Nikon Z 180-600mm + TC-1.4x vs. Z 600mm f/6.3 + TC-1.4x

I've been trying out a friend's 600mm f/6.3 because I really need the extra reach when shooting BIF and some wildlife (when it's available). Since I own the TC-1.4x I've been shooting the 600mm with the TC for 840mm and I find it to be quite extraordinary. Now another friend loaned me his 180-600mm for comparison. Both are pretty excellent lenses, but of course the 600mm is sharper and better overall, as all the reviewers have agreed. But a lot of reviewers have said that the price difference between the two makes the 180-600mm a more viable choice since the differences aren't that great, even the sharpness comparison. And as everyone can also agree, adding a TC-1.4x is going to degrade the IQ of either lens, particularly the sharpness.

True enough, but the main difference and the most negative aspect of the 180-600mm with the TC that I'm finding, is the chromatic aberration. At least one reviewer has said that the lens profile in LR corrects it well enough, but I have not found that to be true. In fact, pretty consistently the 180-600mm at 840mm shows CA while the 600m doesn't. I know, what do you expect for $1,800 vs. $4,700 (or so)? Now, I haven't had a chance to shoot a lot of different subjects in different lighting conditions, and my comparisons are admittedly not apples-to-apples, but here are a couple examples of what I am talking about, both given the same default LR profile corrections and not much else. Both are at a pretty high ISO, which generally is not a problem.

Can anyone say that the CA is not such a problem for most images taken with the 180-600mm + TC-1.4x, or am I correct in thinking that it's a problem most of the time? Is the 600mm f/6.3 worth the price difference since it performs so well with the TC-1.4x?

Like I said, these aren't apples-to-apples, but looking at most of the images at 100% from either lens with the TC, the result is very similar to these.


180-600mm w/TC-1.4x




600mm f/6.3 w/TC-1.4x

I don't have either lens, and I don't use lightroom, but here's a suggestion. Try your test photos in Nikon Studio NX and see if it removes the CA. It's free, so no penalty there. You might not like the interface or the (slow) speed and clunkiness, but I would give it a look to see if it can handle the CA. You'll have to use it with a raw file of course.

This is not a direct answer to your question, but I have been for the last few months comparing the 180-600 and the 500 pf (trying to decide whether the 180-600's versatility makes up for the lower image quality) with the intention to keep only one of them long term and have some observations that may be relevant.

One thing I'm finding with the 180-600 is that I will get some shots I'd consider nice and sharp but mixed in with many which are very poor. The thing is that this is true even when the 500pf, which I am usually bringing out at the same time and trying to take photos of exactly the same subjects at the same time so that conditions are identical, produces much better results - so in other words when this is a trend that is happening over the course of thousands of photos it's probably not just distortion from atmospherics or issues with personal technique or other such factors.

The reason it comes to mind is that one of the few explanations I can think of for this phenomenon is that the 500pf (like the 600 6.3) has a number of lens coatings that the 180-600 lacks and which are designed to mitigate or eliminate the effects of various lighting conditions and I have to wonder whether part of what is happening is that sometimes the 180-600 is suffering from some of the effects that these coatings would help with while the 500pf is not, so photos of the same thing in the same conditions look drastically different between the two while in another case the difference may not be very noticeable. To be clear: I'm not talking about cases where the 500pf is a little sharper - that's to be expected. I'm talking about cases where the 500pf photo is good and the 180-600 is not just a tiny bit softer but much, much worse.

Presumably the differences in the basic optical design could also be contributing to similar effects.

My point: my experience with the 180-600 and the 600 6.3's "equivalent" in F-mount would lead me to expect that various negative optical effects like chromatic aberration would indeed be likely to turn up with the 180-600 when subjected to different optical conditions (like the presence of additional elements tacked onto the end of it) where the more expensive lens may not yield the same.

Most people pay a lot more money to get the 600mm/f6.3 PF over the 180-600 for the lighter weight. While I have neither one of those two lenses, I did the equivalent in the F mount, getting the 500mm/f5.6 PF after the 200-500mm/f5.6.

If your objective is to shoot birds in flight, I don't think adding a 1.4x TC onto the 600mm PF will be a good idea. With so much magnification, it will be difficult to locate your subject, and you won't be able to zoom to a shorter focal length to find the subject. I have the 800mm/f6.3 PF and rarely use that for birds in flight. Some people use a dot sight to assist; that could be an approach.

John Ideal said:

I don't have either lens, and I don't use lightroom, but here's a suggestion. Try your test photos in Nikon Studio NX and see if it removes the CA. It's free, so no penalty there. You might not like the interface or the (slow) speed and clunkiness, but I would give it a look to see if it can handle the CA. You'll have to use it with a raw file of course.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I have Studio NX but never use it. I'll give it a try.

Thank you! You make some very good points. I had the 500 PF for years and found it to be a superb lens, and your comparison with the 500 PF is well justified as the 600 PF is very similar, almost identical in IQ and most other aspects. Yes, your suggestion that it may be lens coatings, and it may not be chromatic aberrations but possibly reflections of moisture drops or something on the chipmunk's coat is most likely the problem, since I have not been able to eliminate the effect even manually, which I often I have been able to do on other images (with other lenses). And yes, "that various negative optical effects like chromatic aberration would indeed be likely to turn up with the 180-600 when subjected to different optical condition" is no doubt true.

Thinking about that, I've just now looked at a few 180-600mm images without the TC; apparently it's not so much the TC after all, as the same little bright spots can be seen, and it is pretty consistent in similar lighting conditions, which no doubt also contribute to it. I've tried using Lumenzia to mitigate those bright spots but even that doesn't work.



Ah, here's a 600mm PF instance, similar image as above similar lighting, but no sparkly spots on the fur.

shuncheung said:

Most people pay a lot more money to get the 600mm/f6.3 PF over the 180-600 for the lighter weight. While I have neither one of those two lenses, I did the equivalent in the F mount, getting the 500mm/f5.6 PF after the 200-500mm/f5.6.

If your objective is to shoot birds in flight, I don't think adding a 1.4x TC onto the 600mm PF will be a good idea. With so much magnification, it will be difficult to locate your subject, and you won't be able to zoom to a shorter focal length to find the subject. I have the 800mm/f6.3 PF and rarely use that for birds in flight. Some people use a dot sight to assist; that could be an approach.

Click to expand...

Yep, you're right about using the TC, it is difficult to get the focus before it's too late. I do have a dot-sight but I haven't had a chance to use it on with the 840mm focal length, so that is a good idea. Thanks for your input.

Guy Dagar said:

Thank you! You make some very good points. I had the 500 PF for years and found it to be a superb lens, and your comparison with the 500 PF is well justified as the 600 PF is very similar, almost identical in IQ and most other aspects. Yes, your suggestion that it may be lens coatings, and it may not be chromatic aberrations but possibly reflections of moisture drops or something on the chipmunk's coat is most likely the problem, since I have not been able to eliminate the effect even manually, which I often I have been able to do on other images (with other lenses). And yes, "that various negative optical effects like chromatic aberration would indeed be likely to turn up with the 180-600 when subjected to different optical condition" is no doubt true.

Thinking about that, I've just now looked at a few 180-600mm images without the TC; apparently it's not so much the TC after all, as the same little bright spots can be seen, and it is pretty consistent in similar lighting conditions, which no doubt also contribute to it. I've tried using Lumenzia to mitigate those bright spots but even that doesn't work.



Ah, here's a 600mm PF instance, similar image as above similar lighting, but no sparkly spots on the fur.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of what you have said here makes sense, though after reading it I am unsure whether this particular issue is necessarily an issue with the 180-600.

Here is a recent photo of mine from the 500pf which displays that similar "sparkly" effect with lots of little blue "spots" in the fur.



This was obviously after trying to remove them. You can view the original full size or look at this unedited crop to see them popping up especially on the fur behind the head.



I found these essentially impossible to remove, even by trying to edit the specific colors themselves in photoshop.

However, I did finally question whether this might be moire and discovered that a light use of the moire reduction slider removed it for the most part:



A stronger moire reduction may remove it better but then it starts to harm the color of the fur so I chose to do it to a lower degree.

Besides the CA maybe the way the zoom balances requires a faster shutter speed to avoid some of the unsharp images. I found it difficult to manage and got the PF which is one of my favorite lens now. It does take the 1.4 well. The hit rate is higher than I had with the zoom and I think it being a little front heavy is part of that.

--
Thanks for your help, Michael

Very interesting. I just tried it (actually have never used the moiré slider before), but I couldn't get it to make much of a difference. I do appreciate your input! At the same time, I tried various other adjustments but none made much of a difference.

Hooligans Imagery said:

Besides the CA maybe the way the zoom balances requires a faster shutter speed to avoid some of the unsharp images. I found it difficult to manage and got the PF which is one of my favorite lens now. It does take the 1.4 well. The hit rate is higher than I had with the zoom and I think it being a little front heavy is part of that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I'm going to bite the bullet and buy the 600 PF. Like the old 500 PF, it's just superb.

Thanks!

I've never seen a long zoom which outperforms a long prime especially with a TC, and see no reason why the 186 would. If you like shooting at 840, then think about a 600 f/4 TC or a 800 f/6.3.

I have the 180-600 and the 600 f6.3 and ran a quick test last year to compare them at 600mm (no TC used).

These were taken on separate Z9’s within a few minutes of each other and may help with your comparison. If I need to go longer then I’ll use my 800 f6.3. I’ve never used my 1.4TC except with the 400 f4.5 prior to getting the longer lenses, so I can't give an opinion as to how much the TC degrades the images from these lenses.

I prefer the 600 to the 180-600 in terms of handling, but now have the 400 f2.8TC, so use this unless I need a smaller lighter option.





--
Alan

ajr images said:

I have the 180-600 and the 600 f6.3 and ran a quick test last year to compare them at 600mm (no TC used).

These were taken on separate Z9’s within a few minutes of each other and may help with your comparison. If I need to go longer then I’ll use my 800 f6.3. I’ve never used my 1.4TC except with the 400 f4.5 prior to getting the longer lenses, so I can't give an opinion as to how much the TC degrades the images from these lenses.

I prefer the 600 to the 180-600 in terms of handling, but now have the 400 f2.8TC, so use this unless I need a smaller lighter option.

Click to expand...

I seem to recall from previous discussions that the 180-600 photo looks softer than it should because the focus landed on the hair to the right of the pink face instead of the face itself whereas the 600 6.3 is focused on the face.

I agree. I should probably have been more attentive with the focus point, although NX Studio does show that the attempt to focus on the eye in both cases was not far off.

I just rechecked the images and in fact the 600mm f6.3 focus point is on the eye, while the 180-600 image is on the fur just to the right of the eye, so I stand corrected.

ajr images said:

I just rechecked the images and in fact the 600mm f6.3 focus point is on the eye, while the 180-600 image is on the fur just to the right of the eye, so I stand corrected.

Click to expand...

That's good to know. I only brought it up to help the OP evaluate whatever is being looked at a bit better.

Not a direct answer to your question, but I find that the 400/4.5 + TC combo also produces quite a bit of CA. This is also not fully corrected in Lightroom - oddly, sometimes the correction appears to be “too much”, i.e. yellow-blue fringes turn into blue-yellow fringes (the colour flips).

Guy Dagar said:

Very interesting. I just tried it (actually have never used the moiré slider before), but I couldn't get it to make much of a difference. I do appreciate your input! At the same time, I tried various other adjustments but none made much of a difference.

Click to expand...

This is very unlikely to be moire. Considering existing lens tests, the 180-600 with the TC is nowhere near sharp enough to induce it.

BasilG said:

Not a direct answer to your question, but I find that the 400/4.5 + TC combo also produces quite a bit of CA. This is also not fully corrected in Lightroom - oddly, sometimes the correction appears to be “too much”, i.e. yellow-blue fringes turn into blue-yellow fringes (the colour flips).

Click to expand...

Thanks. It is relevant because I also have the 400/4.5 + TC. Although I haven't noticed CA much, but I do get a bit of a bluish tint to white fur; it's easily correctable with HSL. The problem with the 400/4.5 is it is so dang good with the TC-1.4x (and even the 2.0x) that it makes it hard to spend another $4K+ on the 600mm, and it kind of renders the 180-600mm superfluous since the 400+TC at 560mm is better than the 180-600mm at 600. I can live with 40mm less length.