So I got myself this lens along with the Nikon Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 S lens and I have to say they’re both great in terms of image quality. The one big drawback that I notice when I go out and shoot with the 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 is that it is very bulkly lens to carry around and hold, which sometimes can affect the sharpness quality when you shoot at the long end. I wonder how other folks feel about this, but the 100-400 if much easier to shoot with physically speaking at least from my end.
That’s my worry – I’ve been thinking about this for a few weeks. I think my solution is to keep my 500/f5.6 PF and use that with a 1.4TC or crop sensor to give me 700/750mm efl and to get the 100-400 for its versatility. I can’t afford a 600mm or 800mm f6.3. The 100-400 and 500 both weigh about 1.4kg and that’s about the most I wan’t to handhold. I can imagine carrying 1.4kg in a lens case and 1.4kg on the end of the camera rather than 2.1kg on the end of the camera. I’m sure old age has something to do with it.
Velimir
December 18, 2024 11:26 am
Hello. Congratulations on the review and the magical photos. Mу question is this: is this lens worth buying for my very budget Z5 body? Will there be a problem with autofocus, sharpness, locking or other problems.
Dennis ng
November 11, 2024 9:24 pm
Wonder whether z50ii with thist lens. Weight is a concern hence the max len I did with z9 is 400/4.5. But with z50ii might be this lens is within my weight budget. You lost the crop flexibility of z9 full/dx and full with more pixel, but you have 180-…zoom part to compensate. Wonder?
Alex
August 28, 2024 1:15 pm
Something that would be interesting is comparing various lengths with the TC and without, like 1.4x at 285 = 399 vs just base 400, 1.4x at 428 = 599.2 vs just base 600. Would let you see how much sharpness you lose overall while using the TC and not just what the sharpness is at the max length with the TC.
MartinG
August 15, 2024 8:57 am
The 180-600 is working well for me. It’s the flexibility I enjoy most. It is an ideal lens for wildlife and birding safari trips. For me it’s weight, size and consistency of image quality plus very good VR. This lens is much easier to travel with than my 500F4. The pluses outweigh the minuses on the 180-600. I was surprised to find it coping very well in very low light and very slow shutter speeds (1/20th sec) when I tried it. I expected the images to be soft. I was wrong, and several shots were nice and sharp despite the circumstances including hand holding at such slow speeds. You are right about VR and tripod etc. mounting. I temporarily made Fn2 a button to turn AF mode via linking it to the top my menu item.
mitchell
July 18, 2024 10:22 am
Any future plans for a Sony 200-600 resolution test? And head to head against the 180-600 and/or the new DN version Sigma’s 150-600 Sport or their 500 5.6? How the Sigma 500 5.6 compares against the treasured Nikon 500 PF could be an interesting reveal and battle. Just a modern super telephoto and ultra telezoom fight would be cool to see.
Mike
May 23, 2024 6:51 am
Thanks for a great review with important information! I own the 180-600z and bought it for flexibility at Air Shows and Birds. Its a great value for the money and a better version over the 200-500, which I had two copies with issues on soft focus at the long end.
For the price one can’t go wrong and have Very Good sharpness in one’s Images. I have used the 600pf on my Z9 and it’s a great lens with very good AF, much lighter, Prime “S” lens, more expensive. I only wish they made a f4 version of the 500/600 primes of the past, without having to buy 600 f4TC at $16K! Love the 500f4g, but the 10 lbs adds up at the end of the day. Now I mainly use it on a tripod or monopod for the early mornings.
James
April 8, 2024 5:39 am
Interesting review, but the images speak for them self. And that is the issue here, these lenses are all fantastic and I am very impressed with the Tamron results. The 150-500 at the price is a crazy good lens and I think when Nikon release the Z6iii or even a DX camera with great focus, this lens will be fantastic value. Even the 70-300 Tamron as a second zoom lens to a prime lens shooter who wants a light weight zoom for flexibility is crazy good for the price. This lens like the Sony 200-600 and Canon 100-500 has become the go to lens for those who do not have the budget or the need to spend big $$ on a top end prime, and they smiling all the time.
Patrick M
February 29, 2024 2:37 pm
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?!?
The star ratings that you’re referencing were in error. Somehow the sub-scores got copied from a different lens review. It is definitely a 5/5 value lens, and sharpness is good but not 5/5. I’ve updated the review to reflect the proper star ratings.
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.
That’s a good reason for testing budget lenses on budget cameras – if you can afford a Z9, you’re going to buy lenses that are up to its standards – at least a 400/f4.5 or 800/f6.3.
It’d be good to see a retest of this lens with a Z6III and Z50II.
I totally understand that many people would like to know how a (relatively) budget lens works on a (relatively) budget body. On the other hand, bodies like the Z6/7 would very significantly bottlenecked the AF performance of such a lens. It would be a bit like testing optical performance on photos taken through a closed window. But I agree that cameras like the Z6III and Z50II would be great mates for 180-600mm. But unfortunately those were not available at the time of the test. BTW, a friend and great photographer uses just the Z8 and 180-600mm combination. Not because he can’t afford a better prime lens, but simply for the advantages that zoom brings. Just for the record, he previously had a D500 and a 200-400mm f/4 and switched to the 200-500mm f/5.6 because it provided better optical performance.
He obviously had a much better 200-500 than I did. It wouldn’t even focus on a gliding red kite in good conditions on a D7500 – something my old 300/f4D (with and without a 1.4 TC) did with ease. That and the ‘ok but far-from-great’ 80-400 (bearing in mind its price) has made me sceptical about these Nikon zooms. I hope this one is better …
So I got myself this lens along with the Nikon Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 S lens and I have to say they’re both great in terms of image quality. The one big drawback that I notice when I go out and shoot with the 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 is that it is very bulkly lens to carry around and hold, which sometimes can affect the sharpness quality when you shoot at the long end. I wonder how other folks feel about this, but the 100-400 if much easier to shoot with physically speaking at least from my end.
That’s my worry – I’ve been thinking about this for a few weeks.
I think my solution is to keep my 500/f5.6 PF and use that with a 1.4TC or crop sensor to give me 700/750mm efl and to get the 100-400 for its versatility. I can’t afford a 600mm or 800mm f6.3.
The 100-400 and 500 both weigh about 1.4kg and that’s about the most I wan’t to handhold. I can imagine carrying 1.4kg in a lens case and 1.4kg on the end of the camera rather than 2.1kg on the end of the camera.
I’m sure old age has something to do with it.
Hello. Congratulations on the review and the magical photos. Mу question is this: is this lens worth buying for my very budget Z5 body? Will there be a problem with autofocus, sharpness, locking or other problems.
Wonder whether z50ii with thist lens. Weight is a concern hence the max len I did with z9 is 400/4.5. But with z50ii might be this lens is within my weight budget. You lost the crop flexibility of z9 full/dx and full with more pixel, but you have 180-…zoom part to compensate. Wonder?
Something that would be interesting is comparing various lengths with the TC and without, like 1.4x at 285 = 399 vs just base 400, 1.4x at 428 = 599.2 vs just base 600. Would let you see how much sharpness you lose overall while using the TC and not just what the sharpness is at the max length with the TC.
The 180-600 is working well for me. It’s the flexibility I enjoy most. It is an ideal lens for wildlife and birding safari trips. For me it’s weight, size and consistency of image quality plus very good VR. This lens is much easier to travel with than my 500F4. The pluses outweigh the minuses on the 180-600. I was surprised to find it coping very well in very low light and very slow shutter speeds (1/20th sec) when I tried it. I expected the images to be soft. I was wrong, and several shots were nice and sharp despite the circumstances including hand holding at such slow speeds. You are right about VR and tripod etc. mounting. I temporarily made Fn2 a button to turn AF mode via linking it to the top my menu item.
Any future plans for a Sony 200-600 resolution test? And head to head against the 180-600 and/or the new DN version Sigma’s 150-600 Sport or their 500 5.6? How the Sigma 500 5.6 compares against the treasured Nikon 500 PF could be an interesting reveal and battle. Just a modern super telephoto and ultra telezoom fight would be cool to see.
Thanks for a great review with important information! I own the 180-600z and bought it for flexibility at Air Shows and Birds. Its a great value for the money and a better version over the 200-500, which I had two copies with issues on soft focus at the long end.
For the price one can’t go wrong and have Very Good sharpness in one’s Images. I have used the 600pf on my Z9 and it’s a great lens with very good AF, much lighter, Prime “S” lens, more expensive. I only wish they made a f4 version of the 500/600 primes of the past, without having to buy 600 f4TC at $16K! Love the 500f4g, but the 10 lbs adds up at the end of the day. Now I mainly use it on a tripod or monopod for the early mornings.
Interesting review, but the images speak for them self. And that is the issue here, these lenses are all fantastic and I am very impressed with the Tamron results. The 150-500 at the price is a crazy good lens and I think when Nikon release the Z6iii or even a DX camera with great focus, this lens will be fantastic value. Even the 70-300 Tamron as a second zoom lens to a prime lens shooter who wants a light weight zoom for flexibility is crazy good for the price. This lens like the Sony 200-600 and Canon 100-500 has become the go to lens for those who do not have the budget or the need to spend big $$ on a top end prime, and they smiling all the time.
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?!?
The star ratings that you’re referencing were in error. Somehow the sub-scores got copied from a different lens review. It is definitely a 5/5 value lens, and sharpness is good but not 5/5. I’ve updated the review to reflect the proper star ratings.
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.
The limiting factor in that case is the Z6 or Z7, not the lens. It can focus as quickly and accurately as those cameras are capable of achieving.
That’s a good reason for testing budget lenses on budget cameras – if you can afford a Z9, you’re going to buy lenses that are up to its standards – at least a 400/f4.5 or 800/f6.3.
It’d be good to see a retest of this lens with a Z6III and Z50II.
I totally understand that many people would like to know how a (relatively) budget lens works on a (relatively) budget body. On the other hand, bodies like the Z6/7 would very significantly bottlenecked the AF performance of such a lens. It would be a bit like testing optical performance on photos taken through a closed window. But I agree that cameras like the Z6III and Z50II would be great mates for 180-600mm. But unfortunately those were not available at the time of the test. BTW, a friend and great photographer uses just the Z8 and 180-600mm combination. Not because he can’t afford a better prime lens, but simply for the advantages that zoom brings. Just for the record, he previously had a D500 and a 200-400mm f/4 and switched to the 200-500mm f/5.6 because it provided better optical performance.
He obviously had a much better 200-500 than I did. It wouldn’t even focus on a gliding red kite in good conditions on a D7500 – something my old 300/f4D (with and without a 1.4 TC) did with ease. That and the ‘ok but far-from-great’ 80-400 (bearing in mind its price) has made me sceptical about these Nikon zooms. I hope this one is better …