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

BasilG said:

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.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have ro actually be moire for the tool to clean it up. Think of it like a medication that doctors prescribe for an off-label use (which is pretty common and even standard in some cases).

Regardless, you'll find no greater critic of that lens' sharpness than myself but I don't think it's correct to say that it can't produce moire. Moire is dependent on several factors and you can get it from lower resolution equipment in the right circumstances, and I don't even think it's that hard.

Heck, I'm pretty sure I can pull up examples that definitely are moire that I've gotten from my 180-600 - and I think my copy is a less than stellar copy of a lens that is at beat at least a little on the softer side.

Guy Dagar said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think the 180-600 has its place because of the flexibility and the 600 because of its clearly higher quality plus the ability to go to 840 at higher quality than the other options. I wish it were not so ($$$!), but unfortunately that is how I see 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...

Here is a sample of a couple of back-lit, juvenile bald eagles so that they are very dark. I used a Z9 with the 400/4.5 + 1.4x TC @ f7.1:

Overall image:





Pixel peeping:







And another image with the 400/4.5 + 1.4x TC @ f6.3 on a Z8, pixel level with a lot of bright-to-dark transitions:

I owned the 180-600 for several weeks before returning it. My copy just didn’t have the “bite” (sharpness) of my primes for showing feather detail, scales on butterfly wings (closeups), bristles on flowers and leaves. I felt my 200-500 was at least as sharp, if not sharper, in the center when shooting closeups.

I think there’s a fair amount of copy variation, as others seemed to have gotten better results. It did perform better when stopped down. I do think it may have suffered from light diffusion within the lens which softened edges when shooting brightly lit scenes.

My 500 PF was noticeably sharper and faster focusing. Have not used a 600 PF, but it’s reputed to be as sharp, or sharper, as the 500 PF.

--
Alan Clark
https://arclark.smugmug.com/

ARClark said:

I owned the 180-600 for several weeks before returning it. My copy just didn’t have the “bite” (sharpness) of my primes for showing feather detail, scales on butterfly wings (closeups), bristles on flowers and leaves. I felt my 200-500 was at least as sharp, if not sharper, in the center when shooting closeups.

I think there’s a fair amount of copy variation, as others seemed to have gotten better results.

Click to expand...

It is unrealistic to expect the 180-600 to have 500mm, 600mm prime sharpness, but I don't own one either. Most 180-600 owners seem to be very happy with it, though.

My old 200-500mm/f5.6 was quite sharp, but its AF is slow even on my D5. I eventually sold that a few months ago.

shuncheung said:

ARClark said:

I owned the 180-600 for several weeks before returning it. My copy just didn’t have the “bite” (sharpness) of my primes for showing feather detail, scales on butterfly wings (closeups), bristles on flowers and leaves. I felt my 200-500 was at least as sharp, if not sharper, in the center when shooting closeups.

I think there’s a fair amount of copy variation, as others seemed to have gotten better results.

Click to expand...

It is unrealistic to expect the 180-600 to have 500mm, 600mm prime sharpness,

Click to expand...

I guess some people did? I'm not sure how or why though. I'd hope lenses 3x the price were sharper/etc. The reality that the 180-600 does 90% of the job for much cheaper is a good sign though.

shuncheung said:

Most 180-600 owners seem to be very happy with it, though.

Click to expand...

Im very happy with my copy.

ghostfox_1 said:

shuncheung said:

ARClark said:

I owned the 180-600 for several weeks before returning it. My copy just didn’t have the “bite” (sharpness) of my primes for showing feather detail, scales on butterfly wings (closeups), bristles on flowers and leaves. I felt my 200-500 was at least as sharp, if not sharper, in the center when shooting closeups.

I think there’s a fair amount of copy variation, as others seemed to have gotten better results.

Click to expand...

It is unrealistic to expect the 180-600 to have 500mm, 600mm prime sharpness,

Click to expand...

I guess some people did? I'm not sure how or why though. I'd hope lenses 3x the price were sharper/etc. The reality that the 180-600 does 90% of the job for much cheaper is a good sign though.

Click to expand...

My best guess is that when copies of the lens started to get in people's hands there were a lot of obviously soft examples being posted and when anyone would mention this the response would be a torrent of people insisting it was one of the sharpest thing's they've seen, they couldn't tell it apart from their $15,000 exotic, etc. On top of this, there were a lot of images being posted at very low resolutions to the point that almost any lens could have produced the photo and you couldn't tell them apart at that image size and you also had a lot of people posting photos at these lower resolutions which had to my eye obviously been sharpened with Topaz. There are still a few users in some places who are still regularly sharing as examples of the 180-600 these sorts of specially sharpened results, but at least nowadays they're just sharing photos for the most part... at the time, the whole point of those sorts of threads was to demonstrate what the 180-600 could do, so I think it probably misled a lot of folks looking for examples.

SCoombs said:

On top of this, there were a lot of images being posted at very low resolutions to the point that almost any lens could have produced the photo and you couldn't tell them apart at that image size and you also had a lot of people posting photos at these lower resolutions which had to my eye obviously been sharpened with Topaz. [...]... at the time, the whole point of those sorts of threads was to demonstrate what the 180-600 could do, so I think it probably misled a lot of folks looking for examples.

Click to expand...

I think this is an accurate description of some of the issues (though tests do indicate that the lens is decently sharp - just not as sharp as the $4,500-$15,000 lenses).

ARClark said:

I owned the 180-600 for several weeks before returning it. My copy just didn’t have the “bite” (sharpness) of my primes for showing feather detail, scales on butterfly wings (closeups), bristles on flowers and leaves. I felt my 200-500 was at least as sharp, if not sharper, in the center when shooting closeups.

I think there’s a fair amount of copy variation, as others seemed to have gotten better results. It did perform better when stopped down. I do think it may have suffered from light diffusion within the lens which softened edges when shooting brightly lit scenes.

My 500 PF was noticeably sharper and faster focusing. Have not used a 600 PF, but it’s reputed to be as sharp, or sharper, as the 500 PF.

Click to expand...

I'm so torn on this. I am very much with you generally speaking and have been very disappointed with my 180-600 since it arrived, frequently finding it to be extremely underwhelming even compared to what I was used to with the 200-500 I had previously.

I also have a 500 pf, but I need to sell one of them and frankly I need to get it posted this weekend to get it sold sooner rather than later. For the past few months I keep going out with both of them and comparing, not because I expect the 500pf to ever really lose on sharpness, but moreso to see if the 180-600 compares as "close enough" that the zoom and other benefits make it worth it to keep that one. Much of the time I'll get shots where the 500pf is clearly much, much sharper, but whenever I feel like I have my mind made up I'll get something like this where I struggle to tell the difference and the 180-600 is possibly actually a little bit better:









These aren't even full frame, either - they're both cropped to at least DX size, so I can't just say that at full size they're comparable but the prime easily wins out if you have to crop. Well, the prime here is a bit of a more crop, because it was 500mm instead of 600mm, so maybe we can say that it's still definitely sharper even in this case since it took a crop to 16MP as well as the zoom took a crop to 22MP, but that doesn't change a whole lot for me because the zoom still does have that extra 100mm making the final results the same or maybe, at least in this case, slightly better.

It's also not an isolated case... these shots are two of 785 I took of this heron swapping back and forth between lenses all within 10 minutes or so and the trend is the same across all of them.

Then there are cases where the 500pf is definitely sharper, but not by the greatest of margins:









Then there are cases where it's not even close and the 500pf is clearly, definitely sharp while the 180-600 just looks bad. I wish I had an example of this to demonstrate, but I haven't really hung onto any examples that are just very poor.

ARClark said:

I owned the 180-600 for several weeks before returning it. My copy just didn’t have the “bite” (sharpness) of my primes for showing feather detail, scales on butterfly wings (closeups), bristles on flowers and leaves. I felt my 200-500 was at least as sharp, if not sharper, in the center when shooting closeups.

Click to expand...

The 180-600 is sharper and superior (verified in all the tests) than the 200-500, it's either your lens copy, technique or lighting.

ARClark said:

I think there’s a fair amount of copy variation, as others seemed to have gotten better results. It did perform better when stopped down. I do think it may have suffered from light diffusion within the lens which softened edges when shooting brightly lit scenes.

Click to expand...

It was your copy. You should have returned it and got another 180-600 to test.

ARClark said:

My 500 PF was noticeably sharper and faster focusing.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it cost a lot more $$ and can't do 180-499mm. Sometimes you need that. Or you can carry a lot more weight with a 2nd wider lens and body, or miss shots in changing lenses.

ARClark said:

Have not used a 600 PF, but it’s reputed to be as sharp, or sharper, as the 500 PF.

Click to expand...

SCoombs said:

ARClark said:

I owned the 180-600 for several weeks before returning it. My copy just didn’t have the “bite” (sharpness) of my primes for showing feather detail, scales on butterfly wings (closeups), bristles on flowers and leaves. I felt my 200-500 was at least as sharp, if not sharper, in the center when shooting closeups.

I think there’s a fair amount of copy variation, as others seemed to have gotten better results. It did perform better when stopped down. I do think it may have suffered from light diffusion within the lens which softened edges when shooting brightly lit scenes.

My 500 PF was noticeably sharper and faster focusing. Have not used a 600 PF, but it’s reputed to be as sharp, or sharper, as the 500 PF.

Click to expand...

I'm so torn on this. I am very much with you generally speaking and have been very disappointed with my 180-600 since it arrived, frequently finding it to be extremely underwhelming even compared to what I was used to with the 200-500 I had previously.

Click to expand...

You most likely got a poor copy variation on the 180-600. Return it and try another. Mine is superior to my old 200-500 F mount. Everyone that has reviewed the 180-600 says it's sharper and superior to the 200-500.

SCoombs said:

I also have a 500 pf, but I need to sell one of them and frankly I need to get it posted this weekend to get it sold sooner rather than later. For the past few months I keep going out with both of them and comparing, not because I expect the 500pf to ever really lose on sharpness, but moreso to see if the 180-600 compares as "close enough" that the zoom and other benefits make it worth it to keep that one. Much of the time I'll get shots where the 500pf is clearly much, much sharper, but whenever I feel like I have my mind made up I'll get something like this where I struggle to tell the difference and the 180-600 is possibly actually a little bit better:

Click to expand...

Struggle to tell the difference" exactly... if you aren't one of the nitpicker pixel peepers here... the 180-600 will look good enough (providing you get a good copy). you could get a poor copy of a 600 as well...

SCoombs said:

These aren't even full frame, either - they're both cropped to at least DX size, so I can't just say that at full size they're comparable but the prime easily wins out if you have to crop. Well, the prime here is a bit of a more crop, because it was 500mm instead of 600mm, so maybe we can say that it's still definitely sharper even in this case since it took a crop to 16MP as well as the zoom took a crop to 22MP, but that doesn't change a whole lot for me because the zoom still does have that extra 100mm making the final results the same or maybe, at least in this case, slightly better.

It's also not an isolated case... these shots are two of 785 I took of this heron swapping back and forth between lenses all within 10 minutes or so and the trend is the same across all of them.

Then there are cases where the 500pf is definitely sharper, but not by the greatest of margins:

Then there are cases where it's not even close and the 500pf is clearly, definitely sharp while the 180-600 just looks bad. I wish I had an example of this to demonstrate, but I haven't really hung onto any examples that are just very poor.

Click to expand...

I have for days now gone back and forth because of the cost, and the sometimes marginal differences between the two lenses. Finally, my wife chimed in and asked me which lens was better. I said, "the 600mm." She then asked why I would settle for less than the 600mm? I said, "Cost." I told her the difference was over $2K. She said, "Just get it." Wh-a-a-a-t?? Normally I would have to do a lot of persuading and convincing to get her to go along with a camera or lens purchase of that magnitude, so I didn't waste any time (before she changed her mind).

I really like the 180-600mm, as it is an excellent lens, and the added advantage of it being a zoom is always welcome. I also like its ability to focus more closely than the 600mm. However, there are a couple rather nit-picky things I don't like: the weight compared to the 600mm PF (or the 500mm PF, or the 400mm f/4.5). It's almost too heavy to hand-hold for lengthy periods, like out in the field or on the beach. I also don't like the tripod collar, although that is really nit-picking.

In the end, though, it really comes down to overall image quality—the 600mm able to resolve fine detail like animal's fur or a bird's feather better than the 180-600mm. It's faster to focus and tracks birds and animals better with less hunting.

I got a used 600mm from B&H rated a "9" but turns out to be just like new, for $700 less than the current sale price. Gotta love B&H!



Oh, one final thought for those of you who own the 180-600mm: If I had only tried the 180-600mm and not the 600mm as well, I am sure I would have been perfectly happy with it. I used to have the Sigma 60-600mm Sports lens that I bought instead of the Nikon 200-500mm. It too is a great lens, and I loved it until I tried the 500mm PF. Weight more and more is an issue the older I get. That extra pound or so of the 180-600mm pushed it over the edge.

shuncheung said:

ARClark said:

I owned the 180-600 for several weeks before returning it. My copy just didn’t have the “bite” (sharpness) of my primes for showing feather detail, scales on butterfly wings (closeups), bristles on flowers and leaves. I felt my 200-500 was at least as sharp, if not sharper, in the center when shooting closeups.

I think there’s a fair amount of copy variation, as others seemed to have gotten better results.

Click to expand...

It is unrealistic to expect the 180-600 to have 500mm, 600mm prime sharpness, but I don't own one either. Most 180-600 owners seem to be very happy with it, though.

Click to expand...

You’re probably right. I was a little skeptical when I bought it last summer as most sample images were soft. However, I saw two online that that I thought were sharp enough and hoped to get similar results.

shuncheung said:

My old 200-500mm/f5.6 was quite sharp, but its AF is slow even on my D5. I eventually sold that a few months ago.

Click to expand...

I know there was reported sample variation with that lens, and I (we) may have lucked out with sharp ones. I still own mine but don’t regularly use it.

--
Alan Clark
https://arclark.smugmug.com/

Fullframer said:

ARClark said:

I owned the 180-600 for several weeks before returning it. My copy just didn’t have the “bite” (sharpness) of my primes for showing feather detail, scales on butterfly wings (closeups), bristles on flowers and leaves. I felt my 200-500 was at least as sharp, if not sharper, in the center when shooting closeups.

Click to expand...

The 180-600 is sharper and superior (verified in all the tests) than the 200-500, it's either your lens copy, technique or lighting.

Click to expand...

It would be lens copy in my case. And I may have lucked out with my 200-500 copy.

Fullframer said:

Fullframer said:

I think there’s a fair amount of copy variation, as others seemed to have gotten better results. It did perform better when stopped down. I do think it may have suffered from light diffusion within the lens which softened edges when shooting brightly lit scenes.

Click to expand...

It was your copy. You should have returned it and got another 180-600 to test.

Click to expand...

It was hard to purchase them at that time last summer, and I didn’t want to impose on the small camera store I was working with. I did buy a different lens instead. Also, I wasn’t motivated to buy a second copy based on my experience and noting that IQ/sharpness was consistent with most of the images I had seen on line at time.

Fullframer said:

Fullframer said:

My 500 PF was noticeably sharper and faster focusing.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it cost a lot more $$ and can't do 180-499mm. Sometimes you need that. Or you can carry a lot more weight with a 2nd wider lens and body, or miss shots in changing lenses.

Click to expand...

That’s true, but I’m still satisfied with my 200-500 for those types of shots and can also fall back on the 300 PF with and without a 1.4x TC.

Fullframer said:

Fullframer said:

Have not used a 600 PF, but it’s reputed to be as sharp, or sharper, as the 500 PF.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Alan Clark
https://arclark.smugmug.com/

ARClark said:

Fullframer said:

ARClark said:

I owned the 180-600 for several weeks before returning it. My copy just didn’t have the “bite” (sharpness) of my primes for showing feather detail, scales on butterfly wings (closeups), bristles on flowers and leaves. I felt my 200-500 was at least as sharp, if not sharper, in the center when shooting closeups.

Click to expand...

The 180-600 is sharper and superior (verified in all the tests) than the 200-500, it's either your lens copy, technique or lighting.

Click to expand...

It would be lens copy in may case. And I may have lucked out with my 200-500 copy.

ARClark said:

ARClark said:

I think there’s a fair amount of copy variation, as others seemed to have gotten better results. It did perform better when stopped down. I do think it may have suffered from light diffusion within the lens which softened edges when shooting brightly lit scenes.

Click to expand...

It was your copy. You should have returned it and got another 180-600 to test.

Click to expand...

It was hard to purchase them at that time last summer, and I didn’t want to impose on the small camera store I was working with. I buy a different lens instead. Also, I wasn’t motivated based on my experience and noting that IQ/sharpness was consistent with most of the images I had seen on line at time.

ARClark said:

ARClark said:

My 500 PF was noticeably sharper and faster focusing.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it cost a lot more $$ and can't do 180-499mm. Sometimes you need that. Or you can carry a lot more weight with a 2nd wider lens and body, or miss shots in changing lenses.

Click to expand...

That’s true, but I’m still satisfied with my 200-500 for those types of shots and can also fall back on the 300 PF with and without a 1.4x TC.

ARClark said:

ARClark said:

Have not used a 600 PF, but it’s reputed to be as sharp, or sharper, as the 500 PF.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I know what you mean. Many of the examples I saw posted where either soft or had been posted in such a way (small size, for example) that it was very difficult to judge how sharp they were.

I wound up waiting too long to return mine for a variety of related reasons. One is that I was seeing what I thought were some good shots in some places and so that gave me pause. I also didn't want to have to wait months to get a replacement. In the end I'm sort of glad I didn't send it back right away because it prompted me to get a 500pf to compare and the comparison has been at times closer than I thought it would be, but at the same time it is going to be a notable loss if I wind up selling it.