Sigma 150-600 Sport looks good. Right now I am looking for a lighter alternative to my 400 2.8 with TCs, so the 200-500 looks promising if it can compare to the Sigma IQ-wise, otherwise I am still trying to figure which way to go for long glass I can take on a hike.
imagine if the 200-500 (looking at the MTFs) has better IQ at 500mm than Sigma/Tamron at 600mm
while at 700mm (1.4 TC) it loses a bit, but still it has a nice sharpness (it would have the same sharpness at 600, but it has the ability to go to 700)
imagine if the 200-500 (looking at the MTFs) has better IQ at 500mm than Sigma/Tamron at 600mm
while at 700mm (1.4 TC) it loses a bit, but still it has a nice sharpness (it would have the same sharpness at 600, but it has the ability to go to 700)
Yes this is my hope and why I have it on pre-order now. I shoot a lot of field sports both day and night and want to test this out.
The question that this thread is about and posed by Francois "Will you guys Dump your Tamron or Sigma for the new Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR, even if you are loosing 100mm ?"
This 200-500 is really growing on me. I'll wait for actual user reviews before pulling the trigger, especially for distant subjects, but the general feeling is that this is the first real option I have in the 500mm range and my budget/weight range, since I refuse to buy a 6.3 lens.
woos wrote:
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...Show more →
I am interested as to why you think that the minimum focus distance of the 200-500 is not so good. The 500 f4E FL VR has a minimum focus distance of 3.6mts and a magnification of .14x, whereas the 200-500 has a minimum focus of 2.2mts and magnification of .22x.
Nice Morris. I don't blame you. I would not switch. I have the Sigma C and I think I will stay with that. I wouldn't mind giving the Sigma S a try sometime.
p.4 #10 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I have to admit the price made me look at it twice, 1,179 here in the UK.
I have prime lenses in the zoom range, 200F2, 300F2.8 and over 600 F4 but for the price and ease of use it will be a great lens to have in the bag just in case for a back up or a good walk around lens etc.
I will wait to see real world results with it until I make my mind up but if there are good which I imagine its going to be, then its going in my bag.
p.4 #11 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Lance B wrote:
I am interested as to why you think that the minimum focus distance of the 200-500 is not so good. The 500 f4E FL VR has a minimum focus distance of 3.6mts and a magnification of .14x, whereas the 200-500 has a minimum focus of 2.2mts and magnification of .22x.
Very good point Lance. I would love to see some samples from that lens with you behind it.
By the way, I am not sure why people make a big deal about the min. focus distance of long glass... I am sure that it is good to have a lower number but it should not be a deal breaker... I was at a ranch in the Salinas, CA area and shooting song birds from a hide. One lady there had a 600mm and used a macro tube to reduce the min. focus distance because the birds came in so close. I liked her ingenuity.
p.4 #12 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
AMaji wrote:
Very good point Lance. I would love to see some samples from that lens with you behind it.
By the way, I am not sure why people make a big deal about the min. focus distance of long glass... I am sure that it is good to have a lower number but it should not be a deal breaker... I was at a ranch in the Salinas, CA area and shooting song birds from a hide. One lady there had a 600mm and used a macro tube to reduce the min. focus distance because the birds came in so close. I liked her ingenuity. ...Show more →
Thank you for your kind comment.
The issue isn't so much minimum focus distance as it is magnification at minimum focus. There are lenses have quite close minimum focus, but have not so good magnification and there are other lenses that have good magnification and yet do not focus so close. My point is, you can't take minimum focus as the sole indicator of how a lens behaves at these close focus distances.
I slap on a TC to my 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 lens to get closer focus distances, both are "only" .14x and .16x magnification yet here we have the 200-500 at .22x which is actually very good.
The often criticised 70-200 f2.8 and it's "oh so woeful focus breathing" is .12x magnification at minimum focus distance which is the same as the 85 f1.4G just to name one. Most primes are in the .12x to .16x magnification range anyway.
p.4 #13 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
You said "The 1.7 plays pretty nicely with my existing 80-400." I have tried to get decent pictures with the same combination (D810 + AFS 80-400mm) and a teleconverter (TC1.4x or TC1.7x) and the results have been substandard even in good light.
I like the IQ of the AFS 80-400mm without a TC but I miss the reach of longer lenses. Sometimes, I use the same teleconverters (TC1.4x & TC1.7x) with a 200-400mm f/4 and the results are acceptable. The problem is that for active birding (walking a lot) it is too heavy for a long day. Anyway, I did preorder the newest 200-500mm and if the IQ is comparable to the 80-400mm (without extensions) it would be a great lens.
p.4 #14 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Did you fine tune the af with the tc? That could be why your not getting good results.
fpimentel wrote:
You said "The 1.7 plays pretty nicely with my existing 80-400." I have tried to get decent pictures with the same combination (D810 + AFS 80-400mm) and a teleconverter (TC1.4x or TC1.7x) and the results have been substandard even in good light.
I like the IQ of the AFS 80-400mm without a TC but I miss the reach of longer lenses. Sometimes, I use the same teleconverters (TC1.4x & TC1.7x) with a 200-400mm f/4 and the results are acceptable. The problem is that for active birding (walking a lot) it is too heavy for a long day. Anyway, I did preorder the newest 200-500mm and if the IQ is comparable to the 80-400mm (without extensions) it would be a great lens.
p.4 #17 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
henry albert wrote:
To what are you referring?
---------------------------------------------
TightLines wrote:
Morris - what kit did you use for these photos?
---------------------------------------------
He's showing the IQ he's getting from the Siggy Sport, and suggesting that what has been shown so far from the Nikon 200-500 does not compare. The Siggy is quite impressive. Jury's still out on the Nikon, but at a $1399 price point, it is probably not aimed at Siggy Sport candidates, but the Contemporary types.
Great images Morris!
Fred CanadaMark wrote:
He has a Sigma 150-600 Sport but I have no idea what he means by "no way".
---------------------------------------------
He's showing the IQ he's getting from the Siggy Sport, and suggesting that what has been shown so far from the Nikon 200-500 does not compare. The Siggy is quite impressive. Jury's still out on the Nikon, but at a $1399 price point, it is probably not aimed at Siggy Sport candidates, but the Contemporary types.
Great images Morris!
Fred
Even if the IQ of the Nikon 200-500 were as good or even better, why would I want less reach and be limited to 200mm on the wide end? I already miss 80mm from my 80-400 VR
p.4 #19 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Because you get f/5.6 on the long end with the Nikon and it's slightly more compact and weighs 500g less. And while I'm glad you're happy with it, this isn't a thread about your lens.
p.4 #20 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
RazorTM wrote:
Because you get f/5.6 on the long end with the Nikon and it's slightly more compact and weighs 500g less. And while I'm glad you're happy with it, this isn't a thread about your lens.
The thread question is:
Will you guys Dump your Tamron or Sigma for the new Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
even if you are loosing 100mm ?
I've answered the question and people had questions about my answer.
You are correct, the 200-500 is 1/2 stop faster. I like to shoot at twilight and there have been times when that 1/2 stop would have helped. I'd rather have the reach.
