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.
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.
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?
Having used a z6 and Z8 i can tell you that’s the camera not the lens
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.
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.
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.
I tried out the Z180-600 at a dealer today with a Z6ii — it struggled to latch on to faces etc indoors…🥴
Having used a z6 and Z8 i can tell you that’s the camera not the lens
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