Decent read but Thom will have to learn how to AF fine tune one of these days using dot une. He says he's given up TCs completely because he can't attain focus using them? Yet 99% of wildlife photographers have them figured out....strange.
p.43 #8 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
architect7 wrote:
Decent read but Thom will have to learn how to AF fine tune one of these days using dot une. He says he's given up TCs completely because he can't attain focus using them? Yet 99% of wildlife photographers have them figured out....strange.
Too bad he could not have posted more images, and at a decent size. Talk is cheap.
p.43 #11 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
For someone usually very critical of Nikon, Thom Hogan seems to have some very impressive things to say about the 200-500. Mostly just supports the info already available but a good read nonetheless.
p.43 #12 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I Just read Thom's review, and I was struck by the following statement:
"Bottom line: if you’re a telephoto shooter, you want to consider this lens. Indeed, I’d pick this lens over the 200-400mm f/4 right now, that’s how good it is. Okay, if you need f/4, you still need the 200-400mm. But seriously, I’m glad I sold my 200-400mm f/4 now: I’d be looking at myself in the mirror and complaining if I were to shoot with it against the 200-500mm f/5.6 at any distance over 25m."
I happen to own both lenses. I purchased the 200-500mm lens for my wife as a replacement for her aging 300mm f4 AFS. The new zoom is fantastic for what it is... relatively inexpensive, very easy to use and handholdable. None of these are characteristics that I would attribute to the older 200-400mm VR. On the other hand, if you really care about optical details, AF speed and durability, I don't think I'd give the same advice. Thom reminds me of Ken Rockwell a bit... says a bunch of stuff... some good and accurate, some less so. His lens underperformed at a distance, but not all 200-400's seem to underperform. What's more, if you want the sharpest lens Nikon offers in a flexible package (read zoom, not weight and size) then the 200-400 f4 bests the others in its range...
p.43 #13 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I think he basically gets it right. If you can get by without f/4, get the 200-500 and forget about it. Yeah, there's a small micro-contrast penalty, but the reasonable weight and flexible focal range make up for having to futz around with converters like you'd have to with an f/4 300. The pixel peeping obsessed won't be happy (I for one don't intend to throw away my 200-400 or 500) but the 200-500 punches above its specifications. And that's remarkable for a cheap superzoom.
p.43 #16 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
These are very big crops so don't expect any feather detail. However, they do show that the 200-500 is fast enough for the small speedy swallows !
I would not been able to get these shots with the 500 prime as I could not handhold it
p.43 #19 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
birdied wrote:
These are very big crops so don't expect any feather detail. However, they do show that the 200-500 is fast enough for the small speedy swallows !
I would not been able to get these shots with the 500 prime as I could not handhold it
Birdie
Awesome Birdie, tough subject to track. I love these type of shots, I know most are after the frame filling feather detail but I really enjoy getting a sense of the environment. Well done
p.43 #20 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Just in case you haven't seen enough snow geese and sandhills from New Mexico, here are a few more taken this week during a meetup with trenchmonkey at the local wildlife sanctuary. All were shot with a D7100 at 1/3000s with the 200-500mm at 500mm, f/6.7, VR Sport mode.
Peter 160113_0168.jpg by Peter Esherick, on Flickr
