Upgraded to Z 180-600mm - Issues with focus and sharpness

[okememe]

My Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 has served me very will along with my Z9. However, it recently has developed electrical connection issues (proved it is the lens and not the camera as I recreated the issue on my Z6 and D500), so I have decided to upgrade to the Z 180-600 f/5.6-6.3.

All reviews suggested this lens was at least as sharp or sharper than my 200-500 and focused better. However, with the first few days of testing this lens in the hide in my garden, I have found the focusing, whilst quicker, is a lot less accurate. For example, if I am taking a series of images of a static bird about 3-4m away from me, I will achieve some sharp images, but I will also achieve a lot (nearly 50%) of images which are not quite nailed on (see below - image sequence of great tits - yes I know they are a little underexposed but it is the first example I came across when sorting my photos). With my 200-500 lens my hit rate on similar (and sometimes the exact same) subjects will achieve a hit rate of around 90%. In the 10% of cases it will be clear in the viewfinder that the focus point jumped to the tail or branch - however, with the 180-600 the green square will stay securely on the eye throughout the sequence implying that the focus should be tracking correctly.


Z9 with 180-600 @600mm 100%ish crop 1/1250s ISO 1000 unedited f/6.3


next image in sequence - Z9 with 180-600 100%ish crop 1/1250s ISO 1000 unedited - this bird was sitting totally still f/6.3

To be clear these are some facts that I know people will ask:

• All shots were taken on a tripod with gimbal head
• I have used identical AF settings between lenses. I have also tested both lenses at 500mm f6.3 to make it a fair test.
• Bird AF is switched ON
• I have tried Full AF Area, Custom Wide AF Area and 3D Tracking - the results were the same.
• I have tried both 'erratic' and 'steady' for subject tracking motion
• I have tried the lens at f6.3, f7.1 and f8 - I found the issue happening at all of them.
• I have tried VR OFF, Normal and Sport mode
• The issue still occurs at higher shutter speed in better light.
• Note - I use pretty much the same AF settings as Steve from Backcountry Gallery use.

On top of this, even the images that appear in focus sometimes do not match the sharpness of my 200-500. Whilst the lens clearly can produce sharp images (see greenfinch image below), I get a lot of times where seemingly in focus images are not at the sharpness (1st Great Tit image) of what the lens is capable of (Greenfinch image).


Z9 180-600 @600mm - cropped to 100%ish 1/1000s ISO 1000 f/6.3 unedited




Nikon Z9 with 200-500 lens - this long tailed tit was very jittery flying about a lot in a bush with lots of branches and a busy background - I took about 200 photos of it and I had approximately 180 in focus shots which I could use, I just sorted through them for the picture with the best pose/light

Has anyone else experienced these issues (specifically looking to hear from people who have upgraded from the 200-500). I have seen a few other threads with people having focus/sharpness issues to which the response is usually, "you cant expect a zoom lens to be as sharp as a prime" - Im not expecting this, I'm expecting it to at least match the performance of my 200-500 (which almost every review has suggested it will - and usually says it will outperform it). Currently it is quite significantly below - I would not trust this lens to go on an important shoot.

Do you think I have a problem with my lens? I bought it from Wex Photo Video and they are sending for a replacement so I will let you know my experience when they get the new one in.

In the mean time...

has anyone else had this issue?

did I win the lens lottery with my 200-500 (bear in mind I can't stick with it as any slight movements will cause the lens to disconnect and have a F-- error show - it can only really be used on a tripod)?

Are the reviewers wrong, did they just not test the AF in real world scenarios?

 

[TheSoaringSprite]

My first observation is that the shutter speed on the 180-600mm images is about 1/1000s while the 200-500mm shot is at 1/2000s. Could be partly motion blur.

I think you need to test this lens in better light and with higher shutter speeds to make sure it's not something as simple as that.

If that doesn't clear it up, see if it's front or back-focusing and make the adjustment necessary, or send lens for inspection.

--
http://www.dreamsourcestudio.com

 

[SCoombs]

I have been through, and am still in the midst of, a similar "saga."

I have a 200-500 that was very sharp. FoCal software rated it as in the 94th percentile for that lens.

When I got my 180-600 I was immediately disappointed. Results were not nearly as sharp and often not even what I'd call acceptably sharp.

I admit I was coming into this lens with some skepticism because I had found many of the samples I saw online from the 180-600 to be of mediocre sharpness. Fwiw, your good examples here are among the sharpest I've seen, so that's good news for you!

Still, I was surprised how poor results were at times compared to what I could reliably get on my 200-500.

After about a month of a lot of experimenting and discussing, mainly over on Perry's forum, I started to see better results using the following discoveries.

First, I found that whereas my 200-500 is brilliant at 5.6, my 180-600 really needs to be stopped down. I've found at f9 it can be quite pleasing, but after seeing someone else comment on Perry's forum about their experience with the lens I found that even just stopping down to 7.1 is making a massive difference.

Second, I found that turning VR off above around 1/800 or so and putting it on sport mode under that also males a consistent difference. It's not just a question of on vs off, but of on and off at the right tines. A lot of people have said over the years that VR can impact image quality but with my 200-500 it never did. I've learned that with my 180-600 it does. At shutter speeds in the hundreds, VR works great to dampen camera shake and give me sharp shots and so I find it important to use, but at high speeds it seems to mess with acuity.

Third, I can't explain it exactly but I've found using speeds faster than I have been used to with long lenses is yielding better results.

Fourth, I've found at least with my copy that focus is more snappy but more inconsistent. Thom Hogan has commented in a number of discussions similar to this one that consumer grade lenses are sometimes not as consistent with focus as higher end lenses. Steve Perry has said in a discussion on his site likewise about this specific lens - that he found focus slightly less consistent than on his higher end gear.

As part of my own journey here I picked up a 500pf and have found it does indeed seem to focus more consistently, almost shockingly more consistently than what I've been used to on the 200-500 or 180-600.

I've found I cam get good shots on my 180-600, but I do need to shoot more frames to get them.

Fifth, I've noticed something through some of these discussions that some people may disagree with me on buy it is what I've noticed: a lot more people than I recall from reading stuff on lenses in the past seem to be doing more sharpening of what they're posting. Steve Perry in the discussion I was involved in commented that when he uses his 180-600 he is having to sharpen a bit more than on his other lenses to get to the level he wants. He was open about it. I saw another user on a forum post a review saying it was the sharpest lens he's ever used for wildlife but then the photos he posted had *clearly* been run through Topaz. I've seen other people posting sample photos which as I've seen more of their posts and their comments I'm realizing they are doing more sharpening.

Maybe people just aren't thinking much of it because these tools are more available and more widely used these days, but I notice it.

For my part, I have found that to achieve what I used to get on my 200-500 wide open with no sharpening I'm having to shoot at f7.1 - f9 and do more sharpening. The sharpening I am doing here is to push the sharpening slider in LR to 70-80+ and then so a high pass filter blend in Photoshop.

Sixth, I found that calibrating the lens - even on a mirrorless body - helped. Reikan FoCal consistently (I've done it a half dozen times) suggests an AFFT of +1 for the lens, and in my estimation it is yielding better results with that on than with it off.

 

[Restoc]

I have both 200-500 and 180-600 and i got the same feeling when unboxing the 180-600. I could compare both with the same sensor definition of 45,7 Mpix on the Z9.

But now ... look at MTF measurements such as:

Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR Review - Page 3 of 6

We've updated our review of the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 with full lab tests of sharpness, vignetting, chromatic aberration, and distortion. I've also added dozens of new sample photos from my recent trip to Sri Linka. Read on to see how the lens stacks up after these extensive tests!

photographylife.com

We see that :

-The 180-600 is significantly better as a mean as soon as 20% aout of the center and far better in the corners : equal in the center ( f8) and more homogeneous up to corners.

(There are other sites allowing direct comparizon but i have few time now.)

-The main difference is that 200-500 glass delivers a more immediately crispy ( local contrasts) at low MTF 10-30 which is the more suitable MTF for eye but not the best well processed prints and enlargments.

So as a summary : the 180 - 600 appears to require more avanced fine sharpness procesing (particularly raw) where the 200-500 is designed for "as it is" viewing especially in jpeg.

Your 2nd picture is shaked and canot be part of a comparizon. Your first is just what its neccessary to avoid without adapted processing whith the 180-600 : a low contrast diffuse light.

May be make a try with some exagerating sharpness SW such as Topaz or DXO and on a prodessed file ( not on your screen ) and you will discover that the 180-600 is better over the whole frame.

I am very pleased as well to see that in very low light the stabilization of the 180-600 is raelly fantastic and on the par with my primes 500 pf , 600 pf, 800 pf. At such price its not bad.

 

[AlainCh2]

0) When I got my 180-600 I was immediately disappointed. Results were not nearly as sharp and often not even what I'd call acceptably sharp.

...

First, I found that whereas my 200-500 is brilliant at 5.6, my 180-600 really needs to be stopped down. I've found at f9 it can be quite pleasing, but after seeing someone else comment on Perry's forum about their experience with the lens I found that even just stopping down to 7.1 is making a massive difference.

Second, I found that turning VR off above around 1/800 or so and putting it on sport mode under that also males a consistent difference. It's not just a question of on vs off, but of on and off at the right tines. A lot of people have said over the years that VR can impact image quality but with my 200-500 it never did. I've learned that with my 180-600 it does. At shutter speeds in the hundreds, VR works great to dampen camera shake and give me sharp shots and so I find it important to use, but at high speeds it seems to mess with acuity.

Third, I can't explain it exactly but I've found using speeds faster than I have been used to with long lenses is yielding better results.

Fourth, I've found at least with my copy that focus is more snappy but more inconsistent. Thom Hogan has commented in a number of discussions similar to this one that consumer grade lenses are sometimes not as consistent with focus as higher end lenses. Steve Perry has said in a discussion on his site likewise about this specific lens - that he found focus slightly less consistent than on his higher end gear.

4.1) As part of my own journey here I picked up a 500pf and have found it does indeed seem to focus more consistently, almost shockingly more consistently than what I've been used to on the 200-500 or 180-600.

I've found I cam get good shots on my 180-600, but I do need to shoot more frames to get them.

Fifth, I've noticed something through some of these discussions that some people may disagree with me on buy it is what I've noticed: a lot more people than I recall from reading stuff on lenses in the past seem to be doing more sharpening of what they're posting. Steve Perry in the discussion I was involved in commented that when he uses his 180-600 he is having to sharpen a bit more than on his other lenses to get to the level he wants. He was open about it. I saw another user on a forum post a review saying it was the sharpest lens he's ever used for wildlife but then the photos he posted had *clearly* been run through Topaz. I've seen other people posting sample photos which as I've seen more of their posts and their comments I'm realizing they are doing more sharpening.

Maybe people just aren't thinking much of it because these tools are more available and more widely used these days, but I notice it.

For my part, I have found that to achieve what I used to get on my 200-500 wide open with no sharpening I'm having to shoot at f7.1 - f9 and do more sharpening. The sharpening I am doing here is to push the sharpening slider in LR to 70-80+ and then so a high pass filter blend in Photoshop.

Sixth, I found that calibrating the lens - even on a mirrorless body - helped. Reikan FoCal consistently (I've done it a half dozen times) suggests an AFFT of +1 for the lens, and in my estimation it is yielding better results with that on than with it off.

0) I come from a 150-600C Sigma - 600Z is the same or more sharp.
But inconsistent. I got two copies and returned the first as Damaged in Transit

1) 7.1 is a little better than 6.3
- but instead of stopping down, you get more from a fast shutter <over 1/800>

2) I tried everything. VR Sport always ON works better so far up to 1/1600
- Will test if different in the 1/2000 range

3) Agreed - Faster is better, much better <look a 1) >

4) No idea
- on the first 600Z returned after 5 days, results by period: 1 hour OK, next hour BLEAH
- on the second 600z I'm using now: it's inconsistent into the burst. A lot of culling need

4.1) Agreed! More shots, more keepers
- and you're pretty sure to have at least some decent to choose from

5) Yes and No. Usually Topaz is my last step.
- By default, I check output from Dxo edit /Topaz side by side.
- 50% I delete one or the other. I don't do Topaz often, 30% may be ... usually is not needed

6) I tried FoCaL calibration: Zero on both 600Z

Thanks for writing your experience!!!

( it matches mine )

PS: you can check the first 600Z pics here...
all the TK Tower shots were fantastic, no missed



--
___.............................!............................ ___
-------- Mid of French/Italian Alps --------- I Love my Carnivores. >https://eu.zonerama.com/AlainCH2/1191151
.
Photography ... It is about how that thing looks when photographed..
( Avoid boring shots )

 

[ajr images]

Here's an example with this lens handheld on a Z9. Focus and sharpness seems good.

I think this was with 3D and animal eye detection.



-
Alan

 

[okememe]

Hi thanks for the reply.

As I said in the post I have tried it in both direct sunlight and overcast with higher shutter speeds, these are just the examples I gave in the post. How would I adjust for front/back focusing? Is there as setting where I can calibrate this?

 

[TheSoaringSprite]

Hi thanks for the reply.

As I said in the post I have tried it in both direct sunlight and overcast with higher shutter speeds, these are just the examples I gave in the post. How would I adjust for front/back focusing? Is there as setting where I can calibrate this?

Yes, there's a setting. In the "SETUP" menu, scroll down to AF fine-tuning options and turn them on, then make small adjustments as needed to see if you can get sharp results more consistently. You may have to watch a video on how to do it, if you don't find it intuitive enough.

 

[okememe]

Thank you so much for your response. What a great community this is!

From your comment plus a few others (I also posted this on reddit) I'm starting to think that this lens is maybe not quite as good as the reviewers made it out to be! Or have Nikon been naughty and sent out curated samples to reviewers.

I live in England so stopping down to f7.1 or 8 is not ideal for me as it rains 6 days out of 7 so I don't always have great light!

Differing from your experience though I haven't found switching VR off (I mainly used it in sport mode) didn't appear to make that much of a difference - I will test further as soon as I get a weather window.

Since I was replacing a faulty lens I was willing to accept a sidegrade but paying £1800 for a downgrade is hard to stomach.

Seeing that you have the 200-500, 180-600 and 500pf which do you find yourself using most often? Do you find the creature comforts (handling, no adapter) of the 180-600 worth the trade off in sharpness/hitrate?

 

[okememe]

Hi Thanks for your response.

Im not totally convinced that it is motion in that picture as I have a lot of other examples mid burst of that happening. I was on Sport VR on a tripod for that shot with a completely stationary subject. That simply did not happen with my 200-500.

As my 200-500 was faulty I always knew I would be happy with a sidegrade - however, paying £1800 for a downgrade is quite hard to stomach.

If I had the money I would definitely be shelling out for the new 600pf. Looks ultra sharp (although now I'm not sure how much I trust reviews... will have to ask here and on reddit).

 

[TheSoaringSprite]

Would you be able to provide the RAW files of the two examples you posted? Maybe even more samples that you're unhappy with, so some of us can have a better look?

Edit to add that I often find myself somewhat disappointed with new gear, only to realize that I had to have more time with it before I could use it as it was meant to be used. I vowed never to do a review until I had enough time with whatever I bought, because it's happened many times weeks later I finally started getting the hang of it.

--
http://www.dreamsourcestudio.com

 

[Ken Seals]

One thing I have noticed that affects sharpness with both the 800 PF and the 180-600 is temperature differences between the lens and outside air. If the lens is warmer than the outside air and you have the lens hood on, warm air trapped inside the hood next to the front element will cause exactly what your samples show. Try it with the lens hood off.

Steve Perry mentions this issue in one our more of his videos. I have seen it myself. The temperature difference does not have to be much for this to happen.

 

[ovn]

I don't know if your copy of the lens that may have such issue.

Here if my image showing the sharpness which I couldn't complain of anything.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Do you think I have a problem with my lens? I bought it from Wex Photo Video and they are sending for a replacement so I will let you know my experience when they get the new one in.

In the UK you have more legal rights than you are taking advantage of.

If you generally got good results with the 100-500 and cannot get them with the 180-600 either you are doing something wrong (unlikely) or the lens is defective.

EDIT

A concern - you say one bird (possibly a great tit) was still.

Sorry - in the UK small birds are rarely still.

My 180-600 performs well - and I sold my 200-500.

End of edit.

In the UK you have a legal right to a full refund within 14 days even if there is no fault and you just change your mind.

WEX and a few other retailers extend the 14 days legal right to 30 days.

If WEX cannot get a replacement lens quickly get your money back.

--
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.

 

[zephxiiii]

Did you compare the 200-500 to the 180-600 @500 at least?

 

[duncang]

My Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 has served me very will along with my Z9. However, it recently has developed electrical connection issues (proved it is the lens and not the camera as I recreated the issue on my Z6 and D500), so I have decided to upgrade to the Z 180-600 f/5.6-6.3.

All reviews suggested this lens was at least as sharp or sharper than my 200-500 and focused better. However, with the first few days of testing this lens in the hide in my garden, I have found the focusing, whilst quicker, is a lot less accurate. For example, if I am taking a series of images of a static bird about 3-4m away from me, I will achieve some sharp images, but I will also achieve a lot (nearly 50%) of images which are not quite nailed on (see below - image sequence of great tits - yes I know they are a little underexposed but it is the first example I came across when sorting my photos). With my 200-500 lens my hit rate on similar (and sometimes the exact same) subjects will achieve a hit rate of around 90%. In the 10% of cases it will be clear in the viewfinder that the focus point jumped to the tail or branch - however, with the 180-600 the green square will stay securely on the eye throughout the sequence implying that the focus should be tracking correctly.


Z9 with 180-600 @600mm 100%ish crop 1/1250s ISO 1000 unedited f/6.3


next image in sequence - Z9 with 180-600 100%ish crop 1/1250s ISO 1000 unedited - this bird was sitting totally still f/6.3

To be clear these are some facts that I know people will ask:

• All shots were taken on a tripod with gimbal head
• I have used identical AF settings between lenses. I have also tested both lenses at 500mm f6.3 to make it a fair test.
• Bird AF is switched ON
• I have tried Full AF Area, Custom Wide AF Area and 3D Tracking - the results were the same.
• I have tried both 'erratic' and 'steady' for subject tracking motion
• I have tried the lens at f6.3, f7.1 and f8 - I found the issue happening at all of them.
• I have tried VR OFF, Normal and Sport mode
• The issue still occurs at higher shutter speed in better light.
• Note - I use pretty much the same AF settings as Steve from Backcountry Gallery use.

On top of this, even the images that appear in focus sometimes do not match the sharpness of my 200-500. Whilst the lens clearly can produce sharp images (see greenfinch image below), I get a lot of times where seemingly in focus images are not at the sharpness (1st Great Tit image) of what the lens is capable of (Greenfinch image).


Z9 180-600 @600mm - cropped to 100%ish 1/1000s ISO 1000 f/6.3 unedited


Nikon Z9 with 200-500 lens - this long tailed tit was very jittery flying about a lot in a bush with lots of branches and a busy background - I took about 200 photos of it and I had approximately 180 in focus shots which I could use, I just sorted through them for the picture with the best pose/light

Has anyone else experienced these issues (specifically looking to hear from people who have upgraded from the 200-500). I have seen a few other threads with people having focus/sharpness issues to which the response is usually, "you cant expect a zoom lens to be as sharp as a prime" - Im not expecting this, I'm expecting it to at least match the performance of my 200-500 (which almost every review has suggested it will - and usually says it will outperform it). Currently it is quite significantly below - I would not trust this lens to go on an important shoot.

Do you think I have a problem with my lens? I bought it from Wex Photo Video and they are sending for a replacement so I will let you know my experience when they get the new one in.

In the mean time...

has anyone else had this issue?

did I win the lens lottery with my 200-500 (bear in mind I can't stick with it as any slight movements will cause the lens to disconnect and have a F-- error show - it can only really be used on a tripod)?

Are the reviewers wrong, did they just not test the AF in real world scenarios?

My testing of the lens showed it to be very soft wide open - unacceptably so. Jan Wegener, Duade Paton and Adrian Alford found it to be soft in their reviews as well. Stopped down sharpness seemed to improve quite a bit.

As for the focus misses - I found that the Z8/Z9 just do that regardless of the lens. Subject detection seems to be find but focus does seems to miss quite often depending on the scene.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

My testing of the lens showed it to be very soft wide open -

Very soft is a relative term.

If you cannot get a good 16 x 20" print wide open from any FX Z lens, the lens is either broken or perhaps you need to look at your photographic technique.

 

[SCoombs]

My testing of the lens showed it to be very soft wide open -

Very soft is a relative term.

If you cannot get a good 16 x 20" print wide open from any FX Z lens, the lens is either broken or perhaps you need to look at your photographic technique.

While this sentiment makes sense in some ways and in some contexts, I'd say there are several ways in which it is not always accurate.

First, printing is much more forgiving than viewing images digitally, but printing is not always the use case for photographs. Heck, these days printing is probably usually not the use case for a photograph.

Second, the idea that all lenses are sharp enough for a 16x20" print is probably true - but it's only true if we're talking about full resolution images, and super telephoto lenses are probably the one type of lens which are regularly or even usually used in cases where cropping might be a necessity, and as soon as you need to start cropping the sharpness of a lens might make a big difference, even if that lens is perfectly adequate in cases where it's being used for images that are going to be viewed at full resolution.

Third, I don't think it's true that modern lenses are always sharp enough even to capture great full resolution images. There are definitely models of lens out there which make images that are noticeably soft even when viewing full resolution at a reasonable size, but the bigger issue might be where those lenses are sharp. Most modern lenses are indeed sharp enough in the center that you can pretty much always get a good looking image in the center of the frame, but some of them soften up very rapidly as you move away from the center. This is especially relevant in the age of mirrorless cameras where it is much more common to put the key point/the focal point of the image somewhere other than the center.

 

[Vermillion]

My testing of the lens showed it to be very soft wide open - unacceptably so. Jan Wegener, Duade Paton and Adrian Alford found it to be soft in their reviews as well. Stopped down sharpness seemed to improve quite a bit.
As for the focus misses - I found that the Z8/Z9 just do that regardless of the lens. Subject detection seems to be find but focus does seems to miss quite often depending on the scene.

Seems like there is a lot of product variation then, because the lens is very sharp wide open.

Mine certainly is, and the test on PhotorgraphyLife ( https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-180-600mm-f-5-6-6-3-vr/3 ) also reflects this. Stopping down to f/8 at 600mm gives only a minimal improvement. Such a tiny difference should be pretty much imperceivable, and with my lens, it is.

It also does very well in their telephoto comparison. ( https://photographylife.com/best-nikon-z-super-telephoto-lens/3 )

In neither Jan's nor Duades test I really saw the softness they described. They maybe looked a tiny little bit softer than the competition, but that could also be caused by the image being bigger, since the 180-600 doesn't suffer as much from focus breathing.

 

[Thom Hogan]

Mine certainly is, and the test on PhotorgraphyLife ( https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-180-600mm-f-5-6-6-3-vr/3 ) also reflects this. Stopping down to f/8 at 600mm gives only a minimal improvement. Such a tiny difference should be pretty much imperceivable, and with my lens, it is.

Be careful with published MTF results. "Minimal" numeric differences aren't something you can judge without more information. For instance, I get different numbers than PL does, probably because I'm using a different slant edge source. It's one reason why I never publish numbers: they're not comparable, nor can you directly make assumptions about differences even within a published chart. You need more information.