I know a professional wedding photographer (very respected in my area) that still shoots a lot with the $400 50mm f1.4 because its a good lens even without all the expensive coatings. She passed up the much more expensive 58, and is laughing all the way to the bank. I feel the same way about this one and it does appeal to me. If its sharp and has good bokeh, af, etc. then I'll buy it and use it, even with the noob tag.
qc_mountain wrote:
, brand name is always better than third party equipment ........
Francois
No Francois, it's not. Zeiss and Sigma A lenes to name two. Though of course in the prime long tele market there are no modern 3rd party options to the exotics (maybe Sigma' 500/4.5 which I had for a year and is an excellent lens but aging now or the Sigma 120-300/2.8 Sport which works beautifully with their own x2.0 TC).
In this case it's still to be proven though I suspect the low x2.5 zoom will give the Nikon an advantage.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Not holding my breath...
Knee jerk reaction to Tam/Sig $1000 offerings that
really got people considering 3rd party long zooms.
They're trying to stop the bleeding, but it'll appeal to
noobs and entry level DX shooters...and that's fine.
_________
Will, have you visited the Canon forum and read the loooong thread about the Sigma C lens? Also, check out Isaac Grant's bird photos.
It is all about the price very true , that would be nice if they put a big EFFORT on quality , brand name is always better than third party equipment , let's hope they will make it Very Good that way people wouldn't go to other lesser brand.
Francois
_________
Not necessarily true. Sigma's new Art line of lenses (at least the wide angle ones) have been favorably compared to their wide angle counterparts from Nikon and Canon. Just do some research.
I had been using (and still like) my 70-300 VR for motor sports (I get a photo pass, so I am closer than most people)---just picked up a mint used 80-400 AF-S lens for a very reasonable price---just starting some tests, and I like it on my D7100 and it works well on my old reliable D300---and of course, Nikon throws this 200-500 at us (a lens I've wanted Nikon to come out for years) at a super-low price---but I'm liking the 80-400 a lot on my DX bodies and I've got a TC14E gathering dust somewhere in the safe, so I'll sit back with these and see where things shake out...
That 200-500 is looking pretty good at least on paper. Definitely sharper at 500mm than the 80-400 @ 400mm, and sharper in the center at 500mm than the 200-400 @ 400mm F4 (though I suspect that changes with the 200-400 stopped down once to match the F5.6). Not all apples to apples, but these are the lenses people are comparing them to.
I'm interested. I've toyed with the idea of the Tamron and Sigma 150-600's (even rented the Tamron for a week), but I wasn't impressed enough to pull the trigger. The Tamron was sharp enough in the center out to about 500mm, but it really needed to be stopped down to f8. I found the VC lacking compared to most modern Nikons. The combination of the light weight, poor VC, and narrow aperture made it difficult to shoot handheld on my D800E (1/1000th at f8 needs a lot of light). Perhaps the Sigmas are better, but they haven't been readily available for long and most of the testing I've seen says they perform about on par with the Tamron.
I rent a 500/4G two or three times a year for work and I wouldn't expect a superzoom to replace it, but it would be nice to have something longer than my 70-200 the rest of the year. If the 200-500/5.6E is good enough in the center at 500mm at f5.6 that I don't need to stop down to f8 and the AF-S and VR are what we'd expect from a modern Nikkor, I'll probably pony up for one.
Reading through the specs of this lens though, it just kills me that Nikon didn't decide to build a 500/5.6 prime. Similar build quality and features to the 300/4E (without the PF though) at a $2500-3000 price point. I would have been all over that and I bet I'm not the only one.
JoshI wrote:
Reading through the specs of this lens though, it just kills me that Nikon didn't decide to build a 500/5.6 prime. Similar build quality and features to the 300/4E (without the PF though) at a $2500-3000 price point. I would have been all over that and I bet I'm not the only one.
Josh
Josh, you are correct in assuming that you would not be the only one.
p.3 #10 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I'll have to wait to see images with it other than what is being shown by Nikon, and I doubt I'd buy it new, but it probably would keep me from buying the Sigma, I've already ruled out the tamron.
p.3 #11 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I was considering the Sigma 150-600 Sport, but this announcement stopped that in its tracks. I have pre-ordered the 200-500 and will test to see how it compares to the 80-400 and the Sigma 150-600. I think its going to be a big seller and thus the used prices won't drop very quickly.
p.3 #14 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Looks pretty good. I always am skeptical of the MTF charts on these. Witness the Sigma 150-500 OS which had decent MTF charts but was horrible at the long end. (I know you can find some story of some guy who knows some cousin's friend who sent their 150-500 to Sigma Japan and it came back good or something but w/e).
The images look contrasty and have a nice decent pop.
The most impressive sample (and it's not a good picture, hear me out) is sample number 3. Why? it shows a nice rendering of a very very difficult background (tree branches near the subject). Frankly, they look *great* for a lens of this class.
And it's priced in between the Tamron/Sigma C and the Sigma S....Sigma 50-500 OS is around the same price though IIRC, and that gives a massive zoom range and is very good at 500 (but not so good at the corners, where I'm assuming this Nikon will be much better). Only downside is the lame minimum focus distance. lol
p.3 #16 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
nuclearjock wrote:
What about the "leakage" from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II??
Probably offset quite nicely by all the users moving from a 5DM3 to D750 or D810, and the people who were holding out for a 5DS/R but went and bought a D810 after they found out the specs of the 5DS/R.
I don't think it's significant numbers either way. The amount of people willing to give up several other important things just to get a few extra FPS in a 7D2 is pretty low I imagine (though we have no way of knowing the actual figures). Same for the other way - I doubt there is a huge number of people leaving Canon for Nikon who have significant glass investment. I suspect the "leakage" is a very minor concern for either brand. I would be more worried about Sigma stealing lens sales.
