Steve Perry Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Steve Perry's New Video - Nikon 200-500 Vs. Nikon 300PF | |
OwlsEyes wrote:
I second this...
I have been using the 200-400VR for years and think that it suffered from softness due to heat haze. Now that I have the 200-500VR, I am seeing a similar (but less pronounced) phenomenon. I wonder if all of the elements in these super-tele zooms magnify the issues (internal reflection?) and leads to a perceived softness in distant subjects.... for the record, I do not see the same type of heat-shimmer related softness when using my 300 f/2.8 on the D810 or D500.
@Steve... really nice review. I totally appreciate your attention to detail and your willingness to try a few copies prior to drawing a conclusion. I have found my 200-500VR to be as sharp as my 200-400 throughout much of its range... this has been a very pleasant surprise.
Regarding the Kirk collar... you indicated that it is a modest upgrade. I am looking at it for one purpose and I would love it if you could check this out. I would like to use the lens on my side-mount gimbal head to maintain a relatively portable package for travel (ball head + sidekick). I have found that the sidekick does not play well with the 200-500VR stock tripod collar. The lens tends to disengage from the collar when it passes a critical position.... this only happens with my sidekick. Does the lens disengage from the Kirk collar as quickly when aligned in this way?... If the Kirk collar is an improvement w/ side-mounted gimbals, then it will be total worth the $200 expense.
thanks and regards,
bruce
...Show more →
Hey Bruce -
I tested the Kirk on the Sidekick - hated it. I think it actually may be worse than the factory foot. It's odd - on my regular gimbal with the weight down on the foot, it's pretty good and a modest improvement. Using it mounted sideways...yeah, not so much.
|