I like your style and the language you use so much so I've subscribed, thank you Robert for this review, you highlight many aspects and anomalies worth considering!Cheers!
Hi, enjoy your channel, can honestly say thus far I have been happy the shots I’ve been getting with the TC 1.4 with my 180-600mm with the Z9 for several months even with the video thus far. Hoping those issues don’t arise with me that you have experienced. Maybe a future firmware may help with the issue.
Good to hear! I do think it's very context-dependent, and on overcast days I've certainly had more reliable results 😀 I do think there's some copy variance in the 180-600 lens too, which might explain why it shows up more for some people than others.
I got my 160/800 z January and use it with my z 8. I have the z2x converter. My findings are mixed . The firmware update 2 for Nikon z 8 helps on auto focus . The biggest draw back in my opinion is appears to be slow to react . The weather in Manchester is not known for its sunny radiance. I used a tripod and the 2x converter on a reasonable day light wise. The subject was a pair of oyster catcher’s. I returned the next day with the insight gained and got a fair amount of reasonable photos of the oyster catchers and Canadian geese, since January I have been using the the z8 and 180/600 on a tripod or monopod and has the weather improved so has my respect for this lens. Closer photos are amazingly sharp and on a 52 screen the detail holds up , movement and distance are challenging and images may disappoint as there is a mixture of reasons behind the quality of the further away images. Some good some not so. Tips for tele converters use foucs peeking to give you yourself a depth of field check the lenses can miss foucs by over shooting the eye. Also foucs peeking requires the shutter release is set only to fire when pressed and assign another button for back foucs. Although I will use the z 2 times converter I have set up for Fx Dx quick change on the lenses only button . The idea of DX giving that 1200 mm reach and focus peeking to help sharpness appeals to me . I have now found the z 189/600 works like it says on the tin. It’s not super fast or over weight. It’s is a great purchase for its price range . Light room de noise and blur for now have allowed the two extras that give the photos that assist. There are things that this lens does not have but for the price tag is a bargain. My last tip is the lens hood . Leave it in the box for resale in the years to come by a metal hood and just fit a uv filter on the lens . I dropped the camera with the lens on it . I was using a metal hood the plastic one is rubbish I chased it down one to many hill to recommend it. I replaced it with a 15 £ hood the damage report for the dropped camera on to a concert floor. One dinted hood one broken uv filter one less insurance claim. If I did not have this lens I would invest in it again . My close images blow me away the drop did no damage to lens or camera I am amazed this is real gear . Enough said , I have added this channel and pressed the like button. Thanks for your info .
Thanbks for this. An interesting set of considerations. I bought the Z 180-600 very recently in place of the Z 100-400. I also have the 1.4xTC which I regularly had to use on th e100-400 to give necessary extra range - especially in hides at nature reserves. I absolutely loved the 100-400 but couldn't afford both (I'm a pensioner!). However, I haven't tried the TC on the 180-600 - probably because I already have the Z 800 which I bought 18 months ago and that, being a prime, gives me the reach the TC would add to the 180-600. The Z 800 is, in my opinion, a fantastic lens but there are many occasions when I need the focal lengths below 800 and the new 180-600 is certainly meeting that requirement very well and at a very sensible price. As the 100-400 is a more expensive and S-Line lens I was disappointed at how much sharper the non-S-Line 180-600 turned out to be when I tried one back to back with the 100-400 + 1.4TC. The 180-600 significantly out performed the other combination.
I've debated the 800mm f/6.3 in the past and it's probably the prime I'd be most likely to buy on Z mount. The only real downside is the quite large minimum focus distance (I think it's like 5m?) but otherwise it's a really nice lens. I actually haven't tried the 100-400 yet, so that's interesting to know how it compares.
I find all my Z lenses to be much better controlled than my old f mount ones they replace. Occasional CA and flare. I do have the 180-600 but haven't had a chance to use it enough yet. I'll put it on my Z8 and report back whether I find some, especially yellow, or not. Cheers, Robert.
Yeah I do think that optically the current batch of mirrorless lenses are, in general, in a really good place. It's usually other weird quirks about them that feel odd to me (like bizarre ergonomics etc). For the 180-600 it's definitely context-dependent, and I've had multiple days where it hasn't cropped up at all, which makes it quite hard to replicate reliably 😅
Haven't used a TC on it, but I'm also perfectly happy with my 180-600. I have seen people complain about sharpness at 600 mm, but honestly, it's perfectly fine, at least in my copy. Stacks up pretty well to my 800 PF in terms of sharpness, and of course is a lot more versatile. The only times I really struggled with chromatic aberrations, was when there's very high contrast and on top of that I underexposed the subject, like an eagle in the sky. At that point, I can only really blame myself. If I did a good job, the lens does too.
If you think the Z 180-600 "stacks up well" in sharpness to the Z 800 PF, then either something is wrong with your Z 800 PF or something is wrong with the way you use it. I find my Z 800 PF is far sharper than my Z 180-600 in every possible scenario. That's not to say the Z 180-600 is bad. The Z 800 PF is really, really good.
@@cy9nvs It's not even close in sharpness in my experience with it and comprehensive tests that I have done, and no review online says the Z 180-600 shows it being anywhere close to the Z 800 PF (or the Z 600 PF). You would literally be the only person in the entire world making such a claim. Again, this is not to say the Z 180-600 is a bad lens. It is a good lens for the money that works well enough in good light and you get the convenience of a zoom. But the Z 800 PF is almost as sharp as the F 800 f5.6 FL ED VR, which costs $16,300. The Z 180-600 is not at that level by a long shot. Additionally, the difference in sharpness/resolving power between the Z 600/800 PF's and the Z 180-600 in less than good light is enormous. That's the biggest con of the Z 180-600. In less than good light the images simply turn to mush. But go ahead and tell us that your particular copy of the Z 180-600 is as good as the Z 400 f2.8 TC at first light.
@@KungPowEnterFist bla bla bla... Photography life made an extensive test of all Z-Mount super-telephotos, comparing the 180-600 at 600mm with the 800 PF, accounting for the size of the subject, the lens is stacking up very well, in the center. In their respective lab tests, the 180-600 scores a MTF performance of 2343 at 600mm in the center, while it's 2646 for the 800 PF, it is pretty close.
@@cy9nvs And in that test comparison, the Z 800 PF not only easily beats the Z 180-600 in the center but also demolishes it in the mid and corners. Now, as I am sure you well know, these tests are done under perfect laboratory conditions with perfect and consistent lighting and at or near MFD. The differences in sharpness, etc., are all amplified in the real world at real world distances to targets. What may seem like minor, insignificant distances in the lab and at or near MFD, are much more pronounced in the real world. Still, in the lab in the test you referenced, the Z 800 PF (and the Z 600 PF by an even greater margin) easily beats the Z 180-600 in center, mid, and corner sharpness. It's not close. The particular optical design and quality of optical elements used play an even greater role in less than good light, and this is where things really fall apart for the Z 180-600. The difference between the Z 600/800 PF's and the Z 180-600 in sharpness/resolving power in less than good light is enormous. The price difference is also enormous, so...
Cheers Robert! Great insights into your experiences with the lense. I tried the XH2 for a while and.. I wasn't a fan of the ergonomics. Surprisingly. Something about the front dial, position and using it, just didn't work at all for me. So I sent it back, got a barely used, green ZF, a grip, working faaantastic. But, I was pondering this combination exact. Now I feel sort of glad I didn't go for it. Two days ago I got a great offer for a 400mm f4.5 and a 1.4tc (which I agree are outrageously expensive), and that should all arrive this coming week. Cannot wait!
I’m not surprised to hear your problems with CA with the tele converter. I remember the terrible results I got with a converter on my old f mount 200-500 f/5,6. A rarely usable combination with that lens. It would be great to hear from people what the experience is with the equivalent Tamron and Sigma in this regard? How is the auto focus response and sharpness with the converter on this z mount lens? As you say, we much rather want to be out shooting wildlife than spending time in front of our computers correcting optical flaws. But if we must there’s some really useful and practical techniques using layers and local masking in PS or Affinity that can completely remove CA without shifting colours in the rest of the image. It just take a little bit of training but the advantages are that you have full control of it and is not in the hands of automatic algorithms. It is one of these things that’s making a pixel editor like PS or Affinity indispensable even in todays world, I think.
Thank you very much for the video! Saves me alot of trouble and I rather save up for the Z800mm. But other than that I think the lense is really good for that price. My favourite stays the AF-S 300mm f2.8, even with TC2 it's awesome and has no color changes
Thank you for this video ! It's exactly the issue I noticed last week with putting the TC on this lens. The CA was quite insane, wasn't expecting that. I thought I was doing something wrong.
Hi Robert, I put the 1.4 teleconverter on the 180-600 in various different lighting situations.In strong sidelight, I'm in the tropics at the moment with very strong light, it was difficult to provoke any CA except some blue lines along very high contrast white building edges. However, with strong morning backlight It did give a yellow CA effect on some long pine/fir tree "needles", they're about nine inches long and overlap each-other. They looked like a quite weird mosaic and as you say, not really correctable. I did find it quite difficult to get this effect though. Maybe Nikon could lend you another copy to try. I hear that there are a few bad copies but far fewer than the F-mount teleconverters. I had to go through three copies of the f-mount mark 2's to get a good one in both the 1.4 and the 1.7. Worth a try.
Ooh great test! Yeah I think that lines up with my experience - I’ve had weeks where I don’t get the effect at all, then one day where it crops up in every few photos, probably because of the lighting and direction. And yeah I’d be curious to try another TC copy just to see if there’s any difference 🤔
a really good quality video Robert ! I use the 400mm 4.5 and the TC's seem to work very well. The 180 - 600mm would give me greater flexability however the 400mm is just so small, light and fast.
Coma is a funny thing. I was taught that lenses that coma producing are not necessarily bad per se, but can actually render depth far better than non coma lenses. That seems to be my experience, some classic vintage glass like the Takumar 50/1.4(8 element) and the Pentax FA Limited's (31 ,43 and 77) all coma to some degree, however they render depth exceptionally well. I have tested this for myself, f5.6 shots giving oof rendering like some equivalent lenses manage at f4 etc, the result is a wonderful 3dpop, almost medium format looking. Conversely, some modern lenses like Fuji's XF56/1.2RWR, which is very sharp and offering very little coma, do tend to do some weird 'flattening' of oof areas at times, lacking sometimes that gradual depth transition. So it's a compromise thing I think. To combat CA also does tend to be quite expensive and makes lenses heavier than they ought. For my line of work I tend to convert images to monochrome if it is particularly bad, or if I know I need the colour then compromise on aperture and stop down till it goes away. However mono birding is pretty limiting, often we need those colours to help separate the subject, and stopping down might not be feasible or even possible with some of the lenses required. You do pick an awfully challenging genre!! Having said that, wildlife (especially birding) seems to be one of the genres where AI tools have assisted the most. It's incredible how far improved the original image was with post processing tools today. Hopefully we will not have long to wait till better CA software exists.
Ooh great point. It's very much subject-dependent for me - I don't think I ever really notice coma on things outside of birds and trees/plants, but I guess I do tend to mostly shoot those other subjects on film and that kinda hides a lot of those optical quirks anyway. It's not something I'd really worry about on people shots I think as there's less likely to be super strong contrast to begin with, so I can definitely see it adding to the image quality rather than detracting. Also, totally unrelated but I really wish more companies would embrace the Pentax idea of a 43mm lens! Yeah bird photography seems to be the most annoyingly gear-dependent photography discipline 😅 AI tooling is making a big difference over the past few years as it's really opening up some shot options that would have been a nightmare before (e.g. very high ISO), but weirdly none of the software has taken a machine-learning approach to colour correction yet.
@@robert_may CA can bite you in the bum a lot on portrait shoots when the clients are shall we say... well dressed? The groomsmen white shirt against black jacket is a classic, and of course the brides dress can trigger it depending on the background. Even my orchestra shoots its a thing. I guess when you get to know your lenses and sus out the contrast level of your scene you know what to expect. It is interesting about that 1.4 teleconverter. I have never used one, from now on I will think of them as 'amplifiers'! 😄
Totally agree Robert! Nikkor 180-600 has a lot of chromatic aberration. Mostly blue an some yellow fringing and some times you can see it even in a scene that has not that much of a contrast. Mine is sharp yes but only with close or relatively close subjects. If something is far away, and I don't mean in those times of the day that you can experience atmospheric turbulence or the subject is miles away, this lens can not focus properly at all no matter what AF mode I try with my Z8. But this last one it might be related to the Z8 autofocus capabilities. Wildlife Inspired w/ Scott Keys says that it does not have all most at all chromatic aberration. Looks that in America their copies of this lens are quite different.....
Yeah there certainly seems to be some copy variance in this lens, which is unfortunate. I'm somewhat tempted to send mine to Nikon to have it calibrated in case that helps, although I've seen other copies that are less sharp so I'm always worried it might go the other way 😅
Hi Robert, enjoyed your program. You seem to conclude with the old adage that "you get what you pay for". You pay a premium for a zoom lens like the Canon R100-500 L or the Olympus 150-400. TC's have always been a better choice for prime lenses. Once again, with prime lenses you're paying the premium price for exceptional sharpness, control of aberrations, etc. Have you seen or read anything about lenses with built in TC's. I wonder if Nikon will release a decent upgrade to the Z50 aps-c this year. It, combined with the 180-600 could be a wonderful combination. Some interesting comments posted already. Thanks...
Yeah I think I was spoilt somewhat by the quality of the primes that I've used in recent years 😅 I've had a play with the top-end Nikons with built-in TCs and they seemed really, really good. But until I find a spare £14k down the back of the sofa those will remain a pipe dream 🙈 And some new APS-C cameras would definitely be appreciated!
Video just popped up on my feed, good practical video: I did get this lens but not used as extensively as you have. However, I have not noticed any CA. to the extent you describe. Given the Imatest score for this lens, I would never use it with the 1.4X TC. I will try the lens on larger birds against contrasty backgrounds and get back to you. I use DxO Photolab but will try with Optical Corrections On and Off. Thanks
I've tried out various software tricks and found that PhotoLab did a better job than the auto settings in PureRAW, and manually selecting the fringes in Lightroom also worked well. Auto settings in all three were very hit-and-miss - worked on some photos and made it significantly worse on others 😅
7 місяців тому
I use my 180-600 with a Z8 and I never noticed chromatic aberration. And I do like to photograph using hard light. Ps: I never tried with a TC though
I tried the TC-2.0x Z teleconverter with the 180-600 and in bright midday sun, the lens just would not autofocus at any zoom over 180mm. All firmware up to date, but that combo really shouldn't be listed as compatible.
Oh that’s interesting - which camera body is that? With the 2x TC you might be hitting the phase-detect limit where it drops back to contrast-detect only because the maximum aperture is too small (I’ve had this on the Panasonic S5II which has a low threshold for that)
@@robert_may Nikon Zf. It appears to get focus briefly before dropping back to be out of focus then hunts as long as the shutter is held down. Manual focus with focus peaking works fine.
Good question! There's some benefits to both, but I'd say that unless you really need the extra low light ability and higher resolution of something like the Z9, then the significantly cheaper price and much more compact setup of the OM is hard to argue against. Both perform really well for birds in flight too. Well worth testing out both, if possible, to see which you prefer for your type of shooting 😀
The Z 180-600 is a good lens for the price. But, it does need good light. The Z 600 PF and Z 800 PF are both enormously better in less than good light despite also being f6.3.
I think you have a bad sample, did you test it before buying? Are you using the 180-600mm at 600mm ? Converter is normally only suitable for non-zooms. And was budget not a concern, and you want the sharpest, abberation free photo's , well you're probably in for a 600 mm f6.3 or A megadap Sony - Z adapter with a Sigma Sport 500 mm f5.6 . Adapted is not ideal ...
I'd be curious to see how an adapted Sigma 500mm f/5.6 would work! I'd be a bit concerned about lockups considering I had more with the adapted Sigma 150-600 F-mount lens 🤔 I'd like to see that Sigma 500mm on the Z-mount anyway, as it's a nicely specced lens for the price.
I've never used that lens unfortunately! Always looked really good though so I'd love to give it a go at some point 😀 Hard to say which would be optically better between an older but higher-spec lens versus a modern but more affordable mirrorless lens 🤔
@@robert_may would be awesome if you could get a hold of one to compare them! Definitely will be a heavier lens but maybe worth it if the optics are superior than the new 180-600.
The Sony 200-600 is also same but 300g heavier & is not a true 600mm. I have used both systems but currently own the Z400mm f4.5 with the Z8. But I never had any lockups with either Sony or Nikon.
Ooh great question. I don't think I put enough photos through the Fujifilm lens in situations that would cause it, but I'll go back and have a look through them because I honestly don't know 🤔 I generally really liked the image quality of that Fuji lens though (and they do make great lenses)!
@@robert_may That would be great! I still have my XT3 & 150-600 and was thinking about selling as I now have a Z9. The 150-600 doesn't have any issues with CA that I have found and is nice and sharp. My worry is that the Z180-600 would actually be a step backwards in IQ.
Went back through a bunch of photos and you're right - the Fujifilm 150-600 is really well controlled! I've not got quite as many photos through it as with other lenses but I found only a couple of shots where there _might_ be some yellow fringing, but otherwise I really couldn't find much. It's pretty hard to compare it quality-wise to the Nikon lens just because the two cameras I've shot them on are wildly different resolutions 🤔But I don't think there's a huge difference between them. I would check the sharpness of the Nikon lens at 600 if you get it though as I think there's some copy variance. Mine is very sharp but I have seen reports of some slightly off.
![Nikon 180-600 Z vs Sigma 150-600 C [And Sharpness Testing]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q7AUrTrtQMg/mqdefault.jpg)
I like your style and the language you use so much so I've subscribed, thank you Robert for this review, you highlight many aspects and anomalies worth considering!Cheers!
Hi, enjoy your channel, can honestly say thus far I have been happy the shots I’ve been getting with the TC 1.4 with my 180-600mm with the Z9 for several months even with the video thus far. Hoping those issues don’t arise with me that you have experienced. Maybe a future firmware may help with the issue.
Good to hear! I do think it's very context-dependent, and on overcast days I've certainly had more reliable results 😀 I do think there's some copy variance in the 180-600 lens too, which might explain why it shows up more for some people than others.
I got my 160/800 z January and use it with my z 8. I have the z2x converter. My findings are mixed . The firmware update 2 for Nikon z 8 helps on auto focus . The biggest draw back in my opinion is appears to be slow to react . The weather in Manchester is not known for its sunny radiance. I used a tripod and the 2x converter on a reasonable day light wise. The subject was a pair of oyster catcher’s. I returned the next day with the insight gained and got a fair amount of reasonable photos of the oyster catchers and Canadian geese, since January I have been using the the z8 and 180/600 on a tripod or monopod and has the weather improved so has my respect for this lens. Closer photos are amazingly sharp and on a 52 screen the detail holds up , movement and distance are challenging and images may disappoint as there is a mixture of reasons behind the quality of the further away images. Some good some not so. Tips for tele converters use foucs peeking to give you yourself a depth of field check the lenses can miss foucs by over shooting the eye. Also foucs peeking requires the shutter release is set only to fire when pressed and assign another button for back foucs. Although I will use the z 2 times converter I have set up for Fx Dx quick change on the lenses only button . The idea of DX giving that 1200 mm reach and focus peeking to help sharpness appeals to me . I have now found the z 189/600 works like it says on the tin. It’s not super fast or over weight. It’s is a great purchase for its price range . Light room de noise and blur for now have allowed the two extras that give the photos that assist. There are things that this lens does not have but for the price tag is a bargain. My last tip is the lens hood . Leave it in the box for resale in the years to come by a metal hood and just fit a uv filter on the lens . I dropped the camera with the lens on it . I was using a metal hood the plastic one is rubbish I chased it down one to many hill to recommend it. I replaced it with a 15 £ hood the damage report for the dropped camera on to a concert floor. One dinted hood one broken uv filter one less insurance claim. If I did not have this lens I would invest in it again . My close images blow me away the drop did no damage to lens or camera I am amazed this is real gear . Enough said , I have added this channel and pressed the like button. Thanks for your info .
My 180-600 on my Z8 works a Dream in brighter Africa where I live >> BIF = Fantastic reaction times
'Canada' geese..sorry
Thanbks for this. An interesting set of considerations. I bought the Z 180-600 very recently in place of the Z 100-400. I also have the 1.4xTC which I regularly had to use on th e100-400 to give necessary extra range - especially in hides at nature reserves. I absolutely loved the 100-400 but couldn't afford both (I'm a pensioner!). However, I haven't tried the TC on the 180-600 - probably because I already have the Z 800 which I bought 18 months ago and that, being a prime, gives me the reach the TC would add to the 180-600. The Z 800 is, in my opinion, a fantastic lens but there are many occasions when I need the focal lengths below 800 and the new 180-600 is certainly meeting that requirement very well and at a very sensible price. As the 100-400 is a more expensive and S-Line lens I was disappointed at how much sharper the non-S-Line 180-600 turned out to be when I tried one back to back with the 100-400 + 1.4TC. The 180-600 significantly out performed the other combination.
I've debated the 800mm f/6.3 in the past and it's probably the prime I'd be most likely to buy on Z mount. The only real downside is the quite large minimum focus distance (I think it's like 5m?) but otherwise it's a really nice lens. I actually haven't tried the 100-400 yet, so that's interesting to know how it compares.
Appreciated your coverage on this lens and your channel in general. I watch a lot but don’t comment. But I wanted to thank you 👍🏻
Thanks very much! 😀
I find all my Z lenses to be much better controlled than my old f mount ones they replace. Occasional CA and flare. I do have the 180-600 but haven't had a chance to use it enough yet. I'll put it on my Z8 and report back whether I find some, especially yellow, or not. Cheers, Robert.
Yeah I do think that optically the current batch of mirrorless lenses are, in general, in a really good place. It's usually other weird quirks about them that feel odd to me (like bizarre ergonomics etc). For the 180-600 it's definitely context-dependent, and I've had multiple days where it hasn't cropped up at all, which makes it quite hard to replicate reliably 😅
Haven't used a TC on it, but I'm also perfectly happy with my 180-600. I have seen people complain about sharpness at 600 mm, but honestly, it's perfectly fine, at least in my copy. Stacks up pretty well to my 800 PF in terms of sharpness, and of course is a lot more versatile. The only times I really struggled with chromatic aberrations, was when there's very high contrast and on top of that I underexposed the subject, like an eagle in the sky. At that point, I can only really blame myself. If I did a good job, the lens does too.
If you think the Z 180-600 "stacks up well" in sharpness to the Z 800 PF, then either something is wrong with your Z 800 PF or something is wrong with the way you use it. I find my Z 800 PF is far sharper than my Z 180-600 in every possible scenario. That's not to say the Z 180-600 is bad. The Z 800 PF is really, really good.
@@KungPowEnterFist Or something is wrong wit your 180-600.
@@cy9nvs It's not even close in sharpness in my experience with it and comprehensive tests that I have done, and no review online says the Z 180-600 shows it being anywhere close to the Z 800 PF (or the Z 600 PF). You would literally be the only person in the entire world making such a claim. Again, this is not to say the Z 180-600 is a bad lens. It is a good lens for the money that works well enough in good light and you get the convenience of a zoom. But the Z 800 PF is almost as sharp as the F 800 f5.6 FL ED VR, which costs $16,300. The Z 180-600 is not at that level by a long shot. Additionally, the difference in sharpness/resolving power between the Z 600/800 PF's and the Z 180-600 in less than good light is enormous. That's the biggest con of the Z 180-600. In less than good light the images simply turn to mush. But go ahead and tell us that your particular copy of the Z 180-600 is as good as the Z 400 f2.8 TC at first light.
@@KungPowEnterFist bla bla bla... Photography life made an extensive test of all Z-Mount super-telephotos, comparing the 180-600 at 600mm with the 800 PF, accounting for the size of the subject, the lens is stacking up very well, in the center.
In their respective lab tests, the 180-600 scores a MTF performance of 2343 at 600mm in the center, while it's 2646 for the 800 PF, it is pretty close.
@@cy9nvs And in that test comparison, the Z 800 PF not only easily beats the Z 180-600 in the center but also demolishes it in the mid and corners. Now, as I am sure you well know, these tests are done under perfect laboratory conditions with perfect and consistent lighting and at or near MFD. The differences in sharpness, etc., are all amplified in the real world at real world distances to targets. What may seem like minor, insignificant distances in the lab and at or near MFD, are much more pronounced in the real world. Still, in the lab in the test you referenced, the Z 800 PF (and the Z 600 PF by an even greater margin) easily beats the Z 180-600 in center, mid, and corner sharpness. It's not close. The particular optical design and quality of optical elements used play an even greater role in less than good light, and this is where things really fall apart for the Z 180-600. The difference between the Z 600/800 PF's and the Z 180-600 in sharpness/resolving power in less than good light is enormous. The price difference is also enormous, so...
Cheers Robert! Great insights into your experiences with the lense. I tried the XH2 for a while and.. I wasn't a fan of the ergonomics. Surprisingly. Something about the front dial, position and using it, just didn't work at all for me. So I sent it back, got a barely used, green ZF, a grip, working faaantastic. But, I was pondering this combination exact. Now I feel sort of glad I didn't go for it. Two days ago I got a great offer for a 400mm f4.5 and a 1.4tc (which I agree are outrageously expensive), and that should all arrive this coming week. Cannot wait!
Ooh great choice! I've had a play with the 400mm f/4.5 and it's really lightweight - will pair very nicely with the Zf.
I’m not surprised to hear your problems with CA with the tele converter. I remember the terrible results I got with a converter on my old f mount 200-500 f/5,6. A rarely usable combination with that lens. It would be great to hear from people what the experience is with the equivalent Tamron and Sigma in this regard? How is the auto focus response and sharpness with the converter on this z mount lens?
As you say, we much rather want to be out shooting wildlife than spending time in front of our computers correcting optical flaws. But if we must there’s some really useful and practical techniques using layers and local masking in PS or Affinity that can completely remove CA without shifting colours in the rest of the image. It just take a little bit of training but the advantages are that you have full control of it and is not in the hands of automatic algorithms. It is one of these things that’s making a pixel editor like PS or Affinity indispensable even in todays world, I think.
Thank you very much for the video!
Saves me alot of trouble and I rather save up for the Z800mm. But other than that I think the lense is really good for that price. My favourite stays the AF-S 300mm f2.8, even with TC2 it's awesome and has no color changes
Thank you for this video !
It's exactly the issue I noticed last week with putting the TC on this lens. The CA was quite insane, wasn't expecting that. I thought I was doing something wrong.
Hi Robert, I put the 1.4 teleconverter on the 180-600 in various different lighting situations.In strong sidelight, I'm in the tropics at the moment with very strong light, it was difficult to provoke any CA except some blue lines along very high contrast white building edges. However, with strong morning backlight It did give a yellow CA effect on some long pine/fir tree "needles", they're about nine inches long and overlap each-other. They looked like a quite weird mosaic and as you say, not really correctable. I did find it quite difficult to get this effect though. Maybe Nikon could lend you another copy to try. I hear that there are a few bad copies but far fewer than the F-mount teleconverters. I had to go through three copies of the f-mount mark 2's to get a good one in both the 1.4 and the 1.7. Worth a try.
Ooh great test! Yeah I think that lines up with my experience - I’ve had weeks where I don’t get the effect at all, then one day where it crops up in every few photos, probably because of the lighting and direction.
And yeah I’d be curious to try another TC copy just to see if there’s any difference 🤔
My experience with the Sony A1 + Sony 200-600 + 1.4ex is identical to your findings.
a really good quality video Robert ! I use the 400mm 4.5 and the TC's seem to work very well. The 180 - 600mm would give me greater flexability however the 400mm is just so small, light and fast.
Yeah the 400mm f/4.5 is a really nicely sized lens!
Coma is a funny thing. I was taught that lenses that coma producing are not necessarily bad per se, but can actually render depth far better than non coma lenses. That seems to be my experience, some classic vintage glass like the Takumar 50/1.4(8 element) and the Pentax FA Limited's (31 ,43 and 77) all coma to some degree, however they render depth exceptionally well. I have tested this for myself, f5.6 shots giving oof rendering like some equivalent lenses manage at f4 etc, the result is a wonderful 3dpop, almost medium format looking.
Conversely, some modern lenses like Fuji's XF56/1.2RWR, which is very sharp and offering very little coma, do tend to do some weird 'flattening' of oof areas at times, lacking sometimes that gradual depth transition.
So it's a compromise thing I think. To combat CA also does tend to be quite expensive and makes lenses heavier than they ought.
For my line of work I tend to convert images to monochrome if it is particularly bad, or if I know I need the colour then compromise on aperture and stop down till it goes away.
However mono birding is pretty limiting, often we need those colours to help separate the subject, and stopping down might not be feasible or even possible with some of the lenses required. You do pick an awfully challenging genre!!
Having said that, wildlife (especially birding) seems to be one of the genres where AI tools have assisted the most. It's incredible how far improved the original image was with post processing tools today. Hopefully we will not have long to wait till better CA software exists.
Ooh great point. It's very much subject-dependent for me - I don't think I ever really notice coma on things outside of birds and trees/plants, but I guess I do tend to mostly shoot those other subjects on film and that kinda hides a lot of those optical quirks anyway. It's not something I'd really worry about on people shots I think as there's less likely to be super strong contrast to begin with, so I can definitely see it adding to the image quality rather than detracting. Also, totally unrelated but I really wish more companies would embrace the Pentax idea of a 43mm lens!
Yeah bird photography seems to be the most annoyingly gear-dependent photography discipline 😅 AI tooling is making a big difference over the past few years as it's really opening up some shot options that would have been a nightmare before (e.g. very high ISO), but weirdly none of the software has taken a machine-learning approach to colour correction yet.
@@robert_may CA can bite you in the bum a lot on portrait shoots when the clients are shall we say... well dressed? The groomsmen white shirt against black jacket is a classic, and of course the brides dress can trigger it depending on the background. Even my orchestra shoots its a thing. I guess when you get to know your lenses and sus out the contrast level of your scene you know what to expect.
It is interesting about that 1.4 teleconverter. I have never used one, from now on I will think of them as 'amplifiers'! 😄
Totally agree Robert! Nikkor 180-600 has a lot of chromatic aberration. Mostly blue an some yellow fringing and some times you can see it even in a scene that has not that much of a contrast. Mine is sharp yes but only with close or relatively close subjects. If something is far away, and I don't mean in those times of the day that you can experience atmospheric turbulence or the subject is miles away, this lens can not focus properly at all no matter what AF mode I try with my Z8. But this last one it might be related to the Z8 autofocus capabilities. Wildlife Inspired w/ Scott Keys says that it does not have all most at all chromatic aberration. Looks that in America their copies of this lens are quite different.....
Yeah there certainly seems to be some copy variance in this lens, which is unfortunate. I'm somewhat tempted to send mine to Nikon to have it calibrated in case that helps, although I've seen other copies that are less sharp so I'm always worried it might go the other way 😅
Hi Robert, enjoyed your program. You seem to conclude with the old adage that "you get what you pay for". You pay a premium for a zoom lens like the Canon R100-500 L or the Olympus 150-400. TC's have always been a better choice for prime lenses. Once again, with prime lenses you're paying the premium price for exceptional sharpness, control of aberrations, etc. Have you seen or read anything about lenses with built in TC's.
I wonder if Nikon will release a decent upgrade to the Z50 aps-c this year. It, combined with the 180-600 could be a wonderful combination. Some interesting comments posted already. Thanks...
Yeah I think I was spoilt somewhat by the quality of the primes that I've used in recent years 😅 I've had a play with the top-end Nikons with built-in TCs and they seemed really, really good. But until I find a spare £14k down the back of the sofa those will remain a pipe dream 🙈
And some new APS-C cameras would definitely be appreciated!
My Z9 + 180-600mm + 1.4TC - I don't get CA & notice only very small drop in autofocus speed.
Video just popped up on my feed, good practical video: I did get this lens but not used as extensively as you have. However, I have not noticed any CA. to the extent you describe. Given the Imatest score for this lens, I would never use it with the 1.4X TC. I will try the lens on larger birds against contrasty backgrounds and get back to you. I use DxO Photolab but will try with Optical Corrections On and Off. Thanks
I've tried out various software tricks and found that PhotoLab did a better job than the auto settings in PureRAW, and manually selecting the fringes in Lightroom also worked well. Auto settings in all three were very hit-and-miss - worked on some photos and made it significantly worse on others 😅
I use my 180-600 with a Z8 and I never noticed chromatic aberration. And I do like to photograph using hard light. Ps: I never tried with a TC though
I tried the TC-2.0x Z teleconverter with the 180-600 and in bright midday sun, the lens just would not autofocus at any zoom over 180mm. All firmware up to date, but that combo really shouldn't be listed as compatible.
Oh that’s interesting - which camera body is that? With the 2x TC you might be hitting the phase-detect limit where it drops back to contrast-detect only because the maximum aperture is too small (I’ve had this on the Panasonic S5II which has a low threshold for that)
@@robert_may Nikon Zf. It appears to get focus briefly before dropping back to be out of focus then hunts as long as the shutter is held down. Manual focus with focus peaking works fine.
Having used both, do you think the Nikon camera and 180-600 or the Olympus for nature and wildlife? Thanks
Good question! There's some benefits to both, but I'd say that unless you really need the extra low light ability and higher resolution of something like the Z9, then the significantly cheaper price and much more compact setup of the OM is hard to argue against. Both perform really well for birds in flight too. Well worth testing out both, if possible, to see which you prefer for your type of shooting 😀
The Z 180-600 is a good lens for the price. But, it does need good light. The Z 600 PF and Z 800 PF are both enormously better in less than good light despite also being f6.3.
It’s all about technique and how you post process as well.
@@freddyacosta2358 Those techniques and post processing also apply to the Z 600/800 PF's, though.
I think you have a bad sample, did you test it before buying? Are you using the 180-600mm at 600mm ? Converter is normally only suitable for non-zooms. And was budget not a concern, and you want the sharpest, abberation free photo's , well you're probably in for a 600 mm f6.3 or A megadap Sony - Z adapter with a Sigma Sport 500 mm f5.6 . Adapted is not ideal ...
I'd be curious to see how an adapted Sigma 500mm f/5.6 would work! I'd be a bit concerned about lockups considering I had more with the adapted Sigma 150-600 F-mount lens 🤔 I'd like to see that Sigma 500mm on the Z-mount anyway, as it's a nicely specced lens for the price.
Thanks for the awesome advice!
I'm debating on a AFS 180-400 f4 vs this 180-600. Have you used the f4?
I've never used that lens unfortunately! Always looked really good though so I'd love to give it a go at some point 😀 Hard to say which would be optically better between an older but higher-spec lens versus a modern but more affordable mirrorless lens 🤔
@@robert_may would be awesome if you could get a hold of one to compare them! Definitely will be a heavier lens but maybe worth it if the optics are superior than the new 180-600.
I use my 1.4 x ConvertorONLY on my 70-200 S and I crop with the 180-600 or use DX
Is there anybody who used zf+1.4x+150-600mm ? I'd like to get some review
No problem so far with my 180-600mm and 1.4TC with Nikon zf...
Well my test 1.4tc works really well with 180-600 i mostly shoot with it
The Sony 200-600 is also same but 300g heavier & is not a true 600mm. I have used both systems but currently own the Z400mm f4.5 with the Z8. But I never had any lockups with either Sony or Nikon.
Definitely worth noting the magnification difference between the Sony and Nikon zooms - it's actually quite significant.
How would you compare the IQ of the 180-600 to the Fuji 150-600 that you had?
Ooh great question. I don't think I put enough photos through the Fujifilm lens in situations that would cause it, but I'll go back and have a look through them because I honestly don't know 🤔 I generally really liked the image quality of that Fuji lens though (and they do make great lenses)!
@@robert_may That would be great! I still have my XT3 & 150-600 and was thinking about selling as I now have a Z9. The 150-600 doesn't have any issues with CA that I have found and is nice and sharp. My worry is that the Z180-600 would actually be a step backwards in IQ.
Went back through a bunch of photos and you're right - the Fujifilm 150-600 is really well controlled! I've not got quite as many photos through it as with other lenses but I found only a couple of shots where there _might_ be some yellow fringing, but otherwise I really couldn't find much. It's pretty hard to compare it quality-wise to the Nikon lens just because the two cameras I've shot them on are wildly different resolutions 🤔But I don't think there's a huge difference between them. I would check the sharpness of the Nikon lens at 600 if you get it though as I think there's some copy variance. Mine is very sharp but I have seen reports of some slightly off.
The lens that I would keep until it lasts
Thinking about getting the lens. My main use would be for photos of airplanes.
Should be good for that purpose!
I'll happily take a few hundred grams of tendinitis-inducing full-frame lens weight less, if that means a bit more software correction!
Loosing confidence in the 180-600. Below average IQ for stills.