p.36 #1 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
Changed your mind about the 100-400S?
l hope to be kayaking with the 100-400S w/1.4x on Friday... I don't think this will be as sharp as the 180-600, but I am certain it will be more comfortable to use while sitting in a kayak and an ore on my lap.
bruce
You know me. I always flip flop gear.
I still have the 100-400 although I haven't used it since I got it. (again).
I just don't find that particular focal length and aperture setup useful except for in travel situations. I'm hoping I'll find I can fit the 186 easily with my existing gear, and be able to sell the 100-400.
But for international travel especially, I can fit 2x Z9 + 400TC + 100-400 in a 35L ICU, which is pretty impressive.... so I may keep it just for that.
p.36 #4 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I sat my 180-600 down and had a heart to heart talk. I tried explaining that it wasn't an S lens so it would never be able to keep up with the real lenses. Silly rabbit, lenses don't have ears !
I always like seeing your photos in this thread because they are brilliant. At the same time, I also notice they're always of a relatively small viewing size. Now there are plenty of reasons a person may want to limit image size in a place like this, not the least of which is to discourage piracy of your work.
However, I also think it makes it hard to evaluate the the actual image quality of the photos and makes claims that the lens is able to keep up or at least isn't too far off from other lenses difficult to know what to make of. The fact is that pretty much any lens made in the last 20 years - even genuinely bad ones - would produce images that look similar to much of what's in this thread when shot with minimal cropping and then downscaled to 1 megapixel.
Now to show off a pretty photo on a forum 1 MP is fine, but the point is that it doesn't mean much in terms of how good the lens is. I've been evaluating my copy and I have some photos that would look great if scaled to 1 MP and posted that way, but I have the full photo and knownthat actually they're pretty poor quality.
p.36 #7 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
SCoombs wrote:
I always like seeing your photos in this thread because they are brilliant. At the same time, I also notice they're always of a relatively small viewing size. Now there are plenty of reasons a person may want to limit image size in a place like this, not the least of which is to discourage piracy of your work.
However, I also think it makes it hard to evaluate the the actual image quality of the photos and makes claims that the lens is able to keep up or at least isn't too far off from other lenses difficult to know what to make of. The fact is that pretty much any lens made in the last 20 years - even genuinely bad ones - would produce images that look similar to much of what's in this thread when shot with minimal cropping and then downscaled to 1 megapixel.
Now to show off a pretty photo on a forum 1 MP is fine, but the point is that it doesn't mean much in terms of how good the lens is. I've been evaluating my copy and I have some photos that would look great if scaled to 1 MP and posted that way, but I have the full photo and knownthat actually they're pretty poor quality. ...Show more →
That's interesting because I'm finding exactly the opposite. The IQ of my full size images look great to me. It's these small samples that I post here that are disappointing. In any event, I have zero interest in debating the image quality of this lens. I would be the last to argue that it's on par with the 600 6.3, 800 6.3 or even the 500 PF. I know it isn't. But if you or anyone else view the images that I post here and the take away is that I'm trying to prove some type of lens superiority, then I've failed as a photographer. Or at least failed to get my message across. And that's on me. I'm sorry that your photos are of poor quality.
Gary
p.36 #8 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
sum1sgrampa wrote:
That's interesting because I'm finding exactly the opposite. The IQ of my full size images look great to me. It's these small samples that I post here that are disappointing. In any event, I have zero interest in debating the image quality of this lens. I would be the last to argue that it's on par with the 600 6.3, 800 6.3 or even the 500 PF. I know it isn't. But if you or anyone else view the images that I post here and the take away is that I'm trying to prove some type of lens superiority, then I've failed as a photographer. Or at least failed to get my message across. And that's on me. I'm sorry that your photos are of poor quality.
Gary...Show more →
You literally said in the post to which I was responding that the lens is as good as an S-line lens and presented as evidence of this claim a photo that is of such a resolution that literally any lens could have taken the same photo and look no different. That's the only reason I replied as I did. Recently in this thread a user asked about the quality of the lens and shared a large number of citations from other users who have been disappointed in their copies. Your post came across to me, in that context, as a snarky dig at people who have be underwhelmed by the lens supported by a potentially misleading photo as evidence. If you didn't intend it in this way I really do apologize - I just don't know how else I could take a post that says 'I tried to get the lens to stop taking S-line photos but it gave me this instead.'
I responded the way I did because I think threads like this are important resources for people trying to make purchasing decisions and I think it's helpful to see all viewpoints. I know that I went ahead with my own purchase in part because of the many great photos on this thread, BUT I knew at the time that most of them were low resolution and I might not find the full resolution versions to look as good. My experience since getting ahold of it is that this is exactly the case: low resolution, downsampled photos often look great but the full resolution versions just... don't much of the time. I think it's important that people with critical opinions of a lens or camera body or whatever else in these sorts of threads to be represented along with those who have positive opinions.
If your post had just been of a photo or included a general comment that you're happy with the lens I wouldn't have commented. It was the suggestion that the lens is capable of matching S-line quality along with a photo that can't possibly show that which prompted me to say anything at all.
Put differently, how is saying, "this lens just can't help but keep up with S-lines" and sharing a 1MP photo any different from if I posted that the lens is comparable to a 1992 Polaroid and included some massive crop to demonstrate it?
p.36 #10 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
Just got this lens and this is the first outing.
I'm used to the 400/4.5 so I have to get used to the weight. 😊
First one is a Reed Warbler, second one is a Cetti's Warbler
p.36 #11 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
So the images coming from the 180-600 look very nice.
If starting out with a Nikon kit, and not placing much value on ability to zoom, and ignoring the size/weight difference, is this 180-600 the better choice over the Z400 with 1.4TC?
p.36 #12 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
ChrisMak wrote:
So the images coming from the 180-600 look very nice.
If starting out with a Nikon kit, and not placing much value on ability to zoom, and ignoring the size/weight difference, is this 180-600 the better choice over the Z400 with 1.4TC?
The 400 f/4.5 is a unique lens, for specific applications and I don't think the comparison with a 186 is necessarily valid. As a prime which is faster, smaller, and lighter weight it will produce really sharp images. Add the TC and it decreases slightly though one now has a 560mm lens at f/6.3. If that is your intended FL, you would be much better off buying a 600 f/6.3. Every piece of equipment is a compromise and this lens is no exception. One cannot ignore size/weight or function.
p.36 #14 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
armd wrote:
The 400 f/4.5 is a unique lens, for specific applications and I don't think the comparison with a 186 is necessarily valid. As a prime which is faster, smaller, and lighter weight it will produce really sharp images. Add the TC and it decreases slightly though one now has a 560mm lens at f/6.3. If that is your intended FL, you would be much better off buying a 600 f/6.3. Every piece of equipment is a compromise and this lens is no exception. One cannot ignore size/weight or function.
I have been keeping an eye on the flickr image threads for both lenses, and am I really much better off with the 180-600?
The Z400mm with 1.4TC occupies about 80% of the thread, and produces images with very good contrast and color, and more than sufficiently sharp. The images from the 180-600 at 600mm f6.3 look ok. but often a bit hazy compared to the Z400 with 1.4TC.
So my question is meant for those that have experience with both.
p.36 #15 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
ChrisMak wrote:
I have been keeping an eye on the flickr image threads for both lenses, and am I really much better off with the 180-600?
The Z400mm with 1.4TC occupies about 80% of the thread, and produces images with very good contrast and color, and more than sufficiently sharp. The images from the 180-600 at 600mm f6.3 look ok. but often a bit hazy compared to the Z400 with 1.4TC.
So my question is meant for those that have experience with both.
Do you need a zoom? Then the 186 is a ticket. If you can shoot at a fixed FL and don't mind popping a TC on/off then buy a 400 f/4.5. Alternatively, if you are shooting the 400 with a tc almost all the time, just buy the 600 f/6.3.
p.36 #16 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
ChrisMak wrote:
I have been keeping an eye on the flickr image threads for both lenses, and am I really much better off with the 180-600?
The Z400mm with 1.4TC occupies about 80% of the thread, and produces images with very good contrast and color, and more than sufficiently sharp. The images from the 180-600 at 600mm f6.3 look ok. but often a bit hazy compared to the Z400 with 1.4TC.
So my question is meant for those that have experience with both.
