Nikon 200-500 F5.6

[Paul2660]

I was able to briefly shoot with this lens today as my local camera store had one in for a pre-order.  I was impressed. 

The feel of the lens is very nice, the zoom is a twist style and movement feels very clean.  Overall impression is that Nikon, albeit late to the game in this category got it right.   

Shooting was very limited but I found the lens very sharp even wide open at 500mm.  Enough so that I am going to sell my Tamron 150-600 and move to this lens.  The overall size and weight of the Nikon is great, and it has a 95mm outer opening.  The fixed F5.6 is a nice feature also.   This looks like a great field lens for a lot of the wildlife shooting I prefer and it would be a great landscape lens as I like the zoom range. 

Hopefully more will be shipping soon to my dealer and I can post some samples.

Paul Caldwell

[MoreOrLess]

I'v been weighing up getting into wildlife shooting my seriously(only 200mm max at the moment on FF) and this lens certainly looks interesting. The tests I'v seen so far have ut beating the recent Sigma 150-600mm at 500mm and being around the same as the Sigma at 600mm when used with a 1.4 TC to get 700mm.

Must confess whilst I'll buy third party for landscape I'm not sure about doing it for anything that will be more autofocus dependant.

[NancyP]

Gosh. For years I felt privileged as a Canon user for having the very lightweight 400 f/5.6L as a "gateway lens" to bird photography - and then the new 100-400 f/4-5.6L. Smug no longer! Have fun, Nikonistas, this looks great! P.S., having gotten used to "no image stabilization" in the 1.2 kg 400 f/5.6L, I still love it to bits, in good light. It's the only non-mirror 400mm lens that I ever expect to shoot one-handed (admittedly, near-zenith).

[dwswager]

Intriguing.  I am really hankering for a reasonably affordable 400mm f/4 PF that won't happen so this might be a decent alternative. 

[Rory]

Brad Hill has put up his first impressions - looks like a winner.  http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html

[BernardLanguillier]

It sounds like a very sweet lens.

The most interesting point may be the quality of out of focus areas that seems outstanding, as with most recent Nikon designs.

I'd be interested to compare its image quality at 500mm f5.6 relative to the 400mm f2.8 E FL + TC-14III at f5.6 too.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Paul2660]

It sounds like a very sweet lens.

The most interesting point may be the quality of out of focus areas that seems outstanding, as with most recent Nikon designs.

I'd be interested to compare its image quality at 500mm f5.6 relative to the 400mm f2.8 E FL + TC-14III at f5.6 too.

Cheers,
Bernard

I know many consider the 200-400 F4 a dog, but I personally love this lens.  Especially with the 1.4x converter.  With a D810 in DX crop mode this lens is my go to shooter for wildlife large and small, the details you can pull on feathers is amazing.  But the other really striking feature is the bokeh, it's just creamy smooth and really allows the in focus areas to pop.  Contrast is also excellent.  I have the Vr 2. 

Only issue is size and weight and field use.  I am truly hoping that the 200-500 can give me the same look in the field as the 200-400. 

Paul

[JohnBrew]

I can't imagine sales of the 200-400 will continue?

[BernardLanguillier]

I can't imagine sales of the 200-400 will continue?

It is certainly due for the E/FL update, but I would be surprised if they dropped it. It had a monopoly on bright super tele zooms for 8 years until Canon released their version. I doubt Nikon will want to give up on such a lens.

I wouldn't be surprised if they changed the game a bit though. A 200-500 f4 would steal a lof of the thunder of the Canon and may not be a lot bulkier.

One stop can be important.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ajoy Roy]

It is certainly due for the E/FL update, but I would be surprised if they dropped it. It had a monopoly on bright super tele zooms for 8 years until Canon released their version. I doubt Nikon will want to give up on such a lens.

I wouldn't be surprised if they changed the game a bit though. A 200-500 f4 would steal a lof of the thunder of the Canon and may not be a lot bulkier.

One stop can be important.

Cheers,
Bernard

500mm at F4 would have the front element of at least 125mm diameter in contrast to 90mm for F5.6 version. That would increase both the weight (and cost) by 2 times. at least.

I would prefer a 400mm, F4 or F5.6 prime instead, which is sorely missing from Nikon lineup.

[BernardLanguillier]

500mm at F4 would have the front element of at least 125mm diameter in contrast to 90mm for F5.6 version. That would increase both the weight (and cost) by 2 times. at least.

Indeed, that sounds about right. If you have ever used the current 200-400 f4, it isn't a small lens. I meant that a 200-500 f4 would not be a lot bulkier than a 200-400 f4.

Anyway, sorry for the digression, this thread is about the current and very real 200-500 f5.6.

Cheers,
Bernard

[jduncan]

Brad Hill has put up his first impressions - looks like a winner.  http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html

This look great because he is taking into account the Tamron (that has a better autofocus than the sigma contemporary  and similar optics).
Right now all point that the lens is a winner.

Best regards, and thanks for the link.

[jduncan]

It is certainly due for the E/FL update, but I would be surprised if they dropped it. It had a monopoly on bright super tele zooms for 8 years until Canon released their version. I doubt Nikon will want to give up on such a lens.

I wouldn't be surprised if they changed the game a bit though. A 200-500 f4 would steal a lof of the thunder of the Canon and may not be a lot bulkier.

One stop can be important.

Cheers,
Bernard

Totally agree with you, FL elements could make the lens more portable, and if Nikon wants new lens design could improve an already excellent lens.  I remember when the previews generation of Nikon lenses came along and people was telling me that no need for FL elements in zooms not even on telephoto lens. The importance to look the other side of the fence: proven.
but I digress.
Bess regards,

[shadowblade]

How does the 200-500 f/5.6 compare with Canon's 200-400 IQ-wise, with the Canon being used with the 1.4x TC?

Reachwise they're pretty similar - 560mm f/5.6 vs 500 f/5.6 - with the Nikon being more portable but the Canon having an f/4 option at shorter focal lengths. But, for shooting wildlife, which one gives a better picture - D810 with 200-500 or 5Ds/5D3 with 200-400+1.4TC?

[Ajoy Roy]

This look great because he is taking into account the Tamron (that has a better autofocus than the sigma contemporary  and similar optics).
Right now all point that the lens is a winner.

Best regards, and thanks for the link.

Brad did say, that the sharpness of the 300mm F4 is much better, but the versatility of zoom (and of course the cost), makes this lens indispensable for those who would like a decent IQ, but cannot spend thousand on longer and faster primes.

[BernardLanguillier]

How does the 200-500 f/5.6 compare with Canon's 200-400 IQ-wise, with the Canon being used with the 1.4x TC?

Reachwise they're pretty similar - 560mm f/5.6 vs 500 f/5.6 - with the Nikon being more portable but the Canon having an f/4 option at shorter focal lengths. But, for shooting wildlife, which one gives a better picture - D810 with 200-500 or 5Ds/5D3 with 200-400+1.4TC?

Considering that the Nikon is 6 times cheaper, it would be a pretty amazing performance if it were close.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

Considering that the Nikon is 6 times cheaper, it would be a pretty amazing performance if it were close.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not really. You pay a lot of premium for a faster, larger lens. But that doesn't necessarily mean sharper.

Just look at the Leica Summilux vs Summicron series. The Summilux series is faster, larger and much more expensive. But the Summicrons are usually sharper than the Summilux of the same focal length. The Noctilux is even faster, larger, more expensive and less sharp.

[BernardLanguillier]

Not really. You pay a lot of premium for a faster, larger lens. But that doesn't necessarily mean sharper.

Just look at the Leica Summilux vs Summicron series. The Summilux series is faster, larger and much more expensive. But the Summicrons are usually sharper than the Summilux of the same focal length. The Noctilux is even faster, larger, more expensive and less sharp.

Slightly different story I believe. Here you would be comparing at 500mm 2 lenses with the same maximum aperture (the Canon 200-400 + built in TC becomes a 560 f5.6), with a 7.2 fold difference in price (based on actual street prices in Tokyo). OK, the Canon is brighter on the short end of the zoom range, but I believe most users end up spending most of their time on the long end of the zoom range.

The summilux is inferior due to the compromises made to reach a brighter max aperture. Here, the 2 lenses are basically functionally identical on their long end where it matters.

Besides, the super teles are known not to compromise performance wide open, that's the reason why people like myself are willing to spend that much more for a lens one stop brighter (more speed/less noise, more subject background isolation,...).

Cheers,
Bernard

[dwswager]

Read a patent not too long ago for a AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4-5.6 PF. 

I still feel a 400mm f/4 PF would be the ticket.  400mm on FX, 480mm at 1.2X and 600mm at 1.5x DX all at f/4.  Of course, I think a 8fps D400 DX body would be the ticket too!   Nikon (and Canon) need to rethink and get out of the old patterns.

It is certainly due for the E/FL update, but I would be surprised if they dropped it. It had a monopoly on bright super tele zooms for 8 years until Canon released their version. I doubt Nikon will want to give up on such a lens.

I wouldn't be surprised if they changed the game a bit though. A 200-500 f4 would steal a lof of the thunder of the Canon and may not be a lot bulkier.

One stop can be important.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Read a patent not too long ago for a AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4-5.6 PF. 

I still feel a 400mm f/4 PF would be the ticket.  400mm on FX, 480mm at 1.2X and 600mm at 1.5x DX all at f/4.  Of course, I think a 8fps D400 DX body would be the ticket too!   Nikon (and Canon) need to rethink and get out of the old patterns.

Nikon and Canon have so far decided to use the PF technology on lenses with a different line up position.
- Canon for high price ticket items that are new (400 f4),
- Nikon on the replacement of existing mid range items with a focus on super lightenss (300 f4)

I see more a very light Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF rather than a 400mm f4.

Cheers,
Bernard