Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
p.9 #1Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
SCoombs wrote:
While I have seen soft images posted by user duncang, the vast majority I have seen in this thread and this looks very sharp. My own sample also performs well.
Crop of test shot @ 600mm f/6.3 and f/7.1 uploaded in full res:
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/67250557/2163df17559140a0add412816316a275Both of these images are extremely soft. The 7.1 is better, but is still soft.
Sour Grapes
1. Regarding your 180-600 comments - The images posted throughout this thread show that it is "acceptably sharp" even wide open at 600. Of course this comment I am making right now is subjective; i.e. *the images speak for themselves*.
As I go back through this thread, I think you are the only person who insists that the 180-600 images we see on this thread are soft.
2. You are the first person I have read who has such a low opinion of the 200-500. You call it "wildly inconsistent" and you are "fairly sour on" it.
If your 2-5 was "wildly inconsistent" why did you keep it? Would anyone continue to shoot a lens they had such a low opinion of ?
My 2-5 (bought in 2018) has been consistently tack sharp, albeit unbalanced (external zoom) and in recent years increasingly unwieldy.
___________
I can still carry my 2-5, but I do not want the weight anymore of any big lens. That is probably the reason I will not purchase this new 180-600 (it's just 1/2 pound lighter than the 2-5). That said, I may buy the 400 2.8 TC some day. For me, that particular lens might be worth the heavy weight (maybe not
). But WOW....what a lens!
Edited on Sep 16, 2023 at 08:09 AM · View previous versions
LarsHP wrote
SCoombs wrote
I'm generally in agreement with this. The thing is, as I said in my comment above, at least to me almost all if the 180-600 examples people have been posting in various places look fairly soft. (...)Crop of test shot @ 600mm f/6.3 and f/7.1 uploaded in full res:
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/67250557/2163df17559140a0add412816316a275
Sour Grapes
1. Regarding your 180-600 comments - The images posted throughout this thread show that it is "acceptably sharp" even wide open at 600. Of course this comment I am making right now is subjective; i.e. *the images speak for themselves*.
As I go back through this thread, I think you are the only person who insists that the 180-600 images we see on this thread are soft.
2. You are the first person I have read who has such a low opinion of the 200-500. You call it "wildly inconsistent" and you are "fairly sour on" it.
If your 2-5 was "wildly inconsistent" why did you keep it? Would anyone continue to shoot a lens they had such a low opinion of ?
My 2-5 (bought in 2018) has been consistently tack sharp, albeit unbalanced (external zoom) and in recent years increasingly unwieldy.
___________
I can still carry my 2-5, but I do not want the weight anymore of any big lens. That is probably the reason I will not purchase this new 180-600 (it's just 1/2 pound lighter than the 2-5). That said, I may buy the 400 2.8 TC some day. For me, that particular lens might be worth the heavy weight (maybe not
). But WOW....what a lens! Edited on Sep 16, 2023 at 08:09 AM · View previous versions
Sep 16, 2023 at 07:58 AM
p.9 #2Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
bs kite wrote:
While I have seen soft images posted by user duncang, the vast majority I have seen in this thread and this looks very sharp. My own sample also performs well.
Crop of test shot @ 600mm f/6.3 and f/7.1 uploaded in full res:
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/67250557/2163df17559140a0add412816316a275Both of these images are extremely soft. The 7.1 is better, but is still soft.Sour Grapes
1. Regarding your 180-600 comments - The images posted throughout this thread show that it is "acceptably sharp" even wide open at 600. Of course this comment I am making right now is subjective; i.e. *the images speak for themselves*.
As I go back through this thread, I think you are the only person who insists that the 180-600 images we see on this forum are soft.
2. You are the first person I have read who has such a low opinion of the 200-500. You call it "wildly inconsistent" and you are "fairly sour on" it....Show more →
I'll give this a shot, but I'm not sure if it will post as the last two attempts I have made didn't go through. Perhaps it was due to a link I tried to post to some of my photos? I'm not yet super familiar with this forum.
1) I've seen well known users on other forums also saying they are finding 180-600 photos a bit soft. As you say, sharpness is at least a little subjective and I have certainly found that people have at times wildly different opinions on what is acceptably sharp.
2) In trying to figure out if it was just me I've looked around and I have found others who had lower opinions of their 200-500s, even after dealing with sample variation. I tried to illustrate what I am talking about with inconsistency in another post, but as I said it seems like perhaps my link broke it? I'm unsure. In any case, I've kept the lens because I haven't been able to easily afford to swap lenses in and out and so I have been waiting to see how the 180-600 pans out to establish whether it would make a suitable replacement or if I should look into a 500pf. I have taken steps to see what a different lens would produce, for instance renting a 3rd party lens to compare.
EDIT: seeing as this post has shown up, it looks like my link may indeed have broken page 8 of this thread - or at least my ability to post there? Either way, apologies if I've somehow broken the thread as there's no way for me to see the posts to even try to fix them.
SCoombs wrote
LarsHP wrote
SCoombs wrote
I'm generally in agreement with this. The thing is, as I said in my comment above, at least to me almost all if the 180-600 examples people have been posting in various places look fairly soft. (...)Crop of test shot @ 600mm f/6.3 and f/7.1 uploaded in full res:
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/67250557/2163df17559140a0add412816316a275
1. Regarding your 180-600 comments - The images posted throughout this thread show that it is "acceptably sharp" even wide open at 600. Of course this comment I am making right now is subjective; i.e. *the images speak for themselves*.
As I go back through this thread, I think you are the only person who insists that the 180-600 images we see on this forum are soft.
2. You are the first person I have read who has such a low opinion of the 200-500. You call it "wildly inconsistent" and you are "fairly sour on" it....Show more →
I'll give this a shot, but I'm not sure if it will post as the last two attempts I have made didn't go through. Perhaps it was due to a link I tried to post to some of my photos? I'm not yet super familiar with this forum.
1) I've seen well known users on other forums also saying they are finding 180-600 photos a bit soft. As you say, sharpness is at least a little subjective and I have certainly found that people have at times wildly different opinions on what is acceptably sharp.
2) In trying to figure out if it was just me I've looked around and I have found others who had lower opinions of their 200-500s, even after dealing with sample variation. I tried to illustrate what I am talking about with inconsistency in another post, but as I said it seems like perhaps my link broke it? I'm unsure. In any case, I've kept the lens because I haven't been able to easily afford to swap lenses in and out and so I have been waiting to see how the 180-600 pans out to establish whether it would make a suitable replacement or if I should look into a 500pf. I have taken steps to see what a different lens would produce, for instance renting a 3rd party lens to compare.
EDIT: seeing as this post has shown up, it looks like my link may indeed have broken page 8 of this thread - or at least my ability to post there? Either way, apologies if I've somehow broken the thread as there's no way for me to see the posts to even try to fix them.
Sep 16, 2023 at 08:07 AM
p.9 #3Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
SCoombs wrote:
While I have seen soft images posted by user duncang, the vast majority I have seen in this thread and this looks very sharp. My own sample also performs well.
Crop of test shot @ 600mm f/6.3 and f/7.1 uploaded in full res:
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/67250557/2163df17559140a0add412816316a275Both of these images are extremely soft. The 7.1 is better, but is still soft.Sour Grapes
1. Regarding your 180-600 comments - The images posted throughout this thread show that it is "acceptably sharp" even wide open at 600. Of course this comment I am making right now is subjective; i.e. *the images speak for themselves*.
As I go back through this thread, I think you are the only person who insists that the 180-600 images we see on this forum are soft.
2. You are the first person I have read who has such a low opinion of the 200-500. You call it "wildly inconsistent" and you are "fairly sour on" it.
If your 2-5 was "wildly inconsistent" why did you keep it? Would anyone continue to shoot a lens they had such a low opinion of?
My 2-5 has been consistently tack sharp, albeit unbalanced (external zoom) and in recent years increasingly unwieldy.
___________
I can still carry it, but I do not want the weight anymore of any big lens. That is probably the reason I will not purchase this new 180-600 (it's just 1/2 pound lighter than the 2-5). That said, I may buy the 400 2.8 TC some day. For me, that particular lens might be worth the heavy weight (maybe not). But what a lens!I'll give this a shot, but I'm not sure if it will post as the last two attempts I have made didn't go through. Perhaps it was due to a link I tried to post to some of my photos? I'm not yet super familiar with this forum.
1) I've seen well known users on other forums also saying they are finding 180-600 photos a bit soft. As you say, sharpness is at least a little subjective and I have certainly found that people have at times wildly different opinions on what is acceptably sharp.
2) In trying to figure out...Show more →
Thank you for your unoffensive response. That goes a long way
I love my 500PF and I love the Z8. Am going to see if I can make my Z8/500PF (and sometime TC1.4) my go-to combo; i.e. no superzoom. I'll see.
I will add to this post later but first wanted to quickly say thanks
Solving your link or "broken the thread" issue is not my forte. But I believe there are one or two people on this thread who can help .
Edited on Sep 16, 2023 at 08:36 AM · View previous versions
bs kite wrote
SCoombs wrote
LarsHP wrote
SCoombs wrote
I'm generally in agreement with this. The thing is, as I said in my comment above, at least to me almost all if the 180-600 examples people have been posting in various places look fairly soft. (...)Crop of test shot @ 600mm f/6.3 and f/7.1 uploaded in full res:
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/67250557/2163df17559140a0add412816316a275
1. Regarding your 180-600 comments - The images posted throughout this thread show that it is "acceptably sharp" even wide open at 600. Of course this comment I am making right now is subjective; i.e. *the images speak for themselves*.
As I go back through this thread, I think you are the only person who insists that the 180-600 images we see on this forum are soft.
2. You are the first person I have read who has such a low opinion of the 200-500. You call it "wildly inconsistent" and you are "fairly sour on" it.
If your 2-5 was "wildly inconsistent" why did you keep it? Would anyone continue to shoot a lens they had such a low opinion of?
My 2-5 has been consistently tack sharp, albeit unbalanced (external zoom) and in recent years increasingly unwieldy.
___________
I can still carry it, but I do not want the weight anymore of any big lens. That is probably the reason I will not purchase this new 180-600 (it's just 1/2 pound lighter than the 2-5). That said, I may buy the 400 2.8 TC some day. For me, that particular lens might be worth the heavy weight (maybe not
). But what a lens!1) I've seen well known users on other forums also saying they are finding 180-600 photos a bit soft. As you say, sharpness is at least a little subjective and I have certainly found that people have at times wildly different opinions on what is acceptably sharp.
2) In trying to figure out...Show more →
Thank you for your unoffensive response. That goes a long way
I love my 500PF and I love the Z8. Am going to see if I can make my Z8/500PF (and sometime TC1.4) my go-to combo; i.e. no superzoom. I'll see.
I will add to this post later but first wanted to quickly say thanks
Solving your link or "broken the thread" issue is not my forte. But I believe there are one or two people on this thread who can help .
Edited on Sep 16, 2023 at 08:36 AM · View previous versions
Sep 16, 2023 at 08:15 AM
p.9 #4Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
Steve just published sharpness tests vs a number of lenses
Sep 16, 2023 at 08:22 AM
p.9 #5Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
mholdef wrote:
Steve just published sharpness tests vs a number of lenses
For those not wanting to dive into the video the conclusion vs the Sony is that the Nikon is identical to slightly better wide open at 600mm and with a 1.4x TC as well. Test chart distances though. Anyway, another result different from some others reported.
Steve just published sharpness tests vs a number of lenses
For those not wanting to dive into the video the conclusion vs the Sony is that the Nikon is identical to slightly better wide open at 600mm and with a 1.4x TC as well. Test chart distances though. Anyway, another result different from some others reported.
Sep 16, 2023 at 09:24 AM
p.9 #6Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
I would also like to add that my 400 4.5 edged out the 180-600 in sharpness and its autofocus speed was almost twice as fast from infinity to mfd.AF speed for the zoom was .8 second, and .47 second for the 400.
The Sony was essentially a tie with the 180-600 as far as resolution but its af speed was .45 sec, almost twice as fast. As for myself, I really do not care. I am not interested in either, because they are all too big and heavy to carry around except for the 400 4.5.
The Sony was essentially a tie with the 180-600 as far as resolution but its af speed was .45 sec, almost twice as fast. As for myself, I really do not care. I am not interested in either, because they are all too big and heavy to carry around except for the 400 4.5.
Sep 16, 2023 at 10:42 AM
p.9 #7Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
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.
Sep 16, 2023 at 10:53 AM
p.9 #8Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
Steve tested de AF speed with a Z7 II as well and it was .8 against .83 IIRC, so no real difference I would say.
armd wrote:
…….. 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.
Sep 16, 2023 at 10:57 AM
p.9 #9Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
BPsmith511 wrote:
While I have seen soft images posted by user duncang, the vast majority I have seen in this thread and this looks very sharp. My own sample also performs well.
Crop of test shot @ 600mm f/6.3 and f/7.1 uploaded in full res:
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/67250557/2163df17559140a0add412816316a275Both of these images are extremely soft. The 7.1 is better, but is still soft.I think it is good for the extreme crop-in that it is...
It almost looks like the 6.3 image hasn't quite hit focus like the 7.1 image did.
SCoombs wrote
LarsHP wrote
SCoombs wrote
I'm generally in agreement with this. The thing is, as I said in my comment above, at least to me almost all if the 180-600 examples people have been posting in various places look fairly soft. (...)Crop of test shot @ 600mm f/6.3 and f/7.1 uploaded in full res:
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/67250557/2163df17559140a0add412816316a275
It almost looks like the 6.3 image hasn't quite hit focus like the 7.1 image did.
Sep 16, 2023 at 11:48 AM
p.9 #10Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
mholdef wrote:
Steve just published sharpness tests vs a number of lenses
Superb test and much thanks to Steve for performing, lot of work involved I am sure, very interesting viewing.
Steve just published sharpness tests vs a number of lenses
Superb test and much thanks to Steve for performing, lot of work involved I am sure, very interesting viewing.
Sep 16, 2023 at 12:30 PM
|
p.9 #11Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
A very enjoyable video indeed from Steve Perry, another job well done.
I have the Nikkor Z 100-400mm and use it with great pleasure during my African safaris. This lens is clicked on the Z9 and works like a charm.
The other Z9 has the Z 600mm TC on it and is of course a different beast all together. One of these days will I most likely go to my local camera shop and see if my backpack can fit the 2 bodies, the 180-600 and the 600mm TC as I might buy indeed this lens. I will however have to sacrifice 80 precious mm on the short end,
hence the reason I like and love the 100-400. Choices choices.
I have the Nikkor Z 100-400mm and use it with great pleasure during my African safaris. This lens is clicked on the Z9 and works like a charm.
The other Z9 has the Z 600mm TC on it and is of course a different beast all together. One of these days will I most likely go to my local camera shop and see if my backpack can fit the 2 bodies, the 180-600 and the 600mm TC as I might buy indeed this lens. I will however have to sacrifice 80 precious mm on the short end,
hence the reason I like and love the 100-400. Choices choices.
Sep 16, 2023 at 12:48 PM
p.9 #12Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
mholdef wrote:
Steve just published sharpness tests vs a number of lenses
It looks like the reviewer I trust most regarding such things as this has tested and reported on the 180-600 Nikon. He has confirmed what my instincts, and hands off image observations regarding this lens as I posted earlier. It is an excellent choice of lens for its intended use case. It will provide great results for its owners, and will develop a well deserved following among the Nikon user base.
There are good techniques for mitigating the slower AF in this lens. I am sure the user community will refine these to a set of best practices for this particular lens.
Keep in mind that what Steve Perry is actually testing is a system. He is likely shooting the 180-600 on a Z body, and the 200-600 on the A1. It is the totality of the system that is providing the results. The image resolution slightly favors the A1 50MP sensor. The speed of focus which again slightly favors the A1 and the focus motors that Sony uses. Even with all of these variables in practice these "systems" preform at levels that will mostly make the shooting experience, and image quality overall equal in the end. That is a good thing for all of us.
Congratulations Nikon on bring to market a valuable add to the Nikon Z ecosystem.
Edited on Sep 17, 2023 at 10:54 AM · View previous versions
Steve just published sharpness tests vs a number of lenses
It looks like the reviewer I trust most regarding such things as this has tested and reported on the 180-600 Nikon. He has confirmed what my instincts, and hands off image observations regarding this lens as I posted earlier. It is an excellent choice of lens for its intended use case. It will provide great results for its owners, and will develop a well deserved following among the Nikon user base.
There are good techniques for mitigating the slower AF in this lens. I am sure the user community will refine these to a set of best practices for this particular lens.
Keep in mind that what Steve Perry is actually testing is a system. He is likely shooting the 180-600 on a Z body, and the 200-600 on the A1. It is the totality of the system that is providing the results. The image resolution slightly favors the A1 50MP sensor. The speed of focus which again slightly favors the A1 and the focus motors that Sony uses. Even with all of these variables in practice these "systems" preform at levels that will mostly make the shooting experience, and image quality overall equal in the end. That is a good thing for all of us.
Congratulations Nikon on bring to market a valuable add to the Nikon Z ecosystem.
Edited on Sep 17, 2023 at 10:54 AM · View previous versions
Sep 16, 2023 at 01:39 PM
p.9 #13Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
So, now we have review and comparison from a very reputable source, one of the best out there.
No doubt, this lens is another great choice from Nikon.
The only downside is, if you're a Nikon shooter, which one to go for, hard to make a decision.
I would love to owe it, but 400f4.5 stays here for sure.
I'll see if I can squeeze 180-600 in, somehow.
No doubt, this lens is another great choice from Nikon.
The only downside is, if you're a Nikon shooter, which one to go for, hard to make a decision.
I would love to owe it, but 400f4.5 stays here for sure.
I'll see if I can squeeze 180-600 in, somehow.
Sep 16, 2023 at 01:44 PM
p.9 #14Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
duncang wrote:
Alistair1 wrote
And then there are images that have been deliberately shot and processed to look bad and you will see an example of that early in this thread.....
!
Terrible. When compared to other images shown here and Perry's results, yours is a outlier and clearly not representative of the performance of the lens.
Sep 16, 2023 at 03:32 PM
p.9 #15Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
LarsHP wrote:
Alistair1 wrote
Corner Sharpness:
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/kYqEfc6PCWYKzbegFUGVcF-1200-80.png">Thanks, I wanted to correct the selective omission of the earlier post.
Sep 16, 2023 at 03:36 PM
p.9 #16Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
George DeCamp wrote:
A set from this morning in the back yard using Z9.
This is some lovely work George...
It looks like the Ruby-throats have been as kind to you as to me... I've never seen so many birds in my area. I think I am on day 6 of photographing them in the jewel weed... I am painfully behind in the processing with about 10,000 pictures to edit
bruce
A set from this morning in the back yard using Z9.
This is some lovely work George...
It looks like the Ruby-throats have been as kind to you as to me... I've never seen so many birds in my area. I think I am on day 6 of photographing them in the jewel weed... I am painfully behind in the processing with about 10,000 pictures to edit
bruce
Sep 16, 2023 at 03:41 PM
p.9 #17Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
LarsHP wrote:
While I have seen soft images posted by user duncang, the vast majority I have seen in this thread and this looks very sharp. My own sample also performs well.
Crop of test shot @ 600mm f/6.3 and f/7.1 uploaded in full res:
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/67250557/2163df17559140a0add412816316a275
Is it really that soft at 6.3 or is that motion blur?
SCoombs wrote
I'm generally in agreement with this. The thing is, as I said in my comment above, at least to me almost all if the 180-600 examples people have been posting in various places look fairly soft. (...)Crop of test shot @ 600mm f/6.3 and f/7.1 uploaded in full res:
https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/67250557/2163df17559140a0add412816316a275
Is it really that soft at 6.3 or is that motion blur?
Sep 16, 2023 at 04:02 PM
p.9 #18Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
This is some lovely work George...
It looks like the Ruby-throats have been as kind to you as to me... I've never seen so many birds in my area. I think I am on day 6 of photographing them in the jewel weed... I am painfully behind in the processing with about 10,000 pictures to edit
bruce
Thanks Bruce! One of my favorite things to do it to go in the backyard with a coffee in early morning light with the hummingbirds. I couldn't get one in my yard while in NY while my brother who lived 2 miles away from me had them all day. Now it's my turn here in Myrtle Beach I have them all day and he is in Melbourne Beach in Florida and can't get one to save his life!
George DeCamp wrote
A set from this morning in the back yard using Z9.It looks like the Ruby-throats have been as kind to you as to me... I've never seen so many birds in my area. I think I am on day 6 of photographing them in the jewel weed... I am painfully behind in the processing with about 10,000 pictures to edit
bruce
Thanks Bruce! One of my favorite things to do it to go in the backyard with a coffee in early morning light with the hummingbirds. I couldn't get one in my yard while in NY while my brother who lived 2 miles away from me had them all day. Now it's my turn here in Myrtle Beach I have them all day and he is in Melbourne Beach in Florida and can't get one to save his life!
Sep 16, 2023 at 04:28 PM
p.9 #19Official 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...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.
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...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.
Sep 16, 2023 at 05:00 PM
p.9 #20Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
urbanwild wrote:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-FjWHnLw/0/c8693f41/O/i-FjWHnLw.jpgThis is really interesting Mark. I've read a few times about how different raw converters give very different results but this demonstrates a much bigger difference than I would have expected. I'm very curious which is which and what your workflow is if you don't use LR to import.
Thanks!
Since a couple people asked:
Top left: NX Studio (basically the same as an OOC JPEG)
Top Right: DXO Pure RAW (Soft sharpening setting)
Bottom Left: Topaz (don't remember the exact model but whatever was standard/default). I really dislike Topaz, its really bad for artifacting, always changes exposure, and you can't really use it for batch processing.
Bottom Right: Adobe
Like I said, some careful PP could probably get all 4 images looking quite close to each other, but hopefully it helps illustrate how big of a sharpness difference can be introduced just from one single variable (of many), probably bigger than any actual difference that exists between the lens comparisons everyone is worried about
My workflow:
Import NEFs into DXO Pure RAW, I usually use the older (non-XD) model with the minimum sharpness setting, especially if the image is very sharp to begin with. Really high ISO images that naturally have less detail I might use XD (Soft). After that batch process is done I bring the resulting DNGs into ACR and do basic edits for exposure, white balance, etc. then save as JPEG when I'm done. I am always looking for ways to streamline the editing process as I find I enjoy editing a lot less when it starts to feel tedious.
There is no profile for the 180-600 though from any program I am aware of (yet another reason why current comparisons will vary) which is why I didn't use an image from that lens in my RAW converter comparison.
CanadaMark wrote
To help illustrate my point, here is a quick & dirty comparison using 100% crops of an old image I took (to be clear this is NOT a 180-600 image) and all I did was run the exact same NEF through 4 different RAW converters, I didn't move any sliders or touch anything else which is why there are exposure differences. The differences here are already more than what some are comparing the 180-600 to, and there are still other variables that haven't even been introduced yet:https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-FjWHnLw/0/c8693f41/O/i-FjWHnLw.jpg
Thanks!
Since a couple people asked:
Top left: NX Studio (basically the same as an OOC JPEG)
Top Right: DXO Pure RAW (Soft sharpening setting)
Bottom Left: Topaz (don't remember the exact model but whatever was standard/default). I really dislike Topaz, its really bad for artifacting, always changes exposure, and you can't really use it for batch processing.
Bottom Right: Adobe
Like I said, some careful PP could probably get all 4 images looking quite close to each other, but hopefully it helps illustrate how big of a sharpness difference can be introduced just from one single variable (of many), probably bigger than any actual difference that exists between the lens comparisons everyone is worried about
My workflow:
Import NEFs into DXO Pure RAW, I usually use the older (non-XD) model with the minimum sharpness setting, especially if the image is very sharp to begin with. Really high ISO images that naturally have less detail I might use XD (Soft). After that batch process is done I bring the resulting DNGs into ACR and do basic edits for exposure, white balance, etc. then save as JPEG when I'm done. I am always looking for ways to streamline the editing process as I find I enjoy editing a lot less when it starts to feel tedious.
There is no profile for the 180-600 though from any program I am aware of (yet another reason why current comparisons will vary) which is why I didn't use an image from that lens in my RAW converter comparison.
Sep 16, 2023 at 06:51 PM