Nikkor Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3vr

[Fons Baerken]

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!

[MEPER]

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.   

[chris dees]

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.

[MEPER]

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     

[MEPER]

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.

[MEPER]

The distance to subject was approx. 100m is my guess.

[MEPER]

And body was Z50 so compared to FX the magnification corresponds to a 900mm lens (600 x 1.5).

[Birna Rørslett]

"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.

[Bent Hjarbo]

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.

[MEPER]

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).

[MEPER]

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.

[Birna Rørslett]

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.

[MEPER]

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. 

[Birna Rørslett]

It's NOT 'practical', it is confusing. Why not use the appropriate terminology?

[chris dees]

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.