Thanks for the great sample photos. I tried to make photos with this zoom using all my PS knowledge from my 30 year career and I couldn’t. This lens is great with the zoom range, close focusing ability and price. But you have to ask yourself one question. Why are you buying this focal length? Because sharpness and clarity are the facts that separate this zoom and 600mm 6.3 prime very different leagues.
notep
April 22, 2025 10:07 pm
I already have 100-400 Z and would you recommend a 1.4 TC vs buying 180-600 Z? Any thoughts as I like 100-400 except certain situations I look for that extra little reach. 1.4 TC would give me 560 which is closer to 600mm. Thank you.
It depends, Notep, on which focal lengths you use the zoom most often. If you generally work within the 100-300mm (or 400mm) range, then your current zoom clearly has the edge over the 180-600mm. Anywhere beyond that range, the 180-600mm becomes the better choice. If you find yourself needing something around 600mm more often, I’d actually recommend the 600mm f/6.3. It’s lightweight, super sharp, and would make an excellent companion to your current zoom. Plus, a larger camera backpack can easily fit both lenses if needed.
Steven
February 11, 2025 10:33 pm
The filter size must be larger than 95mm to achieve the maximum aperture of 6.3 by calculation. It must be 95.238mm or larger. What is the actual measurement of the maximum aperture of this lens.
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.
After a year with the 180-600 F6.3 and a bit more than 10 years with the 500F4 G the 180-600 has proven itself a light easy to manage and handhold lens. It depends on your experience with long lenses. The 500 prime is not something I can handhold for long enough to focus and compose so I always used a monopod and monogimbal. The balance and image stabilisation in the 180-600 made it an ideal safari lens. It does not need a monopod for any part of locating the subject recomposing for composition and subject identification autofocus. I often use a Black Rapid shoulder strap when using it. I tend to carry it by the tripod mount which has an arca swiss plate added to it. From my perspective as I get even further into my 70s my future plans do involve making the leap to a 600PF 6.3. and trading in my beloved 500 F4 to reduce the cost a little bit.
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.
Would you recommend a LensCoat for this lens?
Thanks for the great sample photos. I tried to make photos with this zoom using all my PS knowledge from my 30 year career and I couldn’t. This lens is great with the zoom range, close focusing ability and price. But you have to ask yourself one question. Why are you buying this focal length? Because sharpness and clarity are the facts that separate this zoom and 600mm 6.3 prime very different leagues.
I already have 100-400 Z and would you recommend a 1.4 TC vs buying 180-600 Z? Any thoughts as I like 100-400 except certain situations I look for that extra little reach. 1.4 TC would give me 560 which is closer to 600mm. Thank you.
It depends, Notep, on which focal lengths you use the zoom most often. If you generally work within the 100-300mm (or 400mm) range, then your current zoom clearly has the edge over the 180-600mm. Anywhere beyond that range, the 180-600mm becomes the better choice. If you find yourself needing something around 600mm more often, I’d actually recommend the 600mm f/6.3. It’s lightweight, super sharp, and would make an excellent companion to your current zoom. Plus, a larger camera backpack can easily fit both lenses if needed.
The filter size must be larger than 95mm to achieve the maximum aperture of 6.3 by calculation. It must be 95.238mm or larger. What is the actual measurement of the maximum aperture of this lens.
𝑓/6.3 is on the one-third-stop f‑number scale, here:
AV = 5⅓ precisely
f‑number
𝑁 = 2^(0.5×AV)
entrance pupil diameter
𝐷 = 𝑓 / 𝑁
𝐷 = 600/(2^(0.5 × 5⅓) ≈ 94.5 mm
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…mber_scale
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.
After a year with the 180-600 F6.3 and a bit more than 10 years with the 500F4 G the 180-600 has proven itself a light easy to manage and handhold lens. It depends on your experience with long lenses. The 500 prime is not something I can handhold for long enough to focus and compose so I always used a monopod and monogimbal.
The balance and image stabilisation in the 180-600 made it an ideal safari lens. It does not need a monopod for any part of locating the subject recomposing for composition and subject identification autofocus. I often use a Black Rapid shoulder strap when using it. I tend to carry it by the tripod mount which has an arca swiss plate added to it.
From my perspective as I get even further into my 70s my future plans do involve making the leap to a 600PF 6.3. and trading in my beloved 500 F4 to reduce the cost a little bit.
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.