NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Fons Baerken on June 21, 2023, 07:09:26
-
Nikon 180-600mm First Look Review: A Wildlife Photographer's Field Report,
Steve Perry!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEmBkZsF5VE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEmBkZsF5VE)
-
An interesting concept. The old 180-600 was a true beast and heavy as a boat anchor. Plus it had f/8 max. aperture.
Seems Nikon -- again -- aimed for the bull's eye and hit it. The price is, relatively speaking, quite low and affordable as well.
-
It seem a lot more gear have to be sold in order to upgrade, Z8 etc. :o
(D800 already gone, next D500 and possibly the Df ???)
-
Good to see Nikon deviated from the 200-500VR dust trombone design and went with an internal zoom construction like my Sony 200-600mm.
The new Nikon lens looks very similar to the Sony lens in most aspects like size, weight, aperture and the €2000 price tag but there are some small differences as the Nikon goes to 180mm on the short end, removable tripod collar vs replaceable foot, uses potentially slower stepping motors versus the faster linear motors in the Sony, etc.
Anyways, kudos for Nikon for another checkmark on the list of must have lenses :) This lens hugely popular in the Sony community so it will highly likely become a best seller for Nikon as well.
-
An interesting concept. The old 180-600 was a true beast and heavy as a boat anchor. Plus it had f/8 max. aperture.
When I saw the subject heading I first assumed someone had reviewed the old AI 180-600/8*ED. The new lens has the same filter size (95mm), is over 100mm shorter than the old lens+FTZ and about 1.5kg lighter.
The old lens focuses down to 2.5m for an impressive 1:3 magnification. The new lens gets to 2.4m at 600mm with a maximum magnification of 1:4, which suggests more focal length reduction at close range (perhaps to compensate for "focus breathing"). Sometimes newer isn't always better.
At the wide end the aperture is f/5.6, a full stop faster than the old lens, narrowing down 1/3 of a stop to f/6.3 at 600mm, still a useful 2/3 stop faster than the old lens. With only 1/3 difference between wide and telephoto ends, it is nearly a constant aperture zoom.
The new 70-180/2.8 is also interesting. It is impressive that they managed to fit a 180/2.8 zoom (64mm entrance pupil) inside a barrel with 67mm filter. The Nikon 180/2.8 primes had larger 72mm filters, and zooms usually need larger filter sizes than equivalent primes. I wonder if they cheated on the focal length or max aperture, or if the lens suffers from strong vignetting? It should be a popular lens, and might fill the space normally taken by a 70-200/4 lens, gaining some speed in exchange for a shorter zoom range. The lens also reminds me of the series-E 70-150/3.5, being an affordable and relatively compact telephoto zoom with somewhat restricted zoom range but with faster than usual aperture.
-
It seem a lot more gear have to be sold in order to upgrade, Z8 etc. :o
That’s also my thought :o
Seems a very good lens and here is another very good initial review
https://youtu.be/k0w7BFner10 (https://youtu.be/k0w7BFner10)
-
Thanks Nasos
Interesting that Steve Perry wasn't allowed to compare but a day later on posting, Ricci wasn't affected by that restriction.
Some interesting images in the section from 11.50 onwards
-
Looks like another winner from Nikon! If you can live with the aperture then it's a universal lens. Looks sharp wide open according to early findings! Quite impressive ;)
-
Thanks Nasos
Interesting that Steve Perry wasn't allowed to compare but a day later on posting, Ricci wasn't affected by that restriction.
Some interesting images in the section from 11.50 onwards
Yes Colin I already show the comparison with 200-500 and 500 pf :) among others
If you are on Z that’s the lens for birding
If you go for 200-500 that’s the right time
-
I wonder which would be the best performer at 560 mm?
400/4.5 + 1.4x converter or the 180-600 at 560 mm ?
The 400/4.5 + 1.4x converter would be the most compact of the two but more expensive.
-
I wonder which would be the best performer at 560 mm?
400/4.5 + 1.4x converter or the 180-600 at 560 mm ?
The 400/4.5 + 1.4x converter would be the most compact of the two but more expensive.
Take a look on Ricci’s video, looks about equal
-
Ok, maybe the 180 - 600 is a "no brainer" at that price point.
-
Thanks Nasos
Interesting that Steve Perry wasn't allowed to compare but a day later on posting, Ricci wasn't affected by that restriction.
Some interesting images in the section from 11.50 onwards
Steve is an independent photographer / reviewer whereas Ricci works for Nikon UK.
-
the true test for this lens is how well it will work together with TC :o :o :o
-
I wonder why the 400/4.5 is much more expensive than the 180-600 ?
Is it the 2 x Super-ED + 1 x SR lens elements that makes the price difference?
400/4.5 is a S-lens while 180-600 is not?
-
I wonder why the 400/4.5 is much more expensive than the 180-600 ?
Is it the 2 x Super-ED + 1 x SR lens elements that makes the price difference?
400/4.5 is a S-lens while 180-600 is not?
Yes, the Super ED and SR elements would make a difference. Even among "normal" ED elements, there is a range of different glass materials available, some better (likely more expensive) than others. The 400/4.5 also has Nano Crystal Coat. Maybe the build and internal components are made of better quality materials. Is this enough to account for the price difference, or is Nikon charging extra for the "S" label? Zooms are much more complex mechanically and have more lens elements, so often cost more than similar primes. Maybe Nikon is deliberately pricing the 180-600 low to gain market share by pulling potential customers from Sony and Canon, so the price could be a marketing strategy rather than an indication of how much it costs to produce.
-
the true test for this lens is how well it will work together with TC :o :o :o
Considering it is f/6.3 at the long end, and the cameras which one would use this lens with are 45MP, I'd be happy to see the lens deliver details at the level of individual pixels in the image in practical real-world situations where the light is photogenic - without the use of a TC.
With a TC this lens would then be f/9 or f/13 wide open and it would add air-glass surfaces that potentially reflect some light. Flare could be an issue even without TC considering the lens already has 17 groups. f/9 is kind of imaginable to use in bright light but at least my shooting conditions are such that I have ended up selling my long f/5.6 lenses as the ISO has been too often at 12800-25600. With the longer focal length of 840 or 1200mm, one would more often want faster shutter speed as the subject is magnified and field of view is very narrow. Furthermore, the resulting small aperture doesn't make the job of autofocus easier.
I just don't see a case for TC use with this lens. For 600mm shots, f/6.3 is quite good in a portable lens. When an incredible offer is made, that is already seemingly too good to be true, what invariably happens is people start asking for more. ;-)
-
It appears Nikon is using this surprisingly good, and even more surprisingly 'cheap', 180-600 to make inroads to new market segments.
I have seen nothing in the optical measurements and data to suggest the 180-600 effectively be half the price of the 400/4.5. The latter is exceptionally good for its price as well, so the 180-600 must be a no-brainer if such an optic is on the bucket list.
-
I just took the big decision and pre-ordered a 180-600 from Nikon Store.
Using a Z50 I don't think I will need a teleconverter. Together with 16-50, 50-250 and an additional 40/2 Z , 50/1.8 Z there are no excuse anymore not to take some photographs......
-
I just took the big decision and pre-ordered a 180-600 from Nikon Store.
Using a Z50 I don't think I will need a teleconverter. Together with 16-50, 50-250 and an additional 40/2 Z , 50/1.8 Z there are no excuse anymore not to take some photographs......
Well done I am sure you like it :)
I just took the opposite way 8)
I’m the happy owner of a D500 now, that’s the camera that best fits my 500 pf lens ;) and don’t cost a fortune like z8/9
I just lost too many shots with z50 that’s slow for birds in flight
I’m open for 180-600 as I liked my previous 200-500 ( except the weight and bulk) but first have a fast camera body
-
I come from a D2X and later D5200 so F50 is quite advanced for me :-)
But I agree that in low light AF could be better. I have never tried the F50 with birds in flight.
I wonder if a tripod is used with 180-600 si VR should be switched off? .....or was that in the "old days" ?
Hope I get a sample with perfect centered lens elements.
I expect quite good performance on a DX body.
Before I may go for a FX body I want to see what the next top-level DX body can offer. If it is like 30-40 MP + IBIS and even better ISO performance I think I will stay with DX.
-
I wonder if a tripod is used with 180-600 si VR should be switched off? .....or was that in the "old days" ?
Before I may go for a FX body I want to see what the next top-level DX body can offer. If it is like 30-40 MP + IBIS and even better ISO performance I think I will stay with DX.
A top level DX body is also on my radar 8)
My lens VR is always on with no issues, check forums when lens is available
-
I wonder if a tripod is used with 180-600 si VR should be switched off? .....or was that in the "old days" ?
Whether VR should be ON (and in which mode) on tripod depends on the tripod and shooting conditions, and probably the best answer is obtained by testing the kit in the conditions one intends to use the kit. I personally turn VR OFF when using a tripod and make my best effort that the tripod and head are such that they optimally support the lens (but can also be carried on location!) and are easy to use. I've noticed differences between tripod and heads regarding how stable a long lens is, but that doesn't mean I can always use the best support, there are practical compromises sometimes needed to protect my back. I enjoy shooting long lenses with tripod rather than hand-held but a lot of people nowadays seem to favour hand-holding. To me the lack of precise control with hand-held use is irritating and also the tripod helps reduce fatigue when waiting for a long time for the subject to do something interesting. When the lens is on tripod, if the tripod and tripod mount are up to par I haven't noticed benefits from turning VR ON and I prefer the more direct control over where the lens is pointing when the VR is OFF.
Before I may go for a FX body I want to see what the next top-level DX body can offer. If it is like 30-40 MP + IBIS and even better ISO performance I think I will stay with DX.
As always the future is uncertain.
-
I got my sample today from the pre-order.
It seems to work. Sharp handheld at 180mm and 600mm at full aperture.
VR works quite good. The best I have experienced so far.
-
Based on serial numbers collected so far, it looks like the production series does not start at 20002001 like most other Z Nikkors, but at 20025001 instead. The serial number 20002013 currently listed on my site is from Ricci's review on youtube, and may be a preproduction lens (even though this would be a production serial number for most other Z lenses). If you have a serial number you would like to contribute to my database, feel free to send me a PM :)
-
My lens has serial no. 20030010.
And then also attached a quick test image at 600/6.3 shot at 1/320 (ISO 200) on Z50 (DX) handheld just to test if lens has a fault. I does not seem to be the case.
I think on tripod the lens is very sharp. Such an image would never be possible using my ED-IF 400/5.6 + 1.4x converter :-) .....or AF 300/2.8 + 2x converter.
-
Files was missing.......
-
A boring brick wall also handheld at 600/6.3, ISO 200 at 1/1250 also just to test if lens seems to be ok.
Hope I get more interesting shots with the lens in the future.
-
Yet a boring handheld image this time at 180/5.6, ISO 200, 1/1600.
Also good at 180mm so think lens is ok even that I can't test it on a FX body (don't have any).
......file was too large at 1900 pixels on long edge......2.77 MB .....but I can ensure you image looks very good :-)
Reduced it to 1800 pixels......still too large.......
Then 1700 pixels.......
-
Try reducing jpg quality below 12 (max.), that helps immensely in order to get file size below the upper limit.
The bad approach is keeping a huge pixel size (for example, at or near native camera resolution) and lowering jpg quality to near the minimum :( The end result invariably will be poor. I always use 2000pix on the long size and jpg quality 9-12 depending on the subject, to get file size 1-2MB.
-
Yet a boring handheld image this time at 180/5.6, ISO 200, 1/1600.
Also good at 180mm so think lens is ok even that I can't test it on a FX body (don't have any).
......file was too large at 1900 pixels on long edge......2.77 MB .....but I can ensure you image looks very good :-)
Reduced it to 1800 pixels......still too large.......
Then 1700 pixels.......
I have an FX body, if time allows we could try, I have the old 200-500, and would like the get the 180-600 instead.
-
Yes, we could try that when I have got a little bit more experience using the lens.
I like that lens has internal focus and zoom. It has a lot of function buttons at the barrel. I yet have to read what I can do with those.....
Yes, reduce JPEG quality (just a little bit) to reduce file size......
I use NX Studio Export function to convert image to JPEG.
It is funny......in the eighties I was in the development team which invented the JPEG standard......or the mathematical algorithm we analyzed ended up to be the selected for the standard.
I was the guy to implement the algoritme in software (at that time assembly code). Some other very clever guys did the mathematical stuff.....(cosine transformation / Hoffman coding).
Today more advanced algorithms exists that can compress better but JPEG still seems to be the one used......
-
It is funny......in the eighties I was in the development team which invented the JPEG standard......or the mathematical algorithm we analyzed ended up to be the selected for the standard.
I was the guy to implement the algoritme in software (at that time assembly code). Some other very clever guys did the mathematical stuff.....(cosine transformation / Hoffman coding).
Today more advanced algorithms exists that can compress better but JPEG still seems to be the one used......
That is quite a substantial contribution to the imaging world! Thanks for that ;)
Please feel free to elaborate on the early thoughts that was behind the successful idears behind JPEG in the early days :)
PS Huge congratulations on the new lens! I can only assist with my Infrared Z6 for testing, although I fear it will have hotspot,,,
Let me know if we should meetup in Copenhagen with Bent
-
The real "brains" behind the standard in the company I was in at that time (KTAS) which was a telephone company.....was Birger Niss and Jørgen Vaaben:
https://jpeg.org/items/20170813_press.html (https://jpeg.org/items/20170813_press.html)
It seems JPEG was recognized as a standard first in 1992 but it was developed some years before that in a "ESPRIT" project.
Telecommunication lines were slow at that time (ISDN = 64kbit/s). The goal was to be able to search in picture databases fetching pictures at that speed and my goal was to write a JPEG decoder that could do it in realtime on a IBM XT machine or something similar. Therefor the JPEG standard has an option called progressive mode where you first get a very rough image and then it gradually gets finer and finer so you fast can decide if it is the wanted image or you want to look at the next.
The JPEG standard works on 8x8 pixel blocks (run-length coding). So it is one long bit-stream like if you receive a morse coding message. In progressive mode first scan has equal 8x8 pixels and then it gets finer and finer. A picture is coded as luminance + two chrominance components. The luminance component has nearly all the information. I was surprised that the chrominance components that so little information was needed.......when I remember back :-)
So it was an advantage to go from RGB to Luminance + Chrominance. The image could be better compressed.
Think this explains it quite good (I had to go deep in my memory):
https://yasoob.me/posts/understanding-and-writing-jpeg-decoder-in-python/ (https://yasoob.me/posts/understanding-and-writing-jpeg-decoder-in-python/)
Yes, we could meet in Copenhagen one day and do some tests.......
-
When coding a JPEG image it is an advantage to do statistics on the actual image an optimize a Hoffman table to the specific image and send the Hoffman table with the image instead of using a standard Hofmann table which is an option in the standard. It would be similar to make a specific morse table to a specific message. Then it can be coded more efficient (morse table coding is loss less of course). Then the two letters that have the highest count will get (. and -). Now using the standard morse table it is e = . and t = - as far as I remember. It is based on English language and which letters that have the highest probability.
-
You can say that the "core" in the JPEG algorithm is that via the discrete cosine transformation you go from pixel domain to frequency domain and higher compression rates will filter out more and more of the high frequencies in the image.
A 100% JPEG image is almost lossless. I think to the eye it is lossless. But it has to be an image and not graphics.
-
Some more fun to read (PDF download link (too large to attach)).
https://www.google.dk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjo9dem55WBAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiedigitallibrary.org%2FjournalArticle%2FDownload%3FfullDOI%3D10.1117%2F1.JEI.27.4.040901%26isResultClick%3DFalse&psig=AOvVaw0r_00XP1AHcMFhqVGl-K_F&ust=1694076842976623&opi=89978449 (https://www.google.dk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjo9dem55WBAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiedigitallibrary.org%2FjournalArticle%2FDownload%3FfullDOI%3D10.1117%2F1.JEI.27.4.040901%26isResultClick%3DFalse&psig=AOvVaw0r_00XP1AHcMFhqVGl-K_F&ust=1694076842976623&opi=89978449)
-
Thank You!
I recall investigating this long time ago when I learnt that it was possible to recover the edge of the image from the first Nikon D1 files.
The firmware would crop the image to leave out any artifacts with potential faults,,, :o
-
This is very interesting reading. Thank you!
-
Cameralabs' test shows pretty amazing sharpness for a lens of this type.
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-180-600mm-f5-6-6-3-vr-review/
I hope it's not only a really good sample but representative of the typical performance of the lens.
-
You can say that the "core" in the JPEG algorithm is that via the discrete cosine transformation you go from pixel domain to frequency domain and higher compression rates will filter out more and more of the high frequencies in the image.
A 100% JPEG image is almost lossless. I think to the eye it is lossless. But it has to be an image and not graphics.
This seems to be relatively recent information.. Very interesting, thank you for sharing!
Personally I had wanted to know more about digital imaging technology, but as I am not computer-inclined, I had given up.
Cameralabs' test shows pretty amazing sharpness for a lens of this type.
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-180-600mm-f5-6-6-3-vr-review/
I hope it's not only a really good sample but representative of the typical performance of the lens.
Ah glad to see a review of this lens popping up already! Some of the recent supertele-zooms like this one (150-600mm lenses from Sigma and Tamron) almost make me regret purchasing a AI-S 300mm f/2.8 with TC-301... For the time being I have no wishes to "upgrade" to mirrorless, but this lens would be one of the temptations to do so. I suppose I'd enjoy the old tanker for the time being..
-
A follow-up to the first report from Steve Perry with some comparisons to other Nikkors and the Sony 200-600:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7loeXXUP4Ic