Re: Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
SCoombs wrote: 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. (...)
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.
Both 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 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.
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 get help .
Re: Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
SCoombs wrote: 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. (...)
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.
Both 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 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.
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
Sep 16, 2023 at 09:15 AM
Previous versions of bs kite's message #16343529 « Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread »
). But what a lens! 