Excellent review. My only quibble is 1) 200-500mm should be included in the sharpness charts, as tons of potential buyers are shooting with this lens (of course can find these elsewhere on your site) and 2) the conclusion: only 4/5 stars for value? But 5/5 for sharpness? It seems sharpness is very good but not great/superb, but for the price this thing is incredible value. Compare it to *ANY* other Nikon lens outside maybe the 24-120mm f/4 and you won’t find better value. Value should be full 5/5. How much more cheaply would you price this thing to earn 5 stars?!?
Bruce
February 21, 2024 4:25 pm
Never mentioned is how well a S lens performs on a Z7 or Z6 camera. With f-mount lenses the autofocus varied greatly depending upon whether it was used with a D5 or a D850 camera.
Stefano Dalle Luche
February 3, 2024 9:43 am
I am the owner of a Z9 and I photograph concerts and theater shows. I have been thinking about purchasing a zoom lens instead of a fixed 300 and 400 for some time because often when changing cameras I risk losing important moments, so I thought, for the versatility of a zoom lens, aware of the difference in quality, but honestly I’m very undecided whether in the dark to opt for a 100-400 or a 180-600 I already have a z tc 1.4 which I sometimes mount on 70-200 and with internal crop in the camera I get to 420mm (f4) and I see it a bit like a copy of the 100-400 which is why I had spotted the 180-600, but I that 5.6 – 6.3 is a little scary in the dark settings of concerts and theaters. What do you think?
With the Z9 I think you are able to crank up the ISO to compensate. I love my 180-600 but I use it predominantly outside.
Thomas
December 15, 2023 8:04 am
Thanks so much, Libor, for this in-depth review. I had the opportunity to test the lens while spending time with a friend who owms it already, and I loved it straight away for its handling, its versatility and the first impressions regaring IQ.
Being aware that lab tests and real life are two different things, it might still be interesting to put the Z 180-600 in a different context. Before going for Z system, the AF-S 180-400 1:4 FL TC was something I dreamt of, because of the combination of versatilty of a zoom with the IQ of a high end F-Mount lens and I think most people here would agree that this still is a great lens – with a 5 digit price tag though.
If you compare the test results of this lens with those of the Z 180-600 you’ll find that both are not really far apart at 400mm and that the Z 180-600 at 600mm is actually kind of on par with the F-Mount 180-400 with the integrated TC engaged !
That said, I looked at it assuming that the tests with the F-Mount 180-400 were done with an equivalent test setup compared with today’s standard (i.e. 45MP sensor), but I think since the results of the F-Mount 180-400 are already shown with the latest chart layout, this shoould be the case.
I can’t wait to get my copy of the Z 180-600 to complete my single Z8 zoom line-up – hopefully still this year :-)
BTW: Are there any experiences regarding sample variation for the Z 180-600 yet ??
To your question on the 180-400mm, yes, those tests are comparable! All of the MTF charts on Photography Life can be compared, with the exception of a few older F-mount lenses whose reviews have a very different graphic design on the MTF charts. I’ll be updating those old reviews throughout 2024, either with disclaimers or with new data.
Thank you, Spencer for this confirmation and kudos for all the effort going in this site from you as well as your “colleagues”. That said, considering the amount of work going into it IMHO apart from a few exceptions the disclaimer should do the job. I guess the most interesting lenses would be the ones where people are in serious doubt whether to prefer an adapted F-mount lens over a new Z lens and where these doubts are initiated by the price tags, e.g. the F-Mount E series FL lenses, the 400 and 600 are already updated. But something I think would be interesting for a considerable group of people could be lab test results added to the review by John “Verm” Sherman for the 500 f4 E FL. Looking at the price tags of around 15.000 to 16.000 it could be really appealing to get a used 500 f4E FL with a FTZ II for about half the money and get a super lens that already triggered some discussion whether or not a lens can be “too sharp” :-)
All this of course depends on getting hands on the lens for updating the data. I’m looking forward to whatever you will come up with.
Best regards an Merry Christmas
Thomas
Sean E
December 14, 2023 8:35 pm
Been debating between getting this or doing the 100-400 with a 1.4 TC only because the 100-400 is S line which all my other lens are. Any thoughts is it worth not being an S line. Looking for some causal wildlife use during traveling, some birds sometimes but not like going all out birding or anything but want some extra reach for the occasional deer, bear, elk near the cabin once or twice a year and then around the house birds and other things
The 100-400 is more portable, but more expensive and not as good with the 1.4x TC as the 180-600 bare. For wildlife, I would probably go for the 180-600, unless portability (size/weight) is important.
bg5931
December 14, 2023 11:40 am
Given some of the buzz after release, I expected this one to be stronger MTF-wise. But given the non-S designation and the long zoom range, this was probably unrealistic.
abarataphoto
December 14, 2023 4:42 am
I got mine a couple of weeks ago, and at this point I very pleased with it. Yes, it’s a pain to acquire focus on low contrast with a Z6II, but that’s not the lens fault. Nothing that a small manual adjustment won’t solve, and as a macro photographer I’m so used to manual adjustments that they’re almost imbued in my way to take photos anyway! Ahahah. The lens impressed me for the quality of results on several situations: strong back-light, busy backgrounds. In both situations it can get focus quickly and create beautiful bokeh, creating very nice, artsy photos. Quite happy with the lens, and anxious to try it more and more. And as I never used a telephoto before, I’m very excited to get better with it too!
SteveTQP
December 13, 2023 8:56 pm
Very comprehensive review as always…however, two points may need clarification. First, I find the build quality quite robust on my Z8, but I still wonder why Nikon refuses to make the tripod collar foot Arca-Swiss compatible! This just necessitates extra time and money on an Arca-Swiss plate. Secondly, I think your verdict on the lens’ sharpness belies the excellent image quality possible with this lens. Though I admittedly don’t have NIkkor telephoto primes to compare it to, I can say that with good technique, using a solid tripod, delayed exposure to eliminate vibration, and proper post processing, I’m obtaining absolutely superb sharpness and detail, especially in my landscape images. Thanks again, and Happy Holidays!
Our upcoming 600mm f/6.3 review (next Tuesday) will show side-by-side crops between the two lenses in our strict test chart environment. As this review and those upcoming photos show, there are clear differences that favor the prime. However, careful sharpening and good technique will lead to very sharp photos from the 180-600mm f/6.3. Most photos do not take full advantage of a lens’s sharpness anyway.
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 found your article very helpful and encouraging in what it covered, thank you, Libor. 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 as at 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.
I downloaded the Scene 2 180-600mm @ 600mm and + 1.4TC images shown in Libor’s ‘Best Super-Telephoto Lenses for Nikon Z Cameras’ (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. Photography Life has included Imatest results with and without a 1.4 TC in lab reviews of other super-telephoto lenses, and I’d like to see that for the 180-600mm. I’d also welcome an explanation of whether multiplying the TC scores in such tests by 1.4 will give a straightforward comparison showing whether the TC is adding more detail.
Given its performance, I would be inclined to only use a TC if absolutely necessary. TCs degrade sharpness considerably, and the 180-600 is not starting from the rarified heights of the Z 70-200mm f/2.8.
I have the Z 100-400 and with the 1.4 TC I find it’s only acceptable for sharpness at 400mm.
It’ll probably be better than just cropping in, but only just.
The Z7iii is highly unlikely to have GPS built in. The Z9 is the only Z camera Nikon makes that includes GPS.
I agree with you, Ircut. As for getting GPS coordinates into photos, a good way to do that is to use a smartwatch or a phone. Personally, I wouldn’t hope to see GPS integrated into the Z7 III either.
Dear Chris, regarding the use of TC on 180-600mm, you have basically answered your question in the first sentence. The lens at the long end does not abound with resolution that I would want to degrade further by adding a TC. Let’s say that TC would take some 15% off the sharpness of the lens (that’s a pretty optimistic estimate). Then, from my point of view, it would make sense to either address the situation by cropping or even better in the field by getting closer to the subject (easy to write, but harder to execute, I know). After all, the fact that the 600/6.3 costs almost three times more has to show up somewhere. Aside from sharpness, I might be even more concerned about the f/9 maximum aperture when using a TC. Already the f/6.3 aperture is pretty much on the edge in the darkness of the morning and evening woods… often beyond it.
Thanks to everyone for your comprehensive replies. I rather expected that a TC wouldn’t be a worthwhile addition to the 180-600mm, but it’s not unusual for TCs to be offered at a substantial discount if bought with certain lenses, and I didn’t want to miss out if a TC could offer an appreciable increase in detail beyond cropping. (So different to when I bought a 2nd hand 2×TC for my Pentax film 70-210mm, which gave lousy quality but was so much easier than getting a cropped print.) The only other use I’d be likely to find for a TC would be on a macro lens, but I understand the Nikkor Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S isn’t compatible with one.
Regarding GPS, I realize that many modern cameras, including the Z7II and Z8, can receive 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. I will also be very surprised, as well as delighted, if the Z7 III includes GPS, but it is a feature that some top commentators have recommended to be built into higher-end cameras, and is probably more appropriate for landscape than any other aspects of photography. Although the inclusion seems unlikely, I would find it incredibly frustrating if I bought a Z8, only to find a Z7III introduced with the advantages of built-in GPS, much lighter weight and a slightly superior sensor IQ (substantially superior if Nikon follows the latest Sony α7Rs with an increased pixel count). Meanwhile the Z8 is becoming more readily available, with an ever-widening choice of accessories, and I hope that competition from the Z7III might reduce its price.
As a landscape photographer, the Z8 offers very little that the Z7 doesn’t do as well or better.
Get a Z8 for other reasons (like autofocus), but not for landscape. It’s larger, heavier, and has worse dynamic range. The AF improvements, blackoutless shooting, etc. aren’t relevant for landscape.
I will be surprised and disappointed if the Z7iii doesn’t have starlight view, so all that’s left are things like the illuminated buttons. Unless you need the video performance.
Your experience with GPS unfortunately matches my own; using SnapBridge has not been a satisfying experience for it. The GPS in the Z9 just works.
Your comments match what I expect between the Z8 vs Z7 pretty closely. Assuming the Z7iii doesn’t include GPS, and so I buy the Z8 to connect GPS to its well positioned round 10-pin connector, what I think I’ll appreciate most of all is being able to fold down the LCD for portrait orientation as well as landscape, particularly for macro photography. (I can’t do either with my D800, and I’m really looking forward to a tilting LCD.) Of course the Z8 will be better for action photography, but I have negligible interest in video. I may also appreciate the taller grip. But I don’t think any of these advantages other than the 10-pin connector are worth the additional weight at my age.
Thanks to everyone for your comprehensive replies. I rather expected that a TC wouldn’t be a worthwhile addition to the 180-600mm, but it’s not unusual for TCs to be offered at a substantial discount if bought with certain lenses, and I didn’t want to miss out if a TC could offer an appreciable increase in detail beyond cropping. (So different to when I bought a 2nd hand 2×TC for my Pentax film 70-210mm, which gave lousy quality but was so much easier than getting a cropped print.) The only other use I’d be likely to find for a TC would be on a macro lens, but I understand the Nikkor Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S isn’t compatible with one.
Regarding GPS, I realize that many modern cameras, including the Z7II and Z8, can receive 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. I will also be very surprised, as well as delighted, if the Z7 III includes GPS, but it is a feature that some top commentators have recommended to be built into higher-end cameras, and is probably more appropriate for landscape than any other aspects of photography. Although the inclusion seems unlikely, I would find it incredibly frustrating if I bought a Z8, only to find an Z7III introduced with the advantages of built-in GPS, much lighter weight and a slightly superior sensor IQ (substantially superior if Nikon follows the Sony α7R with an increased pixel count). Meanwhile the Z8 is becoming more readily available, with an ever-widening choice of accessories, and I hope that competition from the Z7III might reduce its price.
The Z9 has GPS built in. It is one of the many features that makes it well worth the small price difference over the Z8. Especially when the Z8 + monster grip are bigger than the Z9. I find the Z9 quite small and light compared to my previous Nikon DSLRs.
I’m sure the Z9 makes sense if you want a vertical grip, but I’ve never thought one worthwhile, and now, approaching 74, I want to keep weight down. I think the Z9 is heavier than any Nikon DSLRs other than those with vertical grips. My D800 is quoted as being about 1000 g, but that includes a built-in flash (I also have an SB-910 for when I plan to take flash photos). The Z9 is 910 g, but I want a basic flash available as part of my core outfit. I have what I consider would be the perfect flash, the VEK0V37Z1-A supplied with my Panasonic Lumix LX100. This runs from the camera’s battery, and is about the size of an ice cube, so its weight is negligible. But I fear I’ll be advised not to risk trying this on a Z8, and the lightest Nikon flash I’m aware of is the SB-300 if I can find one 2nd-hand, at 120 g including batteries. This combination already exceeds the weight of my D800, and I’ll also need an FTZ converter, at least for the first few years. Fortunately the Z lenses are generally lighter than their F equivalents.
I am approaching 70 myself, but I cannot comfortably hold and operate the Z8 with my hands. I actually ordered the Z8 first, but when I held them both, and I saw the monstrosity of the Z8 grip, I easily chose the Z9. The features of the longer battery life, the built in GPS and logging, not having to carry multiple types of cards, having 2 card slots that can both be used at full speed without overheating, the top command dial, secure card slot cover, and most importantly the smaller size when the Z8 is equally gripped.
I had been shooting with D850+grip. I never used it without the grip as I needed the battery life and I couldn’t operate it comfortably without the grip. My small carry around bag with the D850+grip with the F mount 24-70/2.8 became a bag half the size with the Z9+Z24-70/2.8. The size and weight savings was a very nice surprise, and did not compromise on features nor comfort.
For a small flash fill, I carry the tiny Lumecube flat panel which provides constant light for stills or video which also doubles as a battery for charging cell phones, etc. Of course for any events or planned shooting I would likely take a real flash … and more lenses. At that point a few grams on the body is moot, and the advantages of the Z9 make it shine.
Since I shoot with pro glass and long lenses the balance is better with the Z9, but still a fraction of what I used to have to carry with the D850. The Z9 with the Z 800mm is easily hand held and very light compared with even my 300/2.8.
The Z8 is a great camera if it will satisfy your needs and you can operate it comfortably. Grab it and enjoy it. If you want the added features of a Z9, grab that and enjoy them. No your Z8 will never be a Z9. Before buying one or the other, try them both. Then accept the limitations of your decision and go out there and shoot….
Excellent review. My only quibble is 1) 200-500mm should be included in the sharpness charts, as tons of potential buyers are shooting with this lens (of course can find these elsewhere on your site) and 2) the conclusion: only 4/5 stars for value? But 5/5 for sharpness? It seems sharpness is very good but not great/superb, but for the price this thing is incredible value. Compare it to *ANY* other Nikon lens outside maybe the 24-120mm f/4 and you won’t find better value. Value should be full 5/5. How much more cheaply would you price this thing to earn 5 stars?!?
Never mentioned is how well a S lens performs on a Z7 or Z6 camera. With f-mount lenses the autofocus varied greatly depending upon whether it was used with a D5 or a D850 camera.
I am the owner of a Z9 and I photograph concerts and theater shows. I have been thinking about purchasing a zoom lens instead of a fixed 300 and 400 for some time because often when changing cameras I risk losing important moments, so I thought, for the versatility of a zoom lens, aware of the difference in quality, but honestly I’m very undecided whether in the dark to opt for a 100-400 or a 180-600
I already have a z tc 1.4 which I sometimes mount on 70-200 and with internal crop in the camera I get to 420mm (f4) and I see it a bit like a copy of the 100-400 which is why I had spotted the 180-600, but I that 5.6 – 6.3 is a little scary in the dark settings of concerts and theaters. What do you think?
With the Z9 I think you are able to crank up the ISO to compensate. I love my 180-600 but I use it predominantly outside.
Thanks so much, Libor, for this in-depth review.
I had the opportunity to test the lens while spending time with a friend who owms it already, and I loved it straight away for its handling, its versatility and the first impressions regaring IQ.
Being aware that lab tests and real life are two different things, it might still be interesting to put the Z 180-600 in a different context.
Before going for Z system, the AF-S 180-400 1:4 FL TC was something I dreamt of, because of the combination of versatilty of a zoom with the IQ of a high end F-Mount lens and I think most people here would agree that this still is a great lens – with a 5 digit price tag though.
If you compare the test results of this lens with those of the Z 180-600 you’ll find that both are not really far apart at 400mm and that the Z 180-600 at 600mm is actually kind of on par with the F-Mount 180-400 with the integrated TC engaged !
That said, I looked at it assuming that the tests with the F-Mount 180-400 were done with an equivalent test setup compared with today’s standard (i.e. 45MP sensor), but I think since the results of the F-Mount 180-400 are already shown with the latest chart layout, this shoould be the case.
I can’t wait to get my copy of the Z 180-600 to complete my single Z8 zoom line-up – hopefully still this year :-)
BTW: Are there any experiences regarding sample variation for the Z 180-600 yet ??
To your question on the 180-400mm, yes, those tests are comparable! All of the MTF charts on Photography Life can be compared, with the exception of a few older F-mount lenses whose reviews have a very different graphic design on the MTF charts. I’ll be updating those old reviews throughout 2024, either with disclaimers or with new data.
Thank you, Spencer for this confirmation and kudos for all the effort going in this site from you as well as your “colleagues”. That said, considering the amount of work going into it IMHO apart from a few exceptions the disclaimer should do the job. I guess the most interesting lenses would be the ones where people are in serious doubt whether to prefer an adapted F-mount lens over a new Z lens and where these doubts are initiated by the price tags, e.g. the F-Mount E series FL lenses, the 400 and 600 are already updated. But something I think would be interesting for a considerable group of people could be lab test results added to the review by John “Verm” Sherman for the 500 f4 E FL. Looking at the price tags of around 15.000 to 16.000 it could be really appealing to get a used 500 f4E FL with a FTZ II for about half the money and get a super lens that already triggered some discussion whether or not a lens can be “too sharp” :-)
All this of course depends on getting hands on the lens for updating the data.
I’m looking forward to whatever you will come up with.
Best regards an Merry Christmas
Thomas
Been debating between getting this or doing the 100-400 with a 1.4 TC only because the 100-400 is S line which all my other lens are. Any thoughts is it worth not being an S line. Looking for some causal wildlife use during traveling, some birds sometimes but not like going all out birding or anything but want some extra reach for the occasional deer, bear, elk near the cabin once or twice a year and then around the house birds and other things
The 100-400 is more portable, but more expensive and not as good with the 1.4x TC as the 180-600 bare. For wildlife, I would probably go for the 180-600, unless portability (size/weight) is important.
Given some of the buzz after release, I expected this one to be stronger MTF-wise. But given the non-S designation and the long zoom range, this was probably unrealistic.
I got mine a couple of weeks ago, and at this point I very pleased with it. Yes, it’s a pain to acquire focus on low contrast with a Z6II, but that’s not the lens fault. Nothing that a small manual adjustment won’t solve, and as a macro photographer I’m so used to manual adjustments that they’re almost imbued in my way to take photos anyway! Ahahah.
The lens impressed me for the quality of results on several situations: strong back-light, busy backgrounds. In both situations it can get focus quickly and create beautiful bokeh, creating very nice, artsy photos. Quite happy with the lens, and anxious to try it more and more. And as I never used a telephoto before, I’m very excited to get better with it too!
Very comprehensive review as always…however, two points may need clarification. First, I find the build quality quite robust on my Z8, but I still wonder why Nikon refuses to make the tripod collar foot Arca-Swiss compatible! This just necessitates extra time and money on an Arca-Swiss plate. Secondly, I think your verdict on the lens’ sharpness belies the excellent image quality possible with this lens. Though I admittedly don’t have NIkkor telephoto primes to compare it to, I can say that with good technique, using a solid tripod, delayed exposure to eliminate vibration, and proper post processing, I’m obtaining absolutely superb sharpness and detail, especially in my landscape images. Thanks again, and Happy Holidays!
Our upcoming 600mm f/6.3 review (next Tuesday) will show side-by-side crops between the two lenses in our strict test chart environment. As this review and those upcoming photos show, there are clear differences that favor the prime. However, careful sharpening and good technique will lead to very sharp photos from the 180-600mm f/6.3. Most photos do not take full advantage of a lens’s sharpness anyway.
Now I cannot wait for Tuesday. :D Is the 400/4.5 review in the works too?
Superb sample images!
Thank you CAT.
I agree wonderful images
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 found your article very helpful and encouraging in what it covered, thank you, Libor. 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 as at 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.
I downloaded the Scene 2 180-600mm @ 600mm and + 1.4TC images shown in Libor’s ‘Best Super-Telephoto Lenses for Nikon Z Cameras’ (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. Photography Life has included Imatest results with and without a 1.4 TC in lab reviews of other super-telephoto lenses, and I’d like to see that for the 180-600mm. I’d also welcome an explanation of whether multiplying the TC scores in such tests by 1.4 will give a straightforward comparison showing whether the TC is adding more detail.
Given its performance, I would be inclined to only use a TC if absolutely necessary. TCs degrade sharpness considerably, and the 180-600 is not starting from the rarified heights of the Z 70-200mm f/2.8.
I have the Z 100-400 and with the 1.4 TC I find it’s only acceptable for sharpness at 400mm.
It’ll probably be better than just cropping in, but only just.
The Z7iii is highly unlikely to have GPS built in. The Z9 is the only Z camera Nikon makes that includes GPS.
I agree with you, Ircut. As for getting GPS coordinates into photos, a good way to do that is to use a smartwatch or a phone. Personally, I wouldn’t hope to see GPS integrated into the Z7 III either.
Dear Chris, regarding the use of TC on 180-600mm, you have basically answered your question in the first sentence. The lens at the long end does not abound with resolution that I would want to degrade further by adding a TC. Let’s say that TC would take some 15% off the sharpness of the lens (that’s a pretty optimistic estimate). Then, from my point of view, it would make sense to either address the situation by cropping or even better in the field by getting closer to the subject (easy to write, but harder to execute, I know). After all, the fact that the 600/6.3 costs almost three times more has to show up somewhere. Aside from sharpness, I might be even more concerned about the f/9 maximum aperture when using a TC. Already the f/6.3 aperture is pretty much on the edge in the darkness of the morning and evening woods… often beyond it.
I absolutely agree with Libor. A TC on this lens would be a mistake.
Thanks to everyone for your comprehensive replies. I rather expected that a TC wouldn’t be a worthwhile addition to the 180-600mm, but it’s not unusual for TCs to be offered at a substantial discount if bought with certain lenses, and I didn’t want to miss out if a TC could offer an appreciable increase in detail beyond cropping. (So different to when I bought a 2nd hand 2×TC for my Pentax film 70-210mm, which gave lousy quality but was so much easier than getting a cropped print.) The only other use I’d be likely to find for a TC would be on a macro lens, but I understand the Nikkor Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S isn’t compatible with one.
Regarding GPS, I realize that many modern cameras, including the Z7II and Z8, can receive 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. I will also be very surprised, as well as delighted, if the Z7 III includes GPS, but it is a feature that some top commentators have recommended to be built into higher-end cameras, and is probably more appropriate for landscape than any other aspects of photography. Although the inclusion seems unlikely, I would find it incredibly frustrating if I bought a Z8, only to find a Z7III introduced with the advantages of built-in GPS, much lighter weight and a slightly superior sensor IQ (substantially superior if Nikon follows the latest Sony α7Rs with an increased pixel count). Meanwhile the Z8 is becoming more readily available, with an ever-widening choice of accessories, and I hope that competition from the Z7III might reduce its price.
With thanks,
Chris
As a landscape photographer, the Z8 offers very little that the Z7 doesn’t do as well or better.
Get a Z8 for other reasons (like autofocus), but not for landscape. It’s larger, heavier, and has worse dynamic range. The AF improvements, blackoutless shooting, etc. aren’t relevant for landscape.
I will be surprised and disappointed if the Z7iii doesn’t have starlight view, so all that’s left are things like the illuminated buttons. Unless you need the video performance.
Your experience with GPS unfortunately matches my own; using SnapBridge has not been a satisfying experience for it. The GPS in the Z9 just works.
Your comments match what I expect between the Z8 vs Z7 pretty closely. Assuming the Z7iii doesn’t include GPS, and so I buy the Z8 to connect GPS to its well positioned round 10-pin connector, what I think I’ll appreciate most of all is being able to fold down the LCD for portrait orientation as well as landscape, particularly for macro photography. (I can’t do either with my D800, and I’m really looking forward to a tilting LCD.) Of course the Z8 will be better for action photography, but I have negligible interest in video. I may also appreciate the taller grip. But I don’t think any of these advantages other than the 10-pin connector are worth the additional weight at my age.
Thanks to everyone for your comprehensive replies. I rather expected that a TC wouldn’t be a worthwhile addition to the 180-600mm, but it’s not unusual for TCs to be offered at a substantial discount if bought with certain lenses, and I didn’t want to miss out if a TC could offer an appreciable increase in detail beyond cropping. (So different to when I bought a 2nd hand 2×TC for my Pentax film 70-210mm, which gave lousy quality but was so much easier than getting a cropped print.) The only other use I’d be likely to find for a TC would be on a macro lens, but I understand the Nikkor Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S isn’t compatible with one.
Regarding GPS, I realize that many modern cameras, including the Z7II and Z8, can receive 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. I will also be very surprised, as well as delighted, if the Z7 III includes GPS, but it is a feature that some top commentators have recommended to be built into higher-end cameras, and is probably more appropriate for landscape than any other aspects of photography. Although the inclusion seems unlikely, I would find it incredibly frustrating if I bought a Z8, only to find an Z7III introduced with the advantages of built-in GPS, much lighter weight and a slightly superior sensor IQ (substantially superior if Nikon follows the Sony α7R with an increased pixel count). Meanwhile the Z8 is becoming more readily available, with an ever-widening choice of accessories, and I hope that competition from the Z7III might reduce its price.
The Z9 has GPS built in. It is one of the many features that makes it well worth the small price difference over the Z8. Especially when the Z8 + monster grip are bigger than the Z9. I find the Z9 quite small and light compared to my previous Nikon DSLRs.
I’m sure the Z9 makes sense if you want a vertical grip, but I’ve never thought one worthwhile, and now, approaching 74, I want to keep weight down. I think the Z9 is heavier than any Nikon DSLRs other than those with vertical grips. My D800 is quoted as being about 1000 g, but that includes a built-in flash (I also have an SB-910 for when I plan to take flash photos). The Z9 is 910 g, but I want a basic flash available as part of my core outfit. I have what I consider would be the perfect flash, the VEK0V37Z1-A supplied with my Panasonic Lumix LX100. This runs from the camera’s battery, and is about the size of an ice cube, so its weight is negligible. But I fear I’ll be advised not to risk trying this on a Z8, and the lightest Nikon flash I’m aware of is the SB-300 if I can find one 2nd-hand, at 120 g including batteries. This combination already exceeds the weight of my D800, and I’ll also need an FTZ converter, at least for the first few years. Fortunately the Z lenses are generally lighter than their F equivalents.
I am approaching 70 myself, but I cannot comfortably hold and operate the Z8 with my hands. I actually ordered the Z8 first, but when I held them both, and I saw the monstrosity of the Z8 grip, I easily chose the Z9. The features of the longer battery life, the built in GPS and logging, not having to carry multiple types of cards, having 2 card slots that can both be used at full speed without overheating, the top command dial, secure card slot cover, and most importantly the smaller size when the Z8 is equally gripped.
I had been shooting with D850+grip. I never used it without the grip as I needed the battery life and I couldn’t operate it comfortably without the grip. My small carry around bag with the D850+grip with the F mount 24-70/2.8 became a bag half the size with the Z9+Z24-70/2.8. The size and weight savings was a very nice surprise, and did not compromise on features nor comfort.
For a small flash fill, I carry the tiny Lumecube flat panel which provides constant light for stills or video which also doubles as a battery for charging cell phones, etc. Of course for any events or planned shooting I would likely take a real flash … and more lenses. At that point a few grams on the body is moot, and the advantages of the Z9 make it shine.
Since I shoot with pro glass and long lenses the balance is better with the Z9, but still a fraction of what I used to have to carry with the D850. The Z9 with the Z 800mm is easily hand held and very light compared with even my 300/2.8.
The Z8 is a great camera if it will satisfy your needs and you can operate it comfortably. Grab it and enjoy it. If you want the added features of a Z9, grab that and enjoy them. No your Z8 will never be a Z9. Before buying one or the other, try them both. Then accept the limitations of your decision and go out there and shoot….