p.39 #1 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Still testing and learning the lens. This lens loves the D810 I was able to get a couple of butterflies in flight , and they move very erratically. Autofocus was amazing. My hummingbird showed up again this afternoon and got to practice on her.
Here are a few shots.
Birdie
100% Crop
Gulf Fritillary in Flight Facing the Wrong way :)
Laying egg. This takes only a couple of seconds it that long.
p.39 #4 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
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.
Hi Steve,
do you mean that the New Nikkor 300 f4 pf VR, paired with the TC 1.4 III, can compete with the 200-500 VR in the range of 400 mm?
I'm on the verge to buy a telephoto lens, but I really hesitate between them, even if I have to wait a little.
the IQ of the zoom seems very good, but the small size of the 300 PF is a very appealing!
thanks in advance.
Fabien.
p.39 #5 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Wow - those are truly superb!
birdied wrote:
Still testing and learning the lens. This lens loves the D810 I was able to get a couple of butterflies in flight , and they move very erratically. Autofocus was amazing. My hummingbird showed up again this afternoon and got to practice on her.
p.39 #6 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
ImagePass wrote:
Hi Steve,
do you mean that the New Nikkor 300 f4 pf VR, paired with the TC 1.4 III, can compete with the 200-500 VR in the range of 400 mm?
I'm on the verge to buy a telephoto lens, but I really hesitate between them, even if I have to wait a little.
the IQ of the zoom seems very good, but the small size of the 300 PF is a very appealing!
thanks in advance.
Fabien.
p.39 #7 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Based on my subjective brief comparison of the 200-500 to my 300 f2.8, and my older 300 f4 AFS. I would say the 300 f4 with the 1.4TC is very close to the 200-500 with a proper AF tune at that focal length. I have read a few that say the new 300 PF with the 1.4TC is slightly better, as Steve suggests. If you need to go to 500mm, the 200-500 with no TC will be a little better than a 300 f4 with a 1.7TC and about the same IQ as a 300 f2.8 with a 1.7TC.
p.39 #11 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
WestcoastHD wrote:
Based on my subjective brief comparison of the 200-500 to my 300 f2.8, and my older 300 f4 AFS. I would say the 300 f4 with the 1.4TC is very close to the 200-500 with a proper AF tune at that focal length. I have read a few that say the new 300 PF with the 1.4TC is slightly better, as Steve suggests. If you need to go to 500mm, the 200-500 with no TC will be a little better than a 300 f4 with a 1.7TC and about the same IQ as a 300 f2.8 with a 1.7TC.
Steve an Westcoast,,
thank you both for your answers, I really appreciate.
I have now more precious information and will take time to choose between the zoom and the 300 F4 PF, regarding the IQ, versatility, price..
Fabien.
p.39 #13 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I went through the same process as you are now. Like Steve Perry and others I ended up returning the 200-500. I was so excited at the sharpness at first, especially the improvement at 400mm (and up to 500mm) compared to the 80-400G. I got crisp images in sunny light.
But then it quickly became apparent that things break down in a hurry in lower light conditions, which are the norm where I live. High ISO and the 200-500, and my best efforts still fell too short to satisfy me. As with the 80-400, I was willing to live with a weak spot (for the 80-400G that is sharpness on longer range shots.)
But several sessions and shots with soft, busy images as the result made my mind up for me. The difference was too great.
I got the 300 PF and am happy so far. I have a gripped D810, and while not every single shot is a crisp keeper, most are. Faster AF is the most obvious difference, and the sharpness in lower light is clear to see. Also bokeh is considerably better in my opinion.
That's my take on it. Good luck!
ImagePass wrote:
Steve an Westcoast,,
thank you both for your answers, I really appreciate.
I have now more precious information and will take time to choose between the zoom and the 300 F4 PF, regarding the IQ, versatility, price..
Fabien.
p.39 #14 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Birdbrooks wrote:
I went through the same process as you are now. Like Steve Perry and others I ended up returning the 200-500. I was so excited at the sharpness at first, especially the improvement at 400mm (and up to 500mm) compared to the 80-400G. I got crisp images in sunny light.
But then it quickly became apparent that things break down in a hurry in lower light conditions, which are the norm where I live. High ISO and the 200-500, and my best efforts still fell too short to satisfy me. As with the 80-400, I was willing to live with a weak spot (for the 80-400G that is sharpness on longer range shots.)
But several sessions and shots with soft, busy images as the result made my mind up for me. The difference was too great.
I got the 300 PF and am happy so far. I have a gripped D810, and while not every single shot is a crisp keeper, most are. Faster AF is the most obvious difference, and the sharpness in lower light is clear to see. Also bokeh is considerably better in my opinion.
Birdbrooks,
I look forward to hearing what you think about the 300 f4 PF. I wonder if you got the used one that popped up in town, as I was eyeing that for about a week. At this point, it looks like I am staying put with my 200-400VR, as my D4 loves that lens and I am loving what that camera can do with it. My wife currently shoots the older AFS 300f4 and I am hesitant to get the PF as her lens works like a charm... sharp like a 300mm f2.8VR.
I know that you've been looking for a consistent long lens option...
best of luck!
bruce
p.39 #15 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
OwlsEyes wrote:
Birdbrooks,
I look forward to hearing what you think about the 300 f4 PF. I wonder if you got the used one that popped up in town, as I was eyeing that for about a week. At this point, it looks like I am staying put with my 200-400VR, as my D4 loves that lens and I am loving what that camera can do with it. My wife currently shoots the older AFS 300f4 and I am hesitant to get the PF as her lens works like a charm... sharp like a 300mm f2.8VR.
I know that you've been looking for a consistent long lens option...
best of luck!
bruce...Show more →
The 300 f4 PF is as sharp as the older 300 f4 in the center but sharper in the corners. It is also working better with converters.
Aside from the obvious size/weight advantage what makes it a much better option is VR. VR is working extremely well for bird photography (low light, off gimbal head or bean bag...). The PF lens also has a faster and more accurate AF.
If there are a downsides to the PF lens it would the somewhat high price and the something more nervous bright highlights in the out of focus area.
p.39 #16 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I'm starting to see what I have long suspected:
I need both the 200-500 and the 300 PF and the TC-14E III. The first when I need flexibility and long reach, the 300 for travel. I can feel my wallet trembling already
p.39 #17 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I contemplated the 2 also for awhile. I'll be honest, there's not much out there as far as samples with the new 300 f4e and what is out there was not convincing for myself. Also from the youtube videos I watched on AF speed it looked like there was much to be desired. Not a whole lot faster than the 300 f4d. Still it's tough to judge speed on a video. I combined my research along with the supposed VR issues with the f4e and it was off the long lens list.
I would have liked to have a 300 f4d afs again(cheap now used and great IQ) but the AF was slow and twitchy. Add a TC and forget about it. The 200-500 in this regard cleans the afs- f4ds clock. BIF are much more obtainable with the 200-500 than at least with the older D f4.
p.39 #19 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Birdbrooks wrote:
I went through the same process as you are now. Like Steve Perry and others I ended up returning the 200-500. I was so excited at the sharpness at first, especially the improvement at 400mm (and up to 500mm) compared to the 80-400G. I got crisp images in sunny light.
But then it quickly became apparent that things break down in a hurry in lower light conditions, which are the norm where I live. High ISO and the 200-500, and my best efforts still fell too short to satisfy me. As with the 80-400, I was willing to live with a weak spot (for the 80-400G that is sharpness on longer range shots.)
But several sessions and shots with soft, busy images as the result made my mind up for me. The difference was too great.
I got the 300 PF and am happy so far. I have a gripped D810, and while not every single shot is a crisp keeper, most are. Faster AF is the most obvious difference, and the sharpness in lower light is clear to see. Also bokeh is considerably better in my opinion.
Thanks a lot for sharing your experience, that’s very useful for me and others members of the forum.
You’re the third to make the same analysis between the two lenses.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to test the 200-500 (just 5mn) in my local store. As many of you, I was immediately amazed by VR and IQ, even at F5.6.
I realized that AF was pretty slow (compared to my 70-200 f2.8. for example)
That was very difficult to come back home without it! ( NAS was flying other my head..)
but, I couldn’t buy it without trying the 300 PF before..But sadly, this little boy isn’t available before the beginning of next year..
I was able to get a couple of butterflies in flight , and they move very erratically. Autofocus was amazing. My hummingbird showed up again this afternoon and got to practice on her.
