One other advantage of the zoom (that would not show up by counting the keepers at different focal lengths) is the ability to find the subject with a wider angle and then zooming in for the photo. I often have difficulty finding the subject if I simply lift the camera to my eye at 600 mm. (Also, a semantic suggestion: when referring to these lenses in a comparison, the single-syllable words zoom and prime seem like the quickest and most descriptive way to identify them. Repeating 600mm and 180-600mm is not only much longer, it requires much more attention from the listener.)
Nice work. I have compared the 180-600 to my 100-400, 400 2.8 TC and 800 PF. In real life all lenses are great for birding. Only the 400 2.8 TC is better in all areas. The 180-600 is a great lens and very hard to tell in real life the advantage of the PFs over it, (the bigger difference is focusing speed, but not by much). If you pixel peep you will definitely find something to complain about on the 180-600, for the money and what you get, its value is unbeatable.
Although it is a great kens, I have now replaced the Z 180-600 with the Z 100-400 which is a faster lighter sharper lens that goes better when teamed with the 800mm. The 180-600 was too similar in size to the 800mm. The Z TCs can fill the 400-800 gap, and the 800 prime takes over from there.
Excellent review! I received a call late today from my local camera store telling me that my hard-to-get 180-600 had arrived! Thanks for your review. I feel good about my purchase!
I have the 180-600 and just added the 600PF. I thought I wouldn't get one but it's replaced the 500 PF for me. It's more compact and much lighter than the 180-600 - sometimes that's more important I am not fussed about minor IQ differences. The flexibility of a zoom though is also something I often need.
Excellent comprehensive video. I've had the Z600pf for over a month and look forward to picking it up daily. I knew from having the f200-500 that I stayed at the long end the majority of the time. When the Z180-600 came out I ordered it, then when the Z600pf was announced and I saw its size and weight, I canceled the order. For me personally, I made the right call. This lens is impressive and just feels great! I take it to the zoo every two weeks, without a monopod or tripod. At the end of the day, it's a high-quality prime lens I was willing to pay for. On my Z7II it's just 4.6lbs and a tad heavier on the Z9.
Great video, thanks. I think each lens has been created for very different markets so I'm not convinced that the comparison is entirely valid. I have the Z180-600 and I'm over the moon with it, very happy.
Since wildlife photography is not my main field, I bought the 180-600 (5800 Euros is too much for casual use). I could test the Tamron 150-600 G2 from my brother on my Z8 before. I already loved that lens for my purposes. But now my own 180-600 is even better, so I'm extremely happy. The images for me are sharp enough. Otherwise, I could also tweak this a little bit in ACR, Photoshop or Lightroom. I also love the flexibility of the zoom. Yes, the 600 PF is better in any way at 600, but this doesn't justify the three times higher price for my purposes. Nice comparison btw.
So how would you compare the tamron 150-600 with nikkor 180-600, especially in terms of sharpness on the longest end? I have a tamron but thinking to invest in this new 180-600, the question is - is it really worth it in your opinion? Thanks
Great review !!! On the 600pf The Memory Set button and the Fn-1 button can be swap roles : the much more accessible Memory-Set button (you can reach it with your right hand middle finger) can be assigned to a frequent & desirable function, whereas the Fn-1 button which is not so accessible can be set to set the memory for example (or be assigned to a different role).
Thank you for the excellent comparison Fabian. For me it's not just birds - it's animals too - when I go on safari in Africa/India. And I find that the Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 is a good option - reasonable price and extremely portable
Nice, for me the in-between choice is the 400 4.5, even lighter which is the biggest difference in my opinion. It's sharp with a 1.4tc, 4.5 use and costs in the middle.
Thank you for a straight forward review of all the aspects of these lenses. I would much prefer the S line prime lens if (1) I could afford and justify the expense, and (2) I could have other lenses to fill in the 300, 400 and 500mm focal lengths. Reviewing the images that you posted to Drop Box it appears that the 180-600 was sharper around the rimlit edge of the head while the 600 pf was sharper around the eye. This makes me think the focus on the 180-600 was back-focused slightly. Regardless, the very small difference between these does not justify the difference enough (for me) to warrant the 3x price increase.
looking at some tests, the 500fp is so much sharper than 180-600 at 600 that one may wonder if its not better to buy that one, as cropping is gonna be just fine. the 500 will then take TC very well going further than 600 possibly w better image qualtiy on top of that, while allowing for a bit of flexibility (a brighter 500 or 500.1,4x become the choices) and being lighter. ofc theres the need for ftz.
Thank you, timely review. A little elf whispered to me Santa is giving me a 600 pf for Christmas - don’t worry, that same elf whispered that my beautiful wife is getting a Tiffany’s trinket. That price difference is very compelling in favour of the zoom; but I’m 66 and the lightness and slightly better IQ on the prime are deciding factors. I currently have a four year old 500mm 5.6 pf and it’s simply a great lens in its own right so I’m really looking forward to using both when shooting with my kids on different cameras. I find going to DX mode in camera on my Z8 - still getting about 20MP images after the crop - is more convenient than using my TC1.4 or TC2.0 extenders. The reason is the zoom effect of crop mode helps the animal eye detect and AF speed, I think. In any case the high MP on my Z8 means cropping in camera or later is an easy alternative to the extenders.
@@gyalbobhutia2825 it’s a completely valid question. I’ve had my 500 for several years now and it’s given me 100s of great shots, using my D850, my Z6ii and most recently the Z8. I find it works great on the Z8 using my “old” FTZ; on the Z6ii I got less shots on card because of that camera’s AF limitations. At the risk of sounding spoiled and privileged we have two homes, one in Calgary and our vacation home on Vancouver Island. We often commute by plane between the two, so the 500 is staying at our second home and I’ll use the 600 here. But I agree, it’s a tough decision to justify, except the 600 reviews are uniformly stellar and it seems like a great lens.
I bought the 600mm over the other lens, because I mostly do wildlife and usually stay around 600mm anyways, especially with bird photography. Also, the weight was a big consideration for me. I prefer a lighter lens. After a while of carrying around a heavy lens, it gets old. The 600mm is easy to carry.
In the Z system, with the "S" class primes, Nikon demonstrates that zooms can be as sharp as primes. But it comes at a price and needs more glass elements that translate to size and weight. Optically, it's easier to design great lenses at lesser wide apertures (cf. 1.8S lenses). Between the lenses in the video it's about price in the first place. And relative to that the 180-600 does a very good job.
It replaced the 500mmPF lens on my Z9. the 180-600mm is my daily workhorse, my subjects consist of birds, snakes and other wildlife. The flexibility to go from 600mm when shooting birds to 180mm when switching to rattlesnakes, that's worth the loss of "some" sharpness. I do miss the weight of the 500mmPF though. The 180-600mm is heavy with the Z9. I've regretted leaving it behind when I'm birding and find the coolest, unplanned snakes, resting and waiting for me to take my time for the photo. It never fails, when you least expect it, that's when you aren't prepared...
I would guess that since the 180-600 is a heavy lens it might be easier to prevent blurry images with slower shutter speeds as your vr stabilizer test would suggest, but I dont know.
Hi Fabian. Thank you for this superb comparison between the Nikkor Z 180-600 and the Nikkor Z 600 S! Just FYI, for my bird photography, rather than mess with the 1.4 teleconverter on the 180-600 (which can have a slight negative impact on image quality), I simply switch between FX and DX modes if I want a slightly magnified image. I find that doing this has a negligible impact on image quality when compared to a teleconverter. That said, as I take pride in creating very detailed images with excellent sharpness, I wish the 600 was within my budget, but I don't shoot wildlife enough to justify the hefty expense. I usually use the 180-600 with a monopod or tripod, as I find it difficult to handhold And obtain consistently sharp results, especially at the 500 or 600mm focal lengths. Thanks again sir!
I'd never even consider the prime. The airplanes and cars I photograph tend to move. The only thing I'd remotely consider for photographing aircraft or cars on a race track would be something like the 400 2.8 TC where I can flip a switch to get a different focal length. But, I won't sell my car to buy a lens. Lighter weight and more sharpness doesn't do anything for me if my subject gets 10m too close for me to fit it in the frame
Great comparison and video. Thanks. I have a F mount 200-500 F5.8 and want to move to a Z mount. Not a big bird photographer but general wildlife I shoot. Will you suggest the 100-400 or 180-600. I do like the zoom specially when I go to Africa. Thinking if I go with 100-400 then I can use the teleconverter but not really sure which way to go and hope you can help me.
I think it depends on on which focal length you use most and how much weight you want to carry. But if it’s your longest lens, I would probably rather go for the 180-600
Thanks for the review, however the Nikon autofocus speed test it seemed you were touching the manual focus ring which slowed it down, from what I have read I thought it would take less than 0.5 sec to rack focus( but unsure now !?) any chance of doing the tests again like the Canon.
No, I just used the manual focus to get the focus back to the bird (the nikon didn’t manage to acquire focus). For the speed just look at the way from the bird to the background. There was definitely no manual focus involved
Oh ! so from front to back that’s the speed test ? I noticed the 600 pf seemed faster than the 180-600, is that right ? With regards from back to front it seemed they were both on there way back to focus - are you saying that the Nikons could not do it so you interrupted with the manual focus ?!? - are you using a Z8 or Z9 with 4.01 ?
Yes, the 600 PF was faster than the 180-600. And both of them didn’t manage to focus on the bird, only the Canon RF100-500 on the R5 did. I used a Nikon Z9 with the latest firmware (4.1, not available for the Z8)
What body would you recommend I enjoy bird photography and would like to print some shots I’m not into any system at the moment and can’t afford the newer 600 prime with a z8 but there are some great other Nikon body’s d500? D850? D810?
Be aware that you can’t use Z lenses with DSLR cameras such as the ones you listed. But hopefully Nikon will release a cheaper Z6 III soonish. Otherwise, a D500 with a 500/5.6 PF is certainly also an interesting option
Hello Fabian, recently I asked your friend Nicolas this question about telephoto prime lens: staying around that $5000 - $7000 I have the option to buy the Z 600 PF or the Z 800 PF or used AF-S 600 F/4E.... the 600 PF is the lighter (and cheaper) one... the 800 is the one with long reach... the 600 F/4 is the one with higher aperture. Any advice? Those will be used mostly for birds... he gave me his opinion, and now I would like to know your opinion too. I know you guys are doing nice comparison and you are more expert than me
Some things i would think about if i was making this decision. How important is the weight to me, do I want a walk-around lens or do i want to be married to a monopod or tripod, what is the typical focal length I shoot at currently and so I need more and if I go with the 800 how often do i plan to use this focal length? I haven't used the 600 PF but sure its every bit as good as the 500 pf which I've had the 500 pf and it was amazing for walk around photography, its sharp, okay with a TC but after having the 500 F4 FL I much prefer having the F4 and ended up selling my 500 PF which I absolutely loved. I mostly photograph songbirds and waterfowl and my main lens is the 500 F4 FL which I think is a nice sweet spot as opposed to a walkaround lens like the 600 PF or the larger 600 FL. Just throwing out this option in case you haven't looked at it as the used prices for the 500 FL I've seen between $4000-$5000 the last month or two. Its F4 which will give better backgrounds and better in low light compared to the 600 or 800 PF. The 500 FL can take the 1.4 TC extremely well to where if I need the extra reach I have no problem leaving it on there. The weight of the 500 FL is 6lb 13 oz (600 FL is 8lb 7oz) which does allow me to handhold on a short outing like a hour or birds in flight and i just wear it on a peak design camera strap. I do however mostly carry the 500FL on a monopod with the wimberly monogimbal though which allows more flexibility to move around and hand hold or get low quickly when needed. The 500 FL is also a shorter focus distance 3.6 m v 4.4 m for the 600 FL, smaller in dimensions than 600 FL (i easily pack in my backpack as a carry on for flights) . I do eventually plan to buy a 600 FL to have since the prices have come down a good bit and the extra reach would be nice but due to the info I've previously mentioned I think the 500 FL will still be my regular go to.
@@DaveLombardo6 thank you for your reply and advices. I might try to consider the 500 as one of the options too... just one thing I am not sure I understood, about the weight, the 800 PF (6.3) is actually lighter than the AF-S 600 F4
@@michelebelotti2022 lighter weight, I done photography since 1979 both as a professional and now as a hobby photographer, so I know that in the long run light weight wins over heavy gear.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Do you NEED to go "close enough" !? I am very tired of watching CLOSE images of birds and animals where you cannot see the environment, many of the images could be of birds and animals in captivity and many are..!
I never shoot animals in captivity. But how the image looks is personal preference. Some of my favorite wildlife shots are taken with my 35mm lens. But even if you include more of the environment, you need to get a bit closer
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I mentioned the 400mm, not the 35mm. I have done nature photography since 1979 so I know a lot about wildlife and photography ! You may not shoot wildlife in captivity, but many do and too many get too close or crop images too much, I am tired of it and I can see "common" people getting tired of at least close up photos of birds.
i just wrote a post on that. tho i havent compared them, the 500 is a lot sharper and such setup would allow u for a lighter brighter lens, which could be extended into a longer and probably better quality one via 1.4x as well, comparing to 180-600. i can imagine tho the new z lens being faster in focusing , particularly w 1.4x attached to the pf, probably better stavbilisation etc. but the big questions seems to be flexibility - if im always too far i see no reason in not going for the prime setup. imho its just a nicer kit then the zoom, i always prefer less complexity. if bigger animals, expeditions, workshops etc are a thing - then no prime under the sun can beat the ability to zoom out when wide angle is needed.
Fabian how about you compare the Canon 100 - 500 to the Nikon 180 - 600 lens , the reason I say this is let's see if a prime ( Canon 100-500 ) zoom vs ( consumer zoom that being the 180 - 600 Nikon ) .
I got my 180--600mm This week. It sits on my Z7ii. It's a wonderful lens to get into wildlife photography, it really is. Just be warned, it is a 6.3 so your low light performance isn't anything to write home about. But if you crank up the ISO, you can get some really good results with Denoise profiles. If you're looking for a zoom lens for wildlife photography, I couldn't recommend it more.
The sharpness difference for me is negligable, any lack of sharpness on the 180-600 can now easily be restored using software such as Topaz sharpen Ai or similar. The difference in price however is ludicrous and I would rather purchase a used Nikon 400 f/2.8 for about £4000 and use an FTZ adaptor, yes its heavier but put a 1.4x converter on you have 600m at f/4. The Z glass is overpriced by around 300% in my opinion, some of the pricing is eye watering and its not even professional glass!!
@FabianFoppNaturephotography I did buy the 180-600 but that will be my only purchase of Z glass unless I find something used at a fair price. I think that "F" glass is still just as good, albeit somewhat heavier, and, its at a much more sensible price point. Thanks for the reply & happy snapping. Regards from England.
Great! I just finished a academic visit to Switzerland but never got a chance to visit anywhere there. What a pity! Just boring academic thing.@@FabianFoppNaturephotography
The problem is that I dont have money to buy a 600mm...and have to save to buy a 180-600. So it's 180-600 to me...with a bit of more sharpening in LR...and it's done!
the zoom lens wins because it has an 1.3 m minimum focus distance. Yes I would choose the prime every time if it didn't have a 4m minimum focus. A bird landed on the branch right next to you? too bad, you can't take a photo of it and if you move back you.probably startle it.
...think Nikon should have made this lens f/5.6, those f/6.3s superzoom of the F mount era let a bitter taste on my mouth because I'm a right eyed shooter and I have small face to close to nose and mouth but if I have to pick I get the prime.
Is the prime lens sharper than the zoom? Yes. Is it A LOT sharper? I don't think so, certainly not to justify the extra cost on that factor. The zoom lens is still plenty sharp. That's not a criticism of the prime lens as much as it is praise for the zoom. To me, the size and weight are more important differences than the performance.
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Disclaimer! This is from what I have read only! It is an interesting topic - many reviews claim that regarding focus breathing it goes like this: 180-600 > 600/4 > 600/6.3. But it should be the other way around! 180-600 breathes the least. They get it wrong because the image magnifies with closer distances, contrary to Sony's lense 😀. It makes them think that since 600/6.3 has a bigger image it breathes less. I don't have this lens, so it is up to you to measure the real effective focal length and make an interesting video.
Can you please get something other than the stuffed bird for your sharpness test? Big slabs of unlit black fabric do nothing on the screen. There was no apparent difference on my 8k TV at max broadcast resolution. Compare this to Ricci’s 600mm lens tests (also released today) where he uses a colour chart and you will see what I mean. Also look at Dustin Abbott’s and Christopher Frost’s methods for presenting sharpness…
I guess that’s my point. So many other reviewers have constructed a methodology that shows it without needing the original files. I like the idea of something representing reality; it’s just the lack of contrast in the stuffed bird’s black fabric, and the slightly backlighting, that lets yours down.
i think when we're buying a fixed lens we're always assuming it is designed for cropping, while zoom lenses arent because they lack the image quality required to do so. So a better contestant i'd put the 180-600 with is the 400 f4.5 (or even the 300pf). With that one you'd be able to shoot at 400mm aswell as up to 800mm (if you'd chose to do a 2x crop, which is the same as putting a 2x teleconverter), which on a z9/z8 body would come out at around 12mp which is more than fine, and the image quality would still be enough. With the 600pf you'd be shooting totally different things than with the 180-600, as with the latter you have good image quality in a 100-800mm range (counting on cropping) while with the former your range goes from 600mm to 1200mm. Great analysis though
I find that putting a TC results in significantly better IQ than cropping! But either way, I agree that with primes you have more options in this regard
You can buy both lenses here (Affiliate links):
Nikon Z600 f/6.3 PF: bhpho.to/47yjDG4
Nikkor Z180-600: adorama.rfvk.net/QyG3D3
One other advantage of the zoom (that would not show up by counting the keepers at different focal lengths) is the ability to find the subject with a wider angle and then zooming in for the photo. I often have difficulty finding the subject if I simply lift the camera to my eye at 600 mm.
(Also, a semantic suggestion: when referring to these lenses in a comparison, the single-syllable words zoom and prime seem like the quickest and most descriptive way to identify them. Repeating 600mm and 180-600mm is not only much longer, it requires much more attention from the listener.)
Thanks for the feedback, I will keep it in mind 😃
Great points @popeyesweetpea!
@popeyesweetpea the Olympus EE-1 or Nikon DF-M1 might help you with this problem.
Nice work. I have compared the 180-600 to my 100-400, 400 2.8 TC and 800 PF. In real life all lenses are great for birding. Only the 400 2.8 TC is better in all areas. The 180-600 is a great lens and very hard to tell in real life the advantage of the PFs over it, (the bigger difference is focusing speed, but not by much). If you pixel peep you will definitely find something to complain about on the 180-600, for the money and what you get, its value is unbeatable.
Thanks
Very informative video and great presentation style. No annoying intro or background music. Doesn't happen often enough. Thank you for the time spent.
Thanks!
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography agreed - no nonsense - keep it up!
I bought the Z 180-600 rather than the Z 600 and the difference in price paid for half of my Z 800mm.
Have fun with these lenses
I thought of doing that as well. Eventually.
Although it is a great kens, I have now replaced the Z 180-600 with the Z 100-400 which is a faster lighter sharper lens that goes better when teamed with the 800mm. The 180-600 was too similar in size to the 800mm. The Z TCs can fill the 400-800 gap, and the 800 prime takes over from there.
That's what my logic is too.
the 800mm is such a great lens... just uge for travel! I l am looking for the 600 for travel... but can see selling my 800!
Excellent review! I received a call late today from my local camera store telling me that my hard-to-get 180-600 had arrived! Thanks for your review. I feel good about my purchase!
Hope you have fun with the lens!
I have the 180-600 and just added the 600PF. I thought I wouldn't get one but it's replaced the 500 PF for me.
It's more compact and much lighter than the 180-600 - sometimes that's more important I am not fussed about minor IQ differences. The flexibility of a zoom though is also something I often need.
Will be interesting to see which one you end up using more in the long run
Excellent comprehensive video. I've had the Z600pf for over a month and look forward to picking it up daily. I knew from having the f200-500 that I stayed at the long end the majority of the time. When the Z180-600 came out I ordered it, then when the Z600pf was announced and I saw its size and weight, I canceled the order. For me personally, I made the right call. This lens is impressive and just feels great! I take it to the zoo every two weeks, without a monopod or tripod. At the end of the day, it's a high-quality prime lens I was willing to pay for. On my Z7II it's just 4.6lbs and a tad heavier on the Z9.
Sounds great, have fun!
Definitely agree.
Great video, thanks. I think each lens has been created for very different markets so I'm not convinced that the comparison is entirely valid. I have the Z180-600 and I'm over the moon with it, very happy.
Several people asked me which one to get…
Since wildlife photography is not my main field, I bought the 180-600 (5800 Euros is too much for casual use). I could test the Tamron 150-600 G2 from my brother on my Z8 before. I already loved that lens for my purposes. But now my own 180-600 is even better, so I'm extremely happy. The images for me are sharp enough. Otherwise, I could also tweak this a little bit in ACR, Photoshop or Lightroom. I also love the flexibility of the zoom. Yes, the 600 PF is better in any way at 600, but this doesn't justify the three times higher price for my purposes. Nice comparison btw.
Nice, have fun
So how would you compare the tamron 150-600 with nikkor 180-600, especially in terms of sharpness on the longest end? I have a tamron but thinking to invest in this new 180-600, the question is - is it really worth it in your opinion? Thanks
Great review !!! On the 600pf The Memory Set button and the Fn-1 button can be swap roles : the much more accessible Memory-Set button (you can reach it with your right hand middle finger) can be assigned to a frequent & desirable function, whereas the Fn-1 button which is not so accessible can be set to set the memory for example (or be assigned to a different role).
Yes. It’s nice that with the Z8 and Z9 you can configure most of the buttons
Thank you for the excellent comparison Fabian. For me it's not just birds - it's animals too - when I go on safari in Africa/India. And I find that the Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 is a good option - reasonable price and extremely portable
For bigger animals I also think that the 400/4.5 might be the better option
Nice, for me the in-between choice is the 400 4.5, even lighter which is the biggest difference in my opinion. It's sharp with a 1.4tc, 4.5 use and costs in the middle.
Yes, that’s also a very interesting lens
Thank you for a straight forward review of all the aspects of these lenses. I would much prefer the S line prime lens if (1) I could afford and justify the expense, and (2) I could have other lenses to fill in the 300, 400 and 500mm focal lengths. Reviewing the images that you posted to Drop Box it appears that the 180-600 was sharper around the rimlit edge of the head while the 600 pf was sharper around the eye. This makes me think the focus on the 180-600 was back-focused slightly. Regardless, the very small difference between these does not justify the difference enough (for me) to warrant the 3x price increase.
Thanks! I will try with a different test subject next time
looking at some tests, the 500fp is so much sharper than 180-600 at 600 that one may wonder if its not better to buy that one, as cropping is gonna be just fine. the 500 will then take TC very well going further than 600 possibly w better image qualtiy on top of that, while allowing for a bit of flexibility (a brighter 500 or 500.1,4x become the choices) and being lighter. ofc theres the need for ftz.
Unfortunately, I could never test the 500 PF. I‘m wondering how it compares in terms of AF and IS
I mean if your subjects never get closer than 500mm, sure
Isn't it an F mount lens? So, slower AF, VR, having to work with FTZ
Thank you, timely review. A little elf whispered to me Santa is giving me a 600 pf for Christmas - don’t worry, that same elf whispered that my beautiful wife is getting a Tiffany’s trinket.
That price difference is very compelling in favour of the zoom; but I’m 66 and the lightness and slightly better IQ on the prime are deciding factors. I currently have a four year old 500mm 5.6 pf and it’s simply a great lens in its own right so I’m really looking forward to using both when shooting with my kids on different cameras.
I find going to DX mode in camera on my Z8 - still getting about 20MP images after the crop - is more convenient than using my TC1.4 or TC2.0 extenders. The reason is the zoom effect of crop mode helps the animal eye detect and AF speed, I think. In any case the high MP on my Z8 means cropping in camera or later is an easy alternative to the extenders.
Will it justify the upgrade from 500 PF to 600 PF? I have a 500 PF and a z8 but f 6.3 and so high cost is putting me in the dilemma. what do you say?
@@gyalbobhutia2825 it’s a completely valid question. I’ve had my 500 for several years now and it’s given me 100s of great shots, using my D850, my Z6ii and most recently the Z8. I find it works great on the Z8 using my “old” FTZ; on the Z6ii I got less shots on card because of that camera’s AF limitations.
At the risk of sounding spoiled and privileged we have two homes, one in Calgary and our vacation home on Vancouver Island. We often commute by plane between the two, so the 500 is staying at our second home and I’ll use the 600 here. But I agree, it’s a tough decision to justify, except the 600 reviews are uniformly stellar and it seems like a great lens.
Habe fun with the lens!
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography thank you, I know I will!
I bought the 600mm over the other lens, because I mostly do wildlife and usually stay around 600mm anyways, especially with bird photography. Also, the weight was a big consideration for me. I prefer a lighter lens. After a while of carrying around a heavy lens, it gets old. The 600mm is easy to carry.
Have fun!
In the Z system, with the "S" class primes, Nikon demonstrates that zooms can be as sharp as primes. But it comes at a price and needs more glass elements that translate to size and weight. Optically, it's easier to design great lenses at lesser wide apertures (cf. 1.8S lenses). Between the lenses in the video it's about price in the first place. And relative to that the 180-600 does a very good job.
Yes, I agree
Canon did something very similar with their RF 200-800
It replaced the 500mmPF lens on my Z9. the 180-600mm is my daily workhorse, my subjects consist of birds, snakes and other wildlife. The flexibility to go from 600mm when shooting birds to 180mm when switching to rattlesnakes, that's worth the loss of "some" sharpness. I do miss the weight of the 500mmPF though. The 180-600mm is heavy with the Z9. I've regretted leaving it behind when I'm birding and find the coolest, unplanned snakes, resting and waiting for me to take my time for the photo. It never fails, when you least expect it, that's when you aren't prepared...
Yeah, weight is the min reason I clearly prefer the Z8 over the Z9
I would guess that since the 180-600 is a heavy lens it might be easier to prevent blurry images with slower shutter speeds as your vr stabilizer test would suggest, but I dont know.
This could be
Hi Fabian. Thank you for this superb comparison between the Nikkor Z 180-600 and the Nikkor Z 600 S! Just FYI, for my bird photography, rather than mess with the 1.4 teleconverter on the 180-600 (which can have a slight negative impact on image quality), I simply switch between FX and DX modes if I want a slightly magnified image. I find that doing this has a negligible impact on image quality when compared to a teleconverter. That said, as I take pride in creating very detailed images with excellent sharpness, I wish the 600 was within my budget, but I don't shoot wildlife enough to justify the hefty expense. I usually use the 180-600 with a monopod or tripod, as I find it difficult to handhold And obtain consistently sharp results, especially at the 500 or 600mm focal lengths. Thanks again sir!
Thanks! Qualitywise I still prefer an extender, but I agree that cropping is also quite good these days
An awesome comparison. Thank you.
Thanks
It would also be interesting to see how the 200-600mm performs against the 100-400mm plus TC 1.4x?
Unfortunately, I could not test the Z100-400
I'd never even consider the prime. The airplanes and cars I photograph tend to move. The only thing I'd remotely consider for photographing aircraft or cars on a race track would be something like the 400 2.8 TC where I can flip a switch to get a different focal length. But, I won't sell my car to buy a lens. Lighter weight and more sharpness doesn't do anything for me if my subject gets 10m too close for me to fit it in the frame
Sure, some people prefer zoom lenses!
Danke Fabian, das war aufschlussreich!
Freut mich
Great comparison and video. Thanks. I have a F mount 200-500 F5.8 and want to move to a Z mount. Not a big bird photographer but general wildlife I shoot. Will you suggest the 100-400 or 180-600. I do like the zoom specially when I go to Africa. Thinking if I go with 100-400 then I can use the teleconverter but not really sure which way to go and hope you can help me.
I think it depends on on which focal length you use most and how much weight you want to carry. But if it’s your longest lens, I would probably rather go for the 180-600
Thanks
The Nikon Z 180-600 is a fantastic lens for the price.
Nice, have fun with it
Thanks for the review, however the Nikon autofocus speed test it seemed you were touching the manual focus ring which slowed it down, from what I have read I thought it would take less than 0.5 sec to rack focus( but unsure now !?) any chance of doing the tests again like the Canon.
No, I just used the manual focus to get the focus back to the bird (the nikon didn’t manage to acquire focus). For the speed just look at the way from the bird to the background. There was definitely no manual focus involved
Oh ! so from front to back that’s the speed test ? I noticed the 600 pf seemed faster than the 180-600, is that right ? With regards from back to front it seemed they were both on there way back to focus - are you saying that the Nikons could not do it so you interrupted with the manual focus ?!? - are you using a Z8 or Z9 with 4.01 ?
Yes, the 600 PF was faster than the 180-600. And both of them didn’t manage to focus on the bird, only the Canon RF100-500 on the R5 did. I used a Nikon Z9 with the latest firmware (4.1, not available for the Z8)
Thanks Fabian and keep up the good work.
What body would you recommend I enjoy bird photography and would like to print some shots I’m not into any system at the moment and can’t afford the newer 600 prime with a z8 but there are some great other Nikon body’s d500? D850? D810?
Be aware that you can’t use Z lenses with DSLR cameras such as the ones you listed. But hopefully Nikon will release a cheaper Z6 III soonish. Otherwise, a D500 with a 500/5.6 PF is certainly also an interesting option
Heavier usually means less high frequency shake. That might be the reason the zoom is more stable.
Yes, that could indeed be the reason
Hello Fabian, recently I asked your friend Nicolas this question about telephoto prime lens: staying around that $5000 - $7000 I have the option to buy the Z 600 PF or the Z 800 PF or used AF-S 600 F/4E.... the 600 PF is the lighter (and cheaper) one... the 800 is the one with long reach... the 600 F/4 is the one with higher aperture. Any advice? Those will be used mostly for birds... he gave me his opinion, and now I would like to know your opinion too. I know you guys are doing nice comparison and you are more expert than me
Some things i would think about if i was making this decision. How important is the weight to me, do I want a walk-around lens or do i want to be married to a monopod or tripod, what is the typical focal length I shoot at currently and so I need more and if I go with the 800 how often do i plan to use this focal length? I haven't used the 600 PF but sure its every bit as good as the 500 pf which I've had the 500 pf and it was amazing for walk around photography, its sharp, okay with a TC but after having the 500 F4 FL I much prefer having the F4 and ended up selling my 500 PF which I absolutely loved. I mostly photograph songbirds and waterfowl and my main lens is the 500 F4 FL which I think is a nice sweet spot as opposed to a walkaround lens like the 600 PF or the larger 600 FL. Just throwing out this option in case you haven't looked at it as the used prices for the 500 FL I've seen between $4000-$5000 the last month or two. Its F4 which will give better backgrounds and better in low light compared to the 600 or 800 PF. The 500 FL can take the 1.4 TC extremely well to where if I need the extra reach I have no problem leaving it on there. The weight of the 500 FL is 6lb 13 oz (600 FL is 8lb 7oz) which does allow me to handhold on a short outing like a hour or birds in flight and i just wear it on a peak design camera strap. I do however mostly carry the 500FL on a monopod with the wimberly monogimbal though which allows more flexibility to move around and hand hold or get low quickly when needed. The 500 FL is also a shorter focus distance 3.6 m v 4.4 m for the 600 FL, smaller in dimensions than 600 FL (i easily pack in my backpack as a carry on for flights) . I do eventually plan to buy a 600 FL to have since the prices have come down a good bit and the extra reach would be nice but due to the info I've previously mentioned I think the 500 FL will still be my regular go to.
@@DaveLombardo6 thank you for your reply and advices. I might try to consider the 500 as one of the options too... just one thing I am not sure I understood, about the weight, the 800 PF (6.3) is actually lighter than the AF-S 600 F4
I would go light
@@cameraprepper7938 light as weight or light as max aperture?
@@michelebelotti2022 lighter weight, I done photography since 1979 both as a professional and now as a hobby photographer, so I know that in the long run light weight wins over heavy gear.
Interesting, I can't tell hardly any difference between the results on youtube or the download. Would help if you made the raw files available too. ☺
Unfortunately, I don’t have enough space on my dropbox for that. I can see a clear difference with the downloaded files
actually the 180-600 only has the LFn 1 buttons (but it has 4) but they are in the same location as the LFn2 buttons on the 600 prime
True. But for me the placement is more important than the name 😉
For me the functionality is more important than the name. @@FabianFoppNaturephotography
Thanks for your sharing. That is really helful for me. I think, it would greate if you could provide few RAW files for us to compare.
Unfortunately I don’t have the space on my dropbox 😕
if im with Nikon Z9 and i want versatility, do you suggest going for the Nikon 180-400 F4(with Build TC1.4) ? even if its old" generation?
Unfortunately, I could never try that lens
WHY? @@FabianFoppNaturephotography
Because I only tested Z lenses
600mm 6.3 prime for sharpness and because it is lighter, the 400mm 4.5 is even smaller and lighter
Yes, if you can get close enough to your subject the 400/4.5 is an excellent choice
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Do you NEED to go "close enough" !? I am very tired of watching CLOSE images of birds and animals where you cannot see the environment, many of the images could be of birds and animals in captivity and many are..!
I never shoot animals in captivity. But how the image looks is personal preference. Some of my favorite wildlife shots are taken with my 35mm lens. But even if you include more of the environment, you need to get a bit closer
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography I mentioned the 400mm, not the 35mm. I have done nature photography since 1979 so I know a lot about wildlife and photography ! You may not shoot wildlife in captivity, but many do and too many get too close or crop images too much, I am tired of it and I can see "common" people getting tired of at least close up photos of birds.
How does the Z180-600mm lens compare to the 500mm PF, possibly with a 1.4x teleconverter? The prices of these two options are more comparable.
i just wrote a post on that. tho i havent compared them, the 500 is a lot sharper and such setup would allow u for a lighter brighter lens, which could be extended into a longer and probably better quality one via 1.4x as well, comparing to 180-600. i can imagine tho the new z lens being faster in focusing , particularly w 1.4x attached to the pf, probably better stavbilisation etc. but the big questions seems to be flexibility - if im always too far i see no reason in not going for the prime setup. imho its just a nicer kit then the zoom, i always prefer less complexity. if bigger animals, expeditions, workshops etc are a thing - then no prime under the sun can beat the ability to zoom out when wide angle is needed.
Unfortunately, I was not able to compare them
Great Video Fabian
Thanks
Fabian how about you compare the Canon 100 - 500 to the Nikon 180 - 600 lens , the reason I say this is let's see if a prime ( Canon 100-500 ) zoom vs ( consumer zoom that being the 180 - 600 Nikon ) .
I already did this comparison. Just check my channel 😊
Very good review 👍🏼👍🏼
Thanks
I got my 180--600mm This week. It sits on my Z7ii. It's a wonderful lens to get into wildlife photography, it really is. Just be warned, it is a 6.3 so your low light performance isn't anything to write home about. But if you crank up the ISO, you can get some really good results with Denoise profiles. If you're looking for a zoom lens for wildlife photography, I couldn't recommend it more.
I agree, it’s a very versatile allround lens
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography It's certainly not a prime! But for 1/3 the price, it gets you up to 600mm! And 900mm if you use DX Mode.
The prime is sharper but not by much, I guess minor software sharpening is enough to fill that gap for most people not willing to spend for the prime
I think it’s not only about sharpness but also AF speed and handling
Hi. Actually I have d780 and 500mm f 5.6. Do you think I should switch to the new lens or do I buy a teleconverter and still use mine?
You can’t use the new Z lenses with DSLR cameras
Excellent review!
Thanks
01:32. What is that bird ? Anyone know ?
Crested tit
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Thank you ! never seen one before, appreciate the reply - very cool looking bird, like the bird Version of billy Idol.
Nice video, dude 👌🏻 I own both and agree. I’ll sell the 180-600.
Thanks
The sharpness difference for me is negligable, any lack of sharpness on the 180-600 can now easily be restored using software such as Topaz sharpen Ai or similar. The difference in price however is ludicrous and I would rather purchase a used Nikon 400 f/2.8 for about £4000 and use an FTZ adaptor, yes its heavier but put a 1.4x converter on you have 600m at f/4. The Z glass is overpriced by around 300% in my opinion, some of the pricing is eye watering and its not even professional glass!!
I think a lot of the Z glass has a very fair price point (e.g. 180-600, 800/6.3) but I also find the 600/6.3 overpriced
@FabianFoppNaturephotography I did buy the 180-600 but that will be my only purchase of Z glass unless I find something used at a fair price. I think that "F" glass is still just as good, albeit somewhat heavier, and, its at a much more sensible price point. Thanks for the reply & happy snapping. Regards from England.
For every video, you record twice? One with English and one with Germany?
Almost! I do some videos exclusively in German
Great! I just finished a academic visit to Switzerland but never got a chance to visit anywhere there. What a pity! Just boring academic thing.@@FabianFoppNaturephotography
Super thank you!
You‘re welcome
Can you compare the Z180-600 & Tamron 150-500mm for Z mount ?
Unfortunately I don’t have access to the Tamron lens
The problem is that I dont have money to buy a 600mm...and have to save to buy a 180-600. So it's 180-600 to me...with a bit of more sharpening in LR...and it's done!
Also an option 😊
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography yes 🤣😂.. BTW I love your channel and work... 🤩
It's the extra weight it has, that make it more stable. The weight remove some of the micro-shakes an lighter lens creates.
I usually feel that I can hold a lighter Telephoto lens better (at least nowadays where we have no shake from the shutter)
the zoom lens wins because it has an 1.3 m minimum focus distance. Yes I would choose the prime every time if it didn't have a 4m minimum focus. A bird landed on the branch right next to you? too bad, you can't take a photo of it and if you move back you.probably startle it.
In some situation this might be very important. In others, no problem at all. So everyone need to think about their needs
...think Nikon should have made this lens f/5.6, those f/6.3s superzoom of the F mount era let a bitter taste on my mouth because I'm a right eyed shooter and I have small face to close to nose and mouth but if I have to pick I get the prime.
😅
Is the prime lens sharper than the zoom? Yes. Is it A LOT sharper? I don't think so, certainly not to justify the extra cost on that factor. The zoom lens is still plenty sharp. That's not a criticism of the prime lens as much as it is praise for the zoom. To me, the size and weight are more important differences than the performance.
The 180-600 is good but it’s not in the same class as the 400 f4.5 or 600 pf
Yes, you get what you pay for 😊
It's not that 180-600 has less than 600 at closer distances. It is that 600pf has more than 600.
Really? I think would be the first tele lens ever that has more focal length than advertised
@@FabianFoppNaturephotography Disclaimer! This is from what I have read only! It is an interesting topic - many reviews claim that regarding focus breathing it goes like this: 180-600 > 600/4 > 600/6.3. But it should be the other way around! 180-600 breathes the least. They get it wrong because the image magnifies with closer distances, contrary to Sony's lense 😀. It makes them think that since 600/6.3 has a bigger image it breathes less.
I don't have this lens, so it is up to you to measure the real effective focal length and make an interesting video.
Can you please get something other than the stuffed bird for your sharpness test? Big slabs of unlit black fabric do nothing on the screen. There was no apparent difference on my 8k TV at max broadcast resolution. Compare this to Ricci’s 600mm lens tests (also released today) where he uses a colour chart and you will see what I mean. Also look at Dustin Abbott’s and Christopher Frost’s methods for presenting sharpness…
I can look into it. For me, the stuffed bird shows a more realistic scenario. But did you check the dropbox link?
I guess that’s my point. So many other reviewers have constructed a methodology that shows it without needing the original files. I like the idea of something representing reality; it’s just the lack of contrast in the stuffed bird’s black fabric, and the slightly backlighting, that lets yours down.
I always prefer zooms.
Certainly a matter of personal preference
i think when we're buying a fixed lens we're always assuming it is designed for cropping, while zoom lenses arent because they lack the image quality required to do so. So a better contestant i'd put the 180-600 with is the 400 f4.5 (or even the 300pf). With that one you'd be able to shoot at 400mm aswell as up to 800mm (if you'd chose to do a 2x crop, which is the same as putting a 2x teleconverter), which on a z9/z8 body would come out at around 12mp which is more than fine, and the image quality would still be enough. With the 600pf you'd be shooting totally different things than with the 180-600, as with the latter you have good image quality in a 100-800mm range (counting on cropping) while with the former your range goes from 600mm to 1200mm.
Great analysis though
I find that putting a TC results in significantly better IQ than cropping! But either way, I agree that with primes you have more options in this regard
use a higher dia for your vids... you are sharp but the subject lenses are oof.
I didn’t want to close the aperture because of the background
I didn’t want to close the aperture because of the background
They are not even close. Go with the prime if you can afford it.
Yes, the prime definitely has some big advantages
PF lens is noticeably “brighter”! That tells me light transmission is far superior in the 600mm PF!
Yes. In my opinion it’s not a huge difference though