p.24 #1 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
There's no doubt this lens is an exceptionally sharp one and a bargain. It competes directly against three 150~600. As far as I recall, the latter lenses focal breathes so if 200~50 does not, it is a true wonder.
p.24 #2 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Dpedraza wrote:
I don't know the name of this horse it's one of our boarder's horses. It freaked out when it saw me come out of the woods.
His name is Tony, and he's in the Federal Witness Protection Program. He freaked out because he doesn't like men coming out of the woods toting long, black objects.
p.24 #4 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I rented the 200-500/5.6E for a week or so. It's an impressive lens in many ways, probably enough so that I'll end up buying one. The VR works very well and it's sharp at f5.6, which makes it much easier to shoot handheld than the Tamron 150-600 I've used. The out-of-focus rendering is the best of the superzooms I've used. Having carried it many miles in hand and in a backpack, I still wonder what they could have done if they'd chosen to build a 500/5.6 prime to similar specs.
p.24 #5 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Was on the fence for a zoom. I had the Tammy for sometime but was looking for an "upgrade", off late.
Was contemplating to get a Sigma 15-600 Sports, but the weight was a put off. Yes I shoot handheld almost all the time. Went ahead with the Nikkor. My copy arrived a couple of days back and captured about 50 odd shots since then.
BTW, I did try it mounting on a TC 14 II and didn’t feel a big difference, either the AF or the sharpness. I am thinking of getting a 14E III, this weekend. Anyone here with experience with this combo ?
a
p.24 #7 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
manojodungat wrote:
Was on the fence for a zoom. I had the Tammy for sometime but was looking for an "upgrade", off late.
Was contemplating to get a Sigma 15-600 Sports, but the weight was a put off. Yes I shoot handheld almost all the time. Went ahead with the Nikkor. My copy arrived a couple of days back and captured about 50 odd shots since then.
BTW, I did try it mounting on a TC 14 II and didn’t feel a big difference, either the AF or the sharpness. I am thinking of getting a 14E III, this weekend. Anyone here with experience with this combo ?
a...Show more →
See p.23 #5 in this thread. That was with a TC 14 E III.
p.24 #8 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
flagg wrote:
See p.23 #5 in this thread. That was with a TC 14 E III.
Thanks and nice shot that.
How different is the colour rendition and contrast with the 14E III ? Another picture or so would be great.
Thanks.
p.24 #9 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I used to be shooting with a Tamron 150-600. The nikkor 200-500 is heavier and the difference in weight is definitely felt while shooting handheld, nothing alarming though. Needs to spend more time to steady my hands.
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/18121151-lg.jpg
Nov 04, 2015 at 03:14 AM
Guest
Guest
p.24 #10 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
His name is Tony, and he's in the Federal Witness Protection Program. He freaked out because he doesn't like men coming out of the woods toting long, black objects.
. That'd go to my personal stockpile of funny quotes from da internet.
p.24 #11 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Interesting quote from Moose Peterson (for what it's worth). Came in today's email newsletter...
"Then there is the new 200-500 that the world keeps asking me if I'm getting it. I've never seen such a commotion about a new lens like that which is surrounding the 200-500. Last fall at a camera show, a Nikon rep standing next to me was asked about the 200-500 and he said out loud, "We are telling folks, it's not the same quality as the 80-400. It's an entry lens into telephotos." That pretty much sums it up as far as I'm concerned. I think it's better than the other lenses in this range on the market, but it's not some miracle lens at a miracle price. If you don't have a telephoto and have a limited budget, this is the perfect lens for you. But it's not a replacement for the 80-400 or any of the prime Nikon telephotos."
p.24 #13 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Hardly a cerebral quote Of course it's not a substitute for the 80-400G.
It'd suck at 80-199mm. The build is quite similar (zoom actually smoother on
the 200-500) no Nano but a slightly more stable tripod collar. The IQ is sick at
500 f5.6 for the price of admission. AF on par with the pricy 80-400 as well. I've
also got the Sig Sport 150-600 and will be keeping all 3...right tool for the job, eh?!
p.24 #14 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
ckcarr wrote:
Interesting quote from Moose Peterson (for what it's worth). Came in today's email newsletter...
"Then there is the new 200-500 that the world keeps asking me if I'm getting it. I've never seen such a commotion about a new lens like that which is surrounding the 200-500. Last fall at a camera show, a Nikon rep standing next to me was asked about the 200-500 and he said out loud, "We are telling folks, it's not the same quality as the 80-400. It's an entry lens into telephotos." That pretty much sums it up as far as I'm concerned. I think it's better than the other lenses in this range on the market, but it's not some miracle lens at a miracle price. If you don't have a telephoto and have a limited budget, this is the perfect lens for you. But it's not a replacement for the 80-400 or any of the prime Nikon telephotos."...Show more →
We can always count on Moose to parrot the company line.
p.24 #16 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I am seriously going to be looking to add one of these to my camera bag next year - after I sold my 200-400, the 70-200 is my longest range currently on my old D7000. I would love this range for FF
p.24 #17 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
ckcarr wrote:
Interesting quote from Moose Peterson (for what it's worth). Came in today's email newsletter...
"Then there is the new 200-500 that the world keeps asking me if I'm getting it. I've never seen such a commotion about a new lens like that which is surrounding the 200-500. Last fall at a camera show, a Nikon rep standing next to me was asked about the 200-500 and he said out loud, "We are telling folks, it's not the same quality as the 80-400. It's an entry lens into telephotos." That pretty much sums it up as far as I'm concerned. I think it's better than the other lenses in this range on the market, but it's not some miracle lens at a miracle price. If you don't have a telephoto and have a limited budget, this is the perfect lens for you. But it's not a replacement for the 80-400 or any of the prime Nikon telephotos."...Show more →
So this Moose person has decided to make a de facto statement about a lens he has never used? How useful.
p.24 #19 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
trenchmonkey wrote:
Hardly a cerebral quote Of course it's not a substitute for the 80-400G.
It'd suck at 80-199mm. The build is quite similar (zoom actually smoother on
the 200-500) no Nano but a slightly more stable tripod collar. The IQ is sick at
500 f5.6 for the price of admission. AF on par with the pricy 80-400 as well. I've
also got the Sig Sport 150-600 and will be keeping all 3...right tool for the job, eh?!
. That'd go to my personal stockpile of funny quotes from da internet. 
