Nikon Z 180-600 Minimum Apertures

[Elias06]

Since the announcement of the new Nikon Z 180-600 I was very curious on how the minimum apertures would behave across the focal range of the lens. I've now found the information on one of Matt Irwin's videos (as a plus, it is immediately compared to the Sony 200-600).

I thought I might as well share it here for people who are looking for the same information. It seems as if the difference with the 200-500 f5.6 is even less than we thought. The lens only goes to f/6.3 at 480mm! Another happy surprise for me after the internal zoom and the additional 20mm on the wide end, looking forward to receiving my copy!




Nikon Z 180-600 minimum apertures compared to Sony 200-600



--
Elias
Wildlife Photography
https://www.sixelias.com | IG: sixelias_photography

 

[Kirnbichler]

The difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3 is just a 1/3 stop.

The difference between f/6.0 and f/6.3 therefore is even less and barely perceptible.

 

[Jeff_0000]

Since the announcement of the new Nikon Z 180-600 I was very curious on how the minimum apertures would behave across the focal range of the lens. I've now found the information on one of Matt Irwin's videos (as a plus, it is immediately compared to the Sony 200-600).

I thought I might as well share it here for people who are looking for the same information. It seems as if the difference with the 200-500 f5.6 is even less than we thought. The lens only goes to f/6.3 at 480mm! Another happy surprise for me after the internal zoom and the additional 20mm on the wide end, looking forward to receiving my copy!


Nikon Z 180-600 minimum apertures compared to Sony 200-600

If people can accept the fact that the Z 800mm has f6.3 only, I don't think there is a problem of this lens being at f6.3 even for the full range.

Though I am impressed with the figures of the Nikon, great!

 

[Elias06]

The difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3 is just a 1/3 stop.

The difference between f/6.0 and f/6.3 therefore is even less and barely perceptible.

I very much agree. Although I'm not sure what difference there is between a fixed aperture zoom and a variable aperture zoom.

Are there any drawbacks to lens quality during production or usage?

 

[Elias06]

If people can accept the fact that the Z 800mm has f6.3 only, I don't think there is a problem of this lens being at f6.3 even for the full range.

Though I am impressed with the figures of the Nikon, great!

My post was definitely not meant as a complaint, if anything it was the opposite.

I agree even at f/6.3 this would be a great lens, however I know quite a few Canon shooters who are very put off by the f/7.1 on the tele-end of the 100-500 (which is just another 1/3rd of a stop beyond f/6.3).

Those incremental steps do add up so every little bit of brightness you can get is welcome!

Point of my post: people doubting whether or not to get this to replace their 200-500 shouldn't be worried about the slightly narrower aperture values.

 

[Sergio Image]

Point of my post: people doubting whether or not to get this to replace their 200-500 shouldn't be worried about the slightly narrower aperture values.

I agree, the difference in aperture compared to the 200-500 is negligible specially when you weigh in the benefits:

Less weight (no FTZ).

Internal zoom (better weather sealing/no inside dust).

One very Short twist of the zoom ring to go across the whole focal range.

Native lens with most likely faster AF.

Extra wide and tele focal lengths.

Other minor benefits like additional function button on lens, better balanced.

I will sell my beloved 200-500 5.6 (bought used two years ago) when I receive the new 180-600 I preordered. I've been waiting for this lens for a while, can't wait...

 

[ghostfox_1]

If people can accept the fact that the Z 800mm has f6.3 only, I don't think there is a problem of this lens being at f6.3 even for the full range.

Though I am impressed with the figures of the Nikon, great!

My post was definitely not meant as a complaint, if anything it was the opposite.

I agree even at f/6.3 this would be a great lens, however I know quite a few Canon shooters who are very put off by the f/7.1 on the tele-end of the 100-500 (which is just another 1/3rd of a stop beyond f/6.3).

A third of a stop, for a sixth less reach (meaning noise is more visible when cropping to match fov). 7.1 at 500 is really slow. And God help you if you want to use a tc.

Then again, so are the Canon f11 teles. People still use them when they don't want to (or can't) spend more money.

Those incremental steps do add up so every little bit of brightness you can get is welcome!

Point of my post: people doubting whether or not to get this to replace their 200-500 shouldn't be worried about the slightly narrower aperture values.

Agreed. A third of a stop is nothing, especially when you're gaining 20% more reach (from 500 to 600).

 

[Jeff_0000]

If people can accept the fact that the Z 800mm has f6.3 only, I don't think there is a problem of this lens being at f6.3 even for the full range.

Though I am impressed with the figures of the Nikon, great!

My post was definitely not meant as a complaint, if anything it was the opposite.

I agree even at f/6.3 this would be a great lens, however I know quite a few Canon shooters who are very put off by the f/7.1 on the tele-end of the 100-500 (which is just another 1/3rd of a stop beyond f/6.3).

Those incremental steps do add up so every little bit of brightness you can get is welcome!

I know ;-)

Point of my post: people doubting whether or not to get this to replace their 200-500 shouldn't be worried about the slightly narrower aperture values.

And you gain 20mm on wide end and 100mm on tele end!

 

[ericbowles]

The difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3 is just a 1/3 stop.

The difference between f/6.0 and f/6.3 therefore is even less and barely perceptible.

I very much agree. Although I'm not sure what difference there is between a fixed aperture zoom and a variable aperture zoom.

Are there any drawbacks to lens quality during production or usage?

The big drawback is when you shoot with manual exposure. You have a choice of using f/6.3 wide open, or letting the lens change aperture as you zoom. With the 200-500, you could set it at f/5.6 and forget aperture - every exposure was the same regardless of where you zoomed.

It's not a big deal, but definitely a drawback. The fixed aperture was a big reason in choosing the 200-500 over competitors with a variable aperture. It also helped with focus if you used a teleconverter because you still had AF at f/8 wide open but not at f/9. That's less of an issue with the 180-600 on Z cameras.

 

[Ken Seals]

Those aren't MINIMUM apertures, those are MAXIMUM apertures.

 

[Kirnbichler]

As one mostly doesn't shoot wide open, but somewhat stepped down (to improve IQ), this is not as big a problem as some seem to see it.

And stopping down by just 1/3 step at the wide end would circumvent this drawback even then, so one could zoom to one's hearts delight without even the slight change of aperture.

Yeah, the loss of 1/3 step, that's harsh.

But I really doubt that the chance to take a shot lowers when using f/6.3 instead of f/5.6. I'd consider this difference near-irrelevant.

 

[MCLV]

If people can accept the fact that the Z 800mm has f6.3 only, I don't think there is a problem of this lens being at f6.3 even for the full range.

Though I am impressed with the figures of the Nikon, great!

My post was definitely not meant as a complaint, if anything it was the opposite.

I agree even at f/6.3 this would be a great lens, however I know quite a few Canon shooters who are very put off by the f/7.1 on the tele-end of the 100-500 (which is just another 1/3rd of a stop beyond f/6.3).

A third of a stop, for a sixth less reach (meaning noise is more visible when cropping to match fov). 7.1 at 500 is really slow. And God help you if you want to use a tc.

Then again, so are the Canon f11 teles. People still use them when they don't want to (or can't) spend more money.

Those incremental steps do add up so every little bit of brightness you can get is welcome!

Point of my post: people doubting whether or not to get this to replace their 200-500 shouldn't be worried about the slightly narrower aperture values.

Agreed. A third of a stop is nothing, especially when you're gaining 20% more reach (from 500 to 600).

The amount of light gathered from a small distant target (i.e. assuming that it fits into FOV of all compared lenses) depends on an aperture diameter of a lens. So we get following values at the telephoto end:

600/6.3 = 95.2 mm

500/5.6 = 89.3 mm

500/7.1 = 70.4 mm

Therefore, 600/6.3 is a tiny bit better than 500/5.6 and about 0.9 stops better than 500/7.1.

 

[ericbowles]

As one mostly doesn't shoot wide open, but somewhat stepped down (to improve IQ), this is not as big a problem as some seem to see it.

And stopping down by just 1/3 step at the wide end would circumvent this drawback even then, so one could zoom to one's hearts delight without even the slight change of aperture.

Yeah, the loss of 1/3 step, that's harsh.

But I really doubt that the chance to take a shot lowers when using f/6.3 instead of f/5.6. I'd consider this difference near-irrelevant.

These long lenses are usually designed for sharpness wide open. But if you are stopping down, using it at f/7.1 or f/8 makes the problem worse. In manual mode, you're using f/7.1-f/8 for all focal lengths, and that can make clean backgrounds much more difficult. You're not buying a lens covering 180-300mm to use it at f/8.

Overall I do think it's a reasonable compromise - it just removes one of the major advantages of the 200-500 which was the constant aperture. The good news is with ML cameras, you can use any focus point even at f/6.3 wide open.

 

[Elias06]

Those aren't MINIMUM apertures, those are MAXIMUM apertures.

You're absolutely right! My mistake

 

[Lance B]

Since the announcement of the new Nikon Z 180-600 I was very curious on how the minimum apertures would behave across the focal range of the lens. I've now found the information on one of Matt Irwin's videos (as a plus, it is immediately compared to the Sony 200-600).

I thought I might as well share it here for people who are looking for the same information. It seems as if the difference with the 200-500 f5.6 is even less than we thought. The lens only goes to f/6.3 at 480mm! Another happy surprise for me after the internal zoom and the additional 20mm on the wide end, looking forward to receiving my copy!


Nikon Z 180-600 minimum apertures compared to Sony 200-600

The Sony cameras may not register the apertures between f5.6 and f6.3 and therefore only display f5.6 and f6.3.

--
Lance B

Lance BB

Explore Lance BB’s 738 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Galleries by Lance B

www.pbase.com

 

[davethebirder]

It must be remembered that as you zoom in that aperture does not change like a switch, it is changing gradually ........ I ask myself if Sony did not ignore showing the changing aperture when only at -1/6th of a stop reasoning that it is nothing more than with say a still lens and a video lens that uses the T stop system ...... one thing for sure is it doesn't jump from F 5.6- 6.3 at one single FL.

The Nikon is being more honest here!

 

[DarkShift]

It must be remembered that as you zoom in that aperture does not change like a switch, it is changing gradually ........ I ask myself if Sony did not ignore showing the changing aperture when only at -1/6th of a stop reasoning that it is nothing more than with say a still lens and a video lens that uses the T stop system ...... one thing for sure is it doesn't jump from F 5.6- 6.3 at one single FL.

The Nikon is being more honest here!

Some zoom lenses actually change physical aperture size in steps and not smoothly as you'd expect.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Some zoom lenses actually change physical aperture size in steps and not smoothly as you'd expect.

Some smooth progressive aperture change is not displayed more accurately by the camera than 1/3rd stop changes.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.

 

[Berend Botje]

As one mostly doesn't shoot wide open, but somewhat stepped down (to improve IQ), this is not as big a problem as some seem to see it.

And stopping down by just 1/3 step at the wide end would circumvent this drawback even then, so one could zoom to one's hearts delight without even the slight change of aperture.

Yeah, the loss of 1/3 step, that's harsh.

But I really doubt that the chance to take a shot lowers when using f/6.3 instead of f/5.6. I'd consider this difference near-irrelevant.

These long lenses are usually designed for sharpness wide open. But if you are stopping down, using it at f/7.1 or f/8 makes the problem worse. In manual mode, you're using f/7.1-f/8 for all focal lengths, and that can make clean backgrounds much more difficult. You're not buying a lens covering 180-300mm to use it at f/8.

I agree. One among many reasons why I have this lens on order is because my current 3rd party lens does show a noticeable difference between f/6.3 and f/8 (at its long end of 400mm, which is another reason I am eagerly looking forward to the extra reach of the Z 180-600).

However, Jan Wegener, in his review after about a week or so of using the (pre-production) lens intensively, states that this lens is most sharp stopped down a little. And many of his examples are shot at f/8 or f/7.1.

Wegener says he does like the lens, and I do not recall any of the other early reviewers making a similar claim. But I am interested to see how much difference there is (if any) between wide open and slightly stopped down when the lens is released (from in-depth reviews and hopefully from my own observations).

Overall I do think it's a reasonable compromise - it just removes one of the major advantages of the 200-500 which was the constant aperture. The good news is with ML cameras, you can use any focus point even at f/6.3 wide open.

 

[rokoko]

The difference between f/5.6 and f/6.3 is just a 1/3 stop.

The difference between f/6.0 and f/6.3 therefore is even less and barely perceptible.

I very much agree. Although I'm not sure what difference there is between a fixed aperture zoom and a variable aperture zoom.

Are there any drawbacks to lens quality during production or usage?

The big drawback is when you shoot with manual exposure. You have a choice of using f/6.3 wide open, or letting the lens change aperture as you zoom. With the 200-500, you could set it at f/5.6 and forget aperture - every exposure was the same regardless of where you zoomed.

It's not a big deal, but definitely a drawback. The fixed aperture was a big reason in choosing the 200-500 over competitors with a variable aperture. It also helped with focus if you used a teleconverter because you still had AF at f/8 wide open but not at f/9. That's less of an issue with the 180-600 on Z cameras.

Agree. I am waiting for a Z 500mm PF, if there is any.