ChrisMak wrote: Eric214 wrote:
100% if I didn't have a greater need for the 800f6.3 PF lens. The 600f6.3 would have been my choice. The 180-600 being a non S lens has some resolving power issues compared to the other s lenses like the 100-400, 400f4.5, 600f6.3PF, 800PF, 400TC and 600TB and even the 500PF.
For example, I shot with the 180-600 lens for a couple weeks straight. My 800 can take an Eagle at distance and cropping 100% and the Eagle still only being about 40% of the frame, I still easily get a clearly sharp and defined pupil. With the 180-600, with the same conditions and 100% making the Eagle about 40% of the frame (it's obviously closer due to 600mm than 800mm) the images are noticeably soft and not really usable. This I believe is the weakness of a non S lens, the resolving power.
You need to roughly half fill the frame on the 180-600 fir it to be really tack sharp. So it's a secondary lens, not really a main wildlife lens
Just out of curiousity: did you try one copy of the 180-600?
Amongst the real weaknesses of a consumer zoom lens I suspect copy variation to be in the top three regardless of brand.
The Sony 200-600G had random focussing issues on the A7RIV to the point where it was more or less a lottery getting that combo. And even the Sony100-400GM (which I don't really see as a professional wildlife lens) apparently has a pretty big resolution variable from copy to copy.
Copy variation makes discussing a lens of this type near impossible. But there's no doubt that a high end 800mm prime will knock out a 180-600mm consumer lens, especially on distant shooting.
I had the Sony 200-600G and later got the 600GM. I waited quite a while because there were so many posts by users of both lenses that they could not see a difference in sharpness between the two. Yeah, right
I guess some have to upgrade to a decent monitor, get new glasses and train their eyesight
Or use their lenses for something other than backyard birds at 10m.
What I see from the 180-600 though, exceeds my expectation of a consumer zoom lens. It (or at least some copies) produces really beautiful and detailed images. I rate it above the Sony 200-600G in quality of color and rendering.
Yes i used a friend for 2-3 weeks shooting it for about 15 days and averages and 2700 shots a day. I didn't expect this to be a copy happening with AF. It was consistent in what i saw, was sharp if the subject was at least it cost to half filling the frame. Anything with a heavy crop of 100% was soft compared to other S line lenses like the 400f4.5, 100-400 and the big 4 of course if the 400tc, 600tc, 600PF and the 800pf.
I'll be buying off at some point this year to set my kit for wildlife with the 180-600 and the 800PF. It'll just be for trips to places like Yellowstone where stuff just get to close for 800mm and I know I'll be generally filling the have. You just should it's limitations
Apr 09, 2024 at 09:04 AM
Previous versions of Eric214's message #16519840 « Would you buy the Z 600mm 6.3 ?? »
