SCoombs
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.9 #19 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread | |
ilkka_nissila wrote:
If results are highly variable within the same conditions, shutter speed and focus are the most likely culprits (when shooting with a long lens). On the Nikon AF-S 80-400, I did get highly variable results but that was mostly due to slow shutter speeds (necessitated by winter conditions in my country) on a tripod. At fast shutter speeds it was OK. The 200-500 with Kirk two-point support produced consistently good results in those conditions but I disliked the slow and heavy to operate zoom and the AF was on the slow side. I thought the image quality at 200-400mm was great and at 500mm it was okay (not like a prime but could be used with nice results). I got much better sharpness and faster autofocus with the 500 PF, but couldn't really get used to the bokeh. I may have been too hard on both of these lenses. There is no question that I got some excellent quality images with the 500 PF.
What lenses have you used which do give the kind of image quality you are hoping to get, on a consistent basis?
If you are setting your expectations based on published images by top professional photographers, then you're expecting too much from a lens that is made to fit a budget. If you cover these focal lengths with top of the line primes, you'll end up paying 10x as much as this lens costs. Even with a 600/4 you'll still get images that are affected by what is in the atmosphere between the lens and the subject so you cannot expect the kind of quality you might get with a short tele with a much closer subject.
What the 180-600 has over the 200-500 is easier use, less weight at the front, lighter and faster zooming, better sharpness at outer areas of the frame, extended focal range, and native Z mount. I don't have this lens yet but I am shocked how well it appears to perform even against highly regarded primes like the Z 400/4.5 which it seems to beat in the outer areas of the frame (cameralabs test). I think that test puts questions about its sharpness to rest. However, in a zoom lens there can still be some sample variability though I've never really encountered it to a noticeable degree myself, I have not gone out of my way to find multiple copies and pick on their possible subtle differences.
If you are not happy with the image quality from this class of lens, then you need to pay more for the next step up which would be 70-200/2.8 S, 400/4.5 S, and 800/6.3 S. If that's stil not good enough then I think the blame is unlikely to be in the lenses, but there is still one step up that one can go. But these are significantly less convenient and don't give the flexible zoom range that the 180-600 has. Thanks to the 45 MP sensor, there is a little bit of playroom via cropping though.
If the 1:10 or 1:20 hit eate includes not only sharpness but composition, visual elements, lighting and subject then work on those. It used to be normal that one got one good image out of a roll of 36 exposures of film. Some felt that they only got a handful of great images in a year. It is common that photographers are picky and demanding. Maybe let go of that a little and think about the subject, light and composition and leave the sharpness to what you can get easily. Filling the frame with the subject would be by far the cheapest way to improve sharpness and clarity....Show more →
Here's my second try at a reply. The first seems to have failed perhaps because I tried to include a link to some sample images and I have to assume it's ran afoul of the site's filters or something.
To try to briefly summarize what was originally a lengthier reply, I'm confident that shutter speeds have been adequate in the majority of photos I've been dissatisfied with from the 200-500 and that it's been hitting focus well. I'm also certain that I'm not expecting the sorts of results one would see from a $10,000 prime in something a lot cheaper. In my failed reply, I tried to post an example of a photo of mine that I think is perfectly within my standards. Without being sure of the best way to try to share something like that here I'll just say that I posted the same example to a discussion of Steve Perry's new video on the 180-600 over on his site, but suffice it to say it came from my 200-500 and I'm perfectly happy with it. I also shared an image of a heron I'd taken in very dark conditions at 1/30 and noted that while it wasn't the most detailed or highest IQ photo one's ever seen I was extremely happy with it given the conditions - the point being that I more than willing to adjust my standards as appropriate.
I've also been happy with the results from my recently acquired Z 70-180mm. It's obviously not an S-line lens and for $1700 or so more there's an equivalent lens which one would hope has "twice the cost worth" of improved IQ over the one I'm using, but I think it's fine. In fact, it's helpful to compare my results from this lens with the 200-500. Just this morning I was out with the family at a festival taking photos of my kids along with local wildlife which included a great blue heron and various ducks. I was swapping between the 200-500 and the 70-180. In going through the files once back at home, the 70-180 is easy: 85-90% of the shots look good to me and so I am going through and culling based on the ones where I like the pose or the facial expression or the background. With the 200-500, it's different: I can't even begin to consider pose, background, wing position, etc. because I have to look through them to find the tiny fraction that are actually of acceptable image quality. That's how it's always been with my lenses. Did I shoot with the 35/1.8 DX, a lens I've had for many years? I just need to choose which photos worked out in terms of the pose or the facial expression. The 200-500? I've got to see if I have 10 photos I think are sharp enough on my 128GB memory card.
Sometimes this has been due to factors like heat diffraction, but often it has not been. Or, sometimes I was shooting in low light and taking bursts at slow shutter speeds and knew that that approach was aiming to get one or two that are actually sharp. I don't hold those against the lens.
As I put it in another post somewhere, at this point my real decision is probably between the 180-600 and something like the 500pf. Obviously the 500pf will be sharper, but the zoom has the versatility of a zoom. In replacing my 200-500 I don't need $3500+ worth of sharpness, but I do need reliability in whatever sharpness the lens I buy does have - which is what I feel like I am really lacking and constantly fighting with the 200-500. I get sharp photos with it at times, but boy do I ever have to take hundreds just to get one or two that are okay. Meanwhile I know others spend time culling their hundreds of sharp shots to find those handful that are pristine and perfect, or to pick the one with the best wing position or facial expression out of their dozens or hundreds of acceptably sharp choices - and that's with the long focal lengths, and all the same atmospherics to contend with. I'm never in a position to choose my favorite wing position or background because I am having to take the ones that wind up sharp. Is it atmospherics sometimes? Yes, and I've seen it enough that I can often recognize it. Is it atmospherics always? No, not always.
|
). But WOW....what a lens! 
