Heading to Alaska in the summer. I only have a Sigma 70-200mm S f2.8 with an FTZ and a 2x TC. I am not displeased with the results. However I need a longer focal length and am looking at the 180-600mm after your review. In bright daylight would it be able to handle a 1.4x TC as well? What would you suggest? The trip is already over 10k so looking to temper my expectations. Purchase something with a zero finance option for a couple years. Suggestions?
Jayanta Bordoloi
March 26, 2024 6:04 am
I see that the shutter speeds were as low as 1/3 of a sec in some of the images. Also the distance between the subject and the lens is not provided. In a real world secnario nobody using a lens at 500-800mm region would ever use those shutter speeds. A bit more realistic shutter speed and at various distances would make the test more interesting.
Uli Mengeler
February 15, 2024 9:47 am
Thank you for that very intersting comparison! ….but one important lens ist missing in your line up: the Nikkor F mount F4 180-400 E FL ED VR TC with build in teleconverter. Excellent image quality, very versatile, very good close up capabilities, F4-opening, nice bokeh, but quite big and (front-)heavy. Sold new for around 12.000 USD and hast lost a lot of attractivity due to the modern lightweight Z-mount-lenses…. But, imagequalitywise, I am very impressed, the only F Nikkor zoom lens which betas it up is the rare Nikkor F2.8/120-300 FL ED VR…. I kept my F4,0 180-400 TC beside my Z primes 400 TC and 600 TC because of its versatilty and better F-stop of F4 compared to the Z-zoom-lenses… Best, Uli
Robert John
November 13, 2023 1:53 am
As a few people have mentioned below, even the long zooms are acceptably sharp nowadays – and software is getting better to assist in that. Surely the main differential between lenses is acquiring and keeping focus on a moving subject. But how often is that reviewed? Added to that, only a few can afford the top range of cameras costing £5,000 plus. For those on a budget, what matters is how a mid-price lens performs on a mid-price camera. Having had the misfortune of owning a 200-500 that Nikon considered performed to spec but which couldn’t even focus on a gliding red kite*, I do worry about buying these lenses. I think the only option is to see if a shop would allow a ‘rent before you buy’. * My D7100 with a 300/f4D seriously outperformed my D7500 with the 200-500 comparing photos taken at the same red kite feeding centre. That shouldn’t happen. But the 200-500 was acceptably sharp with a static subject.
Agree.My Nikon 300mm f4 pf with the 1.4tc is far faster in focussing than the Nikon 200-500 when both used with the D780.The focussing speed of the 200-500 is really slow and then you have the problematic zoom ring which doesn’t go from 200 to 500 with a single twist.
John
October 29, 2023 3:16 am
Nikon have augmented the attraction of the Z Technology used for their Bodies, by making available across a very short period of time a substantial range of lenses for all disciplines of Photography. Being a 400mm F2.8 and 500mm F4 Prime Lens owner in F Mount and now a Z100 – 400 user on a Z9, along with the Z 1.4 and Z 2.0 TC’s. I have been patiently waiting for the Telephoto Primes and Zooms to become available, as I have already bought to ancillaries to be used with them. I don’t see there can be much more released by Nikon as a Telephoto in the short term, as the 500mm Range is covered with other carefully considered options. With the present line up of offerings, I can’t but help feel the Z 600 PF is the lens to be adopted as my Prime Lens.
My experiences to date with the Z System has shown that my F System images using the 400mm F2.8 has not produced a image that is discernably recognised for being better than the images captured of similar subjects, in similar conditions, using the Z9 > Z 100 – 400. I was not expecting that as the outcome, the idea a Prime would be required was always in my thoughts. When the 100 – 400 is coupled to the Z TC’s, the outcome will be a little different.
All that I have read to date, leads to the notion a Z Prime Lens ‘will’ surpass the Z 100 – 400 in IQ, with this in mind, the Prime PF Design is looking like it will be more than enough for my own requirements.
Chris Newman
October 28, 2023 3:11 am
An excellent article, thank you. I’m still using my D800, but intend to upgrade to a Z camera soon. The delay is because I want GPS either built-in or physically attached to the camera, and I’m sure the flat connector in the side of the Z7 body would cause problems. I plan to wait until the Z7 III is announced, on the off-chance that it has built-in GPS, but failing that I’ll probably settle for the much heavier Z8, which has a round 10-pin connector out of the way on the front. I don’t use super telephoto enough to justify the cost of a prime, and I value the flexibility of a zoom, so the 180-600mm will probably be an early addition to my Z kit, unless a better third-party lens comes along.
I have a Sigma 150-500mm. Reviews warned that it was soft at the long end (I tend to use telephoto zooms as much at maximum focal length than all other lengths combined) but there was no comparable alternative at the time. I’m sure that at 500mm a TC would just spread the softness over more pixels on a 36 MPx sensor, and I can get equally good results by cropping. (However, if I had a 12 MPx D3 or D700, a TC might improve resolution.) Since I bought an AF-P Nikkor 70-300mm I rarely use the 150-500mm; I shot a cluster of test charts from the same distance, and found 300mm crops from the 70-300mm match the Sigma’s 500mm detail. What I would like to find out is whether it would be worth getting a TC for the 180-600mm, or whether 45 MPx can capture almost all the resolution the lens can provide.
I downloaded the Scene 2 180-600mm @ 600mm and + 1.4TC images (unfortunately there isn’t a Scene 1 equivalent with the TC), and cropped the former’s 960 × 640 Px by 1.4 to 686 × 457 Px. (This gave very slightly less coverage, suggesting the TC might be closer to a true 1-stop √2.) I then compared these images; I think the TC has added a little extra detail, but I find it difficult to judge. I’d be delighted to hear the opinions of anyone who has experience of using the 180-600mm with a TC. I also hope very much that Photography Life will publish a lab review of the lens, including Imatest results with and without a 1.4 TC, and with an explanation of whether multiplying the TC scores by 1.4 will give a straightforward comparison showing whether the TC is adding more detail.
If you’re only held back by the lack of internal GPS, have you thought about using a GPS watch to record the gps? I have both the Nikon Z 9 with internal GPS and Z 6 and Z 8 without. I just use my old Garmin Fenix 5 to track my birding activities and sync the location in Lightroom. This way, I don’t have to deal with accessories plugged into the camera.
Apologies, Dominic, that I’ve only just found your response. Sadly, unlike some other platforms, I don’t think Photography Life has a system to email you when your contributions get a response.
I’m aware that many modern cameras, including the Z7II and Z8, can receive GPS coordinates from a phone. But after experience of trying to use my phone to track my walks (and also, temporarily, to trigger the D800 shutter through my Solmeta GMAX since its own remote shutter device failed, and I haven’t yet got a replacement), I want the certainty of a GPS device that’s either built into the camera or physically wired to it, and the convenience of it going straight into the metadata of my shots.
I don’t use Lightroom, and don’t want to rent a photo editor, as the costs would become huge over time. But when I get a Z camera I do want to upgrade to a top-class photo editor, with a suitable computer and high class screen. I know DxO PhotoLab is well respected, but I don’t think it can accommodate APS-C lenses used on full frame cameras. I’m still using some of the APS-C lenses I bought for my D90 when I first switched to digital, and will probably continue to do so for some years through an FTZ converter. So I’ll probably buy Capture One; I haven’t looked into whether that can update Nikon metadata with GPS coordinates.
I am looking for the same set up and likely going with a 1.4x TC for it as well. I do believe most of what I will be shooting with on my Alaska trip will be open scenes with bright enough light to accept it. I am using the Z7II and have been very pleased with the 45mp performance. I am not selling any images just hobbyist. I was shooting sports with a Kodak DCS-760 and an N90s in film back in the day for about 10 years. Published twice but unfortunately without “by” line. JD
jean pierre (pete) guaron
October 23, 2023 2:53 am
Well – I can’t have everything I want – if my wife ever finds out what I’ve spent on cameras she’ll “lose it” – let alone glass, which as we all know is more expensive. So I’m afraid that versatility demands that i choose the 180-600, occasionally using TC’s, and maybe one more zoom (the 70-180 f 2.8 – since I already have a 27-70). And of course my 105 macro.
Beyond that, I’ll keep using my DSLRs.
I sometimes wonder if we waste too much of our time (and money) worrying about things like pixels and sharpness, and not enough of it taking photos and making prints of them. It takes all the fun out of it, and the end result isn’t really all that much “better” anyway. Might be inevitable for a pro – but I really don’t get why amateurs need to go down the same path, because their only client usually is themselves.
Sorry – enough of “me”. I really meant to start by complimenting you on this article. It is one of the most sensible, most informative, most “balanced” and objective articles I think I’ve ever seen on the subject of choosing gear. Of ANY kind. And very timely for me – because tomorrow or the next day I pick up my Z8 and start shopping for lenses for it.
Being you a user of both platforms, I would have a look also to F-mount bright exotics (AF-I+AF-S, they should do work via an FTZ): 200/2, 120-300/2.8, 300/2.8, 180-400/4 TC, 200-400/4, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6. You might find good ones for a fraction of the Z counterpart, or simply something that does not exist yet. And keep around a D5 or D6 for low light times, no, from my tests, your Z8/Z9 can not beat them in poor light. One lens set, two platforms (D- & Z- bodies) :-)
Richard
October 22, 2023 1:46 pm
Dear Libor. I like reading your articles, which are informative and inspiring. This test you did with your lenses is excellent and confirms me in what lens I use for a given photo shoot. For bird photography, I could imagine if Nikon made a Z 400-800 f4.0-6.3 lens and the dilemma would be solved. For now, the Z 400 f2.8 and Z 800 f6.3 lens must suffice for me. Bye and I look forward to our next expedition together. Your friend Richard
SteveK
October 22, 2023 10:29 am
Thanks again Libor, great exercise and valuable comparisons! I continue to enjoy all your articles.
In my 15 year super-telephoto experience at the extreme focal lengths I find handling (size and weight) to be supremely important, and most shooters should be factoring that in as a key decision parameter for themselves and their intended shooting situations. My main lens for a dozen years was the > 8 pound 500/4G which I typically shot at 700mm/5.6 (loved it). Now my main lens is the 800/6.3PF. Better handling at 5.3 pounds with more reach; and with a Z8/9 Nikon shooters have better autofocus too. Good times!
I keep writing off the 180-600 and adding it back to my candidate list of lenses since I already own the 100-400Z. In terms of value though, the 180-600 is really good, and for car-based outings which I do a ton of, having the 800/180-600 combo makes a lot of sense and the 100-400 can be in the car also. I’m also waffling on getting the 600/Z PF for guided international birding trips where the emphasis is on birding not photography, and its remarkable size and 3 pound weight becomes possibly most important; but the size/weight of the 180-600 isn’t horrible at 4.4 pounds. So I probably should ignore the 600PF and stretch the 5.3 pound 800PF into all situations where reach is most important (birding). Whereas for use on Safari I could see the 180-600 versatility being pretty well suited overall.
Maybe the other thing folks should think about is evaluating the fitness of the zoom lenses on their own without a teleconverter and saving the TC14 for use with prime lenses. (and don’t worry about getting the TC2.0 unless you have a 400/2.8 ;-)
Steven Sparks
October 21, 2023 1:34 pm
Splendid comparison, thanks. It validates my purchases thus far. But I think it should be pointed out, as Scot Kelby demonstrated in one of his presentations, when comparing sharpness of a cheap vs expensive lens, a little sharpening software is a powerful equalizer.
Perceived sharpness is a combination of both resolution and acutance: it is thus a combination of the captured resolution, which cannot be changed in processing, and of acutance, which can be so changed.
Heading to Alaska in the summer. I only have a Sigma 70-200mm S f2.8 with an FTZ and a 2x TC. I am not displeased with the results. However I need a longer focal length and am looking at the 180-600mm after your review. In bright daylight would it be able to handle a 1.4x TC as well? What would you suggest? The trip is already over 10k so looking to temper my expectations. Purchase something with a zero finance option for a couple years. Suggestions?
I see that the shutter speeds were as low as 1/3 of a sec in some of the images. Also the distance between the subject and the lens is not provided. In a real world secnario nobody using a lens at 500-800mm region would ever use those shutter speeds. A bit more realistic shutter speed and at various distances would make the test more interesting.
Thank you for that very intersting comparison! ….but one important lens ist missing in your line up: the Nikkor F mount F4 180-400 E FL ED VR TC with build in teleconverter. Excellent image quality, very versatile, very good close up capabilities, F4-opening, nice bokeh, but quite big and (front-)heavy. Sold new for around 12.000 USD and hast lost a lot of attractivity due to the modern lightweight Z-mount-lenses….
But, imagequalitywise, I am very impressed, the only F Nikkor zoom lens which betas it up is the rare Nikkor F2.8/120-300 FL ED VR….
I kept my F4,0 180-400 TC beside my Z primes 400 TC and 600 TC because of its versatilty and better F-stop of F4 compared to the Z-zoom-lenses…
Best, Uli
As a few people have mentioned below, even the long zooms are acceptably sharp nowadays – and software is getting better to assist in that.
Surely the main differential between lenses is acquiring and keeping focus on a moving subject. But how often is that reviewed?
Added to that, only a few can afford the top range of cameras costing £5,000 plus. For those on a budget, what matters is how a mid-price lens performs on a mid-price camera.
Having had the misfortune of owning a 200-500 that Nikon considered performed to spec but which couldn’t even focus on a gliding red kite*, I do worry about buying these lenses. I think the only option is to see if a shop would allow a ‘rent before you buy’.
* My D7100 with a 300/f4D seriously outperformed my D7500 with the 200-500 comparing photos taken at the same red kite feeding centre. That shouldn’t happen. But the 200-500 was acceptably sharp with a static subject.
Agree.My Nikon 300mm f4 pf with the 1.4tc is far faster in focussing than the Nikon 200-500 when both used with the D780.The focussing speed of the 200-500 is really slow and then you have the problematic zoom ring which doesn’t go from 200 to 500 with a single twist.
Nikon have augmented the attraction of the Z Technology used for their Bodies, by making available across a very short period of time a substantial range of lenses for all disciplines of Photography.
Being a 400mm F2.8 and 500mm F4 Prime Lens owner in F Mount and now a Z100 – 400 user on a Z9, along with the Z 1.4 and Z 2.0 TC’s. I have been patiently waiting for the Telephoto Primes and Zooms to become available, as I have already bought to ancillaries to be used with them.
I don’t see there can be much more released by Nikon as a Telephoto in the short term, as the 500mm Range is covered with other carefully considered options.
With the present line up of offerings, I can’t but help feel the Z 600 PF is the lens to be adopted as my Prime Lens.
My experiences to date with the Z System has shown that my F System images using the 400mm F2.8 has not produced a image that is discernably recognised for being better than the images captured of similar subjects, in similar conditions, using the Z9 > Z 100 – 400. I was not expecting that as the outcome, the idea a Prime would be required was always in my thoughts. When the 100 – 400 is coupled to the Z TC’s, the outcome will be a little different.
All that I have read to date, leads to the notion a Z Prime Lens ‘will’ surpass the Z 100 – 400 in IQ, with this in mind, the Prime PF Design is looking like it will be more than enough for my own requirements.
An excellent article, thank you. I’m still using my D800, but intend to upgrade to a Z camera soon. The delay is because I want GPS either built-in or physically attached to the camera, and I’m sure the flat connector in the side of the Z7 body would cause problems. I plan to wait until the Z7 III is announced, on the off-chance that it has built-in GPS, but failing that I’ll probably settle for the much heavier Z8, which has a round 10-pin connector out of the way on the front. I don’t use super telephoto enough to justify the cost of a prime, and I value the flexibility of a zoom, so the 180-600mm will probably be an early addition to my Z kit, unless a better third-party lens comes along.
I have a Sigma 150-500mm. Reviews warned that it was soft at the long end (I tend to use telephoto zooms as much at maximum focal length than all other lengths combined) but there was no comparable alternative at the time. I’m sure that at 500mm a TC would just spread the softness over more pixels on a 36 MPx sensor, and I can get equally good results by cropping. (However, if I had a 12 MPx D3 or D700, a TC might improve resolution.) Since I bought an AF-P Nikkor 70-300mm I rarely use the 150-500mm; I shot a cluster of test charts from the same distance, and found 300mm crops from the 70-300mm match the Sigma’s 500mm detail. What I would like to find out is whether it would be worth getting a TC for the 180-600mm, or whether 45 MPx can capture almost all the resolution the lens can provide.
I downloaded the Scene 2 180-600mm @ 600mm and + 1.4TC images (unfortunately there isn’t a Scene 1 equivalent with the TC), and cropped the former’s 960 × 640 Px by 1.4 to 686 × 457 Px. (This gave very slightly less coverage, suggesting the TC might be closer to a true 1-stop √2.) I then compared these images; I think the TC has added a little extra detail, but I find it difficult to judge. I’d be delighted to hear the opinions of anyone who has experience of using the 180-600mm with a TC. I also hope very much that Photography Life will publish a lab review of the lens, including Imatest results with and without a 1.4 TC, and with an explanation of whether multiplying the TC scores by 1.4 will give a straightforward comparison showing whether the TC is adding more detail.
If you’re only held back by the lack of internal GPS, have you thought about using a GPS watch to record the gps? I have both the Nikon Z 9 with internal GPS and Z 6 and Z 8 without. I just use my old Garmin Fenix 5 to track my birding activities and sync the location in Lightroom. This way, I don’t have to deal with accessories plugged into the camera.
Apologies, Dominic, that I’ve only just found your response. Sadly, unlike some other platforms, I don’t think Photography Life has a system to email you when your contributions get a response.
I’m aware that many modern cameras, including the Z7II and Z8, can receive GPS coordinates from a phone. But after experience of trying to use my phone to track my walks (and also, temporarily, to trigger the D800 shutter through my Solmeta GMAX since its own remote shutter device failed, and I haven’t yet got a replacement), I want the certainty of a GPS device that’s either built into the camera or physically wired to it, and the convenience of it going straight into the metadata of my shots.
I don’t use Lightroom, and don’t want to rent a photo editor, as the costs would become huge over time. But when I get a Z camera I do want to upgrade to a top-class photo editor, with a suitable computer and high class screen. I know DxO PhotoLab is well respected, but I don’t think it can accommodate APS-C lenses used on full frame cameras. I’m still using some of the APS-C lenses I bought for my D90 when I first switched to digital, and will probably continue to do so for some years through an FTZ converter. So I’ll probably buy Capture One; I haven’t looked into whether that can update Nikon metadata with GPS coordinates.
I am looking for the same set up and likely going with a 1.4x TC for it as well. I do believe most of what I will be shooting with on my Alaska trip will be open scenes with bright enough light to accept it. I am using the Z7II and have been very pleased with the 45mp performance. I am not selling any images just hobbyist. I was shooting sports with a Kodak DCS-760 and an N90s in film back in the day for about 10 years. Published twice but unfortunately without “by” line. JD
Well – I can’t have everything I want – if my wife ever finds out what I’ve spent on cameras she’ll “lose it” – let alone glass, which as we all know is more expensive. So I’m afraid that versatility demands that i choose the 180-600, occasionally using TC’s, and maybe one more zoom (the 70-180 f 2.8 – since I already have a 27-70). And of course my 105 macro.
Beyond that, I’ll keep using my DSLRs.
I sometimes wonder if we waste too much of our time (and money) worrying about things like pixels and sharpness, and not enough of it taking photos and making prints of them. It takes all the fun out of it, and the end result isn’t really all that much “better” anyway. Might be inevitable for a pro – but I really don’t get why amateurs need to go down the same path, because their only client usually is themselves.
Sorry – enough of “me”. I really meant to start by complimenting you on this article. It is one of the most sensible, most informative, most “balanced” and objective articles I think I’ve ever seen on the subject of choosing gear. Of ANY kind. And very timely for me – because tomorrow or the next day I pick up my Z8 and start shopping for lenses for it.
Being you a user of both platforms, I would have a look also to F-mount bright exotics (AF-I+AF-S, they should do work via an FTZ): 200/2, 120-300/2.8, 300/2.8, 180-400/4 TC, 200-400/4, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6. You might find good ones for a fraction of the Z counterpart, or simply something that does not exist yet. And keep around a D5 or D6 for low light times, no, from my tests, your Z8/Z9 can not beat them in poor light.
One lens set, two platforms (D- & Z- bodies) :-)
Dear Libor. I like reading your articles, which are informative and inspiring. This test you did with your lenses is excellent and confirms me in what lens I use for a given photo shoot. For bird photography, I could imagine if Nikon made a Z 400-800 f4.0-6.3 lens and the dilemma would be solved. For now, the Z 400 f2.8 and Z 800 f6.3 lens must suffice for me. Bye and I look forward to our next expedition together.
Your friend Richard
Thanks again Libor, great exercise and valuable comparisons! I continue to enjoy all your articles.
In my 15 year super-telephoto experience at the extreme focal lengths I find handling (size and weight) to be supremely important, and most shooters should be factoring that in as a key decision parameter for themselves and their intended shooting situations. My main lens for a dozen years was the > 8 pound 500/4G which I typically shot at 700mm/5.6 (loved it). Now my main lens is the 800/6.3PF. Better handling at 5.3 pounds with more reach; and with a Z8/9 Nikon shooters have better autofocus too. Good times!
I keep writing off the 180-600 and adding it back to my candidate list of lenses since I already own the 100-400Z. In terms of value though, the 180-600 is really good, and for car-based outings which I do a ton of, having the 800/180-600 combo makes a lot of sense and the 100-400 can be in the car also. I’m also waffling on getting the 600/Z PF for guided international birding trips where the emphasis is on birding not photography, and its remarkable size and 3 pound weight becomes possibly most important; but the size/weight of the 180-600 isn’t horrible at 4.4 pounds. So I probably should ignore the 600PF and stretch the 5.3 pound 800PF into all situations where reach is most important (birding). Whereas for use on Safari I could see the 180-600 versatility being pretty well suited overall.
Maybe the other thing folks should think about is evaluating the fitness of the zoom lenses on their own without a teleconverter and saving the TC14 for use with prime lenses. (and don’t worry about getting the TC2.0 unless you have a 400/2.8 ;-)
Splendid comparison, thanks. It validates my purchases thus far. But I think it should be pointed out, as Scot Kelby demonstrated in one of his presentations, when comparing sharpness of a cheap vs expensive lens, a little sharpening software is a powerful equalizer.
QUOTE Acutance, Wikipedia
Perceived sharpness is a combination of both resolution and acutance: it is thus a combination of the captured resolution, which cannot be changed in processing, and of acutance, which can be so changed.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…#Sharpness