Nikon 180-600mm Z mount Telezoom Lens, Is It the Best Value for Wildlife and Bird Photography?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2024
- After spending a month with this lens, I am convinced this is one of the best values in wildlife lenses. This is a full review including build quality, image quality and lens characteristics.
Thanks B&H for the full demo, if you are considering this lens, please use the affiliate link below:
bhpho.to/3KV36Ci
Subscribe for editing tips and behind-the-scenes videos as well as community contests and free giveaways:
www.patreon.com/WildlifeInspired
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best noise reduction and sharpening software: topazlabs.com/ref/351/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MT FAVORITE GEAR
Nikon Z9: bhpho.to/3rM9O7A
Nikon 400mm 2.8 Z: bhpho.to/3tj806y
Nikon 105mm macro: bhpho.to/3NngzVI
Laowa 25mm ultra macro: bhpho.to/3F405g7
Leofoto monopod: bit.ly/46xfQYE
Robus Tripod: bhpho.to/46eAQn3
Promedia Gear Tomahawk (monopod gimbal): tinyurl.com/4vdkuy98
Promedia Katana Jr (tripod gimbal): tinyurl.com/yjtf4s4a
Leofoto fluid head: bit.ly/3ZFtRB8
AK Diffuser: akdiffuser.com/?wpam_id=30 (COUPON CODE skeys5 for more savings)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shopping for any of these brands? Use these links:
B&H (my online source with great delivery and service): bhpho.to/41vuugj
Promedia Gear: www.promediagear.com?aff=36
Leofoto: leofotousa.com/wildlifeinspired
I have this lens and the first thing I did was replace the collar with one from Kirk, much much better. But also not cheap. The lens itself is a good investment at this price point. I also have the 600pf, looking forward to your comparison between the two.
among the best lens at reasonable price
Best lens I have ever bought. Purchased mine about a month ago to replace a tamron and I love the short throw so I can zoom out find the subject and then zoom back in quickly The quality is amazing even with a 1.4 x and 2x tele converters. Absolute great value for money. I own a bunch of much more expensive Nikon 1.2 glass however this lens for its cost is an absolute no brainer and highly recommended.
Excellent review Scott. I totally agree with you on the 180/600 lens. Definitely a keeper for sure.
Good review, thank you. I have this lens, but not for very long, couple of weeks is all. I no sooner got it home than I ordered the Kirk Lens Collar from B&H. I've been trying the lens out with backyard birds and so far I'm very happy with it. I'm just now switching to mirrorless and this is my first Z mount wildlife lens. My previous go to wildlife rig was D500 with 80-400mm attached. I'm just getting started with a Z8 and the 180-600.
Fantastic video, I have found much the same using my 180-600. I love this lens for what I do as a hobbyist birder.
Your irl take on gear is something I really appreciate Scott. I hope you get the chance to review the Z6iii. Im thinking that body with this lens would be a great budget wildlife setup and enough to finally make me move from my D500 & 200-500 setup.
Budget for £2699 for a body 😂
Budget I would say is a full setup for that cost!
Might want to wait to see if they come out with a D500 style mirrorless unless you feel like you want full frame.
@@AstairVentof A mirrorless D500 is so overdue it's not even funny!
Looks like a really good lens
Good to see reviews of lenses like this, more in line in what a lot of us can afford.
I agree with pretty much everything that you stated, it is a great value and a lens I use a lot with great results. Thanks for sharing!
Scott, I applaud your “real world” evaluation of the lens. I’m not much into the charts and I’ve never run across anyone that could tell the difference unless they were pixel peeping. I purchased this lens about three months ago to use on my Nikon Z9. Since the purchase, my Nikon 500mmPF and Nikon 800mm f/5.6 haven’t left the camera bag. Saying that I’m pleased with this lens is an understatement! After seeing comments regarding the lens collar and the lack of Arca-Swiss mount of the Nikon foot, I purchased the Kirk replacement. That was the best modification and decision I could ever have made. Lastly, thank you for taking the time to make these informative videos 1
Thanks for kind words !
Have the lens and it vastly exceeded my expectations in terms of sharpness. A little heavy and long for travel, but stunning pic quality. Just returned from a trip where I photographed monkeys in the mangrove, from a boat: 50 meters away at least and with the TC 1.4x images came out razor sharp ! Same with insects. Amazing IQ and value for the price. Takes both TCs extremely well
I also noticed that 1 in 3 or 4 images in a burst is not as sharp. I have the VR mode on Sport as suggested by others
Great video, thank you !
I have this since a couple of weeks and I have great images from my bird photo trip to North of Norway. Works very well with TC1,4 also.
Scott, thank you for your detailed review of this lens. I really like your emphasis on doing "practical" reviews that focus on performance in the field. That is the bottom line, after all.
I'd like to share a suggestion. When talking about bokeh, depth of field, and noise, I get that people are used to discussing f-stops as the primary indicator of one lens's potential versus another. And when talking about lenses of the same focal length, f-stops are reliable indicators. However, when discussing lenses of different focal lengths - and there are quite a few of those in bird and wildlife photography - it's the entrance pupil diameter of the lens that gives the most reliable indication of its potential.
To illustrate, let's consider the 500mm f/5.6 PF in comparison with the 180-600mm f/5-6.3. The prime is 1/3-stop faster for exposure. However, it has an 89mm diameter entrance pupil. The zoom at 600mm f/6.3 has a 95mm entrance pupil. In candor, that difference is modest, at best. But that modest difference is in favor of the zoom. It will collect just a skosh more light from a bird in the frame than the 500mm prime.
Anyone who assumes that the f/5.6 lens will have an edge over the f/6.3 when it comes to noise, depth of field, separation of the subject from the background, and bokeh might be surprised by the outcome of a head-to-head test. The zoom should hold its own and might even have and edge...by just a hair.
I suggest you include entrance pupil when discussing the relative performance of different focal length lenses.
Excellent point. I have heard almost no one discuss this as a topic. Rather than share it in talking points it could be a cool illustrator when doing a dedicated video and showing the real world differences between say 400 2.8 and 600 f4
I've been shooting with this lens for two months, doing stills and video. I bought for a back up stills lens and for primary video lens on a Z8. I agree with everything Scott said. Collar, which I changed to an Arca, is a PIta with either. I can tell that the focus speed is slower on moving subjects than the 500PF, with and without 1.4TC. I've been shooting the 500PF for the past 3+yrs so I picked up this slowness immediately. Super pleased with this lens for video. The short throw on the zoom ring has extremely good dampening, making for flawless zooms while filming. All around a great value lens.
My lenses focus noticeably quicker when on my Z9 than my Z7II. It's really noticeable with the 400mm/f4.5.
How do you feel about this lens vs the 500pf (with and without tc)? And did you adapt the 500pf? Did you just get this lens for the flexibility?
@@AstairVentof My opinion is the 500PF is better all around, but it should be. Yes, the 500PF was adapted because it only comes in F mount. Yes the flexibily of having a zoom when shooting larger wildlife and being able to vary shots when filming.
Reply
Great review ! focus motor is silent for video compare to the sigma 150-600. I could not really record sound with the sigma given the motor noise. This is not an issue at all with the 180-600. Vibration reduction is also excellent with the z8. It is possible to record handle at 600mm.
have this lens 1st thing i did was get the KES collar / tripod foot and no issues
Hi Scott. I like your practical review of this lens. The 180-600 is a great value for bird & wildlife enthusiast photographers. I look forward to your comparison with the 600 PF.
Also, I’ve often had the experience you noted of having shots in a burst out of focus and in focus. It’s weird. I’ve wondered if it’s VR related but I’m not sure. My guess is the AF firmware in the lens needs a bit of fine tuning. I’m sure Nikon is working on that.
I would love to see how this lens stacks up to the Canon RF 100-500. There are times that I think about moving to Nikon and this lens is tempting for the reach! I haven’t done a side by side comparison yet, but it does catch my eye, as well as a Z8.
Scott I agree with you on the image quality for the money and the collar change. I bought the Hoag version on Amazon. I really like the flexibility for birds or Airshows is the primary reason I bought the lens. The internal zoom is great and had two copies of the 200-500 that were soft even with adjustments!
On your comparison video with the 600PF I would be interested in the differences you find. A friend rented the PF and he bought it over the zoom for weight with z8/9 setup. We tested at the beach with shore birds, it was lighter and faster AF. For the money 189-600z is a great lens and on par with the more expensive lens for center images. I wish Nikon would have made prime 500/600 f4 replacement for the f lens. It would have been less than $14-$16K for I really liked my 500f4G, except for the weight!
I think the use of the charts is a controlled test of lens at center and edges. I really like Steve’s videos and he shows bird examples as well. I follow you, Steve, and Ricci for the honest evaluations of Nikon gear in test and real world situations. I really like gear comparison videos that helped to sort out an affordable option on a gimbal/monopod. Keep up the great great videos 👍👍
I don't mind the lens collar. While waiting for it to arrive, I planned to buy the Kirk replacement collar.
I don't care how sharp my 180-600mm is compared to the 400mm f/2.8. The 400mm lens costs so much more because of its ability to go to f/2.8.
LN buttons on lens can be used to programe and recall a distance ,But only on Z8@9, I use them when needed!
I have owned the lens for a while now. The occasional (slightly) out of focus frame may not be what you think. I believe this is the AF system doing a very quick double check and fine tune. It isn’t the lens doing this, the camera is doing it on purpose as part of a plan. In a burst I find that I have so many to choose from anyway. I often find the one after it gets “back into feather detail focus” is fine-tuned a fraction. Sometimes it doesn’t need to. With my 500 F4 I often see the same thing. The Z180-600 is surprisingly good. I get better results and I put it down to ease of use and flexibility plus extremely good image stabilisation (plus lower chromatic aberration).
For me this an ideal birding lens regardless of price. When shooting the Z800 Pf recently, I found I had to take my eye away from the viewfinder to relocate the bird as it moved as it hovered above its prey. With the 180-600 in the same scenario, I can zoom out a bit relocate the bird and zoom to an appropriate crop level. I am used to shooting big primes but this zoom is rapidly becoming my go-to lens. In some situations where reach beyond 600 is needed, longer faster primes on a gimbal on a tripod with a TC may be essential but the 180-600 has a lot going for it. I think 6.3 at 600 in the center is really good. If you need it to be a bit sharper in the DX frame area, it can help a bit to go to 7.1 or F8 if light and ISO allow it.
Thanks for your review. I think that lens is pretty much designed to be a direct competitor to Sonys 200-600 5.6-6.3 G (not GM, the equivalent to the missing S). Advantage Nikon: Z mount, 20 mm more focal length. Zoom throw (a quarter rotation), minimum focus distance and weight are identical. The collar system isn’t better on the more expensive Canon RF100-500 4.5-7.1, which has an ultra design flaw, using an RF Extender (as Canon named its teleconverters), only zoom range 300-500 is usable.
What a great review! If I was a Nikon guy, I would snap this up. The MFD being 8 feet, compared to 13 feet for the prime, would make this infinitely more useful for warbler-sized birds.
I got mine in April and actually just finished sorting the shots I took with it today 😁
And I love this thing. Focus is snappy, I like the flexibility compared to a prime and it isn't too heavy.
I'm curious though. There is a rumored price increase for Europe of about 20%. If that actually happens, how would that change how you view this lens?
Just a comment: I own the Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3. A couple of weeks ago I was asked to shoot photos for a conformation dog show. Usually, I will use a combination of the Nikon Z 70-200mm f2.8 and the Z 24-120mm f4 to get the shots I want on either my Z8 or Z9. I ended up taking almost 65,000 frames over a five day period. On Day 4, I decided to change things up and I took 4974 frames with the Z9 and Nikon Z 180-600mm indoors while my Z8 was fitted with a Nikon Z 24-120mm f4 taking another 4000 frames. Most of the 180-600mm shots were profiles of the moving dog as I was trying to capture just the outline of the dog. Because of the lousy lighting and my need to shoot at a 1/400th sec shutter speed, I kicked the ISO up to 5000 for the shots. The results were stellar and shot after shot was in focus with minimal visible noise. I bought the lens for shooting wildlife in a nearby National Park, but I hate things to sit on a shelf. It truly is a great value lens. Well done, Nikon!!
very interesting. I would have assumed the 70-200 would be a go to for that type of work. Great to hear that the 180-600 performed well in that environment.
@@WildlifeInspired It certainly is, and it's probably the best tool. But, I get bored always shooting from the same perspective. And, for me personally, I hate to see my equipment sit on the shelf. Given that this was a very large show ring (It was a breed national specialty show and the ring was four or five times larger than at a typical conformation dog show.), 200mm doesn't fill the frame when I'm trying to shoot something at the far end of the ring. Also, I try to shoot some candid crowd shots. It's nice to fill the frame with two or three people on the far side of the ring. I'm not convinced that I'm going to use it for dog shows regularly because it's hard to always get a shot when the subject is less than 50 feet away, and while the lighting wasn't great, it was much better than I've experienced in many other indoor shows. The 70-200mm, 24-120mm and perhaps a 24-70mm are preferable. Occasionally, I even break out the Nikon Z 105mm f2.8 Macro lens. It renders beautiful portrait shots and it is quite good in lousy lighting.
Buena revisión Scott. He probado el objetivo en Kenia con excelentes resultados, especialmente si quieres un objetivo polivalente aves-mamíferos. He comprobado su resistencia cuando me ha caído del jeep del safari y le ha pasado nada (si a la Z8 que tuvo una rotura en la carcasa). En resumen yo le pediría para ser ambicioso: un poco menos de peso, una apertura máxima de 5.6 y un collar de sujeción decente (en realidad lo que tu has dicho). Una cuestión: ¿como has programado los botones y los 2 collares ?. Saludos y gracias por tu revisión.
Thank you for compelling and practical review.
Any thoughts on the sharpness of the 180-600mm with the Z TELECONVERTER TC-1.4x?
Thats not a set up I ususally recommend. at 600mm, adding reach brings you above f/8 and requires a lot of light. You will lose sharpness for sure. If you are interested in a dedicated 800mm lens (birds in flight) the 800mm 6.3 is your lens.
Scott, I really enjoy your reviews, especially the real world type reviews. But I haven't had the same real world results with this lens that you had. When I bought my Z8 I bought the FTZ II adapter so I could use my 500mm PF lens. I needed more flexibility and my 200-500mm wasn't doing it so I bought the 180-600mm. I found that it didn't have vibration reduction and I checked my camera to make sure it was turned on. It was but it didn't seem to be working very well. If I use 1/1000 shutter speed with F/6.3 in low light I get an ISO of 10,000 or more and the photos are nothing like I get from my 500mm PF lens. I even thought about returning the 180-600 and getting a 100-400 S lens and the 1.4 teleconverter. The 180-600 works fine in sunlight, but it really struggles in wooded areas.
That VR should not be an issue. I suggest trying another copy and see if you have the same resutks.
I saw this thumbnail yesterday afternoon, went looking for it in the evening to watch it and couldn't find it, thought was going mad 😄
Had to reload it. Error on first vid!
@@WildlifeInspired not to worry. Appreciated the video, great points made. Certainly is a great value lens - though for my purposes (safaris in Africa/India), I think the 100-400 would probably be more useful.
Cheers
@@WildlifeInspired Come on Scott !!!
I have this lens for Soccer-Sport-Photografie.
The only negative point is that there is no proper lens bag / lens quiver (like on AF-S 70-200mm F/2.8G ED VR II MK 2 would be ok)
Great video !! Between a question: how is this lens paired with Nikon ZF ?
Did anyone experience any bird eye detect and pre release?
Brilliant review with great sample images and detail on the lenses characteristics.
Overall, how does this lens compare to the z 400mm f4.5 vr s? I’m currently saving for either the 180-600 or 400mm, I’m leaning towards the 400 due to its aperture, weight and sharpness. My fieldcraft is pretty good so I’m not too concerned about the extra 200mm of reach with the 180-600. I’d be interested in your thoughts! Thanks for the great review.
The 400 is an excellent lens! Light. Fast. Versatile. It's my preferred lens over the 600 6.3 (and cheaper). You just need to be close for small subject. Like 9 feet close !
@@WildlifeInspired thanks for the reply, much appreciated. That’s interesting, do you find yourself reaching for the 180-600 or 400 4.5 more?
Great vídeo. Thanks.
I have a Nikon z6 and 200-500 f5.6. Who You think is better to buy? A Nikon z6 iii or 180-600 lens?
Oh boy. I'm gonna rent the z6iii soon. There's and advantage to the z6iii and 180-600. Mostly around low light. I'll try to mention that on a review.
@@WildlifeInspired thanks. I’m waiting for this vídeo
How good will it be on Z6ii
I saw that the firmware 1.0.1 for this lens had the following changelog. Not sure what firmware you are at with your lens. ?
- Fixed an issue that focus may be inaccurate at a focus distance of infinity with a focal length around 400mm to 600mm in a low temperature environment.
Title is misleading - it should say "Nikon 180 600mm Z mount Telezoom Lens, Is It Really the Best Value Nikon lens for Wildlife and Bird Photography"
If you can find this lens get it, just an outstanding Nikon lens.
Hmmm. If your question was, "Is this the best value for Nikon" maybe. But for myself, the problem would be, it's 'only' a 600mm lens, and to make matters 'much' worse, Nikon still hasn't come out with a new, modern APS-C body to put it on :( Come on Nikon, what's up with this ? So we are talking a straight 600mm, which for my shooting needs, is just WAY too short, most of the time. IMPO, the best 'value' lens on the market today, is the Canon RF 200-800, which works fantastically on the crop body R7. I know you, and many of your viewers do a lot of BIF of larger birds, and for that, 600mm might often be enough. Of course, if your using this lens on a FF camera, it had better be enough, because that's all you get. Whereas, if one were using the 200-800 on a crop body Canon, you could shoot at 600.... or 800..... heck, 1280mm if that's what you needed. {although 1280mm for BIF is rarely useful... unless your a lot better than I am :) }
Anyway, as far as "value" goes, it does have to be a zoom, with the exception maybe being, the Canon 800 F11, just because it's so dirt cheap. Only problem is, I seem to wear them out in about 2 yrs, with 200K-300K shots on them. On my 3rd one now :) Picked it up as a refurb, with 2 yr warranty, for $550
Oh, and the reason I know how great the 200-800 is, is that I rented it for a week, and took about 6000 shots with it. Too bad Canon can't get off of their arse and make them more available :( Urggg....
Who shoots APSC anyway
You have DX .. on a Z8 thats 900mm f6.3 at about 22 M Pixels
@@Mr09260 people, who want the built in TC/more reach?
@@Mr09260 which moron buys a Z8, pays 4000-45000 and than uses only ca 20 MPx from 46? loooooooool
The DX is because of cheaper camera body first of all, second is reach.
I didn't hear you say anything about focus breathing of this lens. I haven't researched this myself. Just curious if you experienced any - this is especially important for videographers. One other thing I didn't hear you talk about much - the f-mount 200-500 was well known for it's excellent VR (you did get to this at the end) - how slow were you able to shoot? Just curious. Last thing "noise level" - not ISO - but AF noise - quiet focusing? Thanks for the review.
Good points since I mention video. Focus is very quiet, sorry I didn't think to record it!
I am pretty certain you had high expectations of this lens before testing, did it exceed them?
I have stopped referring to the 180-600 as a great lens for the money, I just refer to it as a great lens.
I sold my 100-400 after picking this up, as I knew the 100-400 would unlikely be carried. The 180-600 is sharper for much of the zoom range than the 100-400 and I actually think the 180-600 focuses faster than the 100-400.
I was picking off Damselflies whilst waiting for the birds to show up and it resolved the tiniest of hairs and the incredible wings of the insects. It blew my mind. Then a quick turn to the Heron sitting in the trees and being able to see every wrinkle/ring on the Heron’s leg and foot, from a good long way off. What a lens!
The tripod collar is rubbish and I ended up buying the Kirk replacement. Quite an investment when buying from the UK, which including taxes and delivery is about $380.
Great video, very enjoyable especially when I kind of guessed what you would find with it.
Many thanks.
Expectations were good this honestly exceeded them. NOT a perfect lens but at 1/3 of other options, it's probably the best value I have every shot for wildlife.
@@WildlifeInspired I have to admit that this was a real shocker to me, to have access to this range and this quality without paying crazy money.
This is the first time I have gone beyond 400mm and I am frightened I get the bug for longer photo lengths. :-)
When you magnify up to 200% , do you have to have a 4k monitor?.
I do not have 4K. Both of mine are 2k.
@@WildlifeInspiredThank you for your response!!.
For low light photography, would you still buy this lens instead of an older 500mm f4 VR?
Same price but 1 1/3 of a stop faster.
I have both lenses and the 500 f/4 is better in low light by a good margin based on my testing and field experience in terms of better noise control and image quality. At ISOs below 1000 the difference is extremely minor
A good copy of a 500 f4 would run $2,500 USD? at the SAME price the 500 (while much heavier) is a better low light option for sure.
Here in Europe the prices for f glass have dropped significantly, a 500mm f4 vr costs around 2000,- euros and a fl version between 4 and 5k. Really temped to buy one of these because I struggle in low light with 5.6 and slower lenses. Guess it’s always a compromise between flexibility and weight unless you can afford something like the new z lenses with an integrated tc.
Thanks for the reply, really appreciate it!
$1700 us not a bad price for a 1st party zoom
10:55 isn't that chromatic abberation at the top left side of the bird's head?
It's negligible. I have another video that will show it compared to the 600PF
@@WildlifeInspiredPop right away to my eyes at first but less now, or maybe it's just its color
@@WildlifeInspired Thanks for this review, really helpful to know about another potential lens to acquire
Why the reupload?
Error on the title of the first
The F 500 PF in 10/10 used condition with a 6 month warranty for under $2200 is a better value. It's a lot better lens for really only a little more money. You can also get the F 300 PF for about $800 in 10/10 condition. The biggest gripe I have with the Z 180-600 is the lack of resolving power in less than good light. It turns to mush very quickly. @17:35 There is a good example of that. That lens does not have as good lens elements inside as the PF and pro glass. The lens collar is pretty terrible, and I don't like the zoom throw. Also, this lens is very front heavy and poorly balanced. Despite being heavier the 800 PF actually feels lighter when you are in the shooting position, because it is so much better balanced. Overall, it's better than the E 200-600 and any other similar focal range zoom. That's about all there is to say about this lens. I'd take the 300/500 PF combo any day of the week.
"I don't like the zoom throw." - do you mean the 200-500mm?
"Also, this lens is very front heavy and poorly balanced." - again, 200-500mm? loool
@@prokremelskidezolati1426 I am referring to the Z 180-600, which I own. It is difficult to articulate, but I really just don't like the the zoom throw. There is virtually never a situation where I need to go from 180 to 600 or the other way in an instant (that I care enough to want to capture), so the very short, very stiff zoom throw just doesn't work well for me. I need it to zoom well for smaller adjustments. Say, 100mm up or down, in a better controlled fashion. I wish it was a longer throw, smoother, less stiff. The Z 180-600's zoom throw is not good for that. The balance on the Z 180-600 is poor, because it is very front heavy. My Z 800 PF feels slightly lighter in the hands even though it is almost a pound heavier. That's how poorly balanced is the Z 180-600.
If you are on a strict budget/learning, I would actually recommend the F 200-500 f5.6 over the Z 180-600. They are really not that far apart, but the F lens is a little less than half the price in the used market. Use it, learn it, sell it, get a better super tele. If you already have or are considering the Z 100-400 and the 1.4x TC, don't bother with the Z 180-600. In practical use the IQ at the long end is virtually indistinguishable between those two options. Up to and including 400mm, the Z 100-400 is better. You also have the benefit of the Z 100-400 being a pretty darn good macro lens, smaller, lighter, better balance, and overall just feels like a higher quality product. Another great option in this general realm is getting the 500 PF in the used market. They can be gotten in 10/10 condition for under $2200. 9/10 condition for under $1800. Way better than the Z 180-600.
Replacement tripod collars are 40-80 bucks
Understand its the design of the collar. So you can replace it but the others will also have the same design issues. I have seen the kirk replacement (NOT 40-80, more like 180) and it is smother but NOT the same as the S-series collars.
I've had this lens since it came out...*immediately* changed out the collar, but of course I'm cheap so thought I'd try one with good reviews
off Amazon. Haoge LMR-Z186 did the job. 50 bux. Very smooth rotation, not as good as my Z100-400 but close enough.
Hey Scott, my name is Johnny and I'm a freelance logo designer, do you need a logo redesign to have a graphic based monogram logo for your channel's branding to help your audience recognise and follow your channel easier? I would love to design a photography themed monogram logo inspired by your direction for you! Let me know if you interested to make it happen! :-)
I'm still baffled that there are claims about this lens not being sharp at 600mm wide open.
I did controlled test shots vs my 800 PF, and when equalizing the subject size in the frame, I couldn't say which one is sharper.
I wonder if there is some sample variation. The original lens I bought seemed soft at 500 to 600. I returned it for a replacement. The second lens performs much better.
The 180-600mm is OK, but I'm still baffled because of the Nikon's AF - complicated and not that precise, as the Canons
@@prokremelskidezolati1426 Haven't used a Canon, but I am perfectly happy with the Z8, and I've heard many people who used both say, that with the new bird subject detection, the z8 and z9 are at least as good as canon and better than Sony.
At the end of the day all these cameras are more than capable of taking beautiful and technically demanding pictures.
@@cy9nvs yep, better, than Sony, but not Canon. At least not the algorithms. Canon AF is very sticky, AF points on Nikon are all over the place. It is much better, than 2 years ago, but...
@@prokremelskidezolati1426 I'm sure you've given both a fair chance yourself, trying both systems extensively, to be able to come to this conclusion...
From what I heard, for birds at least, they're neck and neck, since the Bird subject detection update.
Wouldn't be surprised if canon is still a bit better in some instances, but I highly doubt that the amount of focus points has anything to do with that.
Coming from Sony 200-600, I wish this Nikon 180-600 was sharper. Why Nikon, why?
Why is it same in dollars as it is in pounds and a pound gets 1.6 dollars
I am selling this lens. It is indeed great but I don’t like the weight at all. after an hour of shooting I would feel my arms hurting. I’ve been using the 400 4.5 + TC and it is wonderfully light. Also have the 100-400 which doubles for landscapes, so too much lens as they say. Sure if I had a budget constraint the 180-600 cannot be beaten.
How have people managed to hold 4-5 kilogram lenses until now? Hm...
its unfortunately not. the 200-500 is the same quality and its much less money now. in fact based on head to head comparisons in the real world most if not all the z mount telelphoto lenses are not any better than the dslr counterparts
I have used both and found the focusing on the 180-600 much better and INTERNAL ZOOM. Ill take this ALL DAY over the 200-500. That's my opinion not saying you're opinion isnt valid, but I stand by mine.
Great review, I’ve had this lens for 6 months and loving it. I sold my 200-500 and sigma 150-600 sport to get it. I agree with your pro’s and cons. The tripod collar sucks. Have also noticed one frame slightly out of focus and the next one tack sharp and I assumed it is to be operator error. I love your down to earth take on your reviews, sure that $14,000 lens is superior but is that difference really worth the price, not to say I wouldn’t love having the $14,000 lens.
@@WildlifeInspired these arent my opinions im talking about 3rd party reviewers that did a head to head comparisons on image quality. im not sure what external zoom has to do with quality of pictures but a higher aperture on the 180-600 definitely makes a difference along with the 2x price difference over the 200-500. with wildlife photography youre always chasing more light so that higher aperture isnt helping. also your title was the best value. how is it the best value when the 200-500 has the same image quality for half the price?
Repeat The SAME VIDOEO???????
I had to relload the first version as it contained an error on the intro screen. It was removed and replaced. Sorry for confusion.
Seems like a great lens but what is the point of a decent budget lens if there are no decent budget bodies to put it on? £2699 for a Nikon Z6iii with less than 300 AF points and 20fps? Come on and give us a decent APSC body!
Why would anyone care about the amount of focus points?
@cy9nvs Yeah I mean it's not like we actually need to focus on anything 😂
For a comparison the G9ii has 779 focus points versus 273 on the Z6iii now consider the m43 sensor is 2 times smaller diagonally! That makes the Z6iii seem really bad!
@@JoeMaranophotography That spec just isn't important, simple as that. The z8 and Z9 also only got 497 focus points, but incredibly sticky and precise autofocus.
@@cy9nvs I would say it's pretty important considering the competition has 700-1000 the more points the more accurate it's going to be. Especially when the going gets tough
@@JoeMaranophotography I'll wait for any evidence to back that up
Why is it same in dollars as it is in pounds and a pound gets 1.6 dollars