NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Fons Baerken on May 22, 2024, 13:38:58
-
Has anyone have had experience with the nikon z 180-600 ?
And the 28-400mm f/4-8 ?
If you have, please share your experience with these lenses! Thank you!
-
I have had the 180-600 for several month now and not used it other than just a couple of test images when I got it to check if the lens survived the shipping.
It was a Nikon pre-order item.
It is the plan to try the lens out soon. First I have to find my old Lowepro backpack which is the only one which can hold the camera + lens.
Lens is still in nice mint condition :-)
Think I was a bit surprised that lens was a little bit larger than expected.
Will give some feedback when I have shot some images with it.
-
I have this lens for about a month now. I took it with me to the Algarve on a birding trip and later to Texel as well.
The lens is a bit on the heavy side for me. IQ is pretty good close by, but with the 1.4x extender and/or on a distance the IQ falls apart. Focus is quite good (on a Z8). I used the lens 95% on the long end. I’m not sure if I keep the lens. I have the 400/4.5 as well and that lens suits me much better (IQ wise and weight), but it’s not as versatile of course.
-
The reason for me to get a pre-order the 180-600 was an assumption that maybe the quality control was a little better on those samples as many reviews are made using some of the first released samples.
The serial no. on my sample is easy to remember: 20030010
-
I just shot a hand held image with 180-600 lens at 600 at f/6.3 in some difficult light condition.
It is not 100% sharp but ok for documentation. There are two 100% crops attached. The sharpest part in the image seems to be the gray pillar therefor a 100% crop of that part.
Reason the face is not 100% sharp could be due to a little bit of movement. Take it "as is".....but now we have one image example from the 180-600. I am sure more will follow.
-
The distance to subject was approx. 100m is my guess.
-
And body was Z50 so compared to FX the magnification corresponds to a 900mm lens (600 x 1.5).
-
"Magnification" compares to a 600mm lens. If the zoom lens was used at 600mm setting, of course. You cannot multiply by imaginary factors. If focal length is kept constant and also distance, DX and FX sensors will have the same magnification. Angle of coverage will be different, but this has no impact on magnification.
Try it and find out for yourself if you doubt my statement.
-
I have this lens for about a month now. I took it with me to the Algarve on a birding trip and later to Texel as well.
The lens is a bit on the heavy side for me. IQ is pretty good close by, but with the 1.4x extender and/or on a distance the IQ falls apart. Focus is quite good (on a Z8). I used the lens 95% on the long end. I’m not sure if I keep the lens. I have the 400/4.5 as well and that lens suits me much better (IQ wise and weight), but it’s not as versatile of course.
I did buy the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 because of the weight, had the 200-500 for the F-mount, so I would not have at new one with the same weight.
-
It was set to 600mm.
If both FX and DX sensor has same amount of pixels (let us say 21MP DX vs. 24MP FX) then I will say that I will get higher resolution in DX image. That was my assumption and just to indicate that hand holding gets more difficult with Z50 vs eg. Z6. If FX sensor is 45MP it will be about "same same". Z7/Z8 in DX mode = 19.5 MP?
If magnification was not the right term to use......then change to resolution. At least image can show more details with more pixels concentrated at smaller area and can be printed larger (in my head this was higher magnification).
-
My reason to get the 180-600 was the attractive price level. The 200-500 was very popular so my expectation was that the 180-600 was at least at same level.
-
Resolution and magnification are different concepts. Focal lengths and angles of view are different concepts. Yet all terms are confused or misapplied these days, not the least thanks to the stupidity of 'multipliers' and 'factors'. The only multiplier is the teleconverter. It changes focal length. Switching between sensor sizes doesn't do anything except changing angle of view. If the sensor cannot resolve what the lens delivers, we have empty magnification not changed resolution. And so on, ad nauseam.
-
Ok, but one of my reasons to get the now "dead" Nikon 1 system with CX sensor was to have "super-tele" capabilities with small teles. Then it was nice to make the calculation like e.g. 2.7 x 300 if I used a 300mm lens to see what it corresponded to if I should have the same view in FX. If resolution was infinite then I could make the same image in all formats (CX, DX, FX) with same lens. But in real life the concept my multiplying by a factor is practical.
-
It's NOT 'practical', it is confusing. Why not use the appropriate terminology?
-
I did buy the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 because of the weight, had the 200-500 for the F-mount, so I would not have at new one with the same weight.
I have the 100-400 as well, but 400mm is not enough for me. Same problem with the 400/4.5 which has a 1.4x tc glued on it.
For me I think a 100-400 + 600pf would be the best combination (or 800pf).
Birds are very shy overhere. Most of the time I have the 1.4x tc on the 180-600 and that’s not the best option.
-
Maybe a future DX Z-body with a hi-res low noise sensor like 35-40 MP could help "getting closer" instead of the 1.4x converter :-)
-
Maybe a future DX Z-body with a hi-res low noise sensor like 35-40 MP could help "getting closer" instead of the 1.4x converter :-)
That’s why I still wait to get rid of the 400/4.5
Together with a “Z90” this would be an ideal combination for me. ;D
-
I have the 100-400 as well, but 400mm is not enough for me. Same problem with the 400/4.5 which has a 1.4x tc glued on it.
For me I think a 100-400 + 600pf would be the best combination (or 800pf).
Birds are very shy overhere. Most of the time I have the 1.4x tc on the 180-600 and that’s not the best option.
I plant to complement my 100-400 with the 600 pf too. The not so high weight of the 600 pf helps to have it along more frequently when a long lens is wanted. Otherwise I am happy with the 100-400 as a cover 'all' of tele range, it comes along on many of my not terribly long hikes. I might use the 100-400 + 600pf only from a vehicle on some sort of safari.
Since you, Chris, typically use 600+tc1.4 , I would think your use case calls for the 800pf . Contrary to the 600 pf, I judge the price of the 800 pf as expected, while the price of the 600 pf seems too close to the 800 pf for me, and very much higher than the 500pf, while the front lens size of the 600pf is the same as 500 f/5.6 pf or Z 400 f/4.5 .
-
By the way.......there is an firmware upgrade for the 180-600mm lens. I have downloaded it but not yet installed.
A problem with infinity focus from 400-600mm in cold conditions has been fixed.
-
By the way.......there is an firmware upgrade for the 180-600mm lens. I have downloaded it but not yet installed.
A problem with infinity focus from 400-600mm in cold conditions has been fixed.
Apart from the academic discussion further up, a high pixel density sensor combined with longer tele call for extreme measures in hand holding technique or tripod use. The Bicycle kid shot does not look perfect in that sense.
Either we see that the 180-600 does not measure up to the pixel resolution or the handholding plus electronic stabilisation do not work well together or we are already in a diffraction limit.
I guess a lot of practicing and systematical test shooting is necessary to find the best AF settings and stabilisation technique
-
…...
Since you, Chris, typically use 600+tc1.4 , I would think your use case calls for the 800pf . Contrary to the 600 pf, I judge the price of the 800 pf as expected, while the price of the 600 pf seems too close to the 800 pf for me, and very much higher than the 500pf, while the front lens size of the 600pf is the same as 500 f/5.6 pf or Z 400 f/4.5 .
I’m leaning towards the 800PF. I agree the 800PF is priced more “reasonable” than the 600PF it’s too much money for me at the moment. So the 180-600 has to do it for a while.
-
Either we see that the 180-600 does not measure up to the pixel resolution or the handholding plus electronic stabilisation do not work well together or we are already in a diffraction limit.
Hi Frank
I realise your comment may be more related to using this lens with a DX body.
But I've seen some stunning bird photography by Elsa Hoffman (previous member of NG) using this lens with the Z8.
I'm pretty sure she'll have used a tripod or monopod for some of them
If you use Facebook, I believe this is an example
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/zBhCNXT3Qeuu8QGD/
-
I just updated the firmware in the lens from 1.00 to 1.01 I think it was.
Lens seems to do OK afterwards. A couple of test images shot from my balcony with 100% crops at 600mm full aperture handhold.
If I had more resolution I might be able to read the brand of the back wheel tyre.
-
I have the 100-400 as well, but 400mm is not enough for me. Same problem with the 400/4.5 which has a 1.4x tc glued on it.
For me I think a 100-400 + 600pf would be the best combination (or 800pf).
Birds are very shy overhere. Most of the time I have the 1.4x tc on the 180-600 and that’s not the best option.
It’s the same for me too, most of the time 1.4x is glued to my 500pf and that's a good alternate to 600 or 800 pf
The only drawback is AF speed and VR , not the same as z lenses with no TC
I am not interested in a DX crop body, FF is much more easy to frame and spot action and crop in post
By the way I see your photos on other forums sometimes 8)
-
I just updated the firmware in the lens from 1.00 to 1.01 I think it was.
Lens seems to do OK afterwards. A couple of test images shot from my balcony with 100% crops at 600mm full aperture handhold.
If I had more resolution I might be able to read the brand of the back wheel tyre.
For me the skin tones look "digitally enhanced" ... not natural ... like they would look on a smart phone, not a serious piece of equipment
Could you -- from the RAW -- develop these shots with a more natural look (no noise reduction, no skin smoothening, not Advanced D-Lighting etc)?
Thank you
-
Here is the same set of images without any adjustments. Just RAW conversion in NX Studio.
I did not do much corrections in 1. set.
But I have to correct myself. The focal length was not 600mm it was 180mm.
Will redo another day at 600mm. It is too dark now.
Also light condition was "harsh" as it was close to shooting into the sun.
I think I turned the zoom ring all the way to 600mm but did the opposite.
But then you can see how the lens performs at 180mm for now......
-
Nice link Colin.
Elsa has captured some stunning shots, especially of humming birds.
Hi Frank
I realise your comment may be more related to using this lens with a DX body.
But I've seen some stunning bird photography by Elsa Hoffman (previous member of NG) using this lens with the Z8.
I'm pretty sure she'll have used a tripod or monopod for some of them
If you use Facebook, I believe this is an example
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/zBhCNXT3Qeuu8QGD/
-
An example of 600mm at f/6.3 (full open aperture).
1/100 sec. handheld. Z50 body.
This time I am sure lens was set to 600mm.
I estimate the distance to be approx. 150m.
I feel confident if the image is not sharp it is caused by camera shake and not the lens not being able to produce a sharp image.
-
An example more in very harsh light with 100% crop included. Also at f/6.3 at 1/320 sec.
I think lens do well also regarding CA. At 400% I can see some red color some places at high contrast edges. If it is CA I don't now or it is something else caused by very high light intensity.
Distance is 3-400m or so. If I go to 400% I can read the blue text at the sign ("Alvarion"). Then you have to magnify the 100% crop.
-
Here is an example what it possible with the lens handheld. There are some camera shake but for documentation ok.
It is taken at 600mm f/6.3 (full open) at 1/10s. There are some motion blur in the image but also camera shake. If no shake I would be able to read the bicycle tyre brand.
So don't see this as the quality of the lens. There is the full frame and then two crops. The last it a 100% crop.
-
Last image you can see here where I placed the focus point.
There will always be some deviation and I can't be 100% sure at which distance the camera decided to focus and again where the lens ended up to focus.