p.1 #1 · 180-600 + tc...strange results...in a good way.
So, I finally got my first Z lenses this week...the 180-600 and a 70-200 S. I've been shooting adapted F-mount lenses on this Z9, and have been happy.
Surprise #1...the sharpness and contrast of the long zoom at 600/6/3. I did not expect that at all! I've seen so many mixed results from others and reviews that state it looses a bit at the long end. I've had just about every supertele Nikon lens, and many third party as well, and I don't know if this unit is especially good, or what. I was shooting it along side a 500PF (one of the best lenses I've ever used) and it was difficult to tell sometimes without looking at the data. Needless to say, I did not expect that level of resolution.
Surprise #2, which was more of a surprise...both tc's wide open are really good! 1200mm/@13 on the 2.0 is very crisp, and f14 is about as sharp as the bare lens. The 1.4 is fine wide open @f9 . I did not really look at corners, but shooting birds, the stuff I cared about looked great.
Surprise #3...first...I did not shoot many images with the 70-200, but the results with the tc's were less than stellar. Could be the subject/lighting, or just that I didn't put as much time into shooting these combos. I shot the bare lens, and it's exactly what you'd expect...razor...period...any FL until diffraction. I am gonna have to do a more controlled test with the tcs, as I can't see these lens/tc units not being better than the long zoom. Still, I've been shooting long enough to expect anything.
I guess I need to start saving for a second Z body now
p.1 #2 · 180-600 + tc...strange results...in a good way.
jbear wrote:
Surprise #1...the sharpness and contrast of the long zoom at 600/6/3. I did not expect that at all! I've seen so many mixed results from others and reviews that state it looses a bit at the long end.
I've noticed a lot of reviewers making comments like this with various lenses. I often wonder if they are just making that comment because that's the "conventional wisdom" rather than actually testing them, because real-world results seldom show any image visible degradation with modern lenses and 1.4x teleconverters.
p.1 #3 · 180-600 + tc...strange results...in a good way.
I think atmospherics have a ton to do with it (especially with tcs). I didn't have great conditions this weekend but I got a few interludes here and there...enough to see what the lenses can do. Seriously, if I showed you the feather detail on some of 1200mm f14 shots...you would not be able to tell they were with tc. Crazy! But I'd take it
p.1 #4 · 180-600 + tc...strange results...in a good way.
My 180-600 shows a bit of chromatic aberration and slight softness at 600mm when wide open, but this disappears if I stop it down a half stop. Suspect a third of a stop might be enough.
I haven't noticed any degradation from adding the 1.4x teleconverter.
These are my impressions from using the lens and pixel peeping; I haven't done any formal tests.
p.1 #5 · 180-600 + tc...strange results...in a good way.
@jbear - Congrats on your first 2 Z lenses! I agree...the 180-600 surprised me with its ability to render detail despite being a non S-Line lens. And the 70-200/2.8 S is truly something special; it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used. However, adding the 1.4x TC was not acceptable to me when shooting indoor volleyball. The AF slowed down too much and I wasn't happy with the sharpness. Most people would probably be totally fine with it, but having gotten used to the razor sharp details of S-Line lenses, any degradation just doesn't work for me. Would much rather use the 300/4 PF...another truly special lens in my opinion. I used that one for indoor volleyball too and absolutely loved it (sharpness was stellar).
p.1 #6 · 180-600 + tc...strange results...in a good way.
jbear wrote:
So, I finally got my first Z lenses this week...the 180-600 and a 70-200 S. I've been shooting adapted F-mount lenses on this Z9, and have been happy.
Surprise #1...the sharpness and contrast of the long zoom at 600/6/3. I did not expect that at all! I've seen so many mixed results from others and reviews that state it looses a bit at the long end. I've had just about every supertele Nikon lens, and many third party as well, and I don't know if this unit is especially good, or what. I was shooting it along side a 500PF (one of the best lenses I've ever used) and it was difficult to tell sometimes without looking at the data. Needless to say, I did not expect that level of resolution.
Surprise #2, which was more of a surprise...both tc's wide open are really good! 1200mm/@13 on the 2.0 is very crisp, and f14 is about as sharp as the bare lens. The 1.4 is fine wide open @f9 . I did not really look at corners, but shooting birds, the stuff I cared about looked great.
Surprise #3...first...I did not shoot many images with the 70-200, but the results with the tc's were less than stellar. Could be the subject/lighting, or just that I didn't put as much time into shooting these combos. I shot the bare lens, and it's exactly what you'd expect...razor...period...any FL until diffraction. I am gonna have to do a more controlled test with the tcs, as I can't see these lens/tc units not being better than the long zoom. Still, I've been shooting long enough to expect anything.
I guess I need to start saving for a second Z body now...Show more →
I recently got one of these and kinda surprised too. Not sure how to explain this, but the bare lens is not close to 600 PF (which I tried for a short period). I can get acceptable result. The 400/4.5+TC is pretty close to 180-600 at 600mm. But what surprised me is the TC 1.4x on this lens. At 840mm the result was more than acceptable IMO. Steve Perry mentioned this too.
Anyway a sample pict from Z8
Z8 and 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR Z TC-1.4x @ 1/125sec, f9.0, ISO 2200, 27MP(5892X4617), Effective FL 1177mm, Distance 76ft, AF Area Auto(Birds)
p.1 #7 · 180-600 + tc...strange results...in a good way.
Nice when we get surprises like that innit? I have a 500PF, which is about as sharp as I have used (maybe just behind 3002.8VR/400VR2.8 level), but it really took me aback when I was looking at my images thinking they were from the 500 and they were [email protected]! Like I said...nice surpise.
I had similar luck with the 200-500VR. Reviews were good but a bit all over (like this zoom), but the unit I had was prime sharp at 5.6 in the center. Not as good as the 500PF (or this new zoom) but...still really good. Corners...not so much, but for my case use I'm not really concerned about the corners. I shoot landscapes with other lenses. I should look at the corners with the new lens I suppose...I didn't really study them. I'm sure the 600 prime does a better job with that, but...I need to check.
