand and model.
IMO Perry has a good understanding of what he is doing.
duncang wrote:
CanadaMark wrote
SCoombs wrote
1bwana1 wrote
Great images George. I really have a hard time imagining anyone thinking that they need sharper, better exposed images of birds that these. Great shots both static and in flight. I think images of this quality should make the vast majority of photographers happy as far as image quality is concerned.So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.
Every other professional review I have read or watched is very positive, despite some having questionable test methods. History tells us that sample variation exists but is minor and requires careful examination to reveal. I guess my question for you is what are you looking for? Is there something in particular you're waiting to see? I am starting to get the impression that you are searching for a reason to not like the lens, which is obviously fine if you don't, but every reputable tester so far has shown it is an excellent performer.
A reputable tester - yep sure.
Sep 19, 2023 at 08:32 AM
p.12 #8Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
In my experience Steve Perry is about as unbiased, and real World experienced as we get. I have found that his evaluation matches well with what I get when I use a peice of equipment that he has used and reported on.
I have found him to be honest and sincere in person and in his on line presentations.
He is likely a better photography coach, wildlife photographer, workshop leader, content creator, and author, than he is a chart pixel peeper. But I value the latter the least when choosing equipment. I have never even shot a chart. Not one of my areas of interests.
If you don't respect his opinion I really don't know where to send you for a better more trustworthy one.
If it is a direct comparison of the Nikon 180-200 and the Sony 200-600 that you are focused on, then what I got out of his video is that they are at parity when used in the field. Copy variation within the models is probably as great as any differences in IQ. The biggest difference being that focus breathing favors the Nikon, and under the tests that he performed focus speed strongly favors the Sony.
I have been enjoying the Sony 200-600 on my original A9, and now my A1 for years. I see it as great thing that now my Nikon Z shooting friends can enjoy a similar level of convenience, enjoyment, and results. Why sweat the little things...
I have found him to be honest and sincere in person and in his on line presentations.
He is likely a better photography coach, wildlife photographer, workshop leader, content creator, and author, than he is a chart pixel peeper. But I value the latter the least when choosing equipment. I have never even shot a chart. Not one of my areas of interests.
If you don't respect his opinion I really don't know where to send you for a better more trustworthy one.
If it is a direct comparison of the Nikon 180-200 and the Sony 200-600 that you are focused on, then what I got out of his video is that they are at parity when used in the field. Copy variation within the models is probably as great as any differences in IQ. The biggest difference being that focus breathing favors the Nikon, and under the tests that he performed focus speed strongly favors the Sony.
I have been enjoying the Sony 200-600 on my original A9, and now my A1 for years. I see it as great thing that now my Nikon Z shooting friends can enjoy a similar level of convenience, enjoyment, and results. Why sweat the little things...
Sep 19, 2023 at 09:19 AM
p.12 #9Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
duncang wrote:
So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.I think these are very nice images, but let's not neglect that these are relatively low megapixel renders which force a relatively small size for viewing. Files like this are good for some things but thee's also value in having larger, higher resolution files and those are a lot more demanding on a lens and reveal deficiencies much more. For instance, the files shared here wouldn't make for good prints.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.Many ~100% or heavy crops have already been posted in this thread and they are very sharp, despite the fact that no software even has profile support for the lens yet (meaning, it will only improve). There are at least two links in this thread to highly detailed controlled testing, both with 200% crops that again show the same thing, as well as comparisons to the competition and Nikon's own telephoto lineup. Those tests reveal that the 180-600 holds up well to Nikon's highly regarded 100-400S and 400/4.5S, all triple corroborated by the controlled testing done by Ricci, Steve Perry, and Gordon @ Cameralabs, which are all in agreement. Steve is the only one I have seen who has done a proper comparison to the Sony 200-600 and we see that once again, at least with his copies, the Nikon is slightly sharper which also matches my own impression after having used both.
Every other professional review I have read or watched is very positive, despite some having questionable test methods. History tells us that sample variation exists but is minor and requires careful examination to reveal. I guess my question for you is what are you looking for? Is there something in particular you're waiting to see? I am starting to get the impression that you are searching for a reason to not like the lens, which is obviously fine if you don't, but every reputable tester so far has shown it is an excellent performer.Steve Perry - he couldn't tell the difference between the Sony 200-600 and the 800pf - he spends quite some time in his video scratching his head over his inability to tell the difference between them. By inference if he thinks the 180-600 is sharper than the Sony it must also be sharper than the 800PF.
A reputable tester - yep sure.
It's no secret that there is little difference in modern lens performance in the very center, even if you're comparing to the exotics. The difference is they do it at a much larger aperture and hold into the sharpness better towards the edges. I don't know what other test you're referencing - the only video I could find was where he couldn't tell any material difference between the 800PF and Sony 600/4 GM.
Feel free to show us a all a better test than what he or the other reviewers have put together if you are unhappy that his results didn't validate your brand preferences.
His results also are aligned with the controlled testing done by Ricci and Gordon @ Cameralabs, but I don't imagine you think they are reputable either.
Edited on Sep 19, 2023 at 01:39 PM · View previous versions
CanadaMark wrote
SCoombs wrote
1bwana1 wrote
Great images George. I really have a hard time imagining anyone thinking that they need sharper, better exposed images of birds that these. Great shots both static and in flight. I think images of this quality should make the vast majority of photographers happy as far as image quality is concerned.So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.
Every other professional review I have read or watched is very positive, despite some having questionable test methods. History tells us that sample variation exists but is minor and requires careful examination to reveal. I guess my question for you is what are you looking for? Is there something in particular you're waiting to see? I am starting to get the impression that you are searching for a reason to not like the lens, which is obviously fine if you don't, but every reputable tester so far has shown it is an excellent performer.
A reputable tester - yep sure.
It's no secret that there is little difference in modern lens performance in the very center, even if you're comparing to the exotics. The difference is they do it at a much larger aperture and hold into the sharpness better towards the edges. I don't know what other test you're referencing - the only video I could find was where he couldn't tell any material difference between the 800PF and Sony 600/4 GM.
Feel free to show us a all a better test than what he or the other reviewers have put together if you are unhappy that his results didn't validate your brand preferences.
His results also are aligned with the controlled testing done by Ricci and Gordon @ Cameralabs, but I don't imagine you think they are reputable either.
Edited on Sep 19, 2023 at 01:39 PM · View previous versions
Sep 19, 2023 at 01:34 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.12 #10Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
This is an image thread, not a measurbating discussion thread, there is already one (if not more) of those for this lens.
Sep 19, 2023 at 01:35 PM
|
p.12 #11Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
Suggestion: Why not either hide Duncang or simply do not respond. Obviously he has no intention of saying anything plausible. He just wants to have fun derailing the thread.
I know you guys already know this. Why not just ignore him?
Edited on Sep 19, 2023 at 02:10 PM · View previous versions
I know you guys already know this. Why not just ignore him?
Edited on Sep 19, 2023 at 02:10 PM · View previous versions
Sep 19, 2023 at 01:47 PM
p.12 #12Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
CanadaMark wrote:
So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.I think these are very nice images, but let's not neglect that these are relatively low megapixel renders which force a relatively small size for viewing. Files like this are good for some things but thee's also value in having larger, higher resolution files and those are a lot more demanding on a lens and reveal deficiencies much more. For instance, the files shared here wouldn't make for good prints.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.Many ~100% or heavy crops have already been posted in this thread and they are very sharp, despite the fact that no software even has profile support for the lens yet (meaning, it will only improve). There are at least two links in this thread to highly detailed controlled testing, both with 200% crops that again show the same thing, as well as comparisons to the competition and Nikon's own telephoto lineup. Those tests reveal that the 180-600 holds up well to Nikon's highly regarded 100-400S and 400/4.5S, all triple corroborated by the controlled testing done by Ricci, Steve Perry,...Show more →
Truthfully, I feel a little burned by my current lens - though not so much in the sharpness or IQ - and am worried about getting burned again in making an investment in a lens that doesn't do what I need it to and which financially speaking I won't be able to replace or move on from for years.
One thing I've noticed over the years is that people have very different standards for sharpness. Even in this thread we've seen some people call an image sharp and others (several people) call it very soft, and I've seen that a lot in discussions. Especially on dpreview where a lot of the wildlife photos are of a lower standard than here or other places, people will post what is even viewed at a small size clearly out of focus or very motion blurred and others will chime in on how sharp it is.
I'm always cognizant of this when considering reviews and samples from users, especially because the dynamic you mention of what people "want" can play a huge role: those who have anxiously anticipated something and ordered it have a large incentive to like something no matter what. I do put more faith in people like Steve Perry to give reliable feedback, but ultimately I trust my eyes more than anything and the bottom line is that for the first few weeks here I've not seen many images I'd consider to portray the lens in a good light, and many of those that do have been files locked into a small viewing size, which to me doesn't mean a whole lot since many things will look good at a small size. There was also at least some measure of a trend of end-users reporting the lens to be a bit soft at 6.3 as the first copies got into people's hands. Taken altogether, I have certainly been skeptical. Also, so far we have Steve Perry and some other notables looking at that charts, which don't mean much to me. Lots of lenses that I don't think produce great photos of real things make great shots of test charts. I want to see photos Perry and others produce with the lens.
I think some more convincing images have come out over time. Last night we saw a review from PhotographyLife and that easily has the best collection of photos from this lens I've seen anywhere. They were good enough to convince me to place an order. Knowing I'll be waiting a bit made it easier since there's still time to change my mind if PhotographyLife proves to be an outlier, but of course as more copies get into more people's hands and we get more samples it could very well alleviate my concerns.
It also makes a huge difference that I'm looking to replace a 200-500, so the question of, "is this just going to be the same lens with the same problems but in - mount?" weighs heavily. The bottom line is that I have room for one lens in my budget so it had better be good. For several years I've been fighting my lens to get good results and I don't want that experience again.
SCoombs wrote
1bwana1 wrote
Great images George. I really have a hard time imagining anyone thinking that they need sharper, better exposed images of birds that these. Great shots both static and in flight. I think images of this quality should make the vast majority of photographers happy as far as image quality is concerned.So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.
Truthfully, I feel a little burned by my current lens - though not so much in the sharpness or IQ - and am worried about getting burned again in making an investment in a lens that doesn't do what I need it to and which financially speaking I won't be able to replace or move on from for years.
One thing I've noticed over the years is that people have very different standards for sharpness. Even in this thread we've seen some people call an image sharp and others (several people) call it very soft, and I've seen that a lot in discussions. Especially on dpreview where a lot of the wildlife photos are of a lower standard than here or other places, people will post what is even viewed at a small size clearly out of focus or very motion blurred and others will chime in on how sharp it is.
I'm always cognizant of this when considering reviews and samples from users, especially because the dynamic you mention of what people "want" can play a huge role: those who have anxiously anticipated something and ordered it have a large incentive to like something no matter what. I do put more faith in people like Steve Perry to give reliable feedback, but ultimately I trust my eyes more than anything and the bottom line is that for the first few weeks here I've not seen many images I'd consider to portray the lens in a good light, and many of those that do have been files locked into a small viewing size, which to me doesn't mean a whole lot since many things will look good at a small size. There was also at least some measure of a trend of end-users reporting the lens to be a bit soft at 6.3 as the first copies got into people's hands. Taken altogether, I have certainly been skeptical. Also, so far we have Steve Perry and some other notables looking at that charts, which don't mean much to me. Lots of lenses that I don't think produce great photos of real things make great shots of test charts. I want to see photos Perry and others produce with the lens.
I think some more convincing images have come out over time. Last night we saw a review from PhotographyLife and that easily has the best collection of photos from this lens I've seen anywhere. They were good enough to convince me to place an order. Knowing I'll be waiting a bit made it easier since there's still time to change my mind if PhotographyLife proves to be an outlier, but of course as more copies get into more people's hands and we get more samples it could very well alleviate my concerns.
It also makes a huge difference that I'm looking to replace a 200-500, so the question of, "is this just going to be the same lens with the same problems but in - mount?" weighs heavily. The bottom line is that I have room for one lens in my budget so it had better be good. For several years I've been fighting my lens to get good results and I don't want that experience again.
Sep 19, 2023 at 01:57 PM
p.12 #13Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
SCoombs wrote:
So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.I think these are very nice images, but let's not neglect that these are relatively low megapixel renders which force a relatively small size for viewing. Files like this are good for some things but thee's also value in having larger, higher resolution files and those are a lot more demanding on a lens and reveal deficiencies much more. For instance, the files shared here wouldn't make for good prints.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.Many ~100% or heavy crops have already been posted in this thread and they are very sharp, despite the fact that no software even has profile support for the lens yet (meaning, it will only improve). There are at least two links in this thread to highly detailed controlled testing, both with 200% crops that again show the same thing, as well as comparisons to the competition and Nikon's own telephoto lineup. Those tests reveal that the 180-600 holds up well to Nikon's highly regarded 100-400S and 400/4.5S, all triple corroborated by the controlled testing done by Ricci, Steve Perry, and Gordon @ Cameralabs, which are all in agreement. Steve is the only one I have seen who has done a proper comparison to the Sony 200-600 and we see that once again, at least with his copies, the Nikon is slightly sharper which also matches my own impression after having used both.
Every other professional review I have read or watched is very positive, despite some having questionable test methods. History tells us that sample variation exists but is minor and requires careful examination to reveal. I guess my question for you is what are you looking for? Is there something in particular you're waiting to see? I am starting to get the impression that you are searching for a reason to not like the lens, which is obviously fine if you don't, but every reputable tester so far has shown it is an excellent performer.Truthfully, I feel a little burned by my current lens - though not so much in the sharpness or IQ - and am worried about getting burned again in making an investment in a lens that doesn't do what I need it to and which financially speaking I won't be able to replace or move on from for years.
One thing I've noticed over the years is that people have very different standards for sharpness. Even in this thread we've seen some people call an image sharp and others (several people) call it very soft, and I've seen that a...Show more →
So rent one and see for yourself if you don't trust others or if they don't do the test you're after.
CanadaMark wrote
SCoombs wrote
1bwana1 wrote
Great images George. I really have a hard time imagining anyone thinking that they need sharper, better exposed images of birds that these. Great shots both static and in flight. I think images of this quality should make the vast majority of photographers happy as far as image quality is concerned.So, now that the image quality question with this lens is concerned has been so well demonstrated, we can put that issue to rest. I believe that it is correct to say that when considering new equipment for such uses, that the combination of the Z8(should be same IQ as Z9 used here), and the Nikon 180-200 is the least expensive, best value, path to this level of performance.
Great job Nikon.
Now do the higher res versions look as sharp? There's no way to know unless they're shared.
Again, I like these photos and they give me a good impression of the lens. They certainly give me a good impression of the photographer!
But as far as really judging the quality of image the lens can produce 3MP 96dpi files aren't going to give much insight. When viewed at a resolution sufficient to make a decent sized print they make look awful - or great! This is not meant to be critical of the decision to share the photos as they are, by the way. I think they're great and shared as is they are very nice in this thread. I'm commenting only on their value as "proof" of the lens' quality.
Every other professional review I have read or watched is very positive, despite some having questionable test methods. History tells us that sample variation exists but is minor and requires careful examination to reveal. I guess my question for you is what are you looking for? Is there something in particular you're waiting to see? I am starting to get the impression that you are searching for a reason to not like the lens, which is obviously fine if you don't, but every reputable tester so far has shown it is an excellent performer.
One thing I've noticed over the years is that people have very different standards for sharpness. Even in this thread we've seen some people call an image sharp and others (several people) call it very soft, and I've seen that a...Show more →
So rent one and see for yourself if you don't trust others or if they don't do the test you're after.
Sep 19, 2023 at 02:19 PM
p.12 #14Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
bs kite wrote:
Suggestion: Why not either hide Duncang or simply do not respond. Obviously he has no intention of saying anything plausible. He just wants to have fun derailing the thread.
I know you guys already know this. Why not just ignore him?
I only respond to help curb the spread of misinformation, which I feel still has some value if people who aren't familiar with the motives of various members end up reading this site and take it as gospel. For example, saying Steve Perry is not reputable I feel deserves a reply, especially when not accompanied with a suggestion for a better alternative. We all know that isn't true, but others reading or who only visit these forums occasionally may not. Saying he's unreliable when his results match every other controlled/professional test I have seen including my own (more limited) testing, clearly there is some other agenda there and I would bet my entire lens collection if Steve had concluded that a different brand came out on top, his reputation would not have been questioned.
Case in point - it wasn't even Steve who made the comments in question, it was a cherry picked review from someone I have never heard of (others may have) whose results appear to be an outlier among the other testing that has been done. No disrespect to that YouTuber of course, it looks like he put a lot of effort into that comparison.
Suggestion: Why not either hide Duncang or simply do not respond. Obviously he has no intention of saying anything plausible. He just wants to have fun derailing the thread.
I know you guys already know this. Why not just ignore him?
I only respond to help curb the spread of misinformation, which I feel still has some value if people who aren't familiar with the motives of various members end up reading this site and take it as gospel. For example, saying Steve Perry is not reputable I feel deserves a reply, especially when not accompanied with a suggestion for a better alternative. We all know that isn't true, but others reading or who only visit these forums occasionally may not. Saying he's unreliable when his results match every other controlled/professional test I have seen including my own (more limited) testing, clearly there is some other agenda there and I would bet my entire lens collection if Steve had concluded that a different brand came out on top, his reputation would not have been questioned
.Case in point - it wasn't even Steve who made the comments in question, it was a cherry picked review from someone I have never heard of (others may have) whose results appear to be an outlier among the other testing that has been done. No disrespect to that YouTuber of course, it looks like he put a lot of effort into that comparison.
Sep 19, 2023 at 02:48 PM
p.12 #15Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
CanadaMark wrote:
AF speed tests done by racking the AF from MFD to infinity are rather pointless so there's nothing to be concerned about, at least based on those results. I get that it's a test YouTubers like to do because it's something they can assign a number to, but it's not a good representation of what AF speed is like under typical use and is often misleading.
We can't compare lenses that way because not only do we not know the physical travel of the focusing group, but not every lens has the same MFD or magnification at MFD, all of which affects focus speed. There is no real world shooting scenario I can think of that requires a MFD to infinity rack (or vise versa), at least in the overwhelming majority of of cases. On top of all that, mirrorless camera autofocus in general has a hard time with extreme distance changes, so it's not representative of anything you would actually do in the field under normal use.
A far more useful test would be perhaps how fast the lens can go from a focus distance of 10ft to 20ft or 30ft to 20ft or something like that. Another more useful test would be from infinity back down to mid-focus, simulating a situation where the subject was lost and the faster the camera can snap back, the better. The only thing that really matters is how well the lens can track movement and how quickly the lens can snap onto target (or back onto a target), both of which are going to be much, much quicker than how fast a lens can travel through it's entire AF range.
Lens AF speed is also not perfectly linear, so a lens that might take longer to rack from MFD to infinity might focus faster in it's midrange than a lens that is actually moving slower but can move through it's full AF range in a shorter time because it has less physical distance to travel. It's not nearly as simple as just measuring the time it takes to travel through the full range. The camera body matters too, though I think less than it used to as the stepper motors don't seem to need nearly as much current the big ring motors did in older lenses.
I've shot with the Sony 200-600 many times and I cannot tell any material AF speed difference compared to my 180-600 under any typical scenario. Both are fast enough to shoot pretty much anything with a very high keeper rate. I think most people would agree the F mount 200-500 was not a very fast focusing lens, and the AF motor in that lens can keep up with Swallows, so the fact that it's the slowest (by far) of all the lenses in question to rack between MFD to infinity is really only a problem if that is for some reason the way you use your camera in the field. I think the point of diminishing return for AF speed is a lot lower than many people realize and as long as you can keep the AF on target (a much bigger factor IMO), most lenses available today have no problem tracking the vast majority of subjects. Nobody is going to complain about faster focusing lenses, but the situations where it actually makes a difference to your keeper rate are not that common in my experience.
Here's a consecutive 7 shot burst of a swallow flying head-on towards the camera with my old 200-500, horrible harsh noon sunlight, and it had no problem keeping up. Obviously those conditions don't make for great photos by any means but it helps illustrate the point I'm trying to make. Keeping the bird in the frame mattered far more than the AF motor in the lens as it was plenty fast as long as I was doing my job:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tcvMwxR/0/9f0a17c3/X5/i-tcvMwxR-X5.jpgA theme I've noted elsewhere is that while you're showing strong results from your 200-500 tracking, others (myself included) have found it can't keep up with moving subjects. In fact, I'm trying to decide what to replace mine with in large part because of issues with tracking.
I can keep a subject in the frame. My Z8 can keep the green target lock indicator on the subject, and together I and my camera can keep the heron gliding across the water or the seagull coasting down for a landing or the eagle soaring through the air "is focus," but where the photos are concerned 80% are out of focus with the focal plane someplace where the bird wasn't at the time of the shutter release. I know I'm not the only one with this experience because in researching other lenses for potential purchase I came across a lot of people who said that they could never get BIF to track on their 200-500 and then when they got a 500pf with the same camera and the same user skill suddenly their BIF hit rate was 80-90%+.
I don't know why this dichotomy of experience is out there. Over on Steve Perry's site he replied to my post about this suggesting something wrong with the AF motors accuracy, which maybe makes sense but then again I can get in focus shots with it so it must be working as a general rule. I've also rented the Sigma sport to compare and found the tracking performance to instantly improve dramatically over my 200-500.If you're having tracking issues, especially in more "normal" situations rather than a torture test like Swallows flying head-on, it's almost always going to be technique or setting related. If one person is getting more out of a lens than someone else on the same camera, it's not likely to be the equipment's fault unless something is defective, which is rare but not unheard of. Especially with something like AF speed, that just isn't something that is typically affected by copy variation. I've used a few copies of the 200-500 and they've all performed broadly the same as far as I could tell.
If you're tracking movement perpendicular to the camera, the lens' AF motor is barely doing anything at all because the distance changes are so minor, so if you aren't getting sharp shots in that situation, it's definitely not the focus speed that is the issue. Fast movement coming towards the camera is the hardest for an AF system to deal with because the distance adjustments it has to make get exponentially larger as the subject approaches the MFD of the lens.
I've seen lots of great BIF shots taken with the 200-500 on these forums, I can't say I've noticed a theme where people were having trouble with it for BIF over the years. The lens having a slow-ish AF motor is definitely a theme, but the situations where that becomes a problem significantly affecting keeper rate are not very common in my experience.
Back to a comment I made in an earlier post, I've seen plenty of soft and/or out-of-focus BIF shots taken with flagship cameras along with 600/4 and 400/2.8 lenses - so given that the same dichotomy you are referencing exists even at the highest tiers of equipment, in my view that is compelling evidence that it's more likely to be a settings or technique issue. Nobody is shooting 100% keepers, especially with fast birds, but settings and technique are way more of a factor when the subject isn't easy to follow.
I'm using a Z9 but it has the same AF as your Z8 so there shouldn't be any difference at least in terms of the camera's ability. It's possible you have a defective 200-500 but the vast majority of the time these issues are setting or technique related. Without seeing the issue in person, all I can really suggest is trying another copy of 200-500 if possible and if you are getting the same results, then it's probably safe to rule out the lens as the issue.
The 180-600 definitely has a faster and more accurate AF motor than the 200-500, so if that's one area you're hoping for an improvement in, you can look forward to that.In a way I understand why it's so common, but I still think people are too quick to jump to blame the user anytime someone mentions or asks for help with a problem they're having on any of the various photography forums. Like I said, there's a theme out there that people switch to the 500pf or some other lens and their BIF photos start being in focus. It's the same user with the same technique and the settings on their camera.
In fact, in the current age of subject detection amd auto-everything I think it's even less likely that a person's problem is technique, but of course it is still possible. I don't know how we can say someone tracked poorly when tracking consists of doing nothing while the camera's AF follows the subject.
I apologize if I'm coming across too harshly to you, as it's not my intention. I just get a bit frustrated with how many times I've seen a person ask for help on one forum or another and the first 10 replies question everything about their basic ability or understanding, and especially when the comments raise things that the person clearly already addressed in their question.
In any case, like I said I rented a Sigma Sports after being frustrated with my 200-500. I instantly noticed two things: 1) the sport was far, far more demanding on technique than the Nikon on account of its dramatically greater weight and noticeably worse sterilization and 2) in spite of its much more difficult handling it was way, way easier to get good in focus shots of action and flight because the AF was much stickier and hung on the subjects far more reliably.
I was the same photographer with the same camera and settings. The hand holding and panning were a lot harder for me. But I, the same guy, could get the lens to track in ways my Nikkor never did.
I thought about paying the LensRentals guys to just keep that lens, but ultimately I didn't for two reasons. One is I was waiting to see what the Nikon 200-600 would be. The second is that every time I went out with the Sigma, even as I sat or stood there and got hit after hit without much effort, I kept wishing I was shooting with my Nikkor because it was much sharper than the Sports. Optically, anyways, I won the sample lottery with the lens.
The next thing I considered was just what you said: that the lens was defective and could use repair. Ultimately I decided that was unlikely. Why? Because I started searching forums and videos and reviews and I found a pretty healthy contingent of people with similar experiences with their 200-500s: sharp enough, but very poor results with action and flight, results which improved dramatically with the use of a 500pf or a Sigma or some other Nikon prime. Could all of these be down to technique? Sure, if they weren't suddenly getting good results with different lenses. You don't switch from a Nikkor 200-500mm to a Sigma Sports or a Nikon 500 f/4 or some other monster lens and start getting more well focused shots if your technique is poor.
The best I could figure, then, is some kind ofnsample variation that affects AF performance. I suppose it may be possible if the AF motors don't move with the same level of accuracy or responsiveness from one unit to the other. Or maybe not. All I know is that it doesn't make sense to put the same person behind the camera with one lens and get poor results and another and get good ones and have it not be the lens.I get what you're trying to say, but in my mind what it doesn't address is how so many people are not having issues, which based on all the fantastic images posted here and elsewhere, seems to be the majority of users. The other thing it doesn't address is why some people are seemingly having the exact same issues with the highest tiers of equipment featuring the fastest available AF motors. If one person is having issues and the other is not, the burden of proof would be on the person who is having the issue because the person not...Show more →
Well, I don't think it has to be too complicated a question why some people may see different performance. Sample variation does exist, and I think there are ways we can conceive of that it could affect things like AF performance as well as optical quality. I tend to trust people's reports, especially when we can see from their work that they do have some sense of what they're doing. If some people say their 200-500 can't track well, I believe them - in particular when the experience echos my own.
Remember that I've had much more consistent results from the Sigma Sports, a lens that doesn't do everything better. It does mkst things worse, in fact: handling and stabilization for sure, IQ in the view of many. Yet it definitely does AF better and the way I was able to photograph BIF with it vs. my Nikon spoke for itself.
You mention two of my comments. First, you asked about the sorts of birds I was talking about. I've had the most experience with heron and seagulls - not much else typically easy to find in my area. I agree with you that these should be easy for an AF if they're gliding across the frame- and that's part of why it's been so frustrating. I can pan with the bird well. I can keep it in the center of the frame. With my DSLR I could keep the group area on it. With my Z8 the subject tracking stays solid green on the bird as I follow it across the water, but then the focus is poor, almost lagging. With the Sigma it was much harder to pan, but I did and the way the green box stayed on the bird was just more smooth, almost as if the EVF refresh rate were higher, though it wasn't. The shots were in focus. I can put an old inexpensive DX AF-P tele on there and like the Sigma it just feels smoother and I get more in focus.
You also mentioned my comments about skill regarding things like eye tracking. I just disagree that there's any question of skill involved with putting a camera on a tripod and holding the AF on button while someone walks around in the frame. In that case the camera/lens AF is either staying on subject or it's not.
Here's a brief story in relation to both those points. In the past month I got a 70-180, my first native Z lens. It's AF seems to be described by most as okay but not great. I was immediately impressed with how much stickier it felt than the 200-500. I started taking it on walks with the family in the evenings. When my kids wanted me to run around, my wife would hold it. She's never really used my camera's but does understand photography basics. One night she tried to photograph the kids and got a bunch of almost entirely out of focus shots. She asked why and I had to teach her back button focus. The next evening she took it again in very dark conditions - I had auto ISOs of 16000 - and got almost entirely perfectly focused shots, right on the eye, of me and the kids running around very quickly past sunset. She held the camera out in front of her and looked at the LCD like a cell phone with both hands on the body, the lens waving around. She also commented that that lens, praised for its weight, was very heavy This is not a VR lens and her shutter speed was high enough in the near dark that there's not many examples of motion blur.
I've not gotten even half that hit rate in the mid-day sun photographing the kids at 200mm on the 200-500. It just won't stay on their eyes firmly enough, and when it does there are a lot of out of focus shots. Here's someone with almost no knowledge of the system, very poor technique, who isn't comfortable with/used to even a lightweight setup photographing difficult, erratic subjects in awful light on a lens with no VR and the lens just works and nails almost every shot.
Don't misunderstand: my wife has a greater artistic aptitude than I and would easily become a master if she tried, but clearly she isn't right now. I just don't think there's a huge question of experience or technique when it comes to basic things like getting in focus shots of eyes on a camera that automatically focuses on eyes. Likewise, when the camera is automatically focusing on a slow flying bird, to a large degree the photographer has to trust the camera to get the focus. There are things you can do to give it a better chance or to mess it up, or to take matters into your own hands when it's having a hard time, but ultimately when a bunch of lenses give you good results and one doesn't, it is what it is.
SCoombs wrote
CanadaMark wrote
SCoombs wrote
CanadaMark wrote
armd wrote
One has to interpret the results for what they are - static targets at a fixed distance - and Steve does his best to place his findings in context. Overall, I think the conclusions were very favorable and for one who was on the fence between it and a 100-400 should be very pleased for longer FL's (as most WL shooters prefer). That it performed as well against the Sony was also favorable though the AF speed was concerning. When I shot Sony, the 200-600 struggled on anything less than an a9(ii) or a1. So, it is difficult to know how the 180-600 will perform on bodies other than a z8/z9. I get that it's a test YouTubers like to do because it's something they can assign a number to, but it's not a good representation of what AF speed is like under typical use and is often misleading.We can't compare lenses that way because not only do we not know the physical travel of the focusing group, but not every lens has the same MFD or magnification at MFD, all of which affects focus speed. There is no real world shooting scenario I can think of that requires a MFD to infinity rack (or vise versa), at least in the overwhelming majority of of cases. On top of all that, mirrorless camera autofocus in general has a hard time with extreme distance changes, so it's not representative of anything you would actually do in the field under normal use.
A far more useful test would be perhaps how fast the lens can go from a focus distance of 10ft to 20ft or 30ft to 20ft or something like that. Another more useful test would be from infinity back down to mid-focus, simulating a situation where the subject was lost and the faster the camera can snap back, the better. The only thing that really matters is how well the lens can track movement and how quickly the lens can snap onto target (or back onto a target), both of which are going to be much, much quicker than how fast a lens can travel through it's entire AF range.
Lens AF speed is also not perfectly linear, so a lens that might take longer to rack from MFD to infinity might focus faster in it's midrange than a lens that is actually moving slower but can move through it's full AF range in a shorter time because it has less physical distance to travel. It's not nearly as simple as just measuring the time it takes to travel through the full range. The camera body matters too, though I think less than it used to as the stepper motors don't seem to need nearly as much current the big ring motors did in older lenses.
I've shot with the Sony 200-600 many times and I cannot tell any material AF speed difference compared to my 180-600 under any typical scenario. Both are fast enough to shoot pretty much anything with a very high keeper rate. I think most people would agree the F mount 200-500 was not a very fast focusing lens, and the AF motor in that lens can keep up with Swallows, so the fact that it's the slowest (by far) of all the lenses in question to rack between MFD to infinity is really only a problem if that is for some reason the way you use your camera in the field. I think the point of diminishing return for AF speed is a lot lower than many people realize and as long as you can keep the AF on target (a much bigger factor IMO), most lenses available today have no problem tracking the vast majority of subjects. Nobody is going to complain about faster focusing lenses, but the situations where it actually makes a difference to your keeper rate are not that common in my experience.
Here's a consecutive 7 shot burst of a swallow flying head-on towards the camera with my old 200-500, horrible harsh noon sunlight, and it had no problem keeping up. Obviously those conditions don't make for great photos by any means but it helps illustrate the point I'm trying to make. Keeping the bird in the frame mattered far more than the AF motor in the lens as it was plenty fast as long as I was doing my job:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tcvMwxR/0/9f0a17c3/X5/i-tcvMwxR-X5.jpg
I can keep a subject in the frame. My Z8 can keep the green target lock indicator on the subject, and together I and my camera can keep the heron gliding across the water or the seagull coasting down for a landing or the eagle soaring through the air "is focus," but where the photos are concerned 80% are out of focus with the focal plane someplace where the bird wasn't at the time of the shutter release. I know I'm not the only one with this experience because in researching other lenses for potential purchase I came across a lot of people who said that they could never get BIF to track on their 200-500 and then when they got a 500pf with the same camera and the same user skill suddenly their BIF hit rate was 80-90%+.
I don't know why this dichotomy of experience is out there. Over on Steve Perry's site he replied to my post about this suggesting something wrong with the AF motors accuracy, which maybe makes sense but then again I can get in focus shots with it so it must be working as a general rule. I've also rented the Sigma sport to compare and found the tracking performance to instantly improve dramatically over my 200-500.
If you're tracking movement perpendicular to the camera, the lens' AF motor is barely doing anything at all because the distance changes are so minor, so if you aren't getting sharp shots in that situation, it's definitely not the focus speed that is the issue. Fast movement coming towards the camera is the hardest for an AF system to deal with because the distance adjustments it has to make get exponentially larger as the subject approaches the MFD of the lens.
I've seen lots of great BIF shots taken with the 200-500 on these forums, I can't say I've noticed a theme where people were having trouble with it for BIF over the years. The lens having a slow-ish AF motor is definitely a theme, but the situations where that becomes a problem significantly affecting keeper rate are not very common in my experience.
Back to a comment I made in an earlier post, I've seen plenty of soft and/or out-of-focus BIF shots taken with flagship cameras along with 600/4 and 400/2.8 lenses - so given that the same dichotomy you are referencing exists even at the highest tiers of equipment, in my view that is compelling evidence that it's more likely to be a settings or technique issue. Nobody is shooting 100% keepers, especially with fast birds, but settings and technique are way more of a factor when the subject isn't easy to follow.
I'm using a Z9 but it has the same AF as your Z8 so there shouldn't be any difference at least in terms of the camera's ability. It's possible you have a defective 200-500 but the vast majority of the time these issues are setting or technique related. Without seeing the issue in person, all I can really suggest is trying another copy of 200-500 if possible and if you are getting the same results, then it's probably safe to rule out the lens as the issue.
The 180-600 definitely has a faster and more accurate AF motor than the 200-500, so if that's one area you're hoping for an improvement in, you can look forward to that.
In fact, in the current age of subject detection amd auto-everything I think it's even less likely that a person's problem is technique, but of course it is still possible. I don't know how we can say someone tracked poorly when tracking consists of doing nothing while the camera's AF follows the subject.
I apologize if I'm coming across too harshly to you, as it's not my intention. I just get a bit frustrated with how many times I've seen a person ask for help on one forum or another and the first 10 replies question everything about their basic ability or understanding, and especially when the comments raise things that the person clearly already addressed in their question.
In any case, like I said I rented a Sigma Sports after being frustrated with my 200-500. I instantly noticed two things: 1) the sport was far, far more demanding on technique than the Nikon on account of its dramatically greater weight and noticeably worse sterilization and 2) in spite of its much more difficult handling it was way, way easier to get good in focus shots of action and flight because the AF was much stickier and hung on the subjects far more reliably.
I was the same photographer with the same camera and settings. The hand holding and panning were a lot harder for me. But I, the same guy, could get the lens to track in ways my Nikkor never did.
I thought about paying the LensRentals guys to just keep that lens, but ultimately I didn't for two reasons. One is I was waiting to see what the Nikon 200-600 would be. The second is that every time I went out with the Sigma, even as I sat or stood there and got hit after hit without much effort, I kept wishing I was shooting with my Nikkor because it was much sharper than the Sports. Optically, anyways, I won the sample lottery with the lens.
The next thing I considered was just what you said: that the lens was defective and could use repair. Ultimately I decided that was unlikely. Why? Because I started searching forums and videos and reviews and I found a pretty healthy contingent of people with similar experiences with their 200-500s: sharp enough, but very poor results with action and flight, results which improved dramatically with the use of a 500pf or a Sigma or some other Nikon prime. Could all of these be down to technique? Sure, if they weren't suddenly getting good results with different lenses. You don't switch from a Nikkor 200-500mm to a Sigma Sports or a Nikon 500 f/4 or some other monster lens and start getting more well focused shots if your technique is poor.
The best I could figure, then, is some kind ofnsample variation that affects AF performance. I suppose it may be possible if the AF motors don't move with the same level of accuracy or responsiveness from one unit to the other. Or maybe not. All I know is that it doesn't make sense to put the same person behind the camera with one lens and get poor results and another and get good ones and have it not be the lens.
Well, I don't think it has to be too complicated a question why some people may see different performance. Sample variation does exist, and I think there are ways we can conceive of that it could affect things like AF performance as well as optical quality. I tend to trust people's reports, especially when we can see from their work that they do have some sense of what they're doing. If some people say their 200-500 can't track well, I believe them - in particular when the experience echos my own.
Remember that I've had much more consistent results from the Sigma Sports, a lens that doesn't do everything better. It does mkst things worse, in fact: handling and stabilization for sure, IQ in the view of many. Yet it definitely does AF better and the way I was able to photograph BIF with it vs. my Nikon spoke for itself.
You mention two of my comments. First, you asked about the sorts of birds I was talking about. I've had the most experience with heron and seagulls - not much else typically easy to find in my area. I agree with you that these should be easy for an AF if they're gliding across the frame- and that's part of why it's been so frustrating. I can pan with the bird well. I can keep it in the center of the frame. With my DSLR I could keep the group area on it. With my Z8 the subject tracking stays solid green on the bird as I follow it across the water, but then the focus is poor, almost lagging. With the Sigma it was much harder to pan, but I did and the way the green box stayed on the bird was just more smooth, almost as if the EVF refresh rate were higher, though it wasn't. The shots were in focus. I can put an old inexpensive DX AF-P tele on there and like the Sigma it just feels smoother and I get more in focus.
You also mentioned my comments about skill regarding things like eye tracking. I just disagree that there's any question of skill involved with putting a camera on a tripod and holding the AF on button while someone walks around in the frame. In that case the camera/lens AF is either staying on subject or it's not.
Here's a brief story in relation to both those points. In the past month I got a 70-180, my first native Z lens. It's AF seems to be described by most as okay but not great. I was immediately impressed with how much stickier it felt than the 200-500. I started taking it on walks with the family in the evenings. When my kids wanted me to run around, my wife would hold it. She's never really used my camera's but does understand photography basics. One night she tried to photograph the kids and got a bunch of almost entirely out of focus shots. She asked why and I had to teach her back button focus. The next evening she took it again in very dark conditions - I had auto ISOs of 16000 - and got almost entirely perfectly focused shots, right on the eye, of me and the kids running around very quickly past sunset. She held the camera out in front of her and looked at the LCD like a cell phone with both hands on the body, the lens waving around. She also commented that that lens, praised for its weight, was very heavy This is not a VR lens and her shutter speed was high enough in the near dark that there's not many examples of motion blur.
I've not gotten even half that hit rate in the mid-day sun photographing the kids at 200mm on the 200-500. It just won't stay on their eyes firmly enough, and when it does there are a lot of out of focus shots. Here's someone with almost no knowledge of the system, very poor technique, who isn't comfortable with/used to even a lightweight setup photographing difficult, erratic subjects in awful light on a lens with no VR and the lens just works and nails almost every shot.
Don't misunderstand: my wife has a greater artistic aptitude than I and would easily become a master if she tried, but clearly she isn't right now. I just don't think there's a huge question of experience or technique when it comes to basic things like getting in focus shots of eyes on a camera that automatically focuses on eyes. Likewise, when the camera is automatically focusing on a slow flying bird, to a large degree the photographer has to trust the camera to get the focus. There are things you can do to give it a better chance or to mess it up, or to take matters into your own hands when it's having a hard time, but ultimately when a bunch of lenses give you good results and one doesn't, it is what it is.
Sep 19, 2023 at 03:04 PM
p.12 #16Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
CanadaMark wrote:
I know you guys already know this. Why not just ignore him?I only respond to help curb the spread of misinformation, which I feel still has some value if people who aren't familiar with the motives of various members end up reading this site and take it as gospel. For example, saying Steve Perry is not reputable I feel deserves a reply, especially when not accompanied with a suggestion for a better alternative. We all know that isn't true, but others reading or who only visit these forums occasionally may not. Saying he's unreliable when his results match every other controlled/professional test I have seen including my own (more limited) testing,...Show more →
I always agree with your points Mark. And I also always agree with Steve Spencer. And that goes for 1bwana1 too. And the responses that you three give are *always* polite and intelligent.......always.
My opinion on this: Duncang *already knows* that Steve Perry has an impeccable reputation. Duncang knows that what Duncang is saying is simply not true. But he would rather stir the pot.... play games. Why not? This is the internet where people dare say rude things and they get away with it.
bs kite wrote
Suggestion: Why not either hide Duncang or simply do not respond. Obviously he has no intention of saying anything plausible. He just wants to have fun derailing the thread.I know you guys already know this. Why not just ignore him?
I always agree with your points Mark. And I also always agree with Steve Spencer. And that goes for 1bwana1 too. And the responses that you three give are *always* polite and intelligent.......always.
My opinion on this: Duncang *already knows* that Steve Perry has an impeccable reputation. Duncang knows that what Duncang is saying is simply not true. But he would rather stir the pot.... play games. Why not? This is the internet where people dare say rude things and they get away with it.
Sep 19, 2023 at 03:35 PM
p.12 #17Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
As you guys agree, this is an exciting lens. The only question I have about it (oops) is weight. My 2-5 is just too heavy and the 180-600 is only 1/2 pound lighter.
My questions are only to those who own and shoot this lens. Does the internal zoom make it seem even lighter? How do you feel about the weight? Thanks
There, I too am guilty of keeping the comments/questions going
Robert
) is weight. My 2-5 is just too heavy and the 180-600 is only 1/2 pound lighter. My questions are only to those who own and shoot this lens. Does the internal zoom make it seem even lighter? How do you feel about the weight? Thanks
There, I too am guilty of keeping the comments/questions going
Robert
Sep 19, 2023 at 03:51 PM
p.12 #18Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
SCoombs wrote:
I get that it's a test YouTubers like to do because it's something they can assign a number to, but it's not a good representation of what AF speed is like under typical use and is often misleading.
We can't compare lenses that way because not only do we not know the physical travel of the focusing group, but not every lens has the same MFD or magnification at MFD, all of which affects focus speed. There is no real world shooting scenario I can think of that requires a MFD to infinity rack (or vise versa), at least in the overwhelming majority of of cases. On top of all that, mirrorless camera autofocus in general has a hard time with extreme distance changes, so it's not representative of anything you would actually do in the field under normal use.
A far more useful test would be perhaps how fast the lens can go from a focus distance of 10ft to 20ft or 30ft to 20ft or something like that. Another more useful test would be from infinity back down to mid-focus, simulating a situation where the subject was lost and the faster the camera can snap back, the better. The only thing that really matters is how well the lens can track movement and how quickly the lens can snap onto target (or back onto a target), both of which are going to be much, much quicker than how fast a lens can travel through it's entire AF range.
Lens AF speed is also not perfectly linear, so a lens that might take longer to rack from MFD to infinity might focus faster in it's midrange than a lens that is actually moving slower but can move through it's full AF range in a shorter time because it has less physical distance to travel. It's not nearly as simple as just measuring the time it takes to travel through the full range. The camera body matters too, though I think less than it used to as the stepper motors don't seem to need nearly as much current the big ring motors did in older lenses.
I've shot with the Sony 200-600 many times and I cannot tell any material AF speed difference compared to my 180-600 under any typical scenario. Both are fast enough to shoot pretty much anything with a very high keeper rate. I think most people would agree the F mount 200-500 was not a very fast focusing lens, and the AF motor in that lens can keep up with Swallows, so the fact that it's the slowest (by far) of all the lenses in question to rack between MFD to infinity is really only a problem if that is for some reason the way you use your camera in the field. I think the point of diminishing return for AF speed is a lot lower than many people realize and as long as you can keep the AF on target (a much bigger factor IMO), most lenses available today have no problem tracking the vast majority of subjects. Nobody is going to complain about faster focusing lenses, but the situations where it actually makes a difference to your keeper rate are not that common in my experience.
Here's a consecutive 7 shot burst of a swallow flying head-on towards the camera with my old 200-500, horrible harsh noon sunlight, and it had no problem keeping up. Obviously those conditions don't make for great photos by any means but it helps illustrate the point I'm trying to make. Keeping the bird in the frame mattered far more than the AF motor in the lens as it was plenty fast as long as I was doing my job:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tcvMwxR/0/9f0a17c3/X5/i-tcvMwxR-X5.jpgA theme I've noted elsewhere is that while you're showing strong results from your 200-500 tracking, others (myself included) have found it can't keep up with moving subjects. In fact, I'm trying to decide what to replace mine with in large part because of issues with tracking.
I can keep a subject in the frame. My Z8 can keep the green target lock indicator on the subject, and together I and my camera can keep the heron gliding across the water or the seagull coasting down for a landing or the eagle soaring through the air "is focus," but where the photos are concerned 80% are out of focus with the focal plane someplace where the bird wasn't at the time of the shutter release. I know I'm not the only one with this experience because in researching other lenses for potential purchase I came across a lot of people who said that they could never get BIF to track on their 200-500 and then when they got a 500pf with the same camera and the same user skill suddenly their BIF hit rate was 80-90%+.
I don't know why this dichotomy of experience is out there. Over on Steve Perry's site he replied to my post about this suggesting something wrong with the AF motors accuracy, which maybe makes sense but then again I can get in focus shots with it so it must be working as a general rule. I've also rented the Sigma sport to compare and found the tracking performance to instantly improve dramatically over my 200-500.If you're having tracking issues, especially in more "normal" situations rather than a torture test like Swallows flying head-on, it's almost always going to be technique or setting related. If one person is getting more out of a lens than someone else on the same camera, it's not likely to be the equipment's fault unless something is defective, which is rare but not unheard of. Especially with something like AF speed, that just isn't something that is typically affected by copy variation. I've used a few copies of the 200-500 and they've all performed broadly the same as far as I could tell.
If you're tracking movement perpendicular to the camera, the lens' AF motor is barely doing anything at all because the distance changes are so minor, so if you aren't getting sharp shots in that situation, it's definitely not the focus speed that is the issue. Fast movement coming towards the camera is the hardest for an AF system to deal with because the distance adjustments it has to make get exponentially larger as the subject approaches the MFD of the lens.
I've seen lots of great BIF shots taken with the 200-500 on these forums, I can't say I've noticed a theme where people were having trouble with it for BIF over the years. The lens having a slow-ish AF motor is definitely a theme, but the situations where that becomes a problem significantly affecting keeper rate are not very common in my experience.
Back to a comment I made in an earlier post, I've seen plenty of soft and/or out-of-focus BIF shots taken with flagship cameras along with 600/4 and 400/2.8 lenses - so given that the same dichotomy you are referencing exists even at the highest tiers of equipment, in my view that is compelling evidence that it's more likely to be a settings or technique issue. Nobody is shooting 100% keepers, especially with fast birds, but settings and technique are way more of a factor when the subject isn't easy to follow.
I'm using a Z9 but it has the same AF as your Z8 so there shouldn't be any difference at least in terms of the camera's ability. It's possible you have a defective 200-500 but the vast majority of the time these issues are setting or technique related. Without seeing the issue in person, all I can really suggest is trying another copy of 200-500 if possible and if you are getting the same results, then it's probably safe to rule out the lens as the issue.
The 180-600 definitely has a faster and more accurate AF motor than the 200-500, so if that's one area you're hoping for an improvement in, you can look forward to that.In a way I understand why it's so common, but I still think people are too quick to jump to blame the user anytime someone mentions or asks for help with a problem they're having on any of the various photography forums. Like I said, there's a theme out there that people switch to the 500pf or some other lens and their BIF photos start being in focus. It's the same user with the same technique and the settings on their camera.
In fact, in the current age of subject detection amd auto-everything I think it's even less likely that a person's problem is technique, but of course it is still possible. I don't know how we can say someone tracked poorly when tracking consists of doing nothing while the camera's AF follows the subject.
I apologize if I'm coming across too harshly to you, as it's not my intention. I just get a bit frustrated with how many times I've seen a person ask for help on one forum or another and the first 10 replies question everything about their basic ability or understanding, and especially when the comments raise things that the person clearly already addressed in their question.
In any case, like I said I rented a Sigma Sports after being frustrated with my 200-500. I instantly noticed two things: 1) the sport was far, far more demanding on technique than the Nikon on account of its dramatically greater weight and noticeably worse sterilization and 2) in spite of its much more difficult handling it was way, way easier to get good in focus shots of action and flight because the AF was much stickier and hung on the subjects far more reliably.
I was the same photographer with the same camera and settings. The hand holding and panning were a lot harder for me. But I, the same guy, could get the lens to track in ways my Nikkor never did.
I thought about paying the LensRentals guys to just keep that lens, but ultimately I didn't for two reasons. One is I was waiting to see what the Nikon 200-600 would be. The second is that every time I went out with the Sigma, even as I sat or stood there and got hit after hit without much effort, I kept wishing I was shooting with my Nikkor because it was much sharper than the Sports. Optically, anyways, I won the sample lottery with the lens.
The next thing I considered was just what you said: that the lens was defective and could use repair. Ultimately I decided that was unlikely. Why? Because I started searching forums and videos and reviews and I found a pretty healthy contingent of people with similar experiences with their 200-500s: sharp enough, but very poor results with action and flight, results which improved dramatically with the use of a 500pf or a Sigma or some other Nikon prime. Could all of these be down to technique? Sure, if they weren't suddenly getting good results with different lenses. You don't switch from a Nikkor 200-500mm to a Sigma Sports or a Nikon 500 f/4 or some other monster lens and start getting more well focused shots if your technique is poor.
The best I could figure, then, is some kind ofnsample variation that affects AF performance. I suppose it may be possible if the AF motors don't move with the same level of accuracy or responsiveness from one unit to the other. Or maybe not. All I know is that it doesn't make sense to put the same person behind the camera with one lens and get poor results and another and get good ones and have it not be the lens.I get what you're trying to say, but in my mind what it doesn't address is how so many people are not having issues, which based on all the fantastic images posted here and elsewhere, seems to be the majority of users. The other thing it doesn't address is why some people are seemingly having the exact same issues with the highest tiers of equipment featuring the fastest available AF motors. If one person is having issues and the other is not, the burden of proof would be on the person who is having the issue because the person not having the issue has already demonstrated the product is capable of performing in a certain way. I respect your opinion that people can be too fast to blame the user, but my counterpoint would be that I think the human factor is often underestimated, especially in a realm were the tiniest things can make big difference, and people in general are naturally resistant to considering themselves as part of the problem - even more so if they have spent a lot of money. In my experience, the user is most often the problem, and that includes my own problems The fact of the matter is that defective gear is extremely rare and BIF is one of the most challenging types of photography. Good long lens technique and a deep understanding of the complicated mirrorless AF systems is not something anyone learns overnight.
The other thing that makes me skeptical that it's the lens (assuming it's working properly) is the situations you described you were having issues in. The words you used to describe the situations were things like "gliding across", "coasting down" and "soaring through the air". All of those scenarios sound like larger, slow moving birds with movement that is typically perpendicular to the camera - in those situations the AF motor is barely even working because the distance changes are quite minor. Please feel free to correct me as I am making an assumption there. There aren't many camera/lens combinations that can't handle that kind of movement and those types of scenarios would not be a challenge whatsoever for a Z8 + 200-500. The other comment you made that gave me pause was "I don't know how we can say someone tracked poorly when tracking consists of doing nothing while the camera's AF follows the subject.". If it were that easy, nothing would ever be OOF and we'd all be submitting our images to NatGeo. AI subject detection is not a substitute for skill, and it doesn't mean you can be lazy tracking your subjects or with your technique. It requires even more technical knowledge of the camera's AF for best results. I also think that if someone is expecting the camera to more/less do everything for them, they are more likely to be disappointed and are going to be far less likely to consider themselves as part of the problem.
And don't get me wrong, I am not saying the 200-500 is a very fast focusing lens nor am I saying it would be my first choice for shooting fast action, but a great deal of proof exists that it is capable of keeping up to some of the most demanding action subjects, and I think most would agree it can very easily keep up to perpendicular BIF or slower moving birds. Once there is proof of concept, if someone else can't achieve the same thing, I think it's reasonable to have a default assumption that the user is the issue (generally speaking, I don't mean you personally). It would then be up to the person having the issue to show that something else is wrong, and I have yet to see any evidence that suggests there is meaningful sample variation in the AF performance of the 200-500. If it turns out that the lens is defective, then of course we know the issue is likely not with the user/settings/technique.
Whenever a performance metric is being evaluated that also includes a massive human variable, the best results are the ones we generally accept. To use yet another car analogy, if a particular vehicle can go around a track in, say, one minute with a professional driver, if a customer buys the same vehicle and can't achieve the same time, nobody is going to think the vehicle is defective. Now, put that same customer in a car that does everything better, and they might be able to get a similar lap time to the professional driver in the lesser vehicle for any number of reasons - maybe not so different to some people needing a 500PF to get similar results that others get from a 200-500, especially if one is expecting the gear to do all the work. Maybe switching to a 500PF does improve keepers for some people, but how do you determine that it's due to the AF motor when so many other variables are also changing at the same time? Maybe the increased keeper rate is because the lens is so much easier to hold/maneuver and has much better ergonomics than the 200-500.
Speaking of the 500PF, I've been around quite a while and I've never noticed a theme of people switching from the 200-500 to a 500PF due to AF issues. The 200-500 is big, heavy, poorly balanced, and the zoom ring has way too much travel - the people I know who made the switch to the 500PF were either for those reasons or for better performance with teleconverters. I don't doubt that some people have switched specifically due to perceived AF issues, but what is the scale of this theme? 5 people? 10? 20? How many individual accounts have you read about? Out of tens of thousands of lenses sold, that number would have to be pretty big to suggest any kind of widespread issue. Nikon is also hypersensitive of any issues and regularly releases voluntary service advisories for things the internet isn't even aware of until Nikon reveals it. The 200-500 has been in use since 2015 and I think if there was any kind of well known or widespread issue with the AF performance it would have been addressed by now. Do you zoom while shooting? If so, there is a firmware update for the 200-500 that addressed an issue where the AF would occasionally fail to operate while using the zoom ring at the same time. As far as I know this only affected early units (~2015) but it's something to be aware of.
At the end of the day, you need to use what works for you, regardless of the reason. If that isn't the 200-500, then get something else
Lucky for you the 180-600 is a worthy successor, and this thread has plenty of evidence that it is performing at or above expectations, so if you like that style of lens you are unlikely to be disappointed by it.Well, I don't think it has to be too complicated a question why some people may see different performance. Sample variation does exist, and I think there are ways we can conceive of that it could affect things like AF performance as well as optical quality. I tend to trust people's reports, especially when we can see from their work that they do have some sense of what they're doing. If some people say their 200-500 can't track well, I believe them - in particular when the experience echos my own.
Remember that I've had much more consistent results from the...Show more →
I understand what you are saying. But it has been my experience that different systems respond at different levels and in different ways. Without trying to pass judgement on which of any system is superior I will make this observation.
The way you are looking at expecting the camera system to just follow the eyes/subject around is more aligned with the way the Sony systems tend to work. You can get an amazing hit rate with pretty much any lens and without much input from the user. Sony seems to have designed some AF modes to optimize this type of experience. You can absolutely achieve similar hit rates and IQ results with the Nikon Z system. But it generally takes a bit more management by the user. This extends to different lenses (especially when including not native Z lenses), different subjects, and different subjects.
Keep in mind, that I am speaking in very broad and imprecise terms. These are just my observations from using both systems myself, and interacting with my friends who shoot either or both systems.
CanadaMark wrote
SCoombs wrote
CanadaMark wrote
SCoombs wrote
CanadaMark wrote
AF speed tests done by racking the AF from MFD to infinity are rather pointless so there's nothing to be concerned about, at least based on those results. I get that it's a test YouTubers like to do because it's something they can assign a number to, but it's not a good representation of what AF speed is like under typical use and is often misleading.We can't compare lenses that way because not only do we not know the physical travel of the focusing group, but not every lens has the same MFD or magnification at MFD, all of which affects focus speed. There is no real world shooting scenario I can think of that requires a MFD to infinity rack (or vise versa), at least in the overwhelming majority of of cases. On top of all that, mirrorless camera autofocus in general has a hard time with extreme distance changes, so it's not representative of anything you would actually do in the field under normal use.
A far more useful test would be perhaps how fast the lens can go from a focus distance of 10ft to 20ft or 30ft to 20ft or something like that. Another more useful test would be from infinity back down to mid-focus, simulating a situation where the subject was lost and the faster the camera can snap back, the better. The only thing that really matters is how well the lens can track movement and how quickly the lens can snap onto target (or back onto a target), both of which are going to be much, much quicker than how fast a lens can travel through it's entire AF range.
Lens AF speed is also not perfectly linear, so a lens that might take longer to rack from MFD to infinity might focus faster in it's midrange than a lens that is actually moving slower but can move through it's full AF range in a shorter time because it has less physical distance to travel. It's not nearly as simple as just measuring the time it takes to travel through the full range. The camera body matters too, though I think less than it used to as the stepper motors don't seem to need nearly as much current the big ring motors did in older lenses.
I've shot with the Sony 200-600 many times and I cannot tell any material AF speed difference compared to my 180-600 under any typical scenario. Both are fast enough to shoot pretty much anything with a very high keeper rate. I think most people would agree the F mount 200-500 was not a very fast focusing lens, and the AF motor in that lens can keep up with Swallows, so the fact that it's the slowest (by far) of all the lenses in question to rack between MFD to infinity is really only a problem if that is for some reason the way you use your camera in the field. I think the point of diminishing return for AF speed is a lot lower than many people realize and as long as you can keep the AF on target (a much bigger factor IMO), most lenses available today have no problem tracking the vast majority of subjects. Nobody is going to complain about faster focusing lenses, but the situations where it actually makes a difference to your keeper rate are not that common in my experience.
Here's a consecutive 7 shot burst of a swallow flying head-on towards the camera with my old 200-500, horrible harsh noon sunlight, and it had no problem keeping up. Obviously those conditions don't make for great photos by any means but it helps illustrate the point I'm trying to make. Keeping the bird in the frame mattered far more than the AF motor in the lens as it was plenty fast as long as I was doing my job:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tcvMwxR/0/9f0a17c3/X5/i-tcvMwxR-X5.jpg
I can keep a subject in the frame. My Z8 can keep the green target lock indicator on the subject, and together I and my camera can keep the heron gliding across the water or the seagull coasting down for a landing or the eagle soaring through the air "is focus," but where the photos are concerned 80% are out of focus with the focal plane someplace where the bird wasn't at the time of the shutter release. I know I'm not the only one with this experience because in researching other lenses for potential purchase I came across a lot of people who said that they could never get BIF to track on their 200-500 and then when they got a 500pf with the same camera and the same user skill suddenly their BIF hit rate was 80-90%+.
I don't know why this dichotomy of experience is out there. Over on Steve Perry's site he replied to my post about this suggesting something wrong with the AF motors accuracy, which maybe makes sense but then again I can get in focus shots with it so it must be working as a general rule. I've also rented the Sigma sport to compare and found the tracking performance to instantly improve dramatically over my 200-500.
If you're tracking movement perpendicular to the camera, the lens' AF motor is barely doing anything at all because the distance changes are so minor, so if you aren't getting sharp shots in that situation, it's definitely not the focus speed that is the issue. Fast movement coming towards the camera is the hardest for an AF system to deal with because the distance adjustments it has to make get exponentially larger as the subject approaches the MFD of the lens.
I've seen lots of great BIF shots taken with the 200-500 on these forums, I can't say I've noticed a theme where people were having trouble with it for BIF over the years. The lens having a slow-ish AF motor is definitely a theme, but the situations where that becomes a problem significantly affecting keeper rate are not very common in my experience.
Back to a comment I made in an earlier post, I've seen plenty of soft and/or out-of-focus BIF shots taken with flagship cameras along with 600/4 and 400/2.8 lenses - so given that the same dichotomy you are referencing exists even at the highest tiers of equipment, in my view that is compelling evidence that it's more likely to be a settings or technique issue. Nobody is shooting 100% keepers, especially with fast birds, but settings and technique are way more of a factor when the subject isn't easy to follow.
I'm using a Z9 but it has the same AF as your Z8 so there shouldn't be any difference at least in terms of the camera's ability. It's possible you have a defective 200-500 but the vast majority of the time these issues are setting or technique related. Without seeing the issue in person, all I can really suggest is trying another copy of 200-500 if possible and if you are getting the same results, then it's probably safe to rule out the lens as the issue.
The 180-600 definitely has a faster and more accurate AF motor than the 200-500, so if that's one area you're hoping for an improvement in, you can look forward to that.
In fact, in the current age of subject detection amd auto-everything I think it's even less likely that a person's problem is technique, but of course it is still possible. I don't know how we can say someone tracked poorly when tracking consists of doing nothing while the camera's AF follows the subject.
I apologize if I'm coming across too harshly to you, as it's not my intention. I just get a bit frustrated with how many times I've seen a person ask for help on one forum or another and the first 10 replies question everything about their basic ability or understanding, and especially when the comments raise things that the person clearly already addressed in their question.
In any case, like I said I rented a Sigma Sports after being frustrated with my 200-500. I instantly noticed two things: 1) the sport was far, far more demanding on technique than the Nikon on account of its dramatically greater weight and noticeably worse sterilization and 2) in spite of its much more difficult handling it was way, way easier to get good in focus shots of action and flight because the AF was much stickier and hung on the subjects far more reliably.
I was the same photographer with the same camera and settings. The hand holding and panning were a lot harder for me. But I, the same guy, could get the lens to track in ways my Nikkor never did.
I thought about paying the LensRentals guys to just keep that lens, but ultimately I didn't for two reasons. One is I was waiting to see what the Nikon 200-600 would be. The second is that every time I went out with the Sigma, even as I sat or stood there and got hit after hit without much effort, I kept wishing I was shooting with my Nikkor because it was much sharper than the Sports. Optically, anyways, I won the sample lottery with the lens.
The next thing I considered was just what you said: that the lens was defective and could use repair. Ultimately I decided that was unlikely. Why? Because I started searching forums and videos and reviews and I found a pretty healthy contingent of people with similar experiences with their 200-500s: sharp enough, but very poor results with action and flight, results which improved dramatically with the use of a 500pf or a Sigma or some other Nikon prime. Could all of these be down to technique? Sure, if they weren't suddenly getting good results with different lenses. You don't switch from a Nikkor 200-500mm to a Sigma Sports or a Nikon 500 f/4 or some other monster lens and start getting more well focused shots if your technique is poor.
The best I could figure, then, is some kind ofnsample variation that affects AF performance. I suppose it may be possible if the AF motors don't move with the same level of accuracy or responsiveness from one unit to the other. Or maybe not. All I know is that it doesn't make sense to put the same person behind the camera with one lens and get poor results and another and get good ones and have it not be the lens.
The fact of the matter is that defective gear is extremely rare and BIF is one of the most challenging types of photography. Good long lens technique and a deep understanding of the complicated mirrorless AF systems is not something anyone learns overnight.The other thing that makes me skeptical that it's the lens (assuming it's working properly) is the situations you described you were having issues in. The words you used to describe the situations were things like "gliding across", "coasting down" and "soaring through the air". All of those scenarios sound like larger, slow moving birds with movement that is typically perpendicular to the camera - in those situations the AF motor is barely even working because the distance changes are quite minor. Please feel free to correct me as I am making an assumption there. There aren't many camera/lens combinations that can't handle that kind of movement and those types of scenarios would not be a challenge whatsoever for a Z8 + 200-500. The other comment you made that gave me pause was "I don't know how we can say someone tracked poorly when tracking consists of doing nothing while the camera's AF follows the subject.". If it were that easy, nothing would ever be OOF and we'd all be submitting our images to NatGeo. AI subject detection is not a substitute for skill, and it doesn't mean you can be lazy tracking your subjects or with your technique. It requires even more technical knowledge of the camera's AF for best results. I also think that if someone is expecting the camera to more/less do everything for them, they are more likely to be disappointed and are going to be far less likely to consider themselves as part of the problem.
And don't get me wrong, I am not saying the 200-500 is a very fast focusing lens nor am I saying it would be my first choice for shooting fast action, but a great deal of proof exists that it is capable of keeping up to some of the most demanding action subjects, and I think most would agree it can very easily keep up to perpendicular BIF or slower moving birds. Once there is proof of concept, if someone else can't achieve the same thing, I think it's reasonable to have a default assumption that the user is the issue (generally speaking, I don't mean you personally). It would then be up to the person having the issue to show that something else is wrong, and I have yet to see any evidence that suggests there is meaningful sample variation in the AF performance of the 200-500. If it turns out that the lens is defective, then of course we know the issue is likely not with the user/settings/technique.
Whenever a performance metric is being evaluated that also includes a massive human variable, the best results are the ones we generally accept. To use yet another car analogy, if a particular vehicle can go around a track in, say, one minute with a professional driver, if a customer buys the same vehicle and can't achieve the same time, nobody is going to think the vehicle is defective. Now, put that same customer in a car that does everything better, and they might be able to get a similar lap time to the professional driver in the lesser vehicle for any number of reasons - maybe not so different to some people needing a 500PF to get similar results that others get from a 200-500, especially if one is expecting the gear to do all the work. Maybe switching to a 500PF does improve keepers for some people, but how do you determine that it's due to the AF motor when so many other variables are also changing at the same time? Maybe the increased keeper rate is because the lens is so much easier to hold/maneuver and has much better ergonomics than the 200-500.
Speaking of the 500PF, I've been around quite a while and I've never noticed a theme of people switching from the 200-500 to a 500PF due to AF issues. The 200-500 is big, heavy, poorly balanced, and the zoom ring has way too much travel - the people I know who made the switch to the 500PF were either for those reasons or for better performance with teleconverters. I don't doubt that some people have switched specifically due to perceived AF issues, but what is the scale of this theme? 5 people? 10? 20? How many individual accounts have you read about? Out of tens of thousands of lenses sold, that number would have to be pretty big to suggest any kind of widespread issue. Nikon is also hypersensitive of any issues and regularly releases voluntary service advisories for things the internet isn't even aware of until Nikon reveals it. The 200-500 has been in use since 2015 and I think if there was any kind of well known or widespread issue with the AF performance it would have been addressed by now. Do you zoom while shooting? If so, there is a firmware update for the 200-500 that addressed an issue where the AF would occasionally fail to operate while using the zoom ring at the same time. As far as I know this only affected early units (~2015) but it's something to be aware of.
At the end of the day, you need to use what works for you, regardless of the reason. If that isn't the 200-500, then get something else
Lucky for you the 180-600 is a worthy successor, and this thread has plenty of evidence that it is performing at or above expectations, so if you like that style of lens you are unlikely to be disappointed by it.Remember that I've had much more consistent results from the...Show more →
I understand what you are saying. But it has been my experience that different systems respond at different levels and in different ways. Without trying to pass judgement on which of any system is superior I will make this observation.
The way you are looking at expecting the camera system to just follow the eyes/subject around is more aligned with the way the Sony systems tend to work. You can get an amazing hit rate with pretty much any lens and without much input from the user. Sony seems to have designed some AF modes to optimize this type of experience. You can absolutely achieve similar hit rates and IQ results with the Nikon Z system. But it generally takes a bit more management by the user. This extends to different lenses (especially when including not native Z lenses), different subjects, and different subjects.
Keep in mind, that I am speaking in very broad and imprecise terms. These are just my observations from using both systems myself, and interacting with my friends who shoot either or both systems.
Sep 19, 2023 at 04:08 PM
p.12 #19Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
1bwana1 wrote:
I can keep a subject in the frame. My Z8 can keep the green target lock indicator on the subject, and together I and my camera can keep the heron gliding across the water or the seagull coasting down for a landing or the eagle soaring through the air "is focus," but where the photos are concerned 80% are out of focus with the focal plane someplace where the bird wasn't at the time of the shutter release. I know I'm not the only one with this experience because in researching other lenses for potential purchase I came across a lot of people who said that they could never get BIF to track on their 200-500 and then when they got a 500pf with the same camera and the same user skill suddenly their BIF hit rate was 80-90%+.
I don't know why this dichotomy of experience is out there. Over on Steve Perry's site he replied to my post about this suggesting something wrong with the AF motors accuracy, which maybe makes sense but then again I can get in focus shots with it so it must be working as a general rule. I've also rented the Sigma sport to compare and found the tracking performance to instantly improve dramatically over my 200-500.If you're having tracking issues, especially in more "normal" situations rather than a torture test like Swallows flying head-on, it's almost always going to be technique or setting related. If one person is getting more out of a lens than someone else on the same camera, it's not likely to be the equipment's fault unless something is defective, which is rare but not unheard of. Especially with something like AF speed, that just isn't something that is typically affected by copy variation. I've used a few copies of the 200-500 and they've all performed broadly the same as far as I could tell.
If you're tracking movement perpendicular to the camera, the lens' AF motor is barely doing anything at all because the distance changes are so minor, so if you aren't getting sharp shots in that situation, it's definitely not the focus speed that is the issue. Fast movement coming towards the camera is the hardest for an AF system to deal with because the distance adjustments it has to make get exponentially larger as the subject approaches the MFD of the lens.
I've seen lots of great BIF shots taken with the 200-500 on these forums, I can't say I've noticed a theme where people were having trouble with it for BIF over the years. The lens having a slow-ish AF motor is definitely a theme, but the situations where that becomes a problem significantly affecting keeper rate are not very common in my experience.
Back to a comment I made in an earlier post, I've seen plenty of soft and/or out-of-focus BIF shots taken with flagship cameras along with 600/4 and 400/2.8 lenses - so given that the same dichotomy you are referencing exists even at the highest tiers of equipment, in my view that is compelling evidence that it's more likely to be a settings or technique issue. Nobody is shooting 100% keepers, especially with fast birds, but settings and technique are way more of a factor when the subject isn't easy to follow.
I'm using a Z9 but it has the same AF as your Z8 so there shouldn't be any difference at least in terms of the camera's ability. It's possible you have a defective 200-500 but the vast majority of the time these issues are setting or technique related. Without seeing the issue in person, all I can really suggest is trying another copy of 200-500 if possible and if you are getting the same results, then it's probably safe to rule out the lens as the issue.
The 180-600 definitely has a faster and more accurate AF motor than the 200-500, so if that's one area you're hoping for an improvement in, you can look forward to that.In a way I understand why it's so common, but I still think people are too quick to jump to blame the user anytime someone mentions or asks for help with a problem they're having on any of the various photography forums. Like I said, there's a theme out there that people switch to the 500pf or some other lens and their BIF photos start being in focus. It's the same user with the same technique and the settings on their camera.
In fact, in the current age of subject detection amd auto-everything I think it's even less likely that a person's problem is technique, but of course it is still possible. I don't know how we can say someone tracked poorly when tracking consists of doing nothing while the camera's AF follows the subject.
I apologize if I'm coming across too harshly to you, as it's not my intention. I just get a bit frustrated with how many times I've seen a person ask for help on one forum or another and the first 10 replies question everything about their basic ability or understanding, and especially when the comments raise things that the person clearly already addressed in their question.
In any case, like I said I rented a Sigma Sports after being frustrated with my 200-500. I instantly noticed two things: 1) the sport was far, far more demanding on technique than the Nikon on account of its dramatically greater weight and noticeably worse sterilization and 2) in spite of its much more difficult handling it was way, way easier to get good in focus shots of action and flight because the AF was much stickier and hung on the subjects far more reliably.
I was the same photographer with the same camera and settings. The hand holding and panning were a lot harder for me. But I, the same guy, could get the lens to track in ways my Nikkor never did.
I thought about paying the LensRentals guys to just keep that lens, but ultimately I didn't for two reasons. One is I was waiting to see what the Nikon 200-600 would be. The second is that every time I went out with the Sigma, even as I sat or stood there and got hit after hit without much effort, I kept wishing I was shooting with my Nikkor because it was much sharper than the Sports. Optically, anyways, I won the sample lottery with the lens.
The next thing I considered was just what you said: that the lens was defective and could use repair. Ultimately I decided that was unlikely. Why? Because I started searching forums and videos and reviews and I found a pretty healthy contingent of people with similar experiences with their 200-500s: sharp enough, but very poor results with action and flight, results which improved dramatically with the use of a 500pf or a Sigma or some other Nikon prime. Could all of these be down to technique? Sure, if they weren't suddenly getting good results with different lenses. You don't switch from a Nikkor 200-500mm to a Sigma Sports or a Nikon 500 f/4 or some other monster lens and start getting more well focused shots if your technique is poor.
The best I could figure, then, is some kind ofnsample variation that affects AF performance. I suppose it may be possible if the AF motors don't move with the same level of accuracy or responsiveness from one unit to the other. Or maybe not. All I know is that it doesn't make sense to put the same person behind the camera with one lens and get poor results and another and get good ones and have it not be the lens.I get what you're trying to say, but in my mind what it doesn't address is how so many people are not having issues, which based on all the fantastic images posted here and elsewhere, seems to be the majority of users. The other thing it doesn't address is why some people are seemingly having the exact same issues with the highest tiers of equipment featuring the fastest available AF motors. If one person is having issues and the other is not, the burden of proof would be on the person who is having the issue because the person not having the issue has already demonstrated the product is capable of performing in a certain way. I respect your opinion that people can be too fast to blame the user, but my counterpoint would be that I think the human factor is often underestimated, especially in a realm were the tiniest things can make big difference, and people in general are naturally resistant to considering themselves as part of the problem - even more so if they have spent a lot of money. In my experience, the user is most often the problem, and that includes my own problems The fact of the matter is that defective gear is extremely rare and BIF is one of the most challenging types of photography. Good long lens technique and a deep understanding of the complicated mirrorless AF systems is not something anyone learns overnight.
The other thing that makes me skeptical that it's the lens (assuming it's working properly) is the situations you described you were having issues in. The words you used to describe the situations were things like "gliding across", "coasting down" and "soaring through the air". All of those scenarios sound like larger, slow moving birds with movement that is typically perpendicular to the camera - in those situations the AF motor is barely even working because the distance changes are quite minor. Please feel free to correct me as I am making an assumption there. There aren't many camera/lens combinations that can't handle that kind of movement and those types of scenarios would not be a challenge whatsoever for a Z8 + 200-500. The other comment you made that gave me pause was "I don't know how we can say someone tracked poorly when tracking consists of doing nothing while the camera's AF follows the subject.". If it were that easy, nothing would ever be OOF and we'd all be submitting our images to NatGeo. AI subject detection is not a substitute for skill, and it doesn't mean you can be lazy tracking your subjects or with your technique. It requires even more technical knowledge of the camera's AF for best results. I also think that if someone is expecting the camera to more/less do everything for them, they are more likely to be disappointed and are going to be far less likely to consider themselves as part of the problem.
And don't get me wrong, I am not saying the 200-500 is a very fast focusing lens nor am I saying it would be my first choice for shooting fast action, but a great deal of proof exists that it is capable of keeping up to some of the most demanding action subjects, and I think most would agree it can very easily keep up to perpendicular BIF or slower moving birds. Once there is proof of concept, if someone else can't achieve the same thing, I think it's reasonable to have a default assumption that the user is the issue (generally speaking, I don't mean you personally). It would then be up to the person having the issue to show that something else is wrong, and I have yet to see any evidence that suggests there is meaningful sample variation in the AF performance of the 200-500. If it turns out that the lens is defective, then of course we know the issue is likely not with the user/settings/technique.
Whenever a performance metric is being evaluated that also includes a massive human variable, the best results are the ones we generally accept. To use yet another car analogy, if a particular vehicle can go around a track in, say, one minute with a professional driver, if a customer buys the same vehicle and can't achieve the same time, nobody is going to think the vehicle is defective. Now, put that same customer in a car that does everything better, and they might be able to get a similar lap time to the professional driver in the lesser vehicle for any number of reasons - maybe not so different to some people needing a 500PF to get similar results that others get from a 200-500, especially if one is expecting the gear to do all the work. Maybe switching to a 500PF does improve keepers for some people, but how do you determine that it's due to the AF motor when so many other variables are also changing at the same time? Maybe the increased keeper rate is because the lens is so much easier to hold/maneuver and has much better ergonomics than the 200-500.
Speaking of the 500PF, I've been around quite a while and I've never noticed a theme of people switching from the 200-500 to a 500PF due to AF issues. The 200-500 is big, heavy, poorly balanced, and the zoom ring has way too much travel - the people I know who made the switch to the 500PF were either for those reasons or for better performance with teleconverters. I don't doubt that some people have switched specifically due to perceived AF issues, but what is the scale of this theme? 5 people? 10? 20? How many individual accounts have you read about? Out of tens of thousands of lenses sold, that number would have to be pretty big to suggest any kind of widespread issue. Nikon is also hypersensitive of any issues and regularly releases voluntary service advisories for things the internet isn't even aware of until Nikon reveals it. The 200-500 has been in use since 2015 and I think if there was any kind of well known or widespread issue with the AF performance it would have been addressed by now. Do you zoom while shooting? If so, there is a firmware update for the 200-500 that addressed an issue where the AF would occasionally fail to operate while using the zoom ring at the same time. As far as I know this only affected early units (~2015) but it's something to be aware of.
At the end of the day, you need to use what works for you, regardless of the reason. If that isn't the 200-500, then get something else Lucky for you the 180-600 is a worthy successor, and this thread has plenty of evidence that it is performing at or above expectations, so if you like that style of lens you are unlikely to be disappointed by it.Well, I don't think it has to be too complicated a question why some people may see different performance. Sample variation does exist, and I think there are ways we can conceive of that it could affect things like AF performance as well as optical quality. I tend to trust people's reports, especially when we can see from their work that they do have some sense of what they're doing. If some people say their 200-500 can't track well, I believe them - in particular when the experience echos my own.
Remember that I've had much more consistent results from the Sigma Sports, a lens that doesn't do everything better. It does mkst things worse, in fact: handling and stabilization for sure, IQ in the view of many. Yet it definitely does AF better and the way I was able to photograph BIF with it vs. my Nikon spoke for itself.
You mention two of my comments. First, you asked about the sorts of birds I was talking about. I've had the most experience with heron and seagulls - not much else typically easy to find in my area. I agree with you that these should be easy for an AF if they're gliding across the frame- and that's part of why it's been so frustrating. I can pan with the bird well. I can keep it in the center of the frame. With my DSLR I could keep the group area on it. With my Z8 the subject tracking stays solid green on the bird as I follow it across the water, but then the focus is poor, almost lagging. With the Sigma it was much harder to pan, but I did and the way the green box stayed on the bird was just more smooth, almost as if the EVF refresh rate were higher, though it wasn't. The shots were in focus. I can put an old inexpensive DX AF-P tele on there and like the Sigma it just feels smoother and I get more in focus.
You also mentioned my comments about skill regarding things like eye tracking. I just disagree that there's any question of skill involved with putting a camera on a tripod and holding the AF on button while someone walks around in the frame. In that case the camera/lens AF is either staying on subject or it's not.
Here's a brief story in relation to both those points. In the past month I got a 70-180, my first native Z lens. It's AF seems to be described by most as okay but not great. I was immediately impressed with how much stickier it felt than the 200-500. I started taking it on walks with the family in the evenings. When my kids wanted me to run around, my wife would hold it. She's never really used my camera's but does understand photography basics. One night she tried to photograph the kids and got a bunch of almost entirely out of focus shots. She asked why and I had to teach her back button focus. The next evening she took it again in very dark conditions - I had auto ISOs of 16000 - and got almost entirely perfectly focused shots, right on the eye, of me and the kids running around very quickly past sunset. She held the camera out in front of her and looked at the LCD like a cell phone with both hands on the body, the lens waving around. She also commented that that lens, praised for its weight, was very heavy This is not a VR lens and her shutter speed was high enough in the near dark that there's not many examples of motion blur.
I've not gotten even half that hit rate in the mid-day sun photographing the kids at 200mm on the 200-500. It just won't stay on their eyes firmly enough, and when it does there are a lot of out of focus shots. Here's someone with almost no knowledge of the system, very poor technique, who isn't comfortable with/used to even a lightweight setup photographing difficult, erratic subjects in awful light on a lens with no VR and the lens just works and nails almost every shot.
Don't misunderstand: my wife has a greater artistic aptitude than I and would easily become a master if she tried, but clearly she isn't right now. I just don't think there's a huge question of experience or technique when it comes to basic things like getting in focus shots of eyes on a camera that automatically focuses on eyes. Likewise, when the camera is automatically focusing on a slow flying bird, to a large degree the photographer has to trust the camera to get the focus. There are things you can do to give it a better chance or to mess it up, or to take matters into your own hands when it's having a hard time, but ultimately when a bunch of lenses give you good results and one doesn't, it is what it is.I understand what you are saying. But it has been my experience that different systems respond at different levels and in different was. Without trying to pass judgement on which of any system is superior I will make this observation.
The way you are looking at expecting the camera system to just follow the eyes/subject around is more aligned with the way the Sony systems tend to work. You can get an amazing hit rate with pretty much any lens and without much input from the user. You can achieve similar hit rates and IQ results with the Nikon Z system...Show more →
Let me clarify: I don't think I expect the system to just follow eyes around always. In fact, I wouldn't want it to. When I got the Z8 I was initially nervous it would be too much on autopilot all the time. I want to have room to influence and control things, and I would frankly find it boring if the camera did everything!
What I do expect is that a mode or feature designed to focus on and track eyes will actually do so, and to be extra clear, it's pretty obvious that this is what Nikon intends it to do and what Nikon has successfully built it to actually do since the 70-180 and other Z lenses do reliably do this. I'm not objecting or complaining that my 200-500 doesn't do what Sony systems do: I'm objecting that it doesn't do whatbm other Nikon lenses seem to reliably do and what users in this very thread have said they should do.
SCoombs wrote
CanadaMark wrote
SCoombs wrote
CanadaMark wrote
SCoombs wrote
A theme I've noted elsewhere is that while you're showing strong results from your 200-500 tracking, others (myself included) have found it can't keep up with moving subjects. In fact, I'm trying to decide what to replace mine with in large part because of issues with tracking.I can keep a subject in the frame. My Z8 can keep the green target lock indicator on the subject, and together I and my camera can keep the heron gliding across the water or the seagull coasting down for a landing or the eagle soaring through the air "is focus," but where the photos are concerned 80% are out of focus with the focal plane someplace where the bird wasn't at the time of the shutter release. I know I'm not the only one with this experience because in researching other lenses for potential purchase I came across a lot of people who said that they could never get BIF to track on their 200-500 and then when they got a 500pf with the same camera and the same user skill suddenly their BIF hit rate was 80-90%+.
I don't know why this dichotomy of experience is out there. Over on Steve Perry's site he replied to my post about this suggesting something wrong with the AF motors accuracy, which maybe makes sense but then again I can get in focus shots with it so it must be working as a general rule. I've also rented the Sigma sport to compare and found the tracking performance to instantly improve dramatically over my 200-500.
If you're tracking movement perpendicular to the camera, the lens' AF motor is barely doing anything at all because the distance changes are so minor, so if you aren't getting sharp shots in that situation, it's definitely not the focus speed that is the issue. Fast movement coming towards the camera is the hardest for an AF system to deal with because the distance adjustments it has to make get exponentially larger as the subject approaches the MFD of the lens.
I've seen lots of great BIF shots taken with the 200-500 on these forums, I can't say I've noticed a theme where people were having trouble with it for BIF over the years. The lens having a slow-ish AF motor is definitely a theme, but the situations where that becomes a problem significantly affecting keeper rate are not very common in my experience.
Back to a comment I made in an earlier post, I've seen plenty of soft and/or out-of-focus BIF shots taken with flagship cameras along with 600/4 and 400/2.8 lenses - so given that the same dichotomy you are referencing exists even at the highest tiers of equipment, in my view that is compelling evidence that it's more likely to be a settings or technique issue. Nobody is shooting 100% keepers, especially with fast birds, but settings and technique are way more of a factor when the subject isn't easy to follow.
I'm using a Z9 but it has the same AF as your Z8 so there shouldn't be any difference at least in terms of the camera's ability. It's possible you have a defective 200-500 but the vast majority of the time these issues are setting or technique related. Without seeing the issue in person, all I can really suggest is trying another copy of 200-500 if possible and if you are getting the same results, then it's probably safe to rule out the lens as the issue.
The 180-600 definitely has a faster and more accurate AF motor than the 200-500, so if that's one area you're hoping for an improvement in, you can look forward to that.
In fact, in the current age of subject detection amd auto-everything I think it's even less likely that a person's problem is technique, but of course it is still possible. I don't know how we can say someone tracked poorly when tracking consists of doing nothing while the camera's AF follows the subject.
I apologize if I'm coming across too harshly to you, as it's not my intention. I just get a bit frustrated with how many times I've seen a person ask for help on one forum or another and the first 10 replies question everything about their basic ability or understanding, and especially when the comments raise things that the person clearly already addressed in their question.
In any case, like I said I rented a Sigma Sports after being frustrated with my 200-500. I instantly noticed two things: 1) the sport was far, far more demanding on technique than the Nikon on account of its dramatically greater weight and noticeably worse sterilization and 2) in spite of its much more difficult handling it was way, way easier to get good in focus shots of action and flight because the AF was much stickier and hung on the subjects far more reliably.
I was the same photographer with the same camera and settings. The hand holding and panning were a lot harder for me. But I, the same guy, could get the lens to track in ways my Nikkor never did.
I thought about paying the LensRentals guys to just keep that lens, but ultimately I didn't for two reasons. One is I was waiting to see what the Nikon 200-600 would be. The second is that every time I went out with the Sigma, even as I sat or stood there and got hit after hit without much effort, I kept wishing I was shooting with my Nikkor because it was much sharper than the Sports. Optically, anyways, I won the sample lottery with the lens.
The next thing I considered was just what you said: that the lens was defective and could use repair. Ultimately I decided that was unlikely. Why? Because I started searching forums and videos and reviews and I found a pretty healthy contingent of people with similar experiences with their 200-500s: sharp enough, but very poor results with action and flight, results which improved dramatically with the use of a 500pf or a Sigma or some other Nikon prime. Could all of these be down to technique? Sure, if they weren't suddenly getting good results with different lenses. You don't switch from a Nikkor 200-500mm to a Sigma Sports or a Nikon 500 f/4 or some other monster lens and start getting more well focused shots if your technique is poor.
The best I could figure, then, is some kind ofnsample variation that affects AF performance. I suppose it may be possible if the AF motors don't move with the same level of accuracy or responsiveness from one unit to the other. Or maybe not. All I know is that it doesn't make sense to put the same person behind the camera with one lens and get poor results and another and get good ones and have it not be the lens.
The fact of the matter is that defective gear is extremely rare and BIF is one of the most challenging types of photography. Good long lens technique and a deep understanding of the complicated mirrorless AF systems is not something anyone learns overnight.The other thing that makes me skeptical that it's the lens (assuming it's working properly) is the situations you described you were having issues in. The words you used to describe the situations were things like "gliding across", "coasting down" and "soaring through the air". All of those scenarios sound like larger, slow moving birds with movement that is typically perpendicular to the camera - in those situations the AF motor is barely even working because the distance changes are quite minor. Please feel free to correct me as I am making an assumption there. There aren't many camera/lens combinations that can't handle that kind of movement and those types of scenarios would not be a challenge whatsoever for a Z8 + 200-500. The other comment you made that gave me pause was "I don't know how we can say someone tracked poorly when tracking consists of doing nothing while the camera's AF follows the subject.". If it were that easy, nothing would ever be OOF and we'd all be submitting our images to NatGeo. AI subject detection is not a substitute for skill, and it doesn't mean you can be lazy tracking your subjects or with your technique. It requires even more technical knowledge of the camera's AF for best results. I also think that if someone is expecting the camera to more/less do everything for them, they are more likely to be disappointed and are going to be far less likely to consider themselves as part of the problem.
And don't get me wrong, I am not saying the 200-500 is a very fast focusing lens nor am I saying it would be my first choice for shooting fast action, but a great deal of proof exists that it is capable of keeping up to some of the most demanding action subjects, and I think most would agree it can very easily keep up to perpendicular BIF or slower moving birds. Once there is proof of concept, if someone else can't achieve the same thing, I think it's reasonable to have a default assumption that the user is the issue (generally speaking, I don't mean you personally). It would then be up to the person having the issue to show that something else is wrong, and I have yet to see any evidence that suggests there is meaningful sample variation in the AF performance of the 200-500. If it turns out that the lens is defective, then of course we know the issue is likely not with the user/settings/technique.
Whenever a performance metric is being evaluated that also includes a massive human variable, the best results are the ones we generally accept. To use yet another car analogy, if a particular vehicle can go around a track in, say, one minute with a professional driver, if a customer buys the same vehicle and can't achieve the same time, nobody is going to think the vehicle is defective. Now, put that same customer in a car that does everything better, and they might be able to get a similar lap time to the professional driver in the lesser vehicle for any number of reasons - maybe not so different to some people needing a 500PF to get similar results that others get from a 200-500, especially if one is expecting the gear to do all the work. Maybe switching to a 500PF does improve keepers for some people, but how do you determine that it's due to the AF motor when so many other variables are also changing at the same time? Maybe the increased keeper rate is because the lens is so much easier to hold/maneuver and has much better ergonomics than the 200-500.
Speaking of the 500PF, I've been around quite a while and I've never noticed a theme of people switching from the 200-500 to a 500PF due to AF issues. The 200-500 is big, heavy, poorly balanced, and the zoom ring has way too much travel - the people I know who made the switch to the 500PF were either for those reasons or for better performance with teleconverters. I don't doubt that some people have switched specifically due to perceived AF issues, but what is the scale of this theme? 5 people? 10? 20? How many individual accounts have you read about? Out of tens of thousands of lenses sold, that number would have to be pretty big to suggest any kind of widespread issue. Nikon is also hypersensitive of any issues and regularly releases voluntary service advisories for things the internet isn't even aware of until Nikon reveals it. The 200-500 has been in use since 2015 and I think if there was any kind of well known or widespread issue with the AF performance it would have been addressed by now. Do you zoom while shooting? If so, there is a firmware update for the 200-500 that addressed an issue where the AF would occasionally fail to operate while using the zoom ring at the same time. As far as I know this only affected early units (~2015) but it's something to be aware of.
At the end of the day, you need to use what works for you, regardless of the reason. If that isn't the 200-500, then get something else
Lucky for you the 180-600 is a worthy successor, and this thread has plenty of evidence that it is performing at or above expectations, so if you like that style of lens you are unlikely to be disappointed by it.Remember that I've had much more consistent results from the Sigma Sports, a lens that doesn't do everything better. It does mkst things worse, in fact: handling and stabilization for sure, IQ in the view of many. Yet it definitely does AF better and the way I was able to photograph BIF with it vs. my Nikon spoke for itself.
You mention two of my comments. First, you asked about the sorts of birds I was talking about. I've had the most experience with heron and seagulls - not much else typically easy to find in my area. I agree with you that these should be easy for an AF if they're gliding across the frame- and that's part of why it's been so frustrating. I can pan with the bird well. I can keep it in the center of the frame. With my DSLR I could keep the group area on it. With my Z8 the subject tracking stays solid green on the bird as I follow it across the water, but then the focus is poor, almost lagging. With the Sigma it was much harder to pan, but I did and the way the green box stayed on the bird was just more smooth, almost as if the EVF refresh rate were higher, though it wasn't. The shots were in focus. I can put an old inexpensive DX AF-P tele on there and like the Sigma it just feels smoother and I get more in focus.
You also mentioned my comments about skill regarding things like eye tracking. I just disagree that there's any question of skill involved with putting a camera on a tripod and holding the AF on button while someone walks around in the frame. In that case the camera/lens AF is either staying on subject or it's not.
Here's a brief story in relation to both those points. In the past month I got a 70-180, my first native Z lens. It's AF seems to be described by most as okay but not great. I was immediately impressed with how much stickier it felt than the 200-500. I started taking it on walks with the family in the evenings. When my kids wanted me to run around, my wife would hold it. She's never really used my camera's but does understand photography basics. One night she tried to photograph the kids and got a bunch of almost entirely out of focus shots. She asked why and I had to teach her back button focus. The next evening she took it again in very dark conditions - I had auto ISOs of 16000 - and got almost entirely perfectly focused shots, right on the eye, of me and the kids running around very quickly past sunset. She held the camera out in front of her and looked at the LCD like a cell phone with both hands on the body, the lens waving around. She also commented that that lens, praised for its weight, was very heavy This is not a VR lens and her shutter speed was high enough in the near dark that there's not many examples of motion blur.
I've not gotten even half that hit rate in the mid-day sun photographing the kids at 200mm on the 200-500. It just won't stay on their eyes firmly enough, and when it does there are a lot of out of focus shots. Here's someone with almost no knowledge of the system, very poor technique, who isn't comfortable with/used to even a lightweight setup photographing difficult, erratic subjects in awful light on a lens with no VR and the lens just works and nails almost every shot.
Don't misunderstand: my wife has a greater artistic aptitude than I and would easily become a master if she tried, but clearly she isn't right now. I just don't think there's a huge question of experience or technique when it comes to basic things like getting in focus shots of eyes on a camera that automatically focuses on eyes. Likewise, when the camera is automatically focusing on a slow flying bird, to a large degree the photographer has to trust the camera to get the focus. There are things you can do to give it a better chance or to mess it up, or to take matters into your own hands when it's having a hard time, but ultimately when a bunch of lenses give you good results and one doesn't, it is what it is.
The way you are looking at expecting the camera system to just follow the eyes/subject around is more aligned with the way the Sony systems tend to work. You can get an amazing hit rate with pretty much any lens and without much input from the user. You can achieve similar hit rates and IQ results with the Nikon Z system...Show more →
Let me clarify: I don't think I expect the system to just follow eyes around always. In fact, I wouldn't want it to. When I got the Z8 I was initially nervous it would be too much on autopilot all the time. I want to have room to influence and control things, and I would frankly find it boring if the camera did everything!
What I do expect is that a mode or feature designed to focus on and track eyes will actually do so, and to be extra clear, it's pretty obvious that this is what Nikon intends it to do and what Nikon has successfully built it to actually do since the 70-180 and other Z lenses do reliably do this. I'm not objecting or complaining that my 200-500 doesn't do what Sony systems do: I'm objecting that it doesn't do whatbm other Nikon lenses seem to reliably do and what users in this very thread have said they should do.
Sep 19, 2023 at 04:17 PM
p.12 #20Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
bs kite wrote:
As you guys agree, this is an exciting lens. The only question I have about it (oops) is weight. My 2-5 is just too heavy and the 180-600 is only 1/2 pound lighter.
My questions are only to those who own and shoot this lens. Does the internal zoom make it seem even lighter? How do you feel about the weight? Thanks
There, I too am guilty of keeping the comments/questions going
Robert
The handling is a night & day improvement over the 200-500 which was front heavy and was very difficult to zoom quickly. It's balanced a lot better which doesn't make it any lighter than the scale says, but feels better as a package in my opinion.
My Z9 is already so heavy I can't tell a huge difference between this lens and a 200-500 weight-wise when attached to the camera, and I also often shoot from a monopod so the weight differences don't matter as much to me as they might someone else. You can drop another ~185g if you shoot handheld and know you won't be needing the lens collar, putting it within ~450g of your 500PF.
The AF is snappy, silent and accurate, and you can move through the entire zoom range just by rolling your fingers which generally makes for a much more pleasant shooting experience compared to the 200-500.
If the 200-500 is too heavy for your liking, the 180-600 might be too, but it's easier to use for sure. Your 500PF is shorter and lighter, so if you don't need the ability to zoom, I suspect you will still prefer it.
As you guys agree, this is an exciting lens. The only question I have about it (oops
) is weight. My 2-5 is just too heavy and the 180-600 is only 1/2 pound lighter. My questions are only to those who own and shoot this lens. Does the internal zoom make it seem even lighter? How do you feel about the weight? Thanks
There, I too am guilty of keeping the comments/questions going
Robert
The handling is a night & day improvement over the 200-500 which was front heavy and was very difficult to zoom quickly. It's balanced a lot better which doesn't make it any lighter than the scale says, but feels better as a package in my opinion.
My Z9 is already so heavy I can't tell a huge difference between this lens and a 200-500 weight-wise when attached to the camera, and I also often shoot from a monopod so the weight differences don't matter as much to me as they might someone else. You can drop another ~185g if you shoot handheld and know you won't be needing the lens collar, putting it within ~450g of your 500PF.
The AF is snappy, silent and accurate, and you can move through the entire zoom range just by rolling your fingers which generally makes for a much more pleasant shooting experience compared to the 200-500.
If the 200-500 is too heavy for your liking, the 180-600 might be too, but it's easier to use for sure. Your 500PF is shorter and lighter, so if you don't need the ability to zoom, I suspect you will still prefer it.
Sep 19, 2023 at 04:24 PM