Nikon 180-600mm First Look Review: A Wildlife Photographer's Field Report

[Roland Vink]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

the true test for this lens is how well it will work together with TC

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. ;-)

[Birna Rørslett]

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.

[MEPER]

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......

[Nasos Kosmas]

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
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

[MEPER]

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.

[Nasos Kosmas]

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   
My lens VR is always on with no issues, check forums when lens is available

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[MEPER]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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

[MEPER]

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.

[MEPER]

Files was missing.......

[MEPER]

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.

[MEPER]

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.......

[Birna Rørslett]

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.