p.36 #1 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
GNMink wrote:
Just as a reference and for comparison sake. I was shooting at our local eagles nest this weekend and a buddy of mine was shooting next to me with the D7200 and Tamron 150-600. I was using a D7100 and the 200-500 with TC14 and we caught the same shot. If you look at the photos you can see the 200-500 with the TC at 700 is pretty much on par with the Tamron at 600. My shutter was slower since I was at f8 vs his f6.3. These are long shots from about 75-80 yards to the nest. These were both posted to FB and then downloaded from there so the IQ really suffers but you can get the idea.The pics are going to show up at 100% on your monitor unless you click on them to view....Show more →
Whatever the opinion may be between these lenses, I am amazed that you and your friend were able to make such a close comparison! Well done.
p.36 #2 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
trenchmonkey wrote:
Hi, Bill
Tough keeping a whole BIF in that tiny DX 'window' especially with a 500/600mm FL (FOV 750/900mm)
Pretty sure the end result is gonna be the same...shooting in DX or cropping later. I find 1.2 crop a happy
medium, easier to frame and knocks down the file size a tad...in addition to 20% more fps.
The setting you're missing is a6, just set it to OFF for da shading.
Will, shot fast moving ducks last evening at 1.2. That was fun, even though it was too dark for any home-run shots. At least they were framed well!
p.36 #4 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Golden Throated Barbet, d810 with 200-500/5.6 + TC-14e iii @ 700mm, uncropped, F8, 1/250s, iso 900 handheld
AF is a bit slow but manageable. It was a bit difficult as I was on a pinnacle with quite a bit of mist coming in regularly.
p.36 #5 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Birdbrooks wrote:
Great clarity here, Mike. If I may ask, did you have VR on or off for this shot?
Around 1/1000 and even a bit faster I'm on the fence myself about turning on VR with this lens.
Thanks! Bill
(Note to all: I have read Hogan's piece about VR and agree in most ways, but this is my first foray above 400 mm and that may have an impact on using VR. I was able to get better tracking photos of ducks last evening with it on; the biggest part of that is my getting used to the tighter framing.)
Yep VR was on. About the only time I turn VR off is for erratic BIF shooting, I've been chasing Northern Harriers and Short Eared owls lately (not with this lens), lots of dips and dives, VR is off for those as it just seems to get in the way. For slower flying birds that tend to fly in straighter lines (eagles, heron etc) I usually leave VR on.
I've read the article you cited and did some rudimentary testing on static subjects. I could discern no noticeable difference with VR on or off, buts thats just me. YMMV.
p.36 #11 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Gregg Heckler wrote:
I'm curious to those whom have posted images in this thread. Are any of you doing any post sharpening?
I do nearly all my sharpening in ACR. My first impression was that D810 files couldn't handle as much sharpening as I'm used to doing with prime lenses, which is not really surprising. 75/0.5/50/50 seemed to be about it. Detail sharpening in particular quickly hit the point of diminishing returns. It's a very good lens for the price - the files didn't scream "cheap zoom" - but there's a limit to how much you can fix somewhat poor micro-contrast and lack of fine detail in post.
p.36 #12 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Thank you both for the response. I was curious about the Pelican shot. Pretty much all digital images need some level of sharpening, and it doesn't bother me even in a lens comparison. The finished image is more important to me.
p.36 #14 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Just got the notice from UPS that mine is on its way back from Nikon after the firmware fix, good timing since I am off work for the next 3 weeks, woohoo!!! Will report back if I notice any other improvements post-fix.
Edit: UPS updated the delivery to this afternoon so I'll hopefully get the lens out this weekend if the weather permits. Lots of bobcat sightings about 30 minutes north of me so I'll see if I can find one.
p.36 #16 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
architect7 wrote:
Just got the notice from UPS that mine is on its way back from Nikon after the firmware fix, good timing since I am off work for the next 3 weeks, woohoo!!! Will report back if I notice any other improvements post-fix.
Edit: UPS updated the delivery to this afternoon so I'll hopefully get the lens out this weekend if the weather permits. Lots of bobcat sightings about 30 minutes north of me so I'll see if I can find one.
I haven't kept up with this lens but have considered picking one up. Is there a reported issue with this lens like there was with the new 300mm?
p.36 #17 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
mysh wrote:
I haven't kept up with this lens but have considered picking one up. Is there a reported issue with this lens like there was with the new 300mm?
No issues with the VR.
Firmware update details
We have confirmed that with autofocus shooting using the AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens, autofocus may sometimes become disabled and focus operation switches to manual focus* when the zoom ring on the lens is rotated while the camera's shutter-release button is pressed halfway, or the camera's AF-ON button is held down.
*Autofocus operation can be restored by pressing the camera's shutter-release button halfway again, or pressing the camera's AF-ON button again.
serial number 2008365 or higher have already been updated.
p.36 #18 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
For what it is worth...
I finally had a chance to hold this lens and put it on a camera body. The most striking character in my limited experience, is the build of the lens. I was expecting something that would have felt plastic and lacked a refined feel. Nothing could be farther from reality. The 200-500mm f5.6 is built like lenses that typically cost twice as much. This is a pleasant surprise and having held it and played a bit with its autofocus, I now wonder how Nikon managed to make this at such a very reasonable price.
As I have shared in the past, I use a 200-400VR as my primary wildlife lens, and while it would be unfair to compare the two in terms of AF speed and weather sealing, it does appear that the overall machining of the new lens is not that far from what I currently shoot.
While many have shared some fine images made with the 200-500mm VR, w/ the exception of Howard Kearly's kingfishers in brilliant light, I have yet to see many that suggest that it might be the optical equal to what I currently carry about.
At this point, I am waiting for someone to do a head to head test between Nikon's three super-tele zooms (80-400 VRII, 200-500mm VR, and 200-400mm VR). If anyone has compared the new lens to what I currently shoot, I would really like to hear from you!!
p.36 #19 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Hi Bruce, not a direct answer as I do not have the 200-400, but I recall visiting with you while shooting owls in diminishing light. I remember that evening, as I was able to pull off a few satisfying images with my 80 400 G, and I recall a better one from your 200-400 that you posted on FM.
I'm already realising that might not be possible with my 200-500. It is very sharp at all ranges with good light... but low light looks to not be an option, unless perhaps I can tripod w slow shutter and low ISO.
OwlsEyes wrote:
For what it is worth...
I finally had a chance to hold this lens and put it on a camera body. The most striking character in my limited experience, is the build of the lens. I was expecting something that would have felt plastic and lacked a refined feel. Nothing could be farther from reality. The 200-500mm f5.6 is built like lenses that typically cost twice as much. This is a pleasant surprise and having held it and played a bit with its autofocus, I now wonder how Nikon managed to make this at such a very reasonable price.
As I have shared in the past, I use a 200-400VR as my primary wildlife lens, and while it would be unfair to compare the two in terms of AF speed and weather sealing, it does appear that the overall machining of the new lens is not that far from what I currently shoot.
While many have shared some fine images made with the 200-500mm VR, w/ the exception of Howard Kearly's kingfishers in brilliant light, I have yet to see many that suggest that it might be the optical equal to what I currently carry about.
At this point, I am waiting for someone to do a head to head test between Nikon's three super-tele zooms (80-400 VRII, 200-500mm VR, and 200-400mm VR). If anyone has compared the new lens to what I currently shoot, I would really like to hear from you!!
p.36 #20 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Hi Bruce -
I had a 200-500 for about a month and ended up sending it back. It's not a "bad" lens, but when you are used to Nikon's big primes and higher end zooms, the sharpness just isn't what I've come to expect.
It does best with a full frame camera under good light at close range, looking best with my D4 (which is what Howard was using) and good with the 810. However, the D7200 seemed to be stressing it out - it just can't seem to take advantage of the high pixel density of that camera - at least not compared to some of my other lenses.
When the light gets lower or the distance increases or the contrast goes down it seems to struggle a even more.
I compared it to my 80-400 VR II and in good light at close range with FX it was pretty close with the edge going to the 80-400 at all focal lengths. With the D7200, the 80-400 was still ahead. At range, I liked the 80-400 better on any camera.
I ended up sending mine back and trying a 300 F4 PF E and couldn't be happier. The 300 easily beats the 200-500 at 300mm and - with a TC 1.4III attached - easily beats it at 400/420mm as well. The 300 F4 is much faster focusing and hey, it's an F4 (I'm not a huge fan of 5.6 for wildlife). The VR works well in the 300 and for the first time I'm regularly using a tele lens without a tripod due to the compact size. I'm not ready to sell my 80-400 yet since sometimes I need a zoom, but for this focal range, the 300 F4 with or without TC is my new go-to, especially on my D7200. Oh, and no VR issues with mine.
