Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Paul2660 on September 19, 2015, 09:10:07 pm
-
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
Intriguing. I am really hankering for a reasonably affordable 400mm f/4 PF that won't happen so this might be a decent alternative.
-
Brad Hill has put up his first impressions - looks like a winner. http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html
-
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
-
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
-
I can't imagine sales of the 200-400 will continue?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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,
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
I agree if they were to build only two, 500mm does more sense. The difference is so high that they could go f4.0 but it will hurt the bottom line, so yes, a 500mm f5.6 seems like the suit spot.
Best regards,
-
I agree that with the 300mm f/4 PF already a reality, a 500mm makes more sense. The failure is the 300mm f/4 PF. The first lens should have been a 400mm f/4 PF to see how it is received. To see if the size and weight savings drives sales over the limit of the technology.
As sensor technology continues to improve, the solution to needing more lens than 400mm is, in a lot of cases, a DX sensored camera and not more lens.
I agree if they were to build only two, 500mm does more sense. The difference is so high that they could go f4.0 but it will hurt the bottom line, so yes, a 500mm f5.6 seems like the suit spot.
Best regards,
-
I agree that with the 300mm f/4 PF already a reality, a 500mm makes more sense. The failure is the 300mm f/4 PF. The first lens should have been a 400mm f/4 PF to see how it is received. To see if the size and weight savings drives sales over the limit of the technology.
As sensor technology continues to improve, the solution to needing more lens than 400mm is, in a lot of cases, a DX sensored camera and not more lens.
you can combine the 300F4 pf with the 2x extender getting good results... ( the 1.4 and 1.7 i have not tried)
a very light 600mm f8 lens ..... 1100 grams
-
Mine is a lemon. Soft focus at all apertures and focal lengths. Decent but not great when the subject is relatively still and in good light but I found that I had to give up a lot of aperture to get any decent depth of field. Low light and fast movers is not a good combination for this lens. I used a number of focusing options from Spot to Group Area and nothing seemed to change. This was coupled to a D810. My buddy got one that works better than mine but same issue with fast movers in lower light and as well, getting a good focus lock on fast movers. I sent mine back and got the Tamron 150-600 and am quite pleased with how it shoots all the way around - even at 600mm as you can see in my Landscape & Nature shot, "Ever Watchful." I do still have my 80-400 when the light gets a bit dimmer and for shooting indoor concerts. hard to beat the 80-400.
-
Mine is a lemon. Soft focus at all apertures and focal lengths. Decent but not great when the subject is relatively still and in good light but I found that I had to give up a lot of aperture to get any decent depth of field. Low light and fast movers is not a good combination for this lens. I used a number of focusing options from Spot to Group Area and nothing seemed to change. This was coupled to a D810. My buddy got one that works better than mine but same issue with fast movers in lower light and as well, getting a good focus lock on fast movers. I sent mine back and got the Tamron 150-600 and am quite pleased with how it shoots all the way around - even at 600mm as you can see in my Landscape & Nature shot, "Ever Watchful." I do still have my 80-400 when the light gets a bit dimmer and for shooting indoor concerts. hard to beat the 80-400.
It is indeed sad that companies like Nikon has such variances in QA. My experience is just the opposite as I feel mine is excellent though out the zoom range even at f5.6. I sold my Tamron 150-600 as I never felt it as consistent. The bokeh on the Nikon rivals my 200-400 as does the critical focus. This on a D810 in both DX and FX modes.
Paul
-
Hi,
Nikon is recalling some of the lenses. I get that SLRs are problematic to build, they need retooling and expert personnel, but this is looking tragic.
At least they were on top of the issues, and that, for Nikon is a big improvement.
https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/65374
All companies should have "on the field" firmware upgrade capabilities for the lenses.
This could move some people to the Tamron or the Sigma, but not that many as they are taking care of the expenses. What is truly important is that it will make clear to some of the brand heads that they should look to other brands too.
Best regards,
-
you can combine the 300F4 pf with the 2x extender getting good results... ( the 1.4 and 1.7 i have not tried)
a very light 600mm f8 lens ..... 1100 grams
With a 400mm f/4 I get
FX
400mm f/4
560mm f/5.6
DX
600mm f/4
840mm f/5.6
I can already get 280mm (300mm) f/4 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and 1.4X TC-14III. It is not that 300mm f/4 isn't useful, it is. It is that most of us can already get their pretty well and a separate 300mm f/4 doesn't give near what a 400mm f/4 would. And a stop or 2 of light is not insignificant.
This is the change in thinking that needs to happen. Few bought a 400mm, not because they didn't want/need it, but because it was too big, too heavy and too expensive. In 1970 we could get 300mm reasonably and if you needed more then you went really big. In 2015, we could get 400mm reasonably small, light and inexpensive. 400mm would be the new 300mm. But the camera makers can't get out of the 1970s thinking.
-
With a 400mm f/4 I get
FX
400mm f/4
560mm f/5.6
DX
600mm f/4
840mm f/5.6
I can already get 280mm (300mm) f/4 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and 1.4X TC-14III. It is not that 300mm f/4 isn't useful, it is. It is that most of us can already get their pretty well and a separate 300mm f/4 doesn't give near what a 400mm f/4 would. And a stop or 2 of light is not insignificant.
This is the change in thinking that needs to happen. Few bought a 400mm, not because they didn't want/need it, but because it was too big, too heavy and too expensive. In 1970 we could get 300mm reasonably and if you needed more then you went really big. In 2015, we could get 400mm reasonably small, light and inexpensive. 400mm would be the new 300mm. But the camera makers can't get out of the 1970s thinking.
400mm F4 would have quite a large front element minimum 100mm, which would mean a front filter of 105/110mm. Then that large front glass would be heavy and expensive. A 5.6 would be lighter and more hand holdable. That is why I like the idea of 500mm F5.6.
-
400mm F4 would have quite a large front element minimum 100mm, which would mean a front filter of 105/110mm. Then that large front glass would be heavy and expensive. A 5.6 would be lighter and more hand holdable. That is why I like the idea of 500mm F5.6.
I rarely use a filter. I own CP and ND and use them sparingly. I'm more interested, for this lens, in more light. It might be too expensive for me, but a 400mm f/4 would be the lens I would own rather than a 300mm f/4 or 500mm f/5.6.
-
When shooting wildlife or action (probably the prime use of 400mm-plus lenses) you rarely need a filter. At the same time, you can usually use either a longer or faster lens. 200-600 f/5.6 would have been very nice, and not really much of a stretch from 200-500 f/5.6 or 150-600 f/6.3, except for the psychological (and filter-mediated) 100mm front element mark.
-
I don't understand comparing a fixed focal length lens with a zoom. The 300mm is 300mm or with the 1.4x TC a 420mm lens. How does that compare to a 150mm to 600mm or a 200mm to 500mm lens? Both have a far greater range of focal length options and both can be used with a 1.4x teleconverter and both provide much greater image sizes.
I have the 500mm f4 and it is a lens I can use with all three Nikon teleconverters with little loss of image quality. I have the 200-500mm lens and it is a lens for use in situations where it is preferable to the 80-400mm lens in terms of image size. I have ordered the Sigma Sports 150-600mm as it may end up replacing the 200-500mm lens. Neither are replacements for the 80-400mm which is my favored lens for shooting from a boat.
-
When shooting wildlife or action (probably the prime use of 400mm-plus lenses) you rarely need a filter. At the same time, you can usually use either a longer or faster lens. 200-600 f/5.6 would have been very nice, and not really much of a stretch from 200-500 f/5.6 or 150-600 f/6.3, except for the psychological (and filter-mediated) 100mm front element mark.
200-500 is already a beast to handhold at almost 5 lbs. A 200-600 would necessarily be at least 60-70% heavier. So it is a substantial stretch in usability and target clientele.
-
200-500 is already a beast to handhold at almost 5 lbs. A 200-600 would necessarily be at least 60-70% heavier. So it is a substantial stretch in usability and target clientele.
Sigma already have a 150-600 f/6.3. A f/5.6 version would only be a little larger - not 60-70%. Sacrificing a little at the short end - 200-600 - would allow you to save a little weight and gain some image quality. Canon also already have a 200-560mm f/4-5.6 - 200-600 would only be marginally larger, and not necessarily heavier, depending on materials chosen. And, as a high-end supertelephoto, you're likely to be using it on a monopod or gimbal mount most of the time anyway.
-
Sigma already have a 150-600 f/6.3. A f/5.6 version would only be a little larger - not 60-70%. Sacrificing a little at the short end - 200-600 - would allow you to save a little weight and gain some image quality. Canon also already have a 200-560mm f/4-5.6 - 200-600 would only be marginally larger, and not necessarily heavier, depending on materials chosen. And, as a high-end supertelephoto, you're likely to be using it on a monopod or gimbal mount most of the time anyway.
It would be 60-70% heavier if it were built to the same standards, using similar optical construction. It would need be physically 20% larger in very dimension, and that converts to 1.2^3 in mass and weight. The 200-500 is already a plastic lens. There doesn't seem to be much room to reduce weight using lighter materials unless one makes it flimsy as well.
Canon's 200-400f/4, extendable to 5605/5.6, is in fact weigh 70% more than Nikon's 200-500, and it doesn't even get to 600mm
In fact the 200-500 itself, despite the smaller zoom ratio and smaller aperture on the short end, is 60-70% heavier than Nikon's own already portly 80-400.
A 200-600f/5.6 clearly would not be a lens in the same class of portability and usability as the 200-500f/5.6. It would be a specialty lens, probably not good enough for people who really need 600mm, and way to heavy for people who just want 600mm.
-
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
Canon also produces a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO zoom that quite frankly isn't great.
Their 70-300 f/4-5.6L lens is vastly superior and actually costs a tiny bit less.
-
It would be 60-70% heavier if it were built to the same standards, using similar optical construction. It would need be physically 20% larger in very dimension, and that converts to 1.2^3 in mass and weight. The 200-500 is already a plastic lens. There doesn't seem to be much room to reduce weight using lighter materials unless one makes it flimsy as well.
Canon's 200-400f/4, extendable to 5605/5.6, is in fact weigh 70% more than Nikon's 200-500, and it doesn't even get to 600mm
In fact the 200-500 itself, despite the smaller zoom ratio and smaller aperture on the short end, is 60-70% heavier than Nikon's own already portly 80-400.
Obviously it wouldn't be in the same class as other portable or low-end lenses. It wouldn't be designed to compete with them - it would be heavier and far more capable.
Size- and weight-wise, it would be more similar to Sigma's 120-300 f/2.8 Sport (and likely smaller than Canon's 200-400, since it wouldn't need the movable teleconverter and, instead, would use fixed elements to reach the 560-600mm mark). Which is still plenty portable enough.
A 200-600f/5.6 clearly would not be a lens in the same class of portability and usability as the 200-500f/5.6. It would be a specialty lens, probably not good enough for people who really need 600mm, and way to heavy for people who just want 600mm.
I don't see too many people complaining about the IQ of the Canon 200-400. And I've never found the 200-400 or 120-300 too heavy to carry around.
-
I don't see too many people complaining about the IQ of the Canon 200-400. And I've never found the 200-400 or 120-300 too heavy to carry around.
Well good for you. The canon 200-400, extendable to 560, also cost 6 times as much as Nikon's 200-500.
-
Can anyone with or with access to a Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E give me the dimensions for the hood (Diameter and length). I've come to learn that the hood is the limiting condition for packing lenses. The 24-70mm f/2.8 is a perfect example. With the hood mounted backwards, it is a lot bigger than the lens itself.
I find it somewhat baffling that most lens reviews never really go into the hood. It's size, how it attaches, does it stay attached, it is 100% or one of those flower designs that performs worse in vertical, etc.
UPDATE:
Never Mind: 5.25" in diameter and 4" long!
-
The Nikon 200-500 is not the zoom to get.
If you're looking for the best zoom lens, for the money, the Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106387.0) is the one to get ;)
Jack
-
The Nikon 200-500 is not the zoom to get.
If you're looking for the best zoom lens, for the money, the Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM S (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106387.0) is the one to get ;)
"Yet the fact remains Nikkor's 200-500 does NOT appear to be in the same league as any of the above, based on initial impressions."
Jack
There is a $600 premium for the Sigma Sport versus the Nikon. For that you do get a weather sealed lens with a small increase in reach.
And no facts are in evidence about the Nikon 200-500mm in the linked post. From all reviews, it is optically very good with no light falloff wide open. And the VR is reported to be stellar if you need that feature.
Focus speed, lock and tracking are real keys to these lenses and I have yet to find a 3rd partly lens that outperforms the OEM brand (Nikon or Canon) in this area. Obviously, I have not tested them all.
-
There is a $600 premium for the Sigma Sport versus the Nikon. For that you do get a weather sealed lens with a small increase in reach.
Small increase?
You get a 150 mm increase in range.
You also get the best bokeh of any zoom lens under $4000.
And you get comparable resolution of any lens under $2000.
And no facts are in evidence about the Nikon 200-500mm in the linked post. From all reviews, it is optically very good with no light falloff wide open. And the VR is reported to be stellar if you need that feature.
We both are waiting for the formal test results.
However, because the Sigma pretty much out-performs every lens in the 200-400 mm lineup, and because the 200-500 mm Nikkor is so much cheaper than Nikon's 100-200 (which is at best "comparable" to the Sigma), I suspect the 200-500's marks will be underwhelming, and significantly less than the Sigma's, when all is said and done.
The only thing that is factual at this point is 200-500 is less broad than 150-600, and it is cheaper than other Nikkors.
In time I suspect that the benchmarks of the 200-500 will likewise prove to be underwhelming as well, which is why they priced it as they did.
And, BTW, the IS of the 150-600 Sigma is excellent also.
Focus speed, lock and tracking are real keys to these lenses and I have yet to find a 3rd partly lens that outperforms the OEM brand (Nikon or Canon) in this area. Obviously, I have not tested them all.
The real question is, have you tested any?
The Sigma's IS is quite excellent, and it blows away the Canons/Nikons in a lot of different levels, actually.
Please review My Table (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/showthread.php?64) for specifics.
Jack
-
However, because the Sigma pretty much out-performs every lens in the 200-400 mm lineup, and because the 200-500 mm Nikkor is so much cheaper than Nikon's 100-200 (which is at best "comparable" to the Sigma), I suspect the 200-500's marks will be underwhelming, and significantly less than the Sigma's, when all is said and done.
Hey, now, that is Ken Rockwell "The 100-400 replaces every telephoto lens in your bag" type logic. Using that logic, the AFS Nikkor 80-400mm would be priced at $900. Which highlights everyone's befuddlement. The expected price for the Nikkor 200-500mm ranged from $2200-$3000. That it supposedly performs optically on par with the 200-400mm and yet is priced at $1399, is what is making this lens so interesting.
Both the Sigma and the Nikon offer some advantages and disadvantages when compared to each other. Which is right for anyone person depends on their needs and shooting patterns. The fact that the Sigma is not only bigger, but weighs 560g more than the Nikon, before you add the 300g Sigma hood to the equation, is not insignificant to me. Hell, if the Nikkor had been priced at $2200, I would have just bought the AFS Nikkor 300mm f/4 PF and called it a day! Then I add a TC-14E III when I need it. I still might go that route.
-
Nikon replaced my first purchase with a new, out of the box, firmware fixed 200-500 and I have to say it is a jewel of a lens. I sold my 80-400 after using it for just over a week and a half. There are a few focus lock issues I had to work out but for the money, it is a stellar lens. I have little or no fall off at 500mm or at 200mm for that matter at any length in-between. The bokeh is gorgeous at 5.6 @ 500mm. I shot the Sigma 150-600 Sport for two weeks and it too is a good piece of glass but it is a beast to lug around and hand-holding for fast moving bird shots for more than an hour is not an option for anyone not lifting weights or just downright a brute of a human being. I am neither.
I shot the 80-400 for two and a half years and it was a great lens but, and neither I nor Nikon has a reasonable answer for this, but the 1.4 converter works great for about 200 frames on the D810 before it starts dropping frames and I would have to dismount and remount on a regular basis - and yes, my contacts were pristine. I have not yet tried the 200-500 with the 1.4 on the D810 but will soon. This is more likely an issue with the D810 than with the lens.
Having shot all three lenses and the Tamron 150-600, I have to give a lean more toward the 200-500 over the Sigma 150-600 sport as much for the weight differential as the clarity across the focal range. Shooting a D3 with the 1.4 on the 80-400 is almost dream city but I didn't want to expend another three or four grand for a new body.
As per Bokeh, the first shot is at 5.6 at 500mm (all are at 500mm)The Eagle is easily at 300 yards out and 80 feet up at f/10; the head on Great Egret is a full frame, wingtip to wingtip at 5.6 @1/2000 and the flock of Snowy Egrets is at 5.6 @ 1/1600 at a distance of 200 ft.
-
Another interesting lens that is coming into this space (and the first for any system other than Canon or Nikon, apart from low-end 75 or 100-300 lenses taking advantage of sensor crop on Micro 4/3, and the beautiful but VERY expensive Olympus 300 f2.8 "old 4/3" lens, which is also a supertele by virtue of sensor crop) is the new Fujinon 100-400. Nobody's seen one yet, of course, but with the performance of just about all of the Fujinons (they've quietly built themselves a lens lineup second to none in the relatively normal ranges, and now seem to be moving out to odder focal lengths), it's certainly one to watch. Right now, they don't have a terribly high resolution body to use it on, but quite a few rumors point to a 24mp body coming soon (and XTrans tends to overperform a bit, so closer to a conventional 28mp body).
Panasonic is also planning a 100-400, which may or may not be as optically impressive as the Fujinon promises to be, but will certainly have the longest effective FL in a reasonably portable format (without resorting to converters). There are certainly even longer lenses around, ranging from Canon's 1200 f5.6L and Nikon's 1200-1700 f5.6-8 (both incredibly rare, expensive exotic lenses) to relatively common and affordable ~2000 mm f10 astronomical telescopes, but none of these are hand-holdable by any definition!
-
Confirmed today that I picked the correct Superzoom for me: Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E. I haven't got the Arca Swiss plate yet so I had to hand hold and 4.2lbs is more than heavy enough to know, that 1) I couldn't handhold a 6.2lb lens for sports and 2) I need to order that damn plate.
My comment on the lens is that it works just fine, but at least for sports when hand holding, the amount of rotation required to zoom is excessive. When on a mono-pod, I think it will be more manageable, but with the left hand bearing weight, you just can't twist the zoom ring with enough rotation.
-
I've been shooting it since December almost exclusively handheld and having few issues. The rotation is a bit of an issue but only if you do a lot of focal length changing. I find I stay mostly between 300 and 500mm so not as much a problem. Here are just a few shots all of which are handheld.
-
Thanks for the pics.
The 200-500 is an amazing lens and an outstanding value.
My first lens had to go back to Nikon when the rubber gasket at the mount pulled out. But since its return trouble free.
Paul C
-
Thanks for the pics.
The 200-500 is an amazing lens and an outstanding value.
Paul C
That it is! Would love the extra stop of the 200-400mm, but not the extra cost or weight. But at $1399 it is a great value.
And while it is not near as sharp as say the 400mm f/2.8 or as fast focusing, for the value, the only real handicap I find when shooting sports where the focal length zooming is near constant with some sports, is the amount of zoom ring rotation required to get through the range. It takes 2 attempts. No matter where your hand is on the lens, you must remove it, re position and then continue the rotation to get through the range.