Nikon 200-500 F5.6

[John Koerner]

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 for specifics.

Jack

[dwswager]

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.

[Chris Calohan]

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.

[Dan Wells]

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!

[dwswager]

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.

[Chris Calohan]

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.

[Paul2660]

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

[dwswager]

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.