Nikon 180-600mm Sharpness And AF Speed Tests!

[@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.

[@pascallenoir5917]

I am about to make same investment: Z8 + 180-600, was hesitating with a 400 S serie

[@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! 👍✌😊

[@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.

[@lauramacky4083]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!!

[@cryptographerchris4856]

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

[@thomas-bear-hecht]

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.

[@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.

[@harryberry474]

I've heard very very good things about the Nikon 180-600 so today I finially bought one after reading and watching too many rave reviews it will be my first superzoom. I saw this test on KZbin and watched it and it just re-enforced what I'd heard elsewhere...This will be the first and last time I watch a comparison test like this, I'm glad I did though...it was almost headache inducing though. Thanks for posting

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.👏😀👍

[@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 .

[@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!

[@SirJohn64]

Thanks Steve. Now I can ditch the 100-400 from my wish list, and not being to hesitant to use the 1.4 TC on my 180-600. Great work.

[@dalekeith4961]

Steve, your sharpness comparisons lead me to believe that, just a little bit, will never be noticed in my photos. I am not sold on the 180-600 F until some shooters use it in the field. I have a concern for the mechanics of the lens. I have found the 100-400 and the 800 are quite robust in the field with weather misty to hot and muggy. The Z system is a winner for Nikon. By the way, I just received my Z8 back from a Nikon Factory check-up. I have a friend who has ordered the 180-600 and we will be able to try it out once cooler weather hits South Florida as it is just a little bit HOT. By the way, the retail price is fantastic. Sure wish Nikon would revisit their lens warranty policy. Again, thank you for a fine review. Now get out there in the woods and shoot it Happy member, Dale

[@noahwestbrook]

Steve always answers the questions I didn't even know I had! It is crazy how sharp zoom lenses have gotten compared to primes. The technological advancements for camera gear in the past decade have made it such a fun time to be a photographer.

[@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.

[@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

[@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!

[@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!

[@paulverma9770]

Vacillated between the 180-600 and 100-400 and decided on the former earlier today. This review has reaffirmed my decision. Thanks Steve! BTW love your channel as I have recently gotten into wild life from landscape photographyafter upgrading to a z8.

[@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.

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

Thanks for making such a lengthy, informative, and detailed comparison between these lenses.

[@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

[@clarkmai4924]

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

[@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!

[@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!

[@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.

[@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!

[@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

[@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!!

[@linhaixueyuan]

New Nikon owner (Z8, 180-600, 400/4.5), really appreciate your detailed test and review, super helpful !!

[@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?

[@MrRudyc]

Great job as usual. I’m still waiting for my copy, and can’t wait. Your work is always amazing. Thanks Steve….

[@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.

[@Charlie_YS]

This is the review I was hoping for, thank you so much Steve.

[@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 :)

[@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. 🙂

[@asamendigorin1512]

Great video. I can tell how much work went into this. Thank you !

[@theonlyredspecial]

Great video. I got to say Nikon did a great job with that 180-600 for the price ! I’ve shot a ton of motorbikes with it and in the Center it’s really exceptional. I’d love to use a 400mm 2.8 but I actually need a zoom because I am never always 100 percent sure where I will be placed.

[@cavalloi56]

Great test, the 180-600 has finally arrived, now it has to be used, I use it with the ZF but it's fine anyway Congratulations for the in-depth review ​

[@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.

[@Strodav]

Absolutely stellar work Steve. Thanks! For my Z9, I'm going to stay with a Megadap EZ21 and Sony 200-600mm for now and add the Z 800mm. I've still got my f mount 600mm f/4, nicknamed behemoth, should I feel the need for a 600mm prime. I'll probably pick up the 180-600mm later, but due to your hard work, I am not in a hurry. I can lend you my Medadap EZ21 if you'd like to play with it.

[@backcountrygallery]

Thanks! I've played with the adapter before but the truth is I'm just not overly interested in using one since I have both brands anyway. Although, it would be nice for lens tests - I could use the same camera, same resolution :)

[@amlanmohapatra8751]

Thank you so much for the hard work you have put to help us to make informed decisions. Just was curious to see it being compared with the legendary Nikon 200-500mm lens. If you ever find time please compare this lens with 200-500mm. Thanks a lot once again for putting in so much of effort.

[@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!!

[@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!

[@SebMercier]

Great video Steve, as usual! For AF speed, I wish you would use a different method: focus from one fixed point to another. Indeed, your current method is impacted by minimum focus distances. So it’s representative of a lens which would be hunting and with no focus limiter, but not of focus performance in most practical cases. With your current methodology, the 105mm f/2.8G would be slower than the 180mm f/2.8D, simply due to the vastly different minimum focus distance (of course this would be an exaggerated comparison).

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@chrishayes4785]

Excellent video Steve. While i have the 180-600 on order, back order is more accurate, at Adorama, i was looking for your usual great comparison tests and you didn't disappoint. All the information i needed. I am sure that many like me, are moving up from the 200-500 we had on the DSLR's, so a general comparison to that lens would help. Doesn't need to be a full one on one like the tests in this video. You're standing in this community is such that a statement is all thats needed. Thank you as always.

[@backcountrygallery]

I don't have a 200-500 or I would have inched it for sure. I've had a lot of requests, so I might see if I can borrow one.

[@1bookhouse1]

Thanks! This is the video I have been waiting for!

[@josephparks4270]

Super comparison. It tells me what I need to know. Thanks very much.

[@DiverNico410]

Bedankt

[@backcountrygallery]

Thanks so much!

[@erkkisiekkinen286]

Thank you for an excellent and deep review. I have got my z 180-600mm and have photographed for few days with it and sharpness wise it is very good. Last year I had 500mm pf and when I looked my older photos they seemed to be equal with the same Z5 body. Today it was a dark day in Finland and I took photos with my EF 500mm Is ll with R8 body -and there was no practical difference in those pics ,I usually keep the birds in the middle section. Cheers

[@Pengranger]

Steve, that’s a lot of time and effort, and everyone is talking about your video. Hope you get loads of views. I think you may have killed the market for the Z100-400! Hudson Henry is currently testing the Z180-600 on a workshop and it will be interesting to get another take on the lens.

[@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!

[@youknowwho9247]

Thank you for putting so much effort into these videos. It's a lot of work. For me, the af speed tests pretty much re-affirms my decision to switch to Sony. Their lenses, especially the GM glass, come with such fantastic af motors. I've done a speed test between the 50mm f/1.2 options for Canon, Nikon and Sony before. Wasn't even close. The Nikon and Canon are glacially slow compared to the GM. Edit: Cameras used were the Z9, R3 and a9 (mark I).

[@nottambula79]

So useful, thank you so much! I wanted this new zoom and I followed your suggestion about the TC 1.4x.

[@Flyers8810]

Thank you for the effort to make this video! Definitely going to help me make some decisions.

[@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?

[@washingtonradio]

Sounds like a solid lens behaving about what I expected in terms of sharpness and AF speed. Thanks Steve.

[@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!

[@sabinimassimo]

Grande come sempre , grazie Steve .

[@mikebyrne8420]

Wowza. Just amazing. What a thorough and helpful review.

[@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.

[@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.

[@lichtschaffen]

Steve I thank you for your very good videos and tests - and aspecially I like your v ery clear speech for me as a non native speaker!

[@Waeltklass]

Hi Steve, As First many thanks for this good comparison. what i missed was the focus speed of the Z800mm f6.3.

[@backcountrygallery]

0.60 seconds

[@bigboi36]

Steve once again thank you for the extensive review. Nikon you have really hit the ball out the park with this lens. The price point really has me very surprised. I truly believe that if Nikon keeps the manufacture quality consistency, we will indeed have a classic. When Nikon however releases it’s PRO APSC camera it’s a wrap. If that camera is a 33/36mp camera, cropping a full frame goes out the door and you will have every Nikon user purchasing both cameras.

[@JRodPhotoArt]

Well done Steve, and good job Nikon. Can't wait to get my copy of this lens!!

[@martyseppala3757]

Awesome work here Steve Thank You!

[@cy9nvs]

Great test, the most in depth comparison I've seen so far, thank you very much for your amazing work! There seem to be some rather massive production variances in one of these lenses, though. Both Jan Wegener and Duade Patton showed this lens not being quite as sharp as the Sony at 600mm wide open. Or maybe, it just looked sharper, because the image was smaller on the Sony, due to the horrible focus breathing. Either way, I'm super happy that the 180-600 seems to be such a good lens. I Pre-ordered it on day one and bought a Z8 to replace my fuji setup, completely blind, basically. Can't wait for mine to finally arrive.

[@backcountrygallery]

The main issue is we're all testing single copies of the lenses. My 180-600 might be better than theirs - or my 200-600 might be worse. Tough to say. I think the best bet is to look at a variety of sources and see where we all seem to agree - sort of an aggregate.

[@cy9nvs]

@@backcountrygallery That is of course true, but I think we can assume, that both lenses are of very similar quality. I feared that the Nikon lens really falls on its face wide open, but it does seem to be pretty good.

[@backcountrygallery]

@@cy9nvs It really does - also, keep in mind that sharpness can vary by testing distance too. I didn't watch the other two videos, so I don't know how they tested. I like controlled conditions, so I go the traditional test chart route :)

[@kengeorge6965]

I noticed that at the 300 and 400mm comparisons, when you gave the nod to the 180-600, you were shooting the 100-400 wide open, slightly wider opening than the 180-600. @ 200mm, the f-stop on the 180-600 was 5.6 while the sharper 100-400 was at f/5.0, at 300mm, the 180-600 was at f/6.0 while the 100-400 was at f/5.3. At 400, the 180-600 was at f/6.0 while the 100-400 was at f/5.6. I'd like to see the 100-400 stopped down to the same aperture as the 180-600 at each comparison focal length. The 180-600 might still win at the longer 300 and 400mm lengths, but it might be too close to call. My purchase decision would be on weight and whether I need the extra reach, if they were too close to call. (Maybe I should only be considering that anyway, since they both are sharp.) Nice job that makes me happy with my pre-order of the 180-600. Although, I may get tired of lugging it around!

[@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.

[@allenriley2483]

Thanks Steve, another great review with relevant information .

[@lukes5533]

Fantastic comparison Steve , thanks. 👍

[@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.

[@frstesiste7670]

I don't even use Nikon and still watched the whole video. Really good and well documented tests. Not a complaint, but it would have been interesting to see the results from the primes stopped down to zoom-aperture too and not only wide open.

[@backcountrygallery]

I'd thought about that, but the process is so tedious and time consuming I decided to just go wide open. There are tons of combinations I could do and sometimes it's just too much :) I could do things like stopping the primes to various F/stops, stopping down the zoom, etc - pretty soon, it's a dozens and dozens of shots, just too much work LOL!

[@frstesiste7670]

Thanks for the reply, I've done some testing myself so I know how much work it is to get it right!

[@alonpola]

Hi Steve. It's always fun to watch your videos. I learn a lot from them. I wish you would compare the lens to the 180-400 with the built-in 1.4TC.

[@backcountrygallery]

I would, but I no longer own that lens. Still, I'm confident it would win the 200-400 range - not sure about with the TC though - I was never impressed with the built-in TC on that lens.

[@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.

[@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.

[@turnerx5]

Thank you so much! Awesome video as usual! Thanks Steve!

[@arjunsengupta1661]

Superb video, as always! Now I am torn between the performance edge of 500pf vs flexibility of the zoom!!

[@backcountrygallery]

LOL, always something, right? That's really a tough call, but the zoom is also a native Z mount, which is nice (no adapters to mess with in the field).

[@arjunsengupta1661]

@@backcountrygallery That's a good point. Also it seems like the slow focusing can be somewhat remedied by pre-focusing....

[@backcountrygallery]

@@arjunsengupta1661 It really can. Slow focusing is usually a non-issue for most shots. The biggest place it bites you is when the camera fails to get a lock and starts to hunt, running the focus range back and forth. That's where you'll really feel the difference between slower and faster focus.

[@arjunsengupta1661]

@@backcountrygallery One quick question Steve. Do you think the zoom is better balanced on Z9 relative to the 500pf + FTZ?

[@backcountrygallery]

@@arjunsengupta1661 Hmm - it's really close. I've used both and the 180-600 + Z9 is just every so slightly front heavy with the camera but the 500 PF + Z9 is ever so slightly back-heavy. Still, it's not awkward either way.

[@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.

[@SundayRacers]

Excellent info! Thanks again Steve

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!👍

[@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.

[@Shivashankar]

Thank you for the comparison and the af speed data.

[@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.

[@cavalloi56]

Great test, congrats

[@markholdefehr7080]

Thanks Steve, highly appreciated !

[@johnforbes4795]

I have this lens on pre-order, but I must admit that I'm surprised at how well the Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 held up in your sharpness tests. I had been saving my pennies for the Nikon Z 100-400 S but decided to put my order in for the 180-600mm after watching Ricci's comparison video a couple of months ago. I may still add the 100-400mm down the road (I also own the Sigma 100-400 f5-6.3 f-mount) as the 100mm end capability of the Nikon Z 100-400mm is attractive for my use case, augmenting my Nikon Z 70-200mm f2.8 S and Nikon Z 24-120mm f4 S.

[@backcountrygallery]

I too was surprised how well it did. I had a feeling it would do well based on my time with the prototype, but there were a few times I was really surprised how well it did (especially against the 400 4.5 with 1.4TC)

[@RealChrisinAZ]

Great review Steve, Thank you!