Nikon Z 180-600 mm f/5.6-6.3 VR

I frequently use a Micro 4/3 super-telephoto zoom for wildlife and bird photography. I decided that this lens type should be one of the first to purchase for my Nikon Z8. First of all, I would not consider a maximum focal length lower than 600 mm (native focal length, without focal length multiplier). Even on Micro 4/3, I rather rarely shoot with the OM System 150-600 at less than 600 mm. This eliminates all zooms that only reach 400 or 500 mm from my choice of a lens for the Z8.

These days, most of the popular mirrorless systems offer one or two models of super-telephoto zooms at reasonable prices, but with remarkably good optical quality. These zooms are far less expensive than lenses a professional photographer specializing in wildlife would typically choose. I could neither justify, nor afford, one of the Nikkor Z professional 600 mm or 800 mm super-telephoto lenses (and it would not be versatile enough). My choices are therefore restricted to zoom lenses targeted to advanced amateurs.

As a matter of fact, these affordable but still good zooms are frequently used also by professional photographers who are willing to trade a small amount of image quality and some lens speed in return for the higher versatility of a zoom. The downside of these lenses is that their weather sealing is not as good as that of top-of-the-line super-telephoto primes, and the physical strength and durability of the barrels and mechanical parts is probably lower. On the other hand, my own personal weather tolerance and physical strength these days are less than they used to be, so in any case I would not be willing to shoot under torrential rain or climb a mountain with a super-telephoto lens on my back.

Among current Z lenses, only one fits my criteria. The Nikkor Z 180-600 mm f/5.6-6.3 VR is not an S-line lens, but optically good, well built and reasonably priced. It works well also with a Nikon Z TC-14x teleconverter. With teleconverter and cropped to APS-C format or thereabouts, zoomed to 600 mm, this lens gives a field of view only a little wider than my OM System 150-600 on Micro 4/3. The latter lens has been my wildlife lens for the last few years. For the Z8, I did not consider legacy super-telephoto zooms in F mount because I prefer the lighter weight of the 180-600 Z lens and its full integration in the Z system.

Had Nikon been offering an affordable super-telephoto zoom reaching 800 mm, I might have been tempted, but Nikon does not have any (except for some really old lenses), nor is apparently planning to introduce one.

The 180-600 is actually not the first affordable Nikon super-telephoto zoom. The Nikon F 200-500 mm f/5.6 is in the same category, but is already 10 years old, and its focal length is not quite enough for my needs. It is also a little heavier than the 180-600, and extends while zooming. The Nikkor Z 180-600 has internal zooming and internal focus, while my OM System 150-600 (yet another affordable extreme telephoto zoom) extends wildly when zooming and changes from rear-heavy to front-heavy while doing so.

The 180-600 reaches 0.25x at closest focus, so it is quite usable as a very-long-distance close-up lens. The Z8 is, quite likely, the best current Nikon camera for bird and wildlife photography. Paired with the 180-600 and TC-14x, it does have the potential of replacing my OM System OM-1 and 150-600. Thus, I bought a 180-600 from Foto Erhardt with a campaign discount of 100 €. This discount and the already reasonable normal price bring a new specimen close to the same price of an eBay second-hand specimen in the EU (yes, the price difference between new and used is this small here for a lens that is still in production).

The gap of focal lengths between the 24-120 and the 180-600 does not scream for a third lens to fill it. If really necessary, in many cases I can fill this gap by "zooming with my feet". Worse come to worse, I can crop a 45 Mpixel image shot at 120 mm to 35-40 Mpixels without significant losses of image quality and largely fill up this gap. Shooting with the 24-120 at 120 mm also gives me a one-stop advantage over the 180-600 at 180 mm (f/4 versus f/5.6, respectively), as well as a much easier hand-holding.

The external appearance of the Nikkor Z 180-600 is a little misleading, By looking at pictures of this lens, you might believe that it has a large focus ring at its front, followed by a narrow flat ring with four function buttons, afterwards a large zoom ring, and finally a narrow control ring seen also in several Nikkor Z lenses from the S series. In reality, the "large focus ring" near the lens front is not a focus ring at all, but just a rubber sleeve to grab and support the lens with your left hand.

I configured the control ring for manual focus, which is the thing I miss most in the 180-600..

I dressed my 180-600 with a Rolanpro lens coat in "urban camo" pattern, mostly to protect it from bumps and scratches. I removed the coat from the control ring to better feel it with my fingers, because it was too difficult to locate by touch when covered with the same material as the rest of the lens. I might remove the coat also from the zoom ring in the future, for the same reason. The velcro strip and string are used to fasten the lens cap to the lens, and are easily removed if necessary. Fastening the lens shade on the lens requires the lens shade to be turned until it clicks in place. Removing the lens shade requires pressing the button at the base of the lens shade while rotating the lens shade (also when the lens shade is reversed onto the lens), and it seems very unlikely that the lens shade should fall off on its own once securely mounted on the lens.

Nikon still does not see fit to equip the tripod collar of its long lenses with an Arca-compatible foot, so I added a third-party plate specifically designed for lenses that lack such a foot (note the rounded corners and the low thickness). Amazon sells a couple of after-market replacement tripod collars for this lens, equipped with Arca-compatible feet, but they look too lightly built to me, and they also lack eyelets for attaching a lens strap. The lens weighs 2 Kg and the Z8 almost 1 Kg, so they need a really stiff tripod collar for holding the lens steady on a gimbal head (especially of the "side gimbal" type, which applies an off-center load to the lens collar).

Using the 180-600 in the field

A long telephoto lens is meant to be used in the field or an open space. Hand-holding this lens while standing casually is feasible for a limited time and for occasions when you do not want to risk missing an unrepeatable moment. For extended use, there are a number of less muscle-straining ways to shoot with this type of lens. In all cases, you should use the eye-level viewfinder of the camera, rather than the LCD screen.

Without a support

There are three basic poses for hand-holding a super-telephoto lens:

• Standing with the body slightly turned to the right with respect to the shooting direction, with the left hand under the lens and the left elbow tucked in as close as possible to the body (ideally in contact with the left side of the rib cage). This forms a natural stiff support that does not require a high muscle strain to support the weight of the lens. This pose works best with subjects located close to the horizon line.
• Kneeling with the right knee on the ground, the right foot under the body, the left foot sole on the ground, and the left knee folded at about 90°. The torso should be turned some 45° to the right with respect to the subject. In this position, the left thigh is roughly horizontal and forms a support for the left elbow, allowing the left hand to support the lens with a minimum of muscle strain. Also this pose works best with the lens nearly horizontal, with some leeway up or down by changing the position of the elbow.
• Laying down on the ground with the chest kept sightly lifted from the ground by the left elbow, or both elbows. This is a straining position to hold for a long time. If you are going to lay down, it is better to support the lens on a bean-bag or a mini-tripod.

Some photographers lay down on their back and cradle the lens in their arms above their tummies. The lens is pointed in the direction of the photographer's feet. This position requires one to crane one's neck to hold the head lifted up in a suitable position for using the camera viewfinder. I find this shooting position straining for my neck. On the other hand, among the hand-held shooting positions mentioned here, it is the only one that allows the use of the camera's LCD screen instead of the viewfinder.

With a support

• A tripod equipped with a gimbal head. This is the most comfortable setup for staying in a given place for an extended time. It also allows the photographer to camouflage with a ghillie suit, a camo coat or a hide. With some wildlife subjects, the lens and tripod also need to be carefully camouflaged. With proper adjustments of the tripod height, this pose allows virtually any shooting direction, and is suitable for the majority of wildlife subjects, including birds in flight. The tripod must be carefully leveled before starting to shoot (usually with a built-in leveling head, or a separate leveling head between tripod and gimbal head).
  A solid-enough tripod and gimbal head add a few Kg to the weight of the equipment, and some of the camouflage (especially a ghillie suit) may severely limit body movement and increase the risk of overheating or water-logging.
  Moving the tripod without folding it and disassembling the equipment can be possible, but mostly for short distances, and the tripod must be leveled again afterwards.
  The advantage of a gimbal head is that it provides effortless tilt and swing of the lens, once the tripod is leveled and the lens is properly balanced on the head.
• A monopod equipped with a gimbal head. This is theoretically feasible, but requires the photographer to actively control of the orientation of the monopod (it must stay vertical while the gimbal head swings and tilts about two different pivoting axes). Some photographers seem capable to manage these problems. I find that this solution requires me to keep track of a bit too many things simultaneously. I can manage this better if I lock the gimbal head rotation base, so in practice I am turning the whole monopod in order to pan.
• A monopod with a tilt head, which is a head only providing tilt. The whole monopod pivots to provide horizontal panning. The monopod must stay vertical, but in this case it is easier because the head provides only one degree of freedom and one rotation axis. Unlike a gimbal head, however, a typical monopod head does not keep the lens balanced except at a single angle. In practice, the photographer must never release one's grip on the lens.
• A monopod with only a leveling head. This type of head allows tilt about X and Y axes simultaneously, like a ball-head, but only to a limited extent of 15° to 20°. Unlike a ball-head, a typical leveling head provides a center of movement a few cm above the head platform, which partly balances the lens. Not all balancing heads are suitable for this use: the head must move evenly and effortlessly once unlocked. Some leveling heads remain too hard to move when unlocked, or move by alternating stiction and "jumping". This solution provides only a limited adjustment in inclination, and also in this case the photographer must always keep a grip on the lens.
• A monopod with a side gimbal head, like the Wimberley MH-100. This is one of the best solutions for a monopod, but not problem-free. This type of head causes an off-center loading of the monopod that puts an oblique stress on its top platform. Unless the monopod is built for this type of loading, a heavy lens may cause the top platform (only glued atop the monopod in most lightweight monopods) to break off, with easily imagined consequences.

The above list is only a summary, but it shows that there is no absolutely-best, totally problem-free solution for using a monopod. On the other hand, a monopod is far lighter than a tripod, and much quicker to set up and reposition in the field. The above list is not exhaustive. It does not include, for example, specialized monopod ball-heads that can be partly locked to prevent sideways flopping while allowing a relatively well balanced and smooth front-to-back tilt with some sort of built-in counterbalance spring.

For further alternatives, one can look for inspiration at hunters and military snipers:

• A shoot stick. This is a very lightly built monopod with a rubber-padded two-prong, V-shaped fork instead of a monopod head. The rifle, or in our case the telephoto lens, is placed in this fork. Also in this case the photographer should never release the lens. The advantage of a shoot stick is its very lightweight construction. You can use a photographic monopod instead of a shoot stick designed for hunters, but if you do, you should choose a lighter monopod than those suitable for the types of monopod heads discussed above. Some professional photographers do use this solution. A shoot stick with a two-prong fork has been used by firearm shooters since the Middle Ages, and by crossbow shooters long before that, because its is simple and it works.
• A short two-legged bipod semi-permanently attached to a military rifle is often used by present-day snipers. I am not aware of a comparable accessory being used on telephoto lenses, but it would seem possible. This solution is only feasible if the photographer is laying on the ground or can use an existing support like a boulder, the top of a low wall, or a window sill.
• Longer, telescopic shooting bipods are also available. They are far more stable than a shoot stick, but require more time to set up than the latter, are a little heavier, and require re-positioning to allow shooting in a significantly different direction.

Some rifle shooters use relatively tall tripods, but these are not conceptually different from equivalent photographic equipment, and are in fact inspired by the latter. Some established makers of photographic tripods and heads, in fact, are now making also this type of rifle accessories. For example, Sunwayfoto is now producing oversized tripod ball-heads meant for use with rifles but potentially usable with large and heavy camera and movie equipment.

I have personally tried more than half of the above alternatives. One of the things I intend to try in the field is a monopod equipped with a screw-on rifle fork (a few types of the latter are available on Amazon). Note that at least some of these rifle forks are equipped with an M6 threaded socket, not a 1/4-20" socket compatible with a tripod/monopod attachment. The simplest way to solve this problem is re-threading the socket with a 1/4-20" UNC tap, which makes it capable of accepting either bolt type.

As mentioned above, I did not find a "perfect solution" for steadying a long telephoto lens in the field, but a few usable ones with both advantages and disadvantages.

Initial tests

I plan to use the 180-600 mostly hand-held or on a monopod. Consequently, I carried out my initial tests with the lens and Z8 camera handheld while standing (i.e. the first position in the Without a support section above). The test subject is a hedge roughly 50 m away. I tested the lens fully open, at 180 and 600 mm focal length. The camera was set to aperture priority and C-AF with small center area, at ISO 200. On subsequent tests, I mounted the 180-600 on a LensMaster RH-1 gimbal head and an old Gitzo tripod, which made the use of the lens much more comfortable.

At 180 mm, the lens is very sharp already fully open at f/5.6. Image resolution is a little poorer in the corners, but not by much. Still, there is no real need to stop down for increasing image quality.

At 600 mm and f/6.3, image resolution is visibly poorer, but still acceptable for most purposes.

At 600 mm with TC-14x teleconverter and fully open (effective 840 mm and f/9), image resolution is quite poor, even taking into consideration the large number of megapixels of the image. At this point, I decided to stop testing and look for possible reasons of this poor image quality.

Protector / UV filter

Then I decided to remove the protector filter I had mounted on the 180-600, and repeat the test with the TC-14x. I should have remembered before the initial test that protector and UV filters of poor quality are well known to wreak havoc with the precision optics of long telephoto lenses. The 1:1 crop in Figure 9 shows an apartment plant through a double-glazed window (which in itself might slightly reduce the image quality). Nonetheless, image detail, although not perfect, is better than in Figure 7.

Incidentally, also Figure 5 was shot with the same protector filter. Most likely, also this image would have been a little sharper without filter, but without a teleconverter this is more difficult to see.

The filter I originally mounted on the lens is branded "Tiffen Professional" (Figure 10). I bought it from Amazon for a relatively low price, which in retrospect should have made me somewhat suspicious. The above figure also shows that the writing laser-printed (not engraved) on the filter ring is a little uneven, more so than typical of my other Tiffen filters. It also seems to be considerably dirty and a little "fuzzy" (especially comparing it with the very sharp fine particles of dust on the filter ring). Additionally, the optical filter round is roughly cut, with several small slivers broken off its edge, and not ground on its girdle. This is not how reasonably good filters are generally made.

As a whole, together with the poor optical quality and manufacturing, these details strengthen my suspicion that this may be a Chinese knockoff, rather than a genuine Tiffen filter. Alternatively, a previous buyer may have replaced the original Tiffen filter blank with a Chinese dud, then returned the item to Amazon for a refund. This is becoming an increasingly frequent type of fraud, since fraudsters have learned that Amazon does not check returned items to save time, and ships them out to new unsuspecting buyers to let them do the QC.

This filter was delivered in an unsealed Velcro-closed padded cloth bag with Tiffen screen-printed logo and a generic white label with Tiffen logo in a transparent external window, not the typical Tiffen sealed plastic filter boxes packaged in a color screen-printed cardboard box with model number, data etc. printed on the outside. There is no documentation whatsoever, not even a paper leaflet.

I did not find any filter named "TiFFEN PROFESSIONAL 95C" on Tiffen.com. Not even something that starts with "TiFFEN PROFESSIONAL". The closest I found is "TiFFEN DIGITAL PRO". If this indeed is a Tiffen filter, a third alternative is that the filters Amazon is selling are unsold stuff found in a a film-age storage depot and perhaps repackaged in new padded bags.

I ordered a far more expensive B+W F-Pro protector (about 5 times the price of the Tiffen) (Figure 11). It came in a typical B+W plastic filter case tightly inserted into a partially sealed (i.e. sealed only at the top, not at the bottom) cardboard box. I opened it at the bottom, and the fold in the cardboard visible in the picture was caused by my handling. The packaging shows otherwise no trace of having been previously opened, and the filter looks immaculate. Its coatings show the typical cyan reflections of several of my other B+W F-Pro filters. The filter changed position a few times within the box, leaving different impressions on the synthetic-rubber padding, but this can easily happen with the vibrations and bumps of transportation.

Results with the B+W filter are the same as without a filter.

Why a protector filter?

My purpose for using a protector/UV filter with an expensive lens is as an insurance, to protect the front element of the lens from accidental damage or fouling. It may be worth a significant extra cost, but only if it does not cause a detectable worsening of image quality. A few examples from my past experience of the usefulness of protector filters:

• I stowed the super-telephoto zoom into its top-loading backpack compartment, front element lowermost, then saw that its front lens cap was on the ground, staring back at me.
• The lens cap somehow came off and floated around the backpack during a long trip, and I discovered it only hours later when unpacking my things. The chance of this happening may increase when using a "low-profile" filter on the lens. These filters are designed to avoid vignetting when mounted on a wideangle lens. They do nothing but create problems on a super-telephoto lens. In particular, they prevent a butterfly lens cap from fully engaging the filter threads.
• While holding the lens + camera cradled in my arms, I accidentally pressed the lens release button and both lens and camera toppled off in different directions on a dusty road.

Lens makers used to equip some of their most expensive super-telephoto lenses with a built-in protector plate in front of the real front optical surface of the lens. Most likely this protector plate is a part of the optical formula of the lens. A scratched or broken protector plate can be very expensive to replace, albeit not as expensive as a new lens.

A built-in protector plate seems to be less common in modern lenses. The Nikon AF-S Nikkor 180-400mm f/4 E TC1.4 ED VR is one of the few currently sold Nikon lenses equipped with a protector plate. The reason for this plate becomes obvious when one looks at the optical scheme of this lens: its front optical element is made of fluorite, which is a material far too fragile and easily scratched to leave exposed at the front end of the objective. The protector plate of this lens is notable for not being flat, but slightly meniscus-shaped (it is therefore an integral part of the optical formula of the lens, although this is not its primary function). The slight curvature of this protector plate prevents ghost images of strong light sources from being reflected back and forth between protector and sensor surfaces, thus preventing the appearance of the characteristic "inverted" ghost images one often observes when using flat protector filters mounted at the front of a lens.

When is a teleconverter the limiting factor?

It stands to reason that one should use a teleconverter only when necessary to increase the native focal length of a lens. With the 180-600 mm, it sounds reasonable to state that one should only use a teleconverter only when an effective focal length above 600 mm is necessary. However, adding or removing a teleconverter is time-consuming and may cause the photographer to miss interesting subject poses. With highly mobile subjects, it might be desirable to continue shooting with a teleconverter even below the maximum native focal length of the lens.

As a practical test, I shot the above test image with the TC-14x teleconverter and the 180-600 zoomed to 180 mm nominal focal length and fully open (252 mm and f/8 as indicated in the picture metadata). The crop shown in the figure is close to the bottom edge of the frame.

It is hard to find anything to criticize in this crop. Image resolution is about as high as with the best lenses I have available for use on the Nikon Z8. This particular test does not prove my initial, theory-based statement that it is better not to use the teleconverter when the lens without teleconverter would suffice. Therefore, I think I should soften my original statement. With the 180-600 at an effective focal length of about 200-250 mm, the test suggests that shooting with or without the TC14x does not result in a detectable difference in image quality.

As a whole, it should also be remembered that pixel-peeping a 45.7 Mpixel image shot with a Z8 or Z9 unavoidably reveals any optical shortcomings to a more evident extent than an image shot on a full-frame sensor of lower resolution, e.g. 24 Mpixel. Most likely, a 600 mm or 800 mm Nikkor Z prime (and probably also a recent AF-S 600 mm on an FTZ adapter) would be a better match for the Z8 or Z9 sensor (at a major increase in lens price, of course).

A Nikkor Z prime super-telephoto lens with a built-in teleconverter is also likely to perform better than a comparable lens with an add-on, external TC-14x teleconverter (again, at a further massive increase in lens price).

As for myself, I will leave these lens choices to professional photographers who can afford and justify the lens prices of these (certainly better from a technical point of view) alternatives. Besides being a lens I can financially afford to purchase as a one-off item, the 180-600 is also right at the limit of the size and weight I can be persuaded to carry in the field and/or on an intercontinental flight. Even if, theoretically, I could somehow afford a Nikkor Z 800 mm f/5.6 PF VR F , this lens would very likely end up as a talking piece hanging on the wall, or perhaps on a tripod sitting on my glassed-in terrace with a view to the nearby lake, than as a lens I use in the field. Make no mistake, I completely agree that this 800 mm is an excellent lens and a major achievement for Nikon in lower weight and lower price than its F-mount predecessors. It is just not a lens for me, unless perhaps Nikon would succeed in further cutting in half the size, weight and price (henceforth referred to as "the three parameters") of this lens.

How and whether this further cut in all three parameters might be technically feasible is a whole different matter. Historically, catadioptric optics have proved to be a dead end in this respect, because catadioptric lenses designed for cameras have always been much worse than refractor optics from the same camera makers. Technically, catadioptrics have no intrinsic limitations, because the best telescopes and military satellite and drone lenses are indeed variations on catadioptric designs. Perhaps this is just a matter of attitudes by camera brands, with their catadioptrics being intentionally designed as second- or third-rate lenses. Alternatively, it is possible that a catadioptric super-telephoto lens of optical quality comparable to the best refractors is entirely feasible, but would end up costing and weighing more than an equivalent refractor. Frequently reviled for their "ring bokeh", traditional catadioptric designs have always been seen as lenses a pro photographer would not touch with a 10-foot pole, but technical solutions for eliminating or reducing these limitations (e.g. off-axis mirror elements, autofocus catadioptrics) do exist, and some of them have been experimented with in legacy commercial products.

Fresnel plates are a newer technology, at present not entirely problem-free in terms of optical performance but potentially susceptible to future improvement. So far, they have been used in high-quality lenses, where they help to achieve a physical lens size significantly shorter than traditional telephoto designs. Designing lenses that use multiple Fresnel plates might help in achieving further savings in all three parameters. As far as I am aware, a commercial camera lens design that combines catadioptric and Fresnel-plate elements has not been attempted in practice, but I would not rule it out.

Conclusions

The Nikkor Z 180-600 mm f/5.6-6.3 VR is a reasonably priced, reasonably good super-telephoto zoom suitable for wildlife. Nikon may have intended this lens for advanced amateurs using Nikon Z cameras. It turns out to be good enough also for several professional photographers looking for a relatively handy and lightweight lens that costs orders of magnitude less than Nikon's truly pro super-telephoto lenses. Seen in this context, Nikon should be fully satisfied with the reception by photographers of this hot-selling lens.

This is not a premium lens, but still works acceptably. It is fully weather-sealed, although perhaps not to the standards of truly pro lenses.

The configurable control ring of this lens, also found on many S-series lenses, replaces a dedicated aperture ring. I configured mine to work as a manual focus ring, because this lens lacks a dedicated one. Manual focus with this lens works well enough on the Z8 with focus peaking enabled. AF with manual focus override is my favorite focus mode. However, AF on the Z8 is generally faster and more reliable than MF.

This lens has a large rubber coat in its front portion, which looks like a large focusing ring but does nothing. It is only for holding the lens steady, and avoid nicking it against branches and rocks. The four custom buttons are also located there.

The zoom ring is mechanic, and its rotation range rather short. It allows very quick changes of focal length. It works well for still imaging, less well for video.

This lens is for photographers who can live without a distance scale, depth-of-focus tick marks, and dedicated focus and aperture rings.

A Nikon Z TC-14x teleconverter can be used on this lens, but at nominal 600 mm this lens is already beginning to show its limitations in image resolution.

A Nikon Z TC-14x teleconverter on the 180-600 at about 200-250 mm effective focal length causes no detectable deterioration in image quality. It is therefore not really necessary to remove the teleconverter before substantially zooming out.