Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 гру 2023
- A lotta people been asking me to test this one!
Find it here (Amazon affiliate link - thanks for your support!):
geni.us/NikonZ180600
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
All pictures taken by me on a Nikon Z8 camera.
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonEOSR5Body
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonEFtoRF
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma50mm14Art
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonRF35mm18Macro
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/MarumiFitSlim77
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020USBPlusMic
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSmartLavalierPlus
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC3MicAdaptor
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1nMiniRecorder
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMini2FlyMore
Music:
'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b... - Навчання та стиль
I can no longer afford these lenses. But it's fun to watch these reviews.
Same here. I just watch because he is a heck of a person honestly.
They sure are! I'll stick to my Nikon D7100 and lenses.
You can "no longer" afford lenses?? 🤔 How can someone afford a lens and suddenly not more 🥴🤯🤣
@@TheTS1205 job change, retirement, bought a large investment, all common things that reduce disposable income.
I made 1/3rd as much money when I was 20 and had no kids, but I could afford a DSLR and stable of lenses.
Over a decade of child rearing later, and I have the best camera phone I can afford, and that same 12+ year old DSLR.
I'm watching photography videos because I'll be buying a camera when I *change jobs* in March. But, Olympus, and mft lenses. Because even then I still couldn't afford a system where $1500-$3500 is a normal lens price. MFT is out of vogue, so used lenses are plentiful and cheap.
@@TheTS1205Life changes
I just got this lens a week ago, and it is my first ever super telephoto lens! It is simply amazing and works fantastically on Z6II. Do not hesitate to get it if you are thinking about it!
Iv just ordered it an hour ago!
@@tuitwo9364Could you have it delivered to my place please? I'll take really good care of it, I promise!
Just kidding. Congrats on that awesome purchase! Hope you'll have a lot of fun with it! :)
@@tuitwo9364 Have fun!
I've used it on a Z6II and the only gripe I was able to find with it is that the lens lacks a memory set button and the Z6II can't bind the memory set button to any of its controls except the L-fn buttons, so I couldn't find a way to get focus recall to work on that camera. Seems like that functionality is only possible with the Z8 and Z9 right now.
By all means definitely a minor thing and it's still an outstanding lens, but that was something that I found odd.
@@jaek_898I have never used memory set. Can't even think of a situation that I would need it. I guess it is good to have though.
Looked pretty damn razor sharp to me, even at the long focal lengths! ....and I say this as a Sony / Sigma fan-boy!
Me watching this video in 240p: "Yeah, the lens is razor sharp......"
As many other comments have noted, your assessments of sharpness and value for the buck are opposite of just about all other UA-cam reviews and the extensive assessments I performed with my copy. Given this disparity, I eagerly anticipate your assessment of another copy of this lens.
It's standard for Christopher Frost. He's a big Canon guy.
Hi I have also tested two copies of the lens and also do not find particularly sharp sharp. I compared it with Nikon 600mm F6.3 Pf (unfair comparison) and the Sony 200-600mm (fair comparison) and both exhibited a higher sharpness.
I wonder how he tested it? For tests it should always be on a tripod obviously but with this lens it's important to have VR off. The VR, especially in normal mode, is so strong and does degrade shots. My copy is amazingly sharp for this type of lens at this price point, peaking at around 500mm, a tad softer at 600. Compared to my 400 f2.8, it's an F mount but razor sharp, the 180-600 stands up amazingly well, not as sharp or clear and bokeh is not as good.
And as other commenters both here and elsewhere have noted - there are soft copies of these lens. QC appears to be more variable on the 180-600mm.
I don't know what you're talking about, the reults, even at 600mm, look pretty damn good compared to many other lenses.
Just compare this result to the Canon 200-800 at 500mm.
This lens at 600mm is much sharper in the centre, but it's "just good", while the much softer Canon at 500mm is "very sharp".
I really appreciate his reviews, but his comments should be taken with a huge grain of salt, he's very inconsistent.
I received this lens a couple of months ago but the copy I received was simply not sharp. I returned it to the seller and a couple of weeks ago received my second copy. The difference was night and day. The new copy is sharp. I have personally found that Nikon may have some issues with quality control. This was my second issue with the Nikon z lenses. I previously received my 800mm 6.3 last summer and it also was not sharp. I thought I might be doing something wrong. I shoot with a Z9 so it wasn’t the camera. I took it to a local professional shop and showed them the images. I also brought it with me. They confirmed it wasn’t sharp and encouraged me to return it for a replacement. I returned that one and received a second copy. The new copy was simply outstanding. I mention this because I would recommend that anyone getting the new Z telephoto lenses test them thoroughly upon receipt. I had a 30 day return policy with my excellent seller and they gladly paid for its return and then replaced it. So make sure you buy from a reputable dealer and spend time trying the lenses as soon as you receive them.
Thanks for the advice. I wonder if this is a problem with manufacturing in China. I was a bit surprised that so many of the new Nikon lenses are made in China, and not Japan. Tamron seems to be following Nikon in this respect too. So I was hoping Sigma would release something similar for the Z mount, since I know they still manufacture in Japan, but that seems unlikely for now.
That's interesting.
Whenever I see someone talk about how his lens is sharper, and that it must be production variation, I think 99% of the time it's BS. But I've heard of someone having the exact same experience as you before.
I got both the 800 PF and this lens, and there isn't that big of a difference in terms of centre sharpness, they're just both very sharp, and I can't understand how someone could claim the 180-600 is soft. Although I do think the copy in this test probably is alright, compared to similar lenses on this channel, which he often praised, the result at 600mm looks pretty good, actually. There's a bit of an inconsistency in when Christopher is describing sharpness.
YES! was waiting for this review!
Probably just a copy variance thing but 400 and 500 should be just as sharp as 180. There’s only a tiny dip at 600mm and by f8 it’s as sharp as the wider focal lengths.
Your review is very different from the vast majority - Especially people who shoot wildlife regularly. No one has any complaints about sharpness in actual use that I have heard.
Thank you so much for new playlists
I think it's pretty normal for a (relaitvely budget) long zoom to be not as sharp as a prime. And that's why you get the zoom, for the zoomability.
The Sony zoom is sharper as well and can be adapted to the Z 8.
The Sony zoom is sharper as well and can be adapted to the Z 8.
@@robertm3951 Yes, but Nikon needs some arguments left for customers to buy their Z 600mm 6,3 Prime instead of this 180-600 6,3 zoom.
@@robertm3951nobody in their right mind would adapt the Sony instead. Maybe if you already have the Sony
@@robertm3951Why adapt the Sony lens? While Nikon has better stabilization.
The 500 PF is razor sharp and works great with the tc 1.4 and you can get them on the used market for a decent price.
Great Video Chris Makes me feel I made the right choice of Lens
It reminds me of my old Sigma 150-600. I got some great shots at an air show with that one! Thanks for the review!
Bit confused by the review. It is MUCH sharper than the sigma (I have both) and other reviews e.g. camerlabs indicate it is only slightly softer than the primes
@@klausfuchs516 Other reviews show that the Nikon 180-600mm is less sharp at 600mm than the Sony 200-600mm (f.e. Jan Wegener, Tony Northrup).
I don´t know. I ´ve got this lens and I´m very happy with it. Earlier I was shooting with the Tamron 150-600 G2 and I was very happy with that one too, especially if I used f/8 for the extra sharpness. With the Nikon 180-600 I don´t have to use f/8 for the sharpness. For the price I think it´s a winner as it´s not a third party lens.
We should not forget that there can be copy to copy variations. All reviews I know basically say that the lens is better than the Sigma / Tamron equivalents and also as the Nikkor 200-500. It is probably a bit softer than the Sony 200-600 but probably nearly on par. My copy is really good and yes it is less sharp than the 300 mm 2.8 from Nikon and the ultra sharp 500 4.0 from Sigma, but I cannot remember any zoom beating a quality prime. I will definitely keep it complementary to the primes. Compared to the Nikkor 200-500 (that I did sell), it has upgraded in many ways in reach, weather sealing, balance, sharpness, and outstanding VR. So video work will be one of the areas where this lens will shine. In short if anyone feels that this lens is soft I would get another copy, because it should not be.
"and yes it is less sharp than the 300 mm 2.8 from Nikon and the ultra sharp 500 4.0 from Sigma, but I cannot remember any zoom beating a quality prime."
Both of those are specialist lenses, costing multiples of this unit. Why even bother comparing them to this? It's pointless.
I do not think so - I bought the 300 mm F/2.8 used for the same price as the 180-600 F/6.3 new - with the Tc's (1.4, 1.7 and 2.0) you are covering 420 F/4 to 600 F/5.6 - so most of the relevant ranges for wildlife as long as you do not aim for the long end for landscapes. I have a practical review of this lens on my channel. The Sigma 500 F/4 is a factor of 2 more expensive compared to the 180-600, which is of course significant but in the range which I would think is reasonable to consider it. @@mjak993
@@DynNat Comparing used prices to new is fair... how, exactly? (Don't even mind the hassle of popping various TCs in and out in the field as compared to just turning a zoom ring.)
For anybody buying a lens the question might simply be - used or new - 2000 € is a lot of money irrespective how you twist it. An even cheaper alternative would be the 300 pf F/4 (costing used around 1000 € and new below 2000 €). Most DSLR lenses that perform optically on a D850 with 45 MP will also perform nicely on a Z7, Z8, or Z9. The disadvantage of most primes is as you say, you have to play with the Tc's in the field. The advantage is that you get at 300 mm with the 300 mm F/2.8 VRII much more light (more than 4 times) on the sensor compared to the Zoom, which allows you to shot longer when it's getting dark or faster with the same number of photons on your sensor. Bokeh and image impression are different as well. The entrance pupil changes on a Zoom and is getting typically smaller - it is constant on a prime with Tc's. So there are pros and cons to either one of theses solutions. It depends a lot on your most probable wildlife scenario. I personally like both lenses and I feel very happy to have them. Like I said before, I do like the 180-600 a lot - I would have returned it after testing if the lens would have been not up to my expectations. @@mjak993
@@DynNat nope, it is a PRIME, not a ZOOM. Moreover, you have to compare NEW price with the NEW price - so, it is how much 5500 for the lens which was new 10 years ago? That means, you are comparing a 5500 (in today's money almost 10 000!!!) with the 2000!
Your comments are really weird. :)
When you did a review on Canon lenses, for example, I often hear you use the word "razor" sharp. Sometimes, I see Sony lenses are not that sharp in the corners, but you praised it.
Here, for this Nikon lens, I don't see anything serious. In fact, I am thoroughly impressed. But you seemed to describe it as just "good" or "not so sharp".
The zoom range and aperture impress me as well. If it had been Canon, for this large focal length range, we might be seeing something like f/5.6-f10😄.
I really like mine, it joined its big brother 800 mm. They are both awesome! Greg
I'm pretty sure Steve Perry said the opposite was true concerning focal length vs sharpness. He claims this this lens gets sharper at the long end and softer at the wide end. Anyway, I got mine shortly after launch. Its a perfectly fine lens for the price point. IMO, the VR at 600mm is no bueno especially for video. I always have to pull back to 500mm or wider for video or its wobbling all over the place (Z8 and Z9). Overall, its a solid perform in its approximate class. The Z 800 PF blows this lens away, however. There is not a discussion there.
Steve Perry has much more knowledge in his review, this channel offers the same review for almost every lens. This guy only knows how to talk about test charts.
It's stupid to ask for better sharpness for this money when this is sharper than most f mount zoom lenses and in general, closed construction, stabilization like no other, quality, excellent contrast, practically no ghosting and flaring
The Sony 200-600 is sharper at 600mm, costing less than the Nikon.
@@muttishelfer9122But only ever so slightly. Jan Wegener compared them, and the difference was extremely minor. And the Sony has quite strong focus shrinking which reduces the actual reach of the lens
My copy was plenty sharp at 600mm. I don't think the Sony is any sharper.
Yeah honestly have to agree with the comment section here regarding the sharpness assessment.
I find it very weird how you determined the sharpness was not good enough when even comparing to another video of yours with your own sample pictures (the video comparing 3 lenses, the Sigma 60-600, Sigma 150-600, and the Sony 200-600), you gave all three lenses in that review equally positive assessments. Yet test chats shown on that video don't really differ that much in quality compared to those found in this video. Sure maybe the Sony and the Sigma 60-600 perform just a bit better, but they are also equally a bit more expensive than this Nikon lens.
Also the Sony seen to sacrifice some color fringing performance for a bit more sharpness whereas the Nikon seemingly chose to minimize color fringing while giving in a bit of haziness to quality (with the Sony you can sort of see a bit of purple just leaking out the black lines though not as egregious the
Sigma 150-600 in the same video.) Which I think all in all balances out as about similar performance between the Sony and the Nikon imo.
If anything, since the Nikon costs 1700$, it should compare more closely to the Sigma 150-600 in the previously mention video. And sure enough, the results pretty much show that for the 200$ more that it costs, the Nikon offers just a bit more performance than that lens.
So really, I honestly don't understand your main point in the conclusion that this lens is not sharp enough for the price it costs, when even though having a price that sits between the Sony and the Sigma, the performance seems to be sitting accordingly just right to me.
I don't think there's necessarily any bias in your review or anything. I just think perhaps with the amount of reviews you have to go through (such I respect a lot) maybe maintaining the same consistent metric of quality assessments gets a little difficult to juggle. But overall I still think this review is good. And your usual standardized test charts are definitely still greatly appreciated. Perhaps even more so since having them allows the viewers to form their own opinions even if they differ to the conclusions derived by the presenter. Which just goes to show how solid of a formula you've created for these reviews. Much appreciated. 👍
Interesting, thanks Chris! Maybe I need new reading glasses, but the 600mm looked ok to me.
When you said there are similar options around especially if you own the FTZ adaptor for a lot less money, which lenses were you talking about? the new Tamron 150-500, the old Sigma 150-600, the old Nikon 200-500, or none of those?
Well I can tell you that the copy of my 180-600 Nikon Z is beyond fantastic. I have had mine for a bout a week now and at every focal range it sharp with no softness to speak of. I have used at sporting events, wildlife and an air show. If you can find a copy and it is within your price range with the Nikon Z system, get it.
Where did you get the copy
@@bad_company_usa, from my local camera shop. I was on their list after paying a deposit for about five months.
Great review! Informative and really helpful for someone who just picks up a lens and doesn't know every single nook and cranny. Weird question - how did you manage to record your screen on the z8?
How about the VR stability when shooting? sealing testing? No mention of Syncro VR? No mention of it being cheaper than everyone else's First party lens? Actual weight compared?
Very little actually in this review.
Everyone is replacing this OEM ring for some aftermarket one. They claim the OEM one isnt tight and still rotates. I havent actually see any reviewer say this though. Mine is fine.
Is there any chance you will test Lumix/Panasonic lenses? This system becomes more and more interesting and I'm seriously considering switching from Sony :)
When lumix and panasonik will start send lenses to him)
First! Crazy good lens, Nikon was on a roll last year.
Thanks!
Chris, when you did your test chart shots was the VR turned off? I remember seeing another review that said sharpness improved noticeably when the in-camera VR was turned off when using a tripod and example photos were shown that demonstrated it. That is not typical, as far as I know, for Nikon lenses especially with newer Z mount lenses. I’m not sure at what shutter speeds it became noticeable so possibly with faster shutter speeds it may be negligible. Maybe it’s was a quirk with this lens that could be addressed in a firmware update. Just curious if you could duplicate those results.
You should always turn off VR when using tripod.
VR turned off (you should always do this when using a tripod)
I'm not sure what you expect from a $1700 non-S zoom lens that reaches 600mm. Any other Nikon lens that reaches 600mm costs 3X as much (600mm f/6.3 PF) or many times more for for the f/4 lenses. It's also on par with the Sony 200-600mm, price and IQ wise. It seems you expect a zoom to compete with a prime.
It honestly looks like a great deal, especially given the aperture. Another competitor I can think of could easily package the same lens as an f8-11 and a white body, to much acclaim.
Razor sharpness from a supertele zoom at 45 MP (and without breaking your back) is one of those things you just hardly get without a mortgage.
What is it with all the fanboys who make so many excuses for corporations? Don't lick boots. As consumers we should be demanding better value wherever we can, and holding big companies to a high standard. This is how things get better over time. As technology progresses we should naturally expect better performance, especially if they decide to charge more than they used to or more than the competition.
The Sony 200-600mm is clearly sharper at the telephoto end.
I was merely pointing out that for a $1700 lens, it is quite good. It's better than the Nikon 200-500mm that many people used and loved. I can't see where there's a better lens for the price at the moment. Sony's 200-600mm would be another lens with excellent value for the money.
@@alanolander9983 The 200-500 is an old DSLR design. The real competitor nowadays is the Sony.
Interesting. What distances were you testing it at? Other very detailed reviews suggest different results with best sharpness at wildlife shooting distances with 300 being sharper than 180 and both 400 and 500 being very good. There is a slight reduction at 600. Stopping to 7.1 brings some noticeable mid frame improve.
just picked up the e-mount version of the Tamron 150-500 and an ETZ adapter, second-handed, takes me 900 USD in total, and this setup works perfectly on my Z6. Sharp as expected. so I think the 180-600 must be prepared for professionals and not for ordinary enthusiasts.
The Tamron is darker (F/6.7), shorter (500mm), is an external zoom, and, adapted from E-Mount, will be much slower focusing than the nikon 180-600.
Both are enthusiast lenses, the tamron is just older and third party, which makes it cheaper (its launch price was 1500$ whereas the nikon's was 1750$). But i don't think they're in the same category, the tamron is closer to to the canon 100-500 than the nikon 180-600.
Personnally i'll wait a few years to trade my F-Mount 200-500 F/5.6 for a used 180-600 (when used copies will be found for under 1200€), because i really need an internal zoom (The 200-500 is a real dust vaccum, as every other external zooming telephotos), 600mm of reach, and can't stand anything slower than F/6.3.
@@pierrevilley6675 The Tammy is on native Z mount now with proper AF capability - and I don't see how f6.7 vs f6.3 makes any kind of meaningful difference, so that point is moot IMO. A third of a stop? That's going to hamper your photography? Come on, man, be real.
500mm vs 600mm ... yeah, the Nikon has a slight edge there, I'll give you that. Except the Tamron goes wider - on which end every mm counts much more than on the long end -, and focuses much closer, making it more versatile.
As for the extending zoom: depends on under what conditions you are shooting. If you are in a sandstorm or heavy rain, of course internal zooming is preferrable. But if you are a more casual user, the compactness of the Tamron is an absolute godsend e.g. for travel.
Horses for courses, of course, but I went with the Tamron instead of this because image quality is on par and the aforementioned benefits of the Tamron for me far outweigh the slight benefits of this lens.
My you will anger the brand boys, but I agree & opted for the lighter 400 4.5 (used), meaning it easily fits in my bag & much nicer to use. Though the 500pf has dropped massively on the used market making that an attractive option.
My copy is very sharp at all focal lengths wide open on my Z8. See Steve Parry’s detailed review of this lens. My copy of the lens match what he demonstrated in his review where he also compared this lens with other similar lenses, including Sony 200-600 and Nikon 100-400s. Check out that video.
Which one of the super telephoto zooms is the sharpest in your eyes when it comes to E mount? Wanted to get the Sony 200-600 but the Tamron 150-500 is looking good too and for the price it's awesome.
Just don't know which one to pick😢
I own the 150-500 Tamron and rented the 200-600 Sony for a week of shooting birds and surfers. The Sony is better in every way. Faster focus, sharper, better contrast, etc. But, the Tamron is smaller, lighter, and cheaper, and still good quality. But speaking in absolutes, the Sony is the better lens, as should be expected.
@seanbowen4429 I was thinking that....we get what we pay for right lol. Thanks for the feedback man. I like Tamron and that price is definitely sweet. But something told me just wait it out and get the Sony.
@@seanbowen4429I bought both lenses and came to the same conclusion. I kept the Sony. The Tamron is also limited to 15fps on the a9 and a1 camera series
Nice
Super review
1700 bucks os a lot of money but at the same time... For that range and reach it's a bargain. I'm pretty impressed with the footage tbh. If I was into wildlife or birds this would be a no brainer. Wouldn't mind something like this on the Sony platform 😅
There is the 200-600 from sony. You can get it for 1450€
@@AfF3lix thanks for the heads up, I'll look that up 👍🏻
Can you review Sirui 56mm f1.2 for Nikon Z please
Oleg even looks sharp with this lens
I recently tested the lens over the weekend. Unfortunately I had to realize that the image quality was not really ideal. The pictures were often a bit soft. I noticed it extremely with birds which I photographed from a short distance of 3-4 meters. Here you could often see in the eye or in the feathers that the image quality was not as good as with the 200-500, which I also owned. I even wrote to the dealer and asked if the lens was damaged. They only confirmed that it was 100% functional, but that they had already received several complaints about the image quality. Apparently it should help to remove the UV filter, but I don't know if that's true. Maybe I'll have to borrow a second one to see if it works any better. But I'm not convinced.
Hi Chris, thanks for the great review! You mentioned in the video there are other lenses that are close to the 180-600mm in performance at a much cheaper price. Would you kindly give me some recommendations! Thank you!
@chris could you please make comparison between this lens and 200-500mm f/5.6E lens? it is super confusing to decide between these 2.
Go native if you can for almost always better autofocus vs FTZ. If you already have 200-500 then evaluate based on what you are missing
For the difference of $300 (US / non-sale prices), the 180-600 is a very easy choice. Longer reach, function button, customizable control ring, internal zoom, better weather sealing, sharper, faster focus. Only downside is waiting for the backorders to fill.
@@csc-photo what about image quality? Here in my country the difference is somewhere around 800$. Nikon 200-500 costs just about 1000$ & 1800$+ for new z lens.
Chelsea and Tony Northrup have a video about it. The 180-600 is clearly better
the 180-600 will have far better handling via internal short throw zoom over the 200-500. Also the VR and AF are probably going to be better. 200-500 is a great lens though.
Some comments here seem rather defensive. I don't think there's a problem stating it being objectively less sharp than a prime despite the obvious cost differences. Even given its similar structure to the sony 200-600, you need to realize that lens came out in 2019. Nikon's had a lot of time to come up with something that is better (at a glance it does look like this lens is a better than the Sony's) and the result looks great!
CF also reviewed the Sony lens and it was sharper.
Jan Wegener, Duade Paton, Tony & Chelsea Northrup tested the lenses side by side and all of them say that the Sony 200-600 is visibly sharper.
The Nikon is a lot better for handheld video though. The stabilisation in video is miles ahead
@@MarkusGebhard watch Duades review closer - yes, Sony is a bit sharper, but it is NOT a 600mm lens!!! At 600mm the subject (the parrot in the video) is as small, as with Nikon 180-600mm at 400-450mm!!! Voilà - what a cheating on Sony's side, isn´t it? :)))
@@MarkusGebhard as for Wagner: "the lens is excellent" and "for the range it delivers excellent results". That's a "little bit" different than what you wrote...
Don’t get me wrong guys, I’ve had the 200-600 for years and love it. It’s a tad soft on the wider end (perhaps copy variation?), but I’m rarely ever not at the 450-600mm end.
Very nice review. I bought this lens with high expectations but sold it after 2 weeks. I fully agree with Christopher's findings. If you buy this lens mainly for use at 600mm (as I intended next to my Z100-400), there are far better options because it is excellent until 500mm, but gets noticeably softer at 600mm. If you doubt, check the MTF charts. Stopping down to F8 is no option for me.
yes, there are - prime lenses for 3x, 4x or 5x the price lol
Watch this - is this lens really so soft? Hm?
"Nikon 180-600mm. 2 months with the lens. Is it good? WILDLIFE PHOTOGRAPHY II Bird photography"
Like what?
It's sharper than both the 400 f/4.5 with thee 1.4 TC and the 100-400 with the 1.4 TC.
For this price, this is the best you can get. Maybe the old DSLR Sigma Sport 600mm zoom can rival it in terms of sharpness, but AF on Z-Mount is pretty weak with those lenses.
@@cy9nvs I'd be more concerned about the VR on Sigma being nowhere near what it is on the Nikon. This is comparing a Tamron F-mount 100-400 to my Z 70-200 w/ 2.0X TC, massive difference.
Also if you look at Chris's Z 100-400 S review, this 180-600 is sharper than the 100-400 @400 both wide open.
I agree with you on that conclusion. When this this first came out and I saw the price, I immediately bought the 400 4.5 as the z replacement for my 200-500 5.6
This is my Wild Life Lens on my Z8 >>Africa Based
It's only fairly sharp, but honestly, still way sharper compared to its old sigma and tamron counterparts.
How about new counterpart from Tamron?
I'm waiting for my lens to ship, but it was very disappointing to see that lens suffers at 600 mm this much while it's the most desired focal length for many shooters
I got both the 180-600 and the 800 PF, and I honestly struggle to see much of a difference looking at the very centre of the image wide open. Both look extremely sharp, where the prime obviously pulls ahead is the corner performance. I wouldn't worry about it, even the result in this test looks pretty good in my opinion. There are a bunch of lenses he praised for being sharp, that looked worse than this.
What AFS lenses would be close to this .
I guess the 200-500mm f5.6 is the equivalent in F mount.
The problem with lens reviews is that they don't allow for variation between copies. I'm at the point, after buying several copies of lenses and comparing, that really you would need 3 different copies of a lens to test with any confidence because one can be so much better than another....That explains why you get variations in reviews across different reviewers. I don't understand why this isn't talked about more, though i can understand the industry as a whole would want to keep fairly quiet about it...... It would be a real problem for them if buyers tried out several copies and returned them...I'm finding my copy of the 180-600 as sharp as my sony 200-600, but thats just my copy.....it sounds like you had a soft one......Why not do a review sometime with 3 copies of a particular lens....especially a long zoom and test the variation....it would make for very interesting viewing.
You have not mentioned the weather sealing rubber ring at the bayonet mount! Is there one?
Yes
I still use Tamron on my D850 and for super sharpness Sigma 500mm f4 sometimes with 1.4 tc. I am convinced on the Z8 but this 180-600mm seems to turn me off.
“Nikkor”
Another trusted reviewer I watch had the same sharpness results, a little disappointing on the long end, the Sony 200-600mm is similar but becomes razor sharp at F8 which is perfect, I even see a bump in sharpness at F7.1.
As I just checked, according your chart /4K pixel to pixel/ Sony' 200-600mm is way-way sharper and punchier on the 600mm f/6.3.
Vobec nie, iba sem drbol take videjko, aby to tak vyzeralo...180-600mm je superostry objektiv (so zretelom na to, ze to je premenlive ohnisko do 600mm). Ostrejsi je asi iba Canon 100-500mm.
The chart used in that video is slightly different I think, not the same chart. Steve Perry did a comparison, in which both lenses looked pretty much 1:1 the same.
Direct comparisons shows very little difference between them
@@cy9nvs It is definitely not the same chart. Also interesting the Canon RF 100-300/2.8 review @ 300/5.6 he say sharpness is perfect yet looks near identical to this. I've seen reviews where the old 200-500 out performs the Sony... must also keep in mind there are copy variations.
You have to take these sharpness and contrast tests with a grain of salt.
I had one and returned it. I found it lacking in sharpness and slow to focus.
0,4s is really NOT slow at all:
ua-cam.com/video/Va1kNNGp7pU/v-deo.html
At 600mm, it's much sharper than the 200-800 at 500mm, but this lens performs "just good" while the (pretty soft) 200-800 at 500mm is "very sharp".
Your reviews are very inconsistent.
Yes I agree the image quality of the RF 200-800 in Chris's review was junk,yet he said the lens was quite good, The 180-600 is visibly better yet he says it's just ok.
@@haydennettleton3272 I really appreciate his reviews, but I'd always suggest comparing results yourself. His comments are sometimes very inconsistent. I got this lens myself, and in the centre I just can't spot a sharpness difference between the 180-600 and my 800 PF. Both are just excellent.
Interesting. Like very similar huh? Lol
I think this guy is not a real connoisseur of long telephoto lenses, you should go for a review on a nature photographer instead like Steve Perry or Ricci´s channel.
he reviews based on pretty much just pure objective benchmarks, instead of the typical "I dunno, it feels sharp.." of the wildlife photographer community
@@striderwhiston9897 nope
@@striderwhiston9897 That´s my point, a review based on clinical 400% sharpness on 600mm it´s not a real use case veredict, it´s ok to nerds that love charts. With this kind of lenses you have to use the lens in the field, test his weather sealing, how to get best focus knowing the system, vr, weight, overall performance, handling, how it feels to carry it all day long, see what offers the competition for the same price. IMO this lens has several excellent features, that´s why it´s out of stock since day 1, and that´s why it will be my next lens :). If you want pin sharp edge cutting sharpness on long end, you expend a lot more and get a S prime lens that´s heavier, not versatile as a zoom and bigger.
This past season I have personally seen two examples of the seal on this lens failing and the internal glass becoming fogged up.
This lens certainly isn't weather sealed.
It certainly is. I've had mine out in the rain for a couple of times without a rain cover, 0 issues.
The rear element can fog up, but that's something that can happen with all lenses, in certain conditions. Can't find any reports of internal lenses fogging up, and I highly doubt that that's ever happening with a weather sealed Nikon lens from 2023.
@@cy9nvs Yeah. Never mind the fact that I've seen it twice in person. I must just be yanking your chain...
@@bodkinsbestphotography you've seen it twice in person, nobody has complained about it on the Internet.
Hmm.. odd 😂
weathersealing mostly is a marketing term and doesn't mean too much.
though yeah, even the best "weathersealed" lenses can still slip up
My copy is shit soft!
The Sony 200-600 ist sharper.
Worst lens review I've seen on UA-cam. 👎👎👎
When are you going to start doing M43 and Olympus lens reviews? The 12-100mm F/4 IS Pro is arguably the world's best all-purpose lens at 24-200mm F/4 FF equivalent.... nobody else makes a lens like this.