Nikon 180-600mm Sharpness And AF Speed Tests!

[@antonoat]

Steve you are the man, lol, thanks a bunch for providing this for all us inquisitive minds, I guess there are plenty of us! The quality of the video hints at the quality that your books achieve, precise facts and accurate data as always. Thank you very much ,these comparison videos take a lot of time and effort! All the best, Tony.👏😀👍

[@FlyinRyanProductions406]

Been using it for little over 2 weeks and am completely satisfied. Got some great hummingbird shots feeding on thistle. Seems to be a vast improvement over my old 200-500.

[@joanneabramson2645]

Your comparison to the Nikon 200-500mm is what I am looking for. Thanks.

[@frederichore1890]

Can you quantify please what is "a vast improvement" over the 200-500? Is that overall sharpness, corner-to-corner sharpness, contrast, focus speed - what is it please? I own the 200-500 too and found the results I'm getting with my copy of the lens to be excellent in the 400-500mm range. I usually have the lens stopped down one stop for max corner-to-corner sharpness. Cheers and thanks from Montréal.

[@FlyinRyanProductions406]

@@frederichore1890 my keeper rate is way up, not saying it wasn’t my copy of the 200-500 but the focus accuracy is much improved from my 200-500. It really seems to lock the focus better and keep it there. The 180-600 defiantly seems to be slightly sharper also. Having that extra 100mm for me too is also a huge deal as I’m mainly shooting small birds. The short throw of the zoom is a really nice improvement also. I’m personally very impressed with this lens.

[@frederichore1890]

@@FlyinRyanProductions406 Thank you for taking the time to reply. Looks like it may be time for a trade-in or upgrade.

[@nealewatson3937]

Steve was the speed on the Z7 of the 180-600 lens and a typo 180-200

[@Gameplayconfig]

The amount of useful information is incredible, I would spend months looking for this on the internet and in the end not have a conclusion, incredible work!

[@georgedavall9449]

This Man never ceases to amaze me! Seriously, I appreciate the tremendous effort Steve! I know it makes for great content, but we all know your dedication and desire to educate and help others. This looks like a really good lens, and maybe I will be able to afford it in like 5 years! 😆 Lot of good comments in here. What a great community. Happy and safe shooting to all! 👍✌😊

[@clarkmai4924]

I got my Z180-600 on August 31. Your amazing comparison video really helps me know this lens better. Thank you, Steve.

[@patrickmolloy6994]

next week I'm taking this thing (the z180-600) to Florida ! can't wait! Great thing Steve. I have rented the z400 f4.5 which I used with my 2xTC and last month I rented the 100-400 and a 1.4x TC. Totally agree with your results, and that's why I bought this 180-600.

[@backcountrygallery]

That's so cool! Have fun!!

[@MrDaveB123]

Thanks for all the work and test results. I have never really liked my Z 100- 400 and happy to see the 180 - 600 is sharper. Im gonna sell the 100-400. Sharper, more affordable and more reach the 180 - 600 seems like a good choice to me.

[@vijayp154]

Thanks, Steve, for a thorough video outlining all the comparable options against this lens. Really appreciate all the effort and dedication you put into making these videos available for us. Currently I have a Z9 and I'm sitting on the wall with my old 200-500mm for a potential upgrade to this new Nikon zoom or Z 400 4.5 or to the 500pf. While you've included the focus speeds for the native ranges of these lenses, it would be really helpful if you could also include thier focus speeds with the 1.4 TC. As I feel the 500mm or the 400mm are still not long enough for shooting small birds and if I did end up with either of these lenses, I would also end up buying a 1.4 TC. Thanks again for a very insightful video and look forward to the next one. Cheers.

[@russandloz]

I'm in exactly the same situation, really can't decide between the 400 4.5 and the 180-600. From this video doesn't look much in it with the same settings?

[@donminard9949]

Steve, thank you very much for another very good, helpful and thorough video. Useful information and well presented. Really appreciate your insights and presentation!

[@1971wizzard]

These comparisons are all well and fine on a side by side basis. If you were presented either comparison lens output quality in isolation, I wager no one would even notice. If you have either lens you are very fortunate to have one of Nikons finest. I really enjoy your videos, clear concise explanations and informative.

[@backcountrygallery]

I agree 100% I honestly don't like doing these kinds of tests / videos, but I get a lot of requests. I think the bottom line is how happy you are with how the lens performs in the field.

[@georgetrimmer3077]

Would have been valuable to see the old 200-500 f lens compared. Thanks for this though…as always, a great and useful video.

[@tomdearie5165]

Thanks for the info Steve - and for the updated setup guide for Z8 and Z9. Well worth the read when I set up both cameras. 👍 If you could only pick one of the lenses between the 400mm f/4.5 and the 180-600mm, and price was not an issue, what would your gut choice be? I shoot from the kayak a lot and currently own the 200-500mm f/5.6 and a 70-200mm f/2.8. I shoot at dawn and dusk a lot, and would like to push my shooting envelope a little further. I was recently on Vancouver Island and got some incredible shots of coastal wolves with the 200-500mm, but the ISO was getting pretty astronomical at dawn. Cheers!

[@backcountrygallery]

That's really tough. I like the speed of the F/4.5 lens, but in a kayak I like the versatility of the zoom just a little more. The trick is - how close are you getting? If you're always wanting 600mm (or were always at 500mm on the 200-500), then the zoom seems like the way to go. If you can get within range of the 400 most of the time though, that's what I would pick.

[@tomdearie5165]

My dilemma indeed. 😊 I really get a mix - a lot of my shots are at 500mm, but my best ones are closer and I’d appreciate the extra low-light speed. On my longer shots, I often have time to put on a 1.4TC. Tricky call - but at least I’m not the only one who thinks so. Maybe convince my wife I need both. 🙄 Thanks for the input!👍

[@marleenvandam6931]

Thanks Steve for this great comparaison!The impact of lower ISO values due to faster lenser might have a bigger impact than the small differences we have seen here.Quite astonishing to see the Sony is such a fast lens.Waiting for my 600 Z TC to be used on my Z9.

[@JacobG-M]

Steve, amazing content as usual. Thank you, Sir! The chart you used - is there a specific vendor/ source?

[@backcountrygallery]

I got it off of Ebay, but can't seem to find them anymore - not that exact one anyway.

[@ele4853]

I am so happy you made this test. Man! The difference between the 180-600 and the 600 TC is so little. I would have the Z 400 TC for the 2.8 aperture and add the zoom and together with my Z800PF I am well served : ) Dude, Nikkor is the winner. No sony for me LOL.

[@martyseppala3757]

Awesome work here Steve Thank You!

[@KishoreBhargava]

As usual yet another wonderful and informative video Steve! I do have an odd question and situation. As an amateur bird and wildlife photographer, I do need the reach of a 600 and can't really handle either the weight or the price of the primes. Question: Should I add the 180-600mm to my kit or replace my 100-400mm with it? Ideally, I would like to replace since handling multiple lenses and bodies in the field is a nightmare for me. Based in India, we do get the opportunity to shoot some of the big cats, mostly tigers and leopards and I find even for those despite them being close a 200 to 400 mm lens is usually more than enough. A 600mm gives opportunities for some amazing portraits. Would love your advise on this. Once again thanks for all the wonderful books and videos you put out. Cheers…Kishore - Nikon Z9 : 24-120 : 100-400

[@backcountrygallery]

I'd say as long as you don't routinely need less than 200mm, the 200-600 for sure.

[@KishoreBhargava]

@@backcountrygalleryThanks Steve, I do have the 24-120 f/4 for the shorter distances. I guess the 180-600 mm can safely replace my 100-400.

[@rocketmanab]

Man this lens looks like a winner...I was planning to get the 200-500 5/6 to pair with a Z7ii but I think I'll save my pennies and go for this 180-600. Just seems like great value.

[@RealChrisinAZ]

Great review Steve, Thank you!

[@bheardnow6410]

What about the focal length comparison on the 180-600 with a consistent f6.3? Was the variation in sharpness a factor of focal length or f stop?

[@greglepper7739]

Thank you very much for doing this tedious test Steve. I’ve been waiting till I saw it to order one. In the meantime, I’ll use my 500pf. Looking forward to your reports of the 180-600 in the field. Questions such as bokeh and the trade off of stopping down for maximum sharpness vs. loss of light come to mind. Perhaps the warbler migration can call you out of the test studio, lol. Thanks again.

[@shadow479]

What a beast the 180-600mm is based on your comparison!!

[@TheHawkMaverick]

Great comparison! Thank you Steve (y). Can you do, or do you have a sharpness comparison bewteen the 600/4 TC S and the 800/6.3 PF lens?

[@richardwojtczak5521]

Very useful! Thanks Steve!

[@henningmartin2000]

Great video! 🤩👍 However, keep on mind, that HDMI output might affect AF speed, since this is another task for the image processor many photographers might not apply. It's kinda fair, since the conditions stayed the same, but results may vary without HDMI output.

[@backcountrygallery]

It could - it's pretty much impossible to do it any other way though :) As you say, all the lenses were tested with the same setup, so relatively speaking, it gives you a good idea of the differences.

[@gordonmcintosh3159]

Hi Steve. You might note that you are showing the 180-600 as 180-200 in your speed test section on the Z7II

[@backcountrygallery]

Yeah, I messed up - I neglected to proof read (it's been an exhausting week of testing). The frustrating this is the YT doesn't let you upload a replacement. So, I'm stuck with it.

[@eesyako]

Now I see why Nikon took their time to release the 180-600. They are shooting themselves in the foot with this being sharper than 100-400 S lens.

[@mcsquaredjr]

I would love to see how lenses perform at the same aperture values, and probably closed down a bit.

[@scottfairbairn6305]

Great review; it answers a lot of questions I had. Two comments: the Sony lens appears to have a fair bit of pincushion distortion at that distance, judging by the chart warpage? Also, I have seen image comparisons that show the Nikon has less focus breathing at close distances, so the subject is larger in the frame on the Nikon. Any observations on those two items?

[@backcountrygallery]

I noticed that too with the Sony, but I'm not 100% sure if Nikon is just correcting it in the RAW files or if Sony really is worse. In the field, it hasn't been an issue since it mostly affects the edges. As for focus breathing, I haven't checked that - yet :)

[@TheRapTrue]

Hello Steve, is there a chance you could do a test of 180-600 vs 200-500 f/5.6 E ED VR? I am very curious about the results because I am wondering whether to replace my 200-500 with FTZ with a 180-600 for the native Z mount. Great test and best regards

[@backcountrygallery]

I no longer own the 200-500, so I wasn't able to test it.

[@wenyulian9584]

Really appreciate you great work.

[@JohanSchmidt]

Excellent video Steve. How does its focus speed compare to say the F mount 400 f2.8 AFS?

[@backcountrygallery]

I don't have that lens to compare. I have a feeling the 400 2.8 is faster though :)

[@Mark-Rubberduck]

Hello Steve, Thank you very much for your work.👏 Can you please compare the 180-600 with the 200-500. I sent my 180-600 back today. My 200-500 is visibly sharper than the 180-600 at 200, 500 and even digital zoomed to 600 to the new one the old lens was sharper. I had to stop down to f8.0 on the 180-600 to even be comparable and not at all better. I am so disappointed right now.

[@rariscn]

Hi Steve, Always enjoy your tests. A question on the focus speed test, since the Nikon 100-400mm has a much closer minimum focus distance (2.5 feet) versus the other lenses, does this give the 100-400mm an unfair disadvantage in the focus speed test?

[@backcountrygallery]

It might. However, the reason I test this way isn't so much because people focus from MFD to infinity all that often - it's because when AF misses, the lens hunts. The faster it can run through the range, the faster it can get back on target :)

[@rariscn]

Thanks

[@Blueangel290393]

just bought the heaviest 300mm 2.8 Nikon, the AF-S D version and would never ever want to replace it.❤ Even with the tc-17e ii it is very sharp.

[@stripes_in_raw]

Thanks a lot Sir for comparing it with the 400mm f4.5. After seeing i am wondering is it worth getting the 1.4Tc for the 400mm f4.5 ? But rather crop a 45MP to around 19Mp for 600mm & 10MP for around 840mm photo which i think will be sharper without the Tc if i sacrifice the megapixels.

[@backcountrygallery]

The 400 4.5 is still pretty good with the TC - I use it that way all the time and I've been very happy with the results (I just add a touch of extra sharpening and all is well with the world). Plus, it's lighter and faster than the zoom. I'll end up using both for sure.

[@stripes_in_raw]

@@backcountrygallery ok thank you 🙏🏽 , i will get a Tc then. The 400 f4.5 is very enjoyable to use.

[@quantum_nebula_92]

Would love to see a sharpness comparison between this and Nikkor 200-500 or Tamron 150-600 G2

[@backcountrygallery]

Sadly, I don't own either of those lenses at this time.

[@bobbullethalf]

The lens is great and the whole Nikon Z system is a very special camera system.

[@blimp65]

The Sony 200-600mm has been criticised for focus breathing, which apparently seems severe. The Nikon in comparison is said to show almost none. Very important when shooting closer up not to have an effectively shrinking focal length rather than the one marked. Could you run a test to discover if this is true?

[@backcountrygallery]

I might - it's easy enough to test. I could set the 600 F/4 on a tripod and fill the frame with the target and then compare how the two zooms fill the frame at that same distance (which is relatively close since it's an 17x11 target),

[@blimp65]

That would be very interesting. 1955 UTC

[@mm8276352]

I have the 180-600 as well as the 100-400, 800 and 400/2.8, and my own test results were very similar. However, I find the 180-600 may have slighly less contrast than the primes and the 100-400, which I think is also visible in Steve's images. Also, it tends to show more flares in backlight situation than the S lenses, including the 100-400. That might be a factor when deciding which zoom to take into the field if you aim for backlighted shots.

[@haydennettleton3272]

It's because the 180-600 doesn't have any Nanocoated elements. I notice the same thing when comparing my 200-500 and 70-200F4. My experience is lenses with at least 1 Nanocoated element tend to have more contrast, and images kinda pop more. Its almost like using a weak polarising filter vs none.

[@MikeMenegus]

I was on the verge whether I should buy the 180-600 vs 100-400 on a Z8 body. I ended up ordering the 180-600 a few days before this video came out, and your review confirmed I made the right choice for my photography.

[@brucegraner5901]

I no longer shoot Nikon but I can't help but appreciate the effort you put into these tests. I would be very interested if you made such a comparison between full-frame and MFT glass. Your work is a valuable resource to the photographic community.

[@MarkReese]

Thanks for doing this test, Steve! Incredibly helpful 🏆 Do you have any insights on the 180-600 Z vs. 180-400 f/4 TC?

[@lauramacky4083]

This is very helpful! Thank you so much. I appreciate you including the 500 pf as a comparison.

[@vfr800ch]

It would also have been interesting to see your same detailed analysis of the pros/cons compared to the F mount 200-500mm f/5.6. Others have noted the older lens is sharper in the middle but not at the edges, and would be interesting to see your opinion on that

[@minusinfinity6974]

This excellent analysis by you Steve just confirms how far zoom lenses have come in the last 5 years in terms of IQ. Given that we were at 200% views to really see difference even against the super expensive primes is just remarkable. And IQ even with a 1.4x TC is excellent. Having said that when is Nikon going to make a 500 f/4.5 sister to the 400 f/4.5 and deliver us that long ago patented 600 f/5.6 PF. Even if I won powerball I would not buy the 600 TC despite it's superb quality. My days of lugging giant lenses are long gone. A sub 2kg 500 f/4.5 would be a dream come true.

[@yophotodude7693]

Great, and patient review. The only thing I think I would have done differently is I would have compared them at equal focal lengths when using the TCs. That is the 400s with the TC are 560mm. I would have pulled the 180-600 back to 560 to compare. I think this would have been the most important with the 500pf + 1.4x as 500mm on the 180-600 seems to be the sweet spot, so a 700 to 700 would have been a bit better of a test. Still, I appreciate the effort. The 180-600 seems to hold its own against more expensive lenses.

[@mikedavis1110]

Steve I just got my lens used it for Fighter jets and was very impressed with the results! I had read it might be soft at 600 @ 6.3, but it did well in my view. Your test seem to support my experience with the lens with jets being at 500’ away! Glad to read the 180-600 holds it’s own against the other lens, with the primes doing better on the edges! I wanted the lens for Airshow/BIF flexibility in closeups of the plane and four ship formations all in one lens. Haven’t tried it with birds at this point, but I am very optimistic based on your sharpness testing. Thanks again and fantastic information as usual!!

[@rickhemphill3213]

Great video Steve! This video provides a lot of good comparison info for those considering the purchase of any of these lenses. It was interesting to see how close all the lenses are in sharpness at the center, but also good to see how much the sharpness drops off (or doesn't) as you move out toward the edges.

[@cryptographerchris4856]

The effort and time you put into all these videos are so appreciated. Can't thank you enough.

[@SymbiotAlpha]

The z8 and this 180-600 looks awesome combo. I'm happy with the a7IV w 200-600 for now. Almost got me Nikon, well played.

[@ludovicgrignou]

Have you measured the AF speed of the 800 pf and the 400 2.8 tc? THANKS

[@thomashecht71]

Perfect timing. I’m currently looking for an addition to my 100-400 for more focal range. This video helps me make my decision. Thanks a lot, Steve, this is awesome.

[@longrider9551]

I don't see anyone making poor glass these days CAD has enabled almost perfect modeling. With lasers and fine calibration manufacturing even quality control is mostly a thing of the past, within name brand lenses. As always Steve you provide accurate and honest insight.

[@thethirdman225]

I don't even test these days, except for focus calibration.

[@senseofeverthing]

Thank you for your efforts! Could you also do a test for focusbreathing on closer distances? As far as I know this is a huge problem with the Sony 200-600 which makes you loose a lot of it's potential magnification at closer distances. Would be interesting to see whether there are similar problems with the 180-600 since this impacts the feasability for small birds on closer distance.

[@stanw4317]

I was waiting for your analysis of the various lens. Again you did not disappoint! The time spent performing and then rendering your expert evaluations are so very much appreciated.

[@guylorenzo5324]

Hi Steve! Great video as always! Thanks for the detailed lens comparisons. It nice to see how close in sharpness the zoom is to the other lenses, especially in the middle. I have a 500PF adapted to my Z9 and love it, but the versatility of the 180-600mm will make it a great addition to my lineup. Like others, though, mine has been on order since June, and I am anxiously awaiting its arrival. Hopefully before the fall migration is over!

[@mohanbharadwaj5156]

Hi Steve @backcountrygallery, Thank you for making a detailed video to educate enthusiasts. I use a Z7ii and I have heard from many photographers that the it is not a good body for the birds. What do you think of 180-600 on Z7ii for birds. unfortunately, I'm unable to upgrade to Z8/9 as yet.

[@backcountrygallery]

It's not the lens in this case, it's the camera. The problem is, Nikon has really good high end bodies and their lenses are great overall - but they don't have any high-performance mid-range bodies. The Z7ii can do birds in a pinch (flying birds I'm assuming here) - heck, I've used it for that in the past. However, the Z8 or Z9 will do a better job. It's not so much that you can't do birds with the Z7ii, it's that you'll tend to get more keepers with the Z8/9.

[@mohanbharadwaj5156]

@@backcountrygallery thanks Steve, appreciate you clarifying my doubt.

[@jimwlouavl]

Thanks for taking the time to do such an extensive test. The 180-600 seems like a great lens for those of us who only occasionally need the longer focal lengths.

[@jotwee63]

Today I traded in all of my old camera equipment and ordered a Z8 with the Nikon 180-600. Now the painful, indefinite time of waiting begins… 😱

[@backcountrygallery]

I think Z8s are easy to come by, but no idea on that 180-600. Fingers crossed for a short wait period!

[@jotwee63]

In Germany it‘s still „1 - 3 months“ at all shops, so fingers crossed 😊

[@sunil3135]

Excellent review answering most common questions for people who are thinking of buying these lenses. All in all - the Nikon 180-600 is impressive!

[@helmut7878]

Hi Steve, thanks for the Test 👍 I’m waiting for my Pre-Ordered Lens. 😢 Greetings from Germany

[@backcountrygallery]

Hopefully it comes soon - it worth the wait though :)

[@ranjankmsphotography]

Steve, I'm surprised that you didn't compare it with the Nikon 200-500 mm f/5.6 F mount 😮 Many Z9, Z8 users or to be users are waiting for that comparison.

[@backcountrygallery]

I don't own one.

[@cs1089]

Thank you for another amazing video! Regarding the slow AF speed of the 100-400 lens, I was wondering if near-focus distance is a factor. i.e. the 100-400 can focus down to .75m while the 400mm only goes to 2.5m. Could the greater focus range of the 100-400 explain the slower speed? Thank you!

[@OracleTestlab]

Being a Nikkor 200-500mm user I would appreciate a comparison of that lens with 180-600mm.

[@patrickmorgan7173]

Interesting as to why?

[@hareebalzak3681]

​@@patrickmorgan7173to see if it's worth upgrading

[@backcountrygallery]

I don't own one, so I have to way to compare.

[@1bookhouse1]

Ricci does a really in-depth comparison of all the Nikon long zooms

[@jcollins9083]

Me too!

[@WatchmanNiel]

Steve, thanks this is great! I definitively want to upgrade my Sigma 150-600 Sport due to the weight and handling, even though I have no idea how the sharpness compares. I am really pleased to see that the new Nikon does not disappoint overall, it is great across the entire focal range! Thanks also for including the comparison to the 500 PF, as well as the info on the Z7ii! You were spot on, this is my bread and butter combo for birds!

[@jazinzlaty4823]

I don’t understand why to produce budget wildlife lens and not budget wildlife camera. Same with Canon but the other way. Budget wildlife cameras and expensive zoom lenses

[@backcountrygallery]

They still might - I don't know for sure, but I doubt we've seen all Nikon is going to do camera-wise.

[@JacobG-M]

I have used a Sigma 150-600mm Sport (The Beast!) on an APS-C Nikon Zfc. It did amazing, even without IBIS. The effective 900mm certainly made a difference and Sigma’s IS performed admirably.

[@Ben_Stewart]

Thank you the for 400 f4.5 1.4tele comparison. Looks like I have some overlapping capabilities with my 180-600 and 400. Not a bad problem to have though.

[@backcountrygallery]

FWIW, I'm keeping my 400 4.5. I often want a lighter, faster focusing lens (especially while hiking) and it fits the bill nicely. It's been a great walk-around lens for me.

[@markr3926]

Great info. I'm still at a deadlock between the 180-600 and the 400 f4.5 Scared of being too close or too far away in a situation where moving forward or backward isn't an option. Tipping slightly toward the 400 f4.5 purely on the basis of being fast at f4.5 v f6 at 400mm on the 180-600 .

[@bbq-man3058]

why not test vs 200-500 Lens ?

[@backcountrygallery]

I would have liked to, but I don't have one anymore

[@popeyesweetpea]

The relevant comparison between this lens with and without a TC is a comparison of the images taken from the *same* distance, and then cropping one to make them the same size. Then you wouldn't have to guess if the differences you show make the TC worth it or not. You said I *think* I wouldn't use the 2X, but rather the 1.4X with cropping. Well, compare *those* images, and you could say for sure which way is better. Of course, it depends on available light. A TC may be better than cropping if there's plenty of light, but if image quality is limited by noise, then the higher ISO required with a TC may not be compensated by the longer reach. In my tests with a sigma 150-600, a cropped image without a TC is almost always better than the uncropped image with a TC (with a 45 MP sensor). For that lens, TC's are a scam. I'd like to see if they are a scam for Nikon's version as well. Your comparisons do not answer that question.

[@christosphillips3568]

I particularly liked your T-shirt Steve..........decorated with dog hair......just like mine ones 😊...it takes one to know one 🫶❤....Great job again you've knocked it out of the park yet again my man, thanks for sharing, great stuff!!

[@NickTheGreek-m3x]

I am waiting for the nikon apsc camera to be released

[@backcountrygallery]

There' are a lot of people in that category. :)

[@NickTheGreek-m3x]

@@backcountrygallery I hope that will be prised in the 1300-1400 dollars prise range and that wil😀l be annaounced soon. What is your opinion? Cheers Nick!!! Keep creating!!!

[@backcountrygallery]

@@NickTheGreek-m3x I'd be surprised if it were that inexpensive. I think in order to have a real D500 replacement, you'd need a stacked DX sensor and stacked sensors are (currently) expensive. In fact, I wonder if that's the reason it hasn't happened - it might cost so much for a stacked DX sensor you might as well buy a Z8. I dunno.

[@NickTheGreek-m3x]

@@backcountrygallery I agree. Which do you think is the best option for under 2300 dollars?

[@NickTheGreek-m3x]

I mean a kit

[@mikariekki5708]

I wish lens reviews would also test sharpness at longer distances. Air between the target would be a variable outdoors, but maybe do some testing at a indoor gun range or something? In my so far limited experience with a Sigma 150-600C, sharpness at infinity and about 300-400 m away seem to be about a 1/4th or 1/3rd when compared to a test chart distance at 100% crop. Show us real world 100% crops, so we know what to expect from a lens, or is it a given, that with distance comes softness?

[@abhijitbanerjee3424]

Hi Steve, In this review you mentioned 500PF lens speed on Z9 is 0.57 sec. In another your review " first week with the Z8" you mentioned 500PF lens speed on both Z9 & Z8 is 0.45 sec. Can you please clarify which is CORRECT SPEED??

[@Matt90541]

Looks slightly sharper than the Sony 200-600 to me. Great lens. I'd probably use the focus limiter to increase speed but not a huge deal for me. Have not considered shooting Nikon since the DSLR dominated days...maybe I'll look that direction when Nikon's next body is released. Thew white canon lenses are so ugly.

[@backcountrygallery]

It's close for sure. At the extreme ends, I think Nikon does have an edge.

[@s2sailorlis]

To my eyes, the 500pf is sharper in center with slightly better acuity. Don’t agree with him on that….;). Also as another poster mentioned, these studio tests aren’t the best measure. When looking at an intricate bird feather, those slight differences DO make a difference. Also, off center sharpness matters, some times that winning BIF shot ain’t gonna be dead center. BTW, I am a big Steve fan, just think the 500pf is better in this case.

[@Bayshore958]

I was as surprised with the results here as I was last night when I put it on my Z8 for the first time. It’s an absolute bargain, even in Canada.

[@jaimeduncan6167]

Thanks for the tests. Maybe adding flare resistance could be interesting. Also, notice the Apertures. The lenses were not shot at the same aperture. There is no right way to do it. On one hand, the test is not fair, maybe closedown the 400mm f4.5 will look substantially better than the 180-600mm same for the same aperture. Some people shoot the test at f8 and be done with it. On the other hand, the tests at maximum aperture are more practical for wildlife photographers. With modern AF one is normally shooting at full aperture or closer, trying to get the shutter speed as high as possible, and the ISO as low as possible. My personal take is that I prefer this channel approach for long lenses, and the uniform aperture or multiple for lenses that are often shot in a studio.

[@backcountrygallery]

Ahh, someone who gets it :) You make good point - since this is a wildlife-centric channel, I test wide open :)

[@helmutnirag5242]

My 180-600 Z lens will arrive soon and I am looking forward. I should sell my 100-400 Z lens very quick before to many people recognize your video. 🙂

[@brucemiller5306]

Great video (as all yours are)! I wonder how much difference 100mm makes? How does the sharpness compare from the 180-600 @ 600 vs the 500pf cropped to 600? Would it be worth changing for 100mm on the long end? I am shooting the Z8 w/2.0. I have an adaptive 500PF lens and it is actually my only lens! I live in Ohio and shoot birds 99.9% of the time. I have been contemplating moving to the 180-600. I was in Florida for 2 weeks and when I'm down there, I always get frustrated with having too much lens. But in Ohio, I never have enough. I am mostly shooting song birds that are small! I almost always have to crop and I do shoot DX mode a lot. I've never had much luck shooting with a teleconverter. I find the cropped pics come out better than using a 1.4x.

[@dbspano]

Thanks for your hard work and great video, Steve! I own the 100-400 (sometimes using the 1.4 TC) and love the way it handles, especially after hours hand-holding in the field. In your opinion, do the differences in sharpness between the two lenses outweigh (pun intended) the differences in handling?

[@backcountrygallery]

Handling is really subjective. For me, I like the internal zoom and extra versatility, so although the 100-400 is easier to handle, I don't find this much more difficult and happily trade a little handling for the extra versatility. Sharpness is pretty close for practice purposes I think, although I think I'd avoid the 100-400 with a TC and crop instead.

[@SonofTangra359]

Hi Steve, Nice comparison but it misses one important for me aspect -comparison of the image stabilization in handheld video and more specifically during pans. I have Sony and the IS in video is terrible, tried RF 100-500 and was in another league. Heard that the IBIS in video of the Nikon and 180-600 is the best among the full frame lenses. Haven't seen video comparisons unfortunately. I'm trekking a lot and don't carry most of the time heavy tripod and fluid head so the handheld video stabilization is very important for me. Do you have any impression of the video stabilization between 180-600 and 100-500 or perhaps can compare it in future video ?

[@sarimento1]

Thanks, Steve, for the really comprehensive comparisons! I was hoping to receive my 180-600Z prior to recent Alaska trip, but no luck and I pretty much used the 100-400Z +1.4ZTC for most of the wildlife shots. Once back home, of course, the 180-600 arrived at the door! I've done some crude comparisons, and indeed the 180-600 is a tad sharper than the 100-400+1.4TC. FWIW,Big However, is that the 180-600 is about 30% heavier and an inch or so longer than the 100-400, even with the 1.4TC. That will make a difference in handling out in the field for a couple hours. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to spending some time out with the new arrival. Appreciate your work and keep 'em coming!

[@benneves6649]

It's very obvious the Sony has severe pincushion distortion at 600mm. Was the Nikon corrected in post? Also decentering and tilt are exacerbated at shorter focal lengths so much more obvious.

[@stevetqp9152]

Wow Steve! A Fantastic test comparison between this new Nikkor zoom and others lenses (and itself)! I’m very happy that it fared well against the much pricier Nikkor 100-400! A question please…Am I correct in thinking that this lens used at APS-C mode on a Z8 would give better (sharper) results than using it in FF Mode with the 1.4x teleconverter? Thank you sir!

[@theferret62]

I think the question everyone asks is at 600 whats the difference using 1.4x TC vs cropping the 600 image? Has anyone done that test?

[@SimoneBrogini]

Steve this is great stuff, thank you for doing it!!!I own the 200-500mm f/5.6 and use it with a D500 and Z8. I am overall happy with the results I am getting but I have also noticed that the AF is slow. I would be curious to know if you have information on the AF speed of the 200-500mm compared with the new 180-600mm.

[@weibrot6683]

What focal lengh did you do the AF speed tests? I noticed on both the Z50 and Z6 that the lens is significantly faster towards the 180mm end than the 600mm end

[@abhijitbanerjee3424]

Hi, can you inform the AF speed of 180-600 while using with focus limiter?

[@chipsrafferty8362]

This is it…..this now fills my wants and needs,cutting up my credit cards. Thanks for the in depth no holes barred review,it means a lot to us Steve and justifies my reckless spending.

[@backcountrygallery]

LOL, Nikon's been hitting our wallets pretty hard lately!

[@pauldhoff]

I have no idea how I focused my cameras over 50 years ago without AF. I know it is now faster with AF when with hands even with slower lenses.

[@StevenDavisPhoto]

What do you feel is the sharpest aperture on the 180-600? f/8?

[@victorpeters589]

In the comparisons there's sometimes a difference in F-stop (e.g. the comparison between the 100-400 with the 180-600 the F-stop of both lenses is different, which might influence the sharpness).

[@backcountrygallery]

There is - however all lenses are wide open. :) As a wildlife-centric channel, I know most shooters want to know how a lens performs wide open, so that's how I compare. Although there is a difference, it's fairly universal that the toughest aperture on any lens is the wide-open one, regardless of F/stop. In addition, consider the 600 F/4 in this test. Although the zoom is "stopped down" an addition 1.3 stops, it's not even close. So, smaller wide-open F/stops don't really translate into an advantage.

[@rolandrickphotography]

Best comparison as usually, 1000 thanks. - Q: Was the lens correction for the Sony activated? Zoomed out at 200mm, there is clearly visible a pin cushion distortion. LrC has a strange behaviour, having import set to default, on some camera models it adds lens correction automatically (e.g. Leica) on some not. Maybe that happened here importing the Sony raw files?

[@backcountrygallery]

I can't recall - probably not. (I can't check as I'm on the road for the next month or so). I usually have all of the lens corrections off, so that's a safe bet.

[@davecunningham4054]

Thank you Steve! You put a lot of time and effort in the review. Everyone really appreciates the sharing of knowledge from you. - - - Thanks

[@badger-kr9nr]

Hi, do you find the AF motors noisy ? I have just received the lens and noticed it.. I have made a video of the issue on my channel. Do you have the same noise or mine is a lemon ?

[@skalavera36]

i don't like, because, it's not a studio lens... an di think it's very different to real condition.

[@davidledbitter3098]

Thank you Steve, I've been tussling with the Z 80 - 600 vs the Z 100 - 400 and you've solved my dilemma. I shoot motorsport and currently use a Z9, FTZ II adapter and 200 - 500 f5.6. It's generally been a great combination but this past weekend I had one of my worst shoots ever, thanks to a super hot day and heat haze and hand held. Or it's just me

[@backcountrygallery]

Heat haze will ruin photos from ANY lens, my 600TC included.

[@segercliffhanger]

This review must've cost you days if not weeks to produce. It's the third time I'm watching it, so extremely useful. I have the 100-400 and I love it but ever since the 180-600 came out and scored such applause, I've been thinking about getting it (and selling the 100-400). I'll be breaking my brain for an additional couple of weeks for sure, but then probably move over to the 180-600. It's longer and sharper apart from the start of its zoomrange. As you demonstrate. Even meeting your walls when attaching a 2xTC :). One thing that doesn't matter at all, it's almost purely esthetical, is the moving barrel on the 100-400 that I find really hard to live with. I don't care about moisture that can get in, even though it does. Getting your stuff dirty is good. It's simply the ugly looks of a barrel lens. My 24-120 is one of them. It's ugly and mine has started sagging because I use it all the time. Otherwise, a fantastic lens. Anyway, the 180-600 solves my barrel-issue hands-down. So, I'll be using a longer lens with a more precise in-the-field representation of later image crops that you often need to do using telelenses (which is hard which is good). In my bag, I will need to get rid of either a lens or the beer compartment (it stows one can) and I can finally stop considering getting a TC. I might be able to afford the 180-600 with the 100-400 when I sell it. All good. It will hurt!

[@backcountrygallery]

LOL, love the "beer compartment" - I through that was a typo at first :)