Sharpness at 400mm
The focal length of 400mm, which could be considered the gateway to the world of wildlife photography, is covered by five of the lenses I tested. The following images shown are 100% crops, and all are taken at the lens’s maximum aperture. Click on each photo to see it at full resolution.
Scene #1 at 400mm:
Since the Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 and Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 have wider maximum apertures than the other lenses, for fairness, I also shot those two lenses stopped down to f/5.6:
My initial impression is that all the lenses are sharp despite over $10,000 difference in their prices! At Photography Life, when we say that almost every modern lens is sharp, and sharpness is mostly about your technique, this is what we mean.
That said, there are two tiers that you can see in the results above. On top are the two 400mm primes – both the f/2.8 and f/4.5, which are extremely similar in sharpness. Among the zooms, which are a bit less crisp than the primes, it’s essentially a tie. Any differences you see in sharpness among the zooms are likely due to slight differences in focus position.
Scene #2 at 400mm:
And here are the two photos from the prime lenses stopped down to f/5.6:
The second test scene basically confirms what I wrote above. The prime lenses are sharper than the zoom lenses at a given aperture, although every lens – even the aging 200-500mm f/5.6 – is really strong at 400mm. The three zooms are on a very similar level as one another. The 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 looks a bit worse than the other two, but that’s mostly because it focused a bit further away – take a look at the owl’s wing on the left instead of its chest, and you’ll see that it holds up nicely.
What the test photos don’t tell you is anything about the speed of the autofocus. With the 200-500mm, the camera was much slower to focus (although still extremely accurate), while with the 180-600mm, it consistently found the eye more quickly. The same goes for the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Both Nikon Z primes were even a bit faster. In these lighting conditions, I saw no speed advantages for the 400mm f/2.8 over the 400mm f/4.5, but in very low light, the f/2.8 lens is the quickest to focus of the bunch.
Sharpness at 500mm
This is where a new player comes into play. The Nikon AF-S 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR lens is considered one of the best super-telephotos on the market. How does it compare to the new Z-mount 180-600mm and the older F-mount 200-500mm zooms at 500mm?
Scene #1 at 500mm:
It doesn’t take too long to pick the winner in this round. The 500mm f/5.6 lives up to its reputation, and its sharpness definitely beats both of its zoom rivals.
The fight for second place is much closer. Again, there was a slight difference in focusing distance, with the 200-500mm focusing a bit closer than the 180-600mm, so the sharper of the two depends on where you look. It’s nearly a photo-finish, but I would give a slight nod to the 200-500mm f/5.6.
Scene #2 at 500mm:
The second test scene shows a slightly different picture. Nothing changes in first place; the 500mm f/5.6 is the best. However, the 200-500mm f/5.6 more clearly outperforms its newer rival this time – still not by much, but at least by enough to notice.
My takeaway is that the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 is outperforming expectations, while the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 has gotten a bit less sharp at 500mm than it was at 400mm. And, overall, you still can’t beat a high-quality prime lens.
Sharpness at 560mm and 600mm
Here, the group of tested lenses grows to five again. Three of the lenses have a maximum focal length of 400mm, necessitating a 1.4x teleconverter to reach 560mm. For the 180-600mm lens, this is the limit of its range. And finally, there is His Majesty, the Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S. The difference between the cheapest and the most expensive lens in this range is $13,800. Will their performance reflect this? Let’s take a closer look.
Scene #1 at 560mm and 600mm:
Now the differences are getting pretty stark. The clear loser here is the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6, whose performance with the 1.4x teleconverter is only so-so. The 180-600mm looks quite good, comparatively – it seems to have shaken off its weaker 500mm performance, although part of that is the 100-400mm’s weakness side-by-side.
As for the prime lenses, all three of them are sharper than the zooms. The two 400mm lenses are on a very similar level here, with a difference in depth of field (due to the different maximum apertures of f/4 and f/6.3) but no major differences in sharpness at the in-focus areas. Note that I was using the built-in teleconverter on the 400mm f/2.8, not the external Z TC-1.4x teleconverter.
Meanwhile, the Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S is easily ahead of the group. The amount of detail and contrast of this lens is simply outstanding. With the 600mm f/4, you simply get what you paid the sinful amount of money for.
Scene #2 at 560mm and 600mm:
The situation is extremely similar this time, although the 400mm f/2.8 + TC looks perhaps a hair better than the 400mm f/4.5 + TC, taking their different depths of field into account.
Per price, the lens that impressed me the most overall at 600mm is the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3. It’s much less expensive than the other options, especially the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4, yet it keeps up with the two 400mm primes and clearly beats the 100-400mm + TC.
Sharpness at 700mm, 800mm, and 840mm
When performing the tests below, the light was fading quickly, and I had to exclude some lenses from the test in order to finish it during the daylight. For other lenses, I tested them with one of the scenes instead of both. You can see the results below.
Scene #1 at 700mm, 800mm, and 840mm
I had expected that these lenses would rank in sharpness differently depending upon which teleconverter they needed to use. To my surprise, however, three lenses tie for first: the 400mm f/2.8 + 2x TC, the 600mm f/4 with its built-in 1.4x TC, and the Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3.
As the only native 800mm lens in the bunch, I had hoped that the 800mm f/6.3 S would clearly take the #1 spot. It seems that the extra sharpness of the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 is so high that even a teleconverter can’t take it all away. Still, considering that the 800mm f/6.3 costs $6500 rather than $15,500, it is definitely the easiest to justify among the exotic, gold-ring super-telephoto primes.
What about the rest of the lenses? The 500mm f/5.6 with TC-1.4x did very well, as expected from our lab test results. I was a bit disappointed with the otherwise excellent 400mm f/4.5, which doesn’t seem to like the TC-2x very much.
Let’s look at the second scene:
Scene #2 at 700mm, 800mm, and 840mm
This time, I was able to test the 180-600mm lens with the 1.4x TC and found that it didn’t perform especially well – at these focal lengths, it’s the worst one that I had the time to test. (However, the 100-400mm + 2x TC performs worse based on my other experiences). Aside from that, the results are the same as above, with the gold ring supertelephotos taking first place.
Sharpness Conclusion
To wrap up the sharpness tests, I’ll summarize each focal length with both the sharpest and the best value lenses.
- 400mm: The Z 400mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/4.5 tie for the sharpest. This makes the 400mm f/4.5 the best value, although the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 is also a great value with solid sharpness performance.
- 500mm: The 500mm f/5.6 PF is the sharpest. All three lenses are good values, but the 200-500mm f/5.6 and 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 are less than half the price of the 500mm f/5.6 PF. The tradeoff is less sharpness and (in the 200-500mm’s case) slower autofocus performance.
- 560mm/600mm: The Z 600mm f/4 is clearly the sharpest. The best value is either the 400mm f/4.5 + 1.4x TC ($3800 and very good sharpness) or the 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 ($1700 and good sharpness). I should also mention the 600mm f/6.3, which I didn’t have in time for this test, but have used since then. It costs $4800 and is a clear second place in sharpness at 600mm.
- 700mm/800mm/840mm: There’s a three-way tie in sharpness between the 400mm f/2.8 + 2x TC, 600mm f/4 + 1.4x TC, and 800mm f/6.3. The 800mm f/6.3 is the best value of the three, since it’s $6500 rather than $14,000 or more. However, another good value at this focal length is the 500mm f/5.6 PF + 1.4x TC, costing $4100 for the combo and still performing pretty well.
That does it for our sharpness tests. Next up is a comparison of how each lens renders the same scene and captures out-of-focus regions. In other words, it’s a test of bokeh.
Table of Contents