So, here’s the story.
Nikon announced their new 180-400 and I’ve been more than a little curious about it. However, I’m not 100% sold on it just yet.
So, I decided to rent one and give it a whirl for a few days and share what I’ve discovered with you! In the video below, I’ll tell you what I think about the lens overall, performance, and sharpness. In fact, there are a number of sharpness comparisons including:
Nikon 180-400 Vs Nikon 200-500
Nikon 180-400 Vs Nikon 80-400
Nikon 180-400 Vs Nikon 300 PF
Nikon 180-400 Vs Nikon 600 F4 E
So, a pretty good lineup 🙂
Check out the video below for the full scoop and then check out the images below if you want to give the sharpness test photos a closer inspection. I have included both center and corner crops. PLEASE watch the video first though because there’s more to the sharpness tests than just what you see below.
Also, keep in mind that this is NOT a full field report. If I do decide to get the lens later this year, I’ll do the full review after I get to use it for more than just a few days.
I was only able to use the lens in the field for a few hours, but I did want to include a couple of images from it. Based on my preliminary usage, I think this can be one heck of a nice lens for wildlife photographers.
Below are the images from the video for closer inspection. Note that they look terrible down there because they have been resized by the website, so don’t judge based on what you see below without looking at the full size image.
Instead, make sure you click them to open in a new tab and then click again to enlarge them to full size.
200mm tests
300mm tests
400mm tests
500mm + tests
I was wondering if you ever completed your full review. on the Nikon 180 -2000 F4. Also, how do you think this lens will work on a Z9
Steve…..after careful review, I dived in and replaced my AF tuned 200-500MM for the new AF-S 180-400MM. You early review was really good and some of the comments were equally informative. I found the new lenses was a significant upgrade as it delivered twice as many in focus pictures at higher speeds. The immediate benefits were faster focus, AF works better with 3D, GRP and D153 modules, more color rendition, speed and ease of use. I recently discovered your website and I have enjoyed and benefited from it to the extent that a donation or purchase of your book is… Read more »
I have the d500. With the 180-400 will the d550 be equivalent to a cropped d850? Isn’t sensor density about the same for the 2 cameras?
Hi Steve, Did your evaluation include the firmware upgrade to your camera bodies with the 153-point AF system for acquisition and tracking? It is suppose to allow the sensors in the outer areas of the frame to act as cross-type sensors to “drastically improving acquisition speed when a subject enters the frame.” Reference the Nikon website under the overview section for this lens. Firmware update was suppose to be available March 2018. Really appreciate your reviews!
Thanks,
Ken
Thanks for the review, I did purchase the lens to replace a 200-500. The versatility factor is important however there is one other feature I have found to be a life saver. I order to zoom the 200-400 it takes quite a few rotations, with the 180-400 it requires only a third of a rotation. I am back to Tanzania in September and looking forward to working with it. On another note your video on balancing a gimbal was very helpful, thank you. I am working on how to attach the gimbal to the 1 1/2 in pipe on the… Read more »
Hello Steve,
I am a bit confused, I have an 80-400 and is looking to upgrade (wildlife, lots of Jeep safaris hand held). What would you suggest, the new 180-400 or 500f4E?
Or should I wait, is Nikon working on any new super telephoto lenses?
Also from a longer term perspective, is Nikon a viable company for us to invest once in a lifetime time type of purchase?
Appreciate your advice.
Thanks
Sanil
The big pro lenses carry a big price for a reason. Build quality, focus speed and accuracy and build quality. The IQ is a given. For me flexibility is an added benefit. Unfortunately the bigger the range the more the compromises. The 80-400 is such a lens. I have a very good copy and has it’s place. At the price of the 180-400, it is out of my budget, unfortunately, in Africa, primes are restrictive as you mostly shoot from a vechile. In the dust and harch conditions my 200-500 only made 1 trip in the dusty Etosha. So, long… Read more »
Hi Richard,
IMO YES,
I own the lens, been using on the D850, In real life I am blown away how sharp this lens is, not to mention the versatility.
I have owned and used the 200-500 & 500f4, if you can afford it the 180-400 is a given.
When I bought the 180-400 it was a last major present to myself, kept thinking I was mad, but now Ive used it out in the field I cant stop smiling.
good luck,
Howard.
Hi Steve, Nice review of this highly anticipated lens. It is high on my wishlist as well. I’m making up my mind now if it would be wise to sell my 200-500 and 500 f/4 to fund for the 180-400 f/4. I think the 180-400 will replace those two lenses to great succes, with even better results than the 200-500. Although I will lose a bit in IQ compared to the 500 prime. Though the main reason / use for the 180-400 would be travel (nature) and safari’s. This year I will be making a trip to Uganda for safari’s… Read more »
Hey,Steve. Although 80-400is very cheap, it has too small an aperture and sharpness is not good enough. on top of that I found the matrix metering on D5 is quite different from other nikon cameras.Because it depends on drive modes. On my d610，I use matrix metering under AF-S S, AF-C S, AF-C d9，AF-C d21，AF-C d39 to shoot a contrasty scene, if I move the focus point on the bright part of the scene,the picture will be very dark, if I put the focus point on the shadow area, the picture will be very bright.I think although matrix metering takes the… Read more »
Matrix metering puts emphasis on the AF point based on the size of the AF area. The larger the AF area, the less emphasis the system gives what’s under the AF point when determining exposure. So, small read / single point get the most emphasis, whereas D153 gives almost no consideration to the AF point. I’ve not tested it on the 39 pt AF system, but it’s possible in those cameras it still gives more bias to the AF area then it does in higher end bodies, regardless of AF area.
Steve, thank you once again for this video and for sure a more detailed one will be coming our way when the time is right.
Any estimate on when the new e-book will hit the digital shelf?
Thanks – shooting for late summer. Lots of trips / workshops coming up so that’ll slow it down. The initial draft is done, and it’s already the size the the AF book!
Steve,
Thankyou very much for the public service to the photo community.
Showing crops in the corner was much appreciated and made this article vary worthwhile for me. I encourage you to continue to include corner crops in your lens articles.
I have always heard the 80-400 was soft at 400 but your copy holds up pretty well here. Made me wonder if I should be considering it.
Thanks! Bruce McFadden
Thanks 🙂 I have a theory on the 80-400… Most good lens tests use Live View focus to avoid any inconsistency / af fine tune issues with PDAF. Live view is right on the sensor, so usually the best bet. However, if you use the camera to focus the 80-400 in live view at 400mm, it never gets it right – at least not any of my cameras with my copy of that lens. I have to manually focus it in live view to get the best results. Don’t know why. So, part of me wonders if at least some… Read more »
BYTHOM.COM mentions 80-400 inconsistencies with several of the lenses that people had at a workshop he was doing. Some would live focus, some wouldn’t. Some were less sharp than others. I personally just sold mine to a friend. It seemed to be a very good copy. I just wasn’t using it.
Ahh, the wonderful world of sample variation and the Nikon lottery. I honestly think that’s the big problem with the 80-400, when you get a good one, it’s really good, but get one with AF or optical issues, and it seems like a poor lens.
Seems similar to what has been said about the 200-500 (even you mention the multicopy quality issue somewhere). The 180-400 sounds very interesting, but as all say the price is high. Interestingly Canon’s version is $11K so the Nikon price seems pretty similar to the general cost differential on the high end large lenses.
Hi Steve, best hands-on review that I’ve seen so far. It seems like versatility will be the main advantage of the 180-400 f/4 over the other zooms and primes, with price the main disadvantage.
Spot on. 🙂
I’m purchasing the lens to supplement my 800mm f/5.6 for the versatily and for travel. Your review seems to confirm the limited information that is slowly emerging.
That’s my thought for it, just wish it wasn’t as expensive as it is. I’ve been wanting a 400 2.8 as well, and it’s hard to pass on it for this one, but the versatility is just nuts.
Thanks for taking the time to test this lens, and share your results.
Great review as always Steve! Keep good work
Steve, Enjoyed the review – thanks for the video. Please tell me where yu were photographing the sand hill cranes. Thanks
Kensington Metropark near Ann Arbor. They’re always hanging around the parking lots.
That’s only 10 minutes from my house, I go there all the time!
It’s really amazing how close the 200-500 is to this top of the line model. It hasn’t always been the case that an “affordable” lens could even approach a high end lens in sharpness or overall quality. We’ve got it a lot better as photographers now than we dis 20-30 years ago, when “affordable” all to often meant “not so good.” I think it would be fun to print a 16×20 of the same scene, same camera, same settings taken with the 200-500 and 180-400. At normal viewing distances, I wonder how much difference we would notice. Anyway, thanks for… Read more »
Thanks 🙂 One thing of note though is that I believe I have a very sharp copy of the 200-500. This is my third copy and the 180-400 would have murdered the first two copies.
Great Review Steve!!
Hi Steve. I really enjoyed watching this “field review” of the Nikon 180-400mm lens. While it is out of my price range by one digit, I did find it of great interest to watch.
However, I have to ask, what happened on the boardwalk when the two herons landed close to your tripod? Looks like an interesting story behind it.
The one sandhill was there and I was trying to take some shots of her. Then a couple more flew in and the one decided he didn’t like the one i was photographing. So, he took off after him, almost got my tripod LOL.
Another instructive review, Steve. One of the major differences I noticed (that you briefly mentioned in passing, but that I feel deserve much more emphasis) was how much more color + micro-contrast fidelity there is on the 180-400 images versus every other zoom depicted. The difference in overall vividness was pronounced, imo. And, even though the 300 PF was roughly-equivalent in sharpness, again the color-saturation/micro-contrast in the 180-400 was head and shoulders better than the 300 PF. (Also, if you also look at the lettering in the corners, the 300 PF may have been “as sharp” as the 180-400, but… Read more »
Honestly, I don’t think I have enough experience with it to really render a full verdict, but I agree – both the contest and color seem to look a bit better with the 180-400 than the other zooms and it’s pretty close to the 300 PF.
I had the 200-400mm lens and sold it and bought the 500mm f/4 lens. I see the same choice with the new lens despite its having the integrated teleconverter. The 180-400mm provides at best a 560mm f/5.6 image magnification as compared to 700mm f/5.6 with the 500mm with the TC-14 teleconverter. The 200-400mm costs $2,100 more and weighs a full pound more than the 500mm f/4E lens. I will be sticking with my 600mm f/4E lens accompanied by either the 80-400mm or 200-500mm lens on my second camera. The 600mm lacks the zoom capability but provides 840mm at f/5.6 and… Read more »
I agree – my interest in this lens is as an addition to my 600mm, but I sure wouldn’t swap my 600mm for it 🙂
I use the 80 – 400mm lens and really like it. Sharpness is great although I must admit that I never looked at the sharpness at the edges mainly because to me this part of a photo usually isn’t a concern if one uses the rule of thirds. While the 180 – 400mm may be slightly better I could never justify the price difference. Also most viewers of photos (at least my photos) would never be able to detect the slight differences in picture quality to justify spending that kind of money for a lens.
How about the 200-400mm f/4 (at about half the cost)?
I’ve had one and really didn’t like it. Mine fell apart at any kind of distance and hated my TC. I know others have had better luck, but I gave mine up years ago.
I’ve experienced the same thing with my 200-400 f/4! I always thought for sure it must be something I’m doing wrong – after all, a $7,000 lens should be great! For the weight, and all the mental pain it has caused me, I’d love to sell it and get a few bucks back. But I’m not convinced yet that my 200-500, 80-400, or 300PF are going to be a legitimate replacement for it yet, for things like fast-moving sports (soccer, baseball, etc). And I can’t begin to justify the cost of the 180-400!
That’s my dilemma too – the 180-400 is exactly what I need, but I feel like it’s overpriced. The problem is, no real alternatives. My wife says I should stop thinking about it and just get it when the time comes. She’s a keeper 🙂
She’s right, Steve. Days are not ours to count.
this reply had me smiling, my 800mm has black insulating tap over the lettering on the handle so she doesn’t see what its, might have to do the same on the zoom.
LOL
Laughing. I thought I had it good when my wife said the same thing about the $1500 200-500.
If I was writing a technical review, I’d say to watch for wide copy variation — a whole decimal point .=8-0
(btw — after chat I did buy the 200-500 and that copy blew the doors off the rental.
It was immediately obvious on first use — tack sharp out of the box‚
As always, nice review Steve. If I only had the money…But I still like that you keep finding the 300pf to be a great alternative. That lens has become my favorite because I can take it places (like on mtn bike rides) that I just cannot take the really big glass like this.
Agree – I’ve found myself using the 300PF more than I ever thought due to the compact size and weight.
Great review, Steve. Am I missing something or is this lens 10X more expensive than the 200-500?
I suppose it’s worth every dollar if you’re a professional wildlife photographer or independently wealthy (still working on that). Otherwise, I’ll just continue to dream for now . . .
Indeed and almost 1.5 times the weight…luckily it is somewhat sharper in the edges than the 200-500mm (shoot it on D500 = crop, so not sure if you would even notice and some backgroundblur is never bad LOL)
So I guess two things realy better:
1. Focus speed (I do agree with Steve that with small birds nearby the 200-500 sometimes fails)
2. Weathersealed (but I can get a few of them for the same money)
Yes, but take a really good luck at the individual images. The overall effect. The colors and micro-contrast of the 180-400 *pop* … its images are vivid … whereas the colors/contrast of the 200-500 are dull and flat by comparison.
My wallet would be flat in comparrison…
I cannot see an enormous increase but yes it is better. I am on the other hand much more blown away that the 200-500 is so good in comparrison.
But maybe I want to see that… I am so proud of my little baby 😉
sweet review Steve, only used mine a couple of times but well pleased!
You have it already? Congrats!! I think I’ll probably join the club later this year 🙂