CanadaMark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread | |
Here are my initial thoughts after using 2 copies of the lens on both a Z8 and Z9:
- Build & handling is very good (for the price), I like where Nikon has placed the zoom & MF/control rings, at least for where I like to rest my hands. Both rings feel smooth, well damped, and have very little play in them. The short travel zoom ring is so much nicer than the 200-500, as is obviously the internal zoom design. The hood has a push-button release rather than a slide-release like some of their other lenses. As others have already pointed out, the "sleeve" the lens comes with is just as useless as the rest of them - other than keeping dust off during storage or something, it will probably just sit in the box it came in for most people.
- Balance is good enough with both a Z8/Z9, maybe a little better with the Z9 due to its weight. You don't need a super long lens plate, in fact the first one I used contacted the grip on my Z9 and I had to move it forward. The lens foot holes are different sized so you will need a reducer bushing if you want to use 2 screws to secure a plate (which I would always recommend to prevent twisting).
- AF is snappy and silent, not as fast as my 800PF or the other exotics, noticeably faster than the outgoing 200-500. I'd say it's very similar to the Z100-400 AF speed. I don't think anyone is going to be disappointed with the AF at this price point, certainly not those coming from a 200-500.
- The VR is (unsurprisingly) exactly as advertised as the stop reduction value is tested to a specific standard, and I can get around ~5 stops out of it with my shaky hands which is slightly better than the 200-500. Steadier hands should be able to hit the 5.5 stop claim. The 200-500 was actually one of the few lenses new enough to get Nikon's best/latest VR in the F mount (4.5 stops). The viewfinder seems to jump around less than with other lenses in Normal mode when the VR mechanism resets, but maybe I'm just used to the more exaggerated movements of the 800PF that I've been using a lot lately.
- The only thing I don't really like is the rotating collar, I wish it was a bit smoother. On my "S" lenses, 1/4 turn loosens the collar and the rotation is butter smooth, on the 180-600 you need multiple rotations to release the tension and the rotation does not feel as nice. The lens foot itself does not come off, so any third party collars will have to replace the entire thing, so an eventual third party solution might fix this complaint. If you shoot handheld or from a gimbal you will probably never be affected by this, but monopod shooters are likely to notice.
- Sharpness is as expected very good. My initial impression is it's very slightly better than the Nikon 200-500 or Sony 200-600 samples that I have access to (small sample size), but I will test again when the 180-600 gets good RAW converter support. So far I have used the lens mostly at 600/6.3 and that is where I suspect the majority of people will be using it regularly. Both copies barely improve stopped down, so it's nice to see it's well optimized at F6.3. Super-zooms from every manufacturer have higher than average sample variation so I expect some difference of opinion here. I personally can't tell a difference between the two copies of 180-600 I tried, but that's all I can speak to. I haven't had time to test it with the 1.4TC yet but there is a Swiss review of the lens that speaks highly of it with TCs so I remain optimistic. Overall I would say image quality is most similar to my Z100-400.
- CA/fringing seems very well controlled and a noticeable improvement from the 200-500. I shot some black birds in a dead tree against a bright white sky and I couldn't see any fringing around the birds or branches. Good enough for my usage.
Unfortunately DXO does not support this lens yet so I am left with Adobe's rather poor (IMO) conversion. On the plus side, that means output will be significantly better than the below once the lens profile is eventually supported. This is already causing some disparity in some other comparison reviews I have seen and is not helping people with their purchase decisions. Here are a few quick ~90-100% crops with the straight Adobe RAW conversion and no added sharpening, and for the record I am using a Nikon NC filter - sorry for the uninteresting subject matter, the Fall weather is here in Canada so wildlife subjects are few and far between at my usual spots:
600/6.3, camera reported subject distance of 26ft:
600/6.3, camera reported subject distance of 16.5ft:
600/6.3, camera reported subject distance of 35ft:
|
Photos for attention.
