p.37 #1 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
@Birdbrooks and Steve Perry,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I have been waiting for some input from those who bought the lens and were willing to divorce themselves from the "sticker-shock/got to defend the purchase" and be a bit more objective about their experiences. This is what I tried to do when I reviewed the D7200, as it is this type of objectivity that can help others make an informed decision or and avoid a regretful purchase.
As a guy who splits his time between wildlife and landscapes and is willing to make long-term investments in good glass and bodies, it sounds as if my current lens-body combo is the best I can find within my budget. My only hangup with the 200-400VR relates to its bulk and how it balances (or doesn't) on a tripod and in the hand. Now that I've got it mounted to a D4, I am finding that the AF is more accurate and responsive than ever and when on the D7200 or D800E, find the lens to be more than sharp enough.
Guess I just need to spend more time in the gym and stop looking for that more compact solution.
BTW Birdbrooks... I definitely recall seeing you @ the GHO nest... some of the worst light possible in that suburban nature center!!
p.37 #2 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Bruce, I hear about you about "purchase justification", good point! In my case I'm deciding quite quickly that as good in some ways as the 200-500 is, I really need low light capabilities more than 500mm acuity. Cheers, Bill
OwlsEyes wrote:
@Birdbrooks and Steve Perry,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I have been waiting for some input from those who bought the lens and were willing to divorce themselves from the "sticker-shock/got to defend the purchase" and be a bit more objective about their experiences. This is what I tried to do when I reviewed the D7200, as it is this type of objectivity that can help others make an informed decision or and avoid a regretful purchase.
As a guy who splits his time between wildlife and landscapes and is willing to make long-term investments in good glass and bodies, it sounds as if my current lens-body combo is the best I can find within my budget. My only hangup with the 200-400VR relates to its bulk and how it balances (or doesn't) on a tripod and in the hand. Now that I've got it mounted to a D4, I am finding that the AF is more accurate and responsive than ever and when on the D7200 or D800E, find the lens to be more than sharp enough.
Guess I just need to spend more time in the gym and stop looking for that more compact solution.
BTW Birdbrooks... I definitely recall seeing you @ the GHO nest... some of the worst light possible in that suburban nature center!!
p.37 #3 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
OwlsEyes wrote:
@Birdbrooks and Steve Perry,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I have been waiting for some input from those who bought the lens and were willing to divorce themselves from the "sticker-shock/got to defend the purchase" and be a bit more objective about their experiences. This is what I tried to do when I reviewed the D7200, as it is this type of objectivity that can help others make an informed decision or and avoid a regretful purchase.
As a guy who splits his time between wildlife and landscapes and is willing to make long-term investments in good glass and bodies, it sounds as if my current lens-body combo is the best I can find within my budget. My only hangup with the 200-400VR relates to its bulk and how it balances (or doesn't) on a tripod and in the hand. Now that I've got it mounted to a D4, I am finding that the AF is more accurate and responsive than ever and when on the D7200 or D800E, find the lens to be more than sharp enough.
Guess I just need to spend more time in the gym and stop looking for that more compact solution.
BTW Birdbrooks... I definitely recall seeing you @ the GHO nest... some of the worst light possible in that suburban nature center!!
Hey Bruce - I tell ya, that new 300 F4 with the D7200 is pretty amazing (with and w/o TC). I'd say it's definitely on par with the big primes as far as IQ goes. Obviously if you need a zoom it's out, but if a prime would work, I know I've been impressed with it so far.
p.37 #7 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Thanks for the advice, but I have the first AFS 300 F4, and other than lacking VR, I can't find a thing I don't like about that lens. Sure a more compact model might be nice, but @ $1800, the PF seems to be a bit spendy given my current lens alignment.
My interest in the 200-500mm f5.6 stems from the desire to get a little more telephoto now that I am trying to do more wildlife w an FX body.
Regardless of my own personal dilemma it's nice that Nikon now has multiple "affordable" ways to get into long-lens photography'.
Bruce Steve Perry wrote:
Hey Bruce - I tell ya, that new 300 F4 with the D7200 is pretty amazing (with and w/o TC). I'd say it's definitely on par with the big primes as far as IQ goes. Obviously if you need a zoom it's out, but if a prime would work, I know I've been impressed with it so far.
p.37 #8 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
It's clear as day that this lens is no exotic. I can instantly tell(for the most part) the difference when viewing 200-400 images vs the 200-500. The primes are in a class of there own so there's really no reason to compare them.
The af-s 300 f/4 is an outstanding lens which is sharper both bare and with the 1.4. I was really contemplating between the prime set up and this zoom. The zoom won out for a few reasons. VR, AF speed(300 f4 is pretty slow with the TC) and accuracy, and the zoom capabilities. I'll be using this for my sons soccer and I just find having zoom more valuable than the prime..
I have not been disappointed with the AF of this lens which has allowed me more chances for BIF than any other combo I had.
The surprise with the zoom has been it's sharpness(wideopen to), bokeh, and build quality.
So I'd say that the lens overall is a win and will make Nikons legendary status one day.
One thing I noticed( few weeks back anyways) is on ebay, the 300 af-s f4 are selling for around $600. I even watched a few that didn't sell at those price.
This guy went zipping by and I just raised and shot. Grabbed no problem.
p.37 #14 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Hi just got my lens Friday, having never seen one before I am impressed by the build quality, I do have tbe 200-400, this is about a kilo lighter so should be a better lens to lug around the motor racing tracks I visit. One thing I have noticed that has not been mentioned to my knowledge is what appears to be a rubber gasket around the front element, it doesn't seem to protrude enough to act as a protective ring to stand the lens on or protect from impacts to the filter thread, could this be a little basic weatherproofing. I was not going to buy yet but wait until the motorsport season to start next year, but there are price rises on lenses in Europe planned for the new year so I now have one. I have only taken a few back garden shots to try it out, but the weather is abysmal so no plans yet for a outiing, hopefully I will be able to use it soon.
p.37 #18 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I have a friend who did some fairly extensive testing of the Nikon 200-500 vs the Sigma Sport 150-600. Heres a couple of his points.
If using a Lenscoat Raincoat on the Nikon 200-500 the zoom ring turns so far it twists and binds the fabric and also can pop the lens hood off(build a pro quality lens and put a 49cent hood on it) where this was not an issue on the Sigma.
Also the fact you can do the software update on the Sigma yourself where you will have to send the Nikon away.
He felt that the lenses where very close in terms of sharpness and image keepers and did like that Nikon put a decent tripod foot on it but as he shoots a lot in rainforests/poor weather he sold the Nikon and kept the Sigma due to the Lenscoat/hood issues.
p.37 #20 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
porterboy wrote:
I have a friend who did some fairly extensive testing of the Nikon 200-500 vs the Sigma Sport 150-600. Heres a couple of his points.
If using a Lenscoat Raincoat on the Nikon 200-500 the zoom ring turns so far it twists and binds the fabric and also can pop the lens hood off(build a pro quality lens and put a 49cent hood on it) where this was not an issue on the Sigma.
Also the fact you can do the software update on the Sigma yourself where you will have to send the Nikon away.
He felt that the lenses where very close in terms of sharpness and image keepers and did like that Nikon put a decent tripod foot on it but as he shoots a lot in rainforests/poor weather he sold the Nikon and kept the Sigma due to the Lenscoat/hood issues....Show more →
I use a Grazina's Design rain cover made for my 200-400, zero issues. Sounds like the Lenscoat cover may not be ideally designed.
Here is their eBay store, much better design/quality than Lenscoat and great prices even after UK to USA shipping costs:
Sorry to spend your money like that 
