Fantastic! When I shot Nikon, I loved the 200-500 - it was and still is a FANTASTIC lens. For the brief period that I owned a Z9, I was unable to get any long Z lenses and the 180-600 came out shortly after I sold it. I don't think anyone would go wrong with either lens for sure with the added advantage of the 200-500 being used on your old cameras and you can find them used as you noted. One thing about the old way of thinking that we grew up with is that a high ISO kills the image or makes it too noisy. With a DSLR that was true, but with all the wonderful editing tools we have at our fingertips - I use Lightroom exclusively - and how amazing the new camera bodies are..... -- the High ISO is not an issue especially with your Z9. I now shoot Canon and have since the R5 came out. I have shot at an ISO of 12800 on my crop sensor R7 and the images are still pin sharp. To that end, I shoot in an auto ISO for my wildlife most of the time with a new bodies, even the Sony A6700 when I was playing with that. If I am shooting my D800 (favorite camera of all time), I do watch the ISO constantly to make sure it does not go much over 400. LOL (old school in me). The 200-500 even on my D800 shooting hummingbirds in the rain - the VR was amazing. Thank you for the comparison. At some point, I will rent the Z9 and the 180-600 and give it a go - I really wanted to shoot that one!! JonnyPink 🙏💖🤗
Jonny a friend of mine has an R5 and at the time I was using a D500. As soon as I picked up the Sony and pressed the focus button I knew the world had changed forever. The R5 drew a box around a tiny bird and a smaller box on the eye. On my D500 I was scared to go above 800 iso and drop the shutter (when handholding) below 1/500th sec. Now with this generation of cameras all that has changed. I like the look of Nikon's prime telephotos like the 600mm and 800mm pf lenses but will probably have to sell a kidney to afford one. The 180-600mm looks like a good compromise so far. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and all the best, Martin
@@Walkinginthewoods I get it. I shot the D500 for a short time, but the sensor was too small for my taste so I kept shooting my D800 until the D850. Then when the Canon R5 came out....... I waited a bit for Nikon, but switched when I saw where the tech was going. Still blown away everytime I go out or event I shoot. We are fortunate that we have all this new tech!! 🙏🤗💖
@@Mr09260 I shot Nikon primarily/mainly as well and had friends that swathed to Sony. I had different Sony cameras but the color could not compare to Nikon so I hung on. But times change - for me, Canon or Copier Co as you say, simply have better tech. I shot the Z9 hoping Nikon had caught up...... nope. Biggest purchase regret of my career. Nikon still has amazing color but so does Canon and Sony now too. I love trying new gear and my try new Nikon gear again some day but not now. As I tell my die hard friends..... if I put a Canon in your hands, you will not want to give it back to me. Right now, and as a former Nikon die hard, Nikon is a year late and years behind.
Only advantage I see for 180-600 is little extra reach for small bird photography. Hope nikon comes with a new s line zoom 200-500 lens for Nikon z cameras .
I would say both the 200-500mm f mount and the 180-600mm are good for their price point. I am enjoying the 180-600 especially in video which I am about to do a film on. All the best.
Благодарю за чудесный обзор этих двух замечательных объективов. Долго владел Nikon 200-500 mm и использовал его с Nikon Z6. После того как объектив практически отработал свой ресурс, продал его. Сейчас у меня Nikon Z6II и я думаю над покупкой 180-600 mm. Но всё же учитывая потрясающий положительный опыт использования 200-500 mm f/5.6 даже с FTZ, снова склоняюсь к его покупке. С этим объективом, снимая спорт, дикую природу и городские репортажные зарисовки я всегда чувствовал себя чертовски уверенно. Также спасибо за ваши замечательные кадры! Endless respect from the photojournalist of the Union of Journalists of Russia.
I watched a few videos comparing both, and I have impression that 200-500 have better micro contrast, and somehow images look more saturated too, what is your opinion on micro contrast? will appreciate your opinion, thank you!
The 200-500 was softish after 400mm. It also Trombone's like Canon Lenses do with Zooming. The Zoom throw is diabolically long . Its an F mount Lens and requires a FTZ .. The 180-600 is NONE of the above and has the Z mount advantage
@@Mr09260 I would say both lenses are very close in terms of image quality. However the internal zoom, no need for FTZ adapter and the short zoom throw make the 180-600mm easier to handle. Also I am a bit more confident in wet weather with the internal zoom. All the best,
Good to hear your opinion and experience using these two lenses
Fantastic! When I shot Nikon, I loved the 200-500 - it was and still is a FANTASTIC lens. For the brief period that I owned a Z9, I was unable to get any long Z lenses and the 180-600 came out shortly after I sold it. I don't think anyone would go wrong with either lens for sure with the added advantage of the 200-500 being used on your old cameras and you can find them used as you noted. One thing about the old way of thinking that we grew up with is that a high ISO kills the image or makes it too noisy. With a DSLR that was true, but with all the wonderful editing tools we have at our fingertips - I use Lightroom exclusively - and how amazing the new camera bodies are..... -- the High ISO is not an issue especially with your Z9. I now shoot Canon and have since the R5 came out. I have shot at an ISO of 12800 on my crop sensor R7 and the images are still pin sharp. To that end, I shoot in an auto ISO for my wildlife most of the time with a new bodies, even the Sony A6700 when I was playing with that. If I am shooting my D800 (favorite camera of all time), I do watch the ISO constantly to make sure it does not go much over 400. LOL (old school in me). The 200-500 even on my D800 shooting hummingbirds in the rain - the VR was amazing. Thank you for the comparison. At some point, I will rent the Z9 and the 180-600 and give it a go - I really wanted to shoot that one!! JonnyPink 🙏💖🤗
Jonny a friend of mine has an R5 and at the time I was using a D500. As soon as I picked up the Sony and pressed the focus button I knew the world had changed forever. The R5 drew a box around a tiny bird and a smaller box on the eye. On my D500 I was scared to go above 800 iso and drop the shutter (when handholding) below 1/500th sec. Now with this generation of cameras all that has changed. I like the look of Nikon's prime telephotos like the 600mm and 800mm pf lenses but will probably have to sell a kidney to afford one. The 180-600mm looks like a good compromise so far. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and all the best, Martin
@@Walkinginthewoods I get it. I shot the D500 for a short time, but the sensor was too small for my taste so I kept shooting my D800 until the D850. Then when the Canon R5 came out....... I waited a bit for Nikon, but switched when I saw where the tech was going. Still blown away everytime I go out or event I shoot. We are fortunate that we have all this new tech!! 🙏🤗💖
What a tragic mistake going with the Copier Co after Nikon >> Been with Nikon exclusively since 1971
@@Mr09260 I shot Nikon primarily/mainly as well and had friends that swathed to Sony. I had different Sony cameras but the color could not compare to Nikon so I hung on. But times change - for me, Canon or Copier Co as you say, simply have better tech. I shot the Z9 hoping Nikon had caught up...... nope. Biggest purchase regret of my career. Nikon still has amazing color but so does Canon and Sony now too. I love trying new gear and my try new Nikon gear again some day but not now. As I tell my die hard friends..... if I put a Canon in your hands, you will not want to give it back to me. Right now, and as a former Nikon die hard, Nikon is a year late and years behind.
Great comparison! I adore the portrait of the mallard, the colours line up so nicely.
Thank you 🙂
The anhinga shot is lovely!
Only advantage I see for 180-600 is little extra reach for small bird photography. Hope nikon comes with a new s line zoom 200-500 lens for Nikon z cameras .
I would say both the 200-500mm f mount and the 180-600mm are good for their price point. I am enjoying the 180-600 especially in video which I am about to do a film on. All the best.
Благодарю за чудесный обзор этих двух замечательных объективов. Долго владел Nikon 200-500 mm и использовал его с Nikon Z6. После того как объектив практически отработал свой ресурс, продал его. Сейчас у меня Nikon Z6II и я думаю над покупкой 180-600 mm. Но всё же учитывая потрясающий положительный опыт использования 200-500 mm f/5.6 даже с FTZ, снова склоняюсь к его покупке. С этим объективом, снимая спорт, дикую природу и городские репортажные зарисовки я всегда чувствовал себя чертовски уверенно. Также спасибо за ваши замечательные кадры! Endless respect from the photojournalist of the Union of Journalists of Russia.
I watched a few videos comparing both, and I have impression that 200-500 have better micro contrast, and somehow images look more saturated too, what is your opinion on micro contrast? will appreciate your opinion, thank you!
I have not done any scientific tests and it is dependent upon the light but I think you might be right about contrast. All the best,
Nice video
You could hv been a bit louder pls.
'Promo sm'
Get the 180-600 or go home
The 200-500 was softish after 400mm. It also Trombone's like Canon Lenses do with Zooming. The Zoom throw is diabolically long . Its an F mount Lens and requires a FTZ .. The 180-600 is NONE of the above and has the Z mount advantage
@@Mr09260 I would say both lenses are very close in terms of image quality. However the internal zoom, no need for FTZ adapter and the short zoom throw make the 180-600mm easier to handle. Also I am a bit more confident in wet weather with the internal zoom. All the best,