p.21 #2 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Both of these are close to full frame on my D810 and near MFD so ~7ft away at 500mm. My new love for this lens is "easy to grab and run outside when wildlife appears." I will still always have a pro telephoto around for work that requires both highest quality IQ and fastest AF performance but this one is just perfect for casual wildlife opportunities.
p.21 #3 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Architect7,
Will the lens replace your 200-400vr? How sharp is the lens when shot @ a distance? My 200-400vr has great bokeh with near subjects, but I am not wild about how the out of focus areas look when shooting wildlife at a 20+ meters.
Bruce
p.21 #4 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I am most likely selling my 200-400mm f4 but only to pay for the 500mm f4D AF-S II I brought home today. My 200-400 does great with subjects near and far but with TCs I found it actually did better with a TC-14E II than my TC-14E III for distant subjects. I wish I could keep both but as a hobbyist it is hard to justify.
p.21 #5 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Thanks for your reply architecht7... my question about near and far focus was in reference to your new 200-500mm f5.6VR. As for your purchase and upcoming sale... good for you. I would love a fixed 500mm lens, however the size of these make it tough to travel with other optics if you hike &/or do a lot of air travel with your gear.
p.21 #6 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
The 200-500 seems to do very well with far away subjects as a bare lens wide open and just needed a little adjustment with the TC-14E III. I'll see if I have a decent example I can post.
p.21 #9 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I just bought one from Kenmore Cameras in Washington State on ebay. I've bought from them before and are a good store to deal with. There are several on ebay right now for $1,396 with USA warranties so they must be starting to come back in stock now.
p.21 #10 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I had the use of the 200-500 f/5.6 and although I found it to focus faster than my 159-600 Tamron on my D750 and the build quality is better imho . I however did not think it was worth twice the price for 100mm less on the top end .
Going to keep it and just carry on renting prime lenses when needed.
Here is a pic I took with my Tammy 150-600 at full 600 on my old D90-- Had my 70-200 on my D750 pity as I am sure I would have got a better picture with the D750
p.21 #11 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I don't know if this review has been posted here yet or not, I don't remember seeing it when I read through. But its a good read with direct comparisons with the Tamron and Sigma variations. He also tested with TC's.
p.21 #12 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
GNMink wrote:
I don't know if this review has been posted here yet or not, I don't remember seeing it when I read through. But its a good read with direct comparisons with the Tamron and Sigma variations. He also tested with TC's.
This looks to be the "full review" follow up to the preview posted earlier by Cameralabs.
My head was going to explode looking at those resolution charts, but scrolling down to the crops of the long distance shots, the 200-500 looks noticeably better across the entire frame than the Sigma S, particularly at the longer focal lengths wide open. The Sigma C and Tamron actually look rather poor in some of the samples, at least to my eye in this specific scenario. The "S" corners are a lot weaker than I would have expected as well, even at F8. It's just one test, but Cameralabs conclusion is that the 200-500 is the sharpest of the 4 lenses. Testing on a D810.
Nikon 200-500 500mm f5.6 (From left to right: Center, DX Corner, FX Corner)
p.21 #14 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
GNMink wrote:
I just bought one from Kenmore Cameras in Washington State on ebay. I've bought from them before and are a good store to deal with. There are several on ebay right now for $1,396 with USA warranties so they must be starting to come back in stock now.
I live just down the road from Kenmore and go there often. Great people and great service!
Anyway I just shipped my 200-500 for the firmware update. I have been debating whether to keep it or return to B&H over the past couple of weeks. For day time shooting, I have been liking it a whole lot better than breaking out my 400 2.8. Its easy to handhold and not to bad to carry for a couple of hours. I still have not tested in for sports, but overall it seems to perform as advertised for wildlife.
p.21 #17 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
It's weird that the Sigma C looks much better than the Sigma S in that comparison. In the center that is.
The Nikon is miles ahead of the competition in the corners but the center sharpness seems to be very close to the Sigma C. The Nikon may have an edge at f/5.6 but at f/8 it's difficult to tell any difference (in the center).
p.21 #18 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
mansod wrote:
It's weird that the Sigma C looks much better than the Sigma S in that comparison. In the center that is.
The Nikon is miles ahead of the competition in the corners but the center sharpness seems to be very close to the Sigma C. The Nikon may have an edge at f/5.6 but at f/8 it's difficult to tell any difference (in the center).
With the long range test, it's almost impossible to draw conclusions since atmospheric conditions will play a much greater role in sharpness than the lens itself. To really test these, you'd need to be in a climate controlled warehouse or somesuch to avoid heat shimmer and other influences. And while star charts are great, they're only ever used at short to medium range and performance at long range is often significantly different. These three lenses are all so close that it seems like everyone is getting different results!
p.21 #20 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Agree with TM, not a ideal test.
Being that I'm in the market for a long lens again after coming back from Canon and shooting the T-150-600, I've been researching these super zooms as I'm open to any of them.
I just watched a youtube video on the 200-500 focusing speed and it seemed pretty slow. Certainly no faster than the 150-600's. I was a bit surprised actually.
I still feel after going through all the flickr examples(and my own of the T150-600) of the 200-500, I feel the Tamron is still the slightly sharpest(center anyways) of these cheap super zooms.
Watching the tammys getting off loaded for under $700 barely used is hard to pass up.
I may just bite the bullet and either get a 120-300 siggy or used nikon 300 2.8 and a couple of TCs
