Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikon 200-500 F5.6  (Read 23104 times)

jduncan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 432
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2015, 06:39:19 pm »

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,
Logged
english is not my first language, an I k

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #21 on: October 01, 2015, 08:17:52 pm »

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,
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3875
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2015, 04:50:41 am »

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
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Chris Calohan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3343
  • Editing Allowed
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2015, 11:38:42 am »

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.
Logged
If it Ain't Broke, Leave it Alone; if it is Broke, Fix it; if it's a Maybe, Play With it - Who Knows

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4033
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2015, 11:46:44 am »

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
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

jduncan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 432
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2015, 04:14:49 pm »

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, 
Logged
english is not my first language, an I k

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2015, 08:46:48 pm »

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.
Logged

Ajoy Roy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2015, 01:09:05 am »

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.
Logged
Ajoy Roy, image processing

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #28 on: October 12, 2015, 04:28:23 pm »

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.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2794
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #29 on: October 14, 2015, 12:41:36 am »

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.
Logged

Lightsmith

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 197
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2015, 08:14:45 pm »

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.
Logged

Chuck Fan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2015, 09:17:33 pm »

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. 
« Last Edit: October 23, 2015, 09:20:50 pm by Chuck Fan »
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2794
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2015, 04:39:05 am »

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.
Logged

Chuck Fan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #33 on: October 24, 2015, 10:43:20 am »

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.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2015, 10:50:08 am by Chuck Fan »
Logged

E.J. Peiker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 891
    • http://www.ejphoto.com
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #34 on: October 24, 2015, 12:24:09 pm »

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.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2794
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #35 on: October 24, 2015, 09:28:12 pm »

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.

Quote
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.
Logged

Chuck Fan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #36 on: October 25, 2015, 07:34:17 am »


Quote
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.
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6 - Hood Size
« Reply #37 on: December 09, 2015, 11:43:18 am »

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!
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 12:19:17 pm by dwswager »
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #38 on: December 09, 2015, 01:45:06 pm »

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 is the one to get ;)

Jack
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Nikon 200-500 F5.6
« Reply #39 on: December 09, 2015, 03:17:30 pm »

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 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up