p.55 #1 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
No Regrets wrote:
Thank you for your reply! It sounds like this new lens would be a "no brainer"
Do you think the 200-500mm would work well with my Df, especially if using the TC-14EIII in regards to autofocus capabilities?
Many thanks,
No Regrets
I think this all depends on your own standards. I have a 200-500VR and a 200-400VR. I shoot them both w my D4 (similar sensor to your Df) among other bodies. I do not object to the performance of my 200-400VR w/ a 1.4xII because I can stop down to f8 and improve image quality on an already sharp lens. I do not like the performance of the 200-500mm w/ the 1.4x when shooting at f8. I, however, am extremely picky about out of camera detail. Some people are satisfied with "sharp enough" and will boost the apparent detail in LR, Photoshop, (insert sharpening tool here). If your goal is web-display, then you will be fine with the 200-500 + 1.4x, if your goal is big prints (24" to 36" wide) then you might not like what you get.
While I am sure that you will get alternate opinions here, I find that the low-light performance of the 200-500 w/ converter is below what I'd call "ok," but that is just my opinion.
p.55 #2 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Want to share few observations about this lens:
1. My copy is significantly sharper at f/6.3 compared to f/5.6. However, bokeh is much nicer at f/5.6. I wish it was slightly sharper at f/5.6 - in that case I would have used the lens at f/5.6 90% of the time. f/7.1 is even sharper than f/6.3. But f/8 is not any more sharper than f/7.1. I've stopped using this lens at f/8 except when I want to get more dof. I used it at f/6.3 most of the time and at f/5.6 only when I need special care with background.
2. The lens has focus shift! It back focuses as you stop down from f/5.6. I actually use 3 different values of fine tuning depending on whether I am at f/5.6, f/6.3 or f/7.1.
p.55 #3 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
trenchmonkey wrote:
^ You should be fine. I don't care for using TC's w/slow zooms
but several here are getting great results employing them on FX.
Look for images by birdied here and on the N&W Forum.
Thanks for the tip! I'll look for his images
p.55 #4 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
OwlsEyes wrote:
I think this all depends on your own standards. I have a 200-500VR and a 200-400VR. I shoot them both w my D4 (similar sensor to your Df) among other bodies. I do not object to the performance of my 200-400VR w/ a 1.4xII because I can stop down to f8 and improve image quality on an already sharp lens. I do not like the performance of the 200-500mm w/ the 1.4x when shooting at f8. I, however, am extremely picky about out of camera detail. Some people are satisfied with "sharp enough" and will boost the apparent detail in LR, Photoshop, (insert sharpening tool here). If your goal is web-display, then you will be fine with the 200-500 + 1.4x, if your goal is big prints (24" to 36" wide) then you might not like what you get.
While I am sure that you will get alternate opinions here, I find that the low-light performance of the 200-500 w/ converter is below what I'd call "ok," but that is just my opinion.
Hi Bruce,
Thank you for sharing your experiences with me. Are you dissatisfied with with the performance of the 1.4 with the 200-500mm I in low light scenarios or overall in general? I'd loved to be able to afford faster glass in the 500mm+ range (all my other lenses are 1.4 to 2.5 so I appreciate fast glass) but sadly out of my reach right now.
Thanks again,
Don
p.55 #7 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
lara_ckl wrote:
Her images....
Yes, you are correct. I just found that out myself moments ago as I was able to find some of her magnificent images. I sincerely apologize for the mistake
p.55 #9 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I shipped back the rental today as I got my 200-500 from B&H last night, so I decided to go out for a few hours and calibrate the focus to my camera bodies in a local Aspen grove, tests showed no de-centering, good to go. I played around a little more with the trees and then headed out. On the way down the valley I saw the light reflecting off the stream and shot from on the roof of my camper. As I was sitting on the shooting platform, a couple of ducks began to make their way up the stream so I followed their antics for a few minutes.
The first shot is with the 1.4III on the D810, the rest are just the straight lens at various settings.
Since I have now done the bird dominant thread a fowl offering, I can now fly the coop.
p.55 #10 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
No Regrets wrote:
Hi Bruce,
Thank you for sharing your experiences with me. Are you dissatisfied with with the performance of the 1.4 with the 200-500mm I in low light scenarios or overall in general? I'd loved to be able to afford faster glass in the 500mm+ range (all my other lenses are 1.4 to 2.5 so I appreciate fast glass) but sadly out of my reach right now.
Thanks again,
Don
Don,
I have not been completely satisfied with the performance of any lens with a converter. I say this in all honesty, not to be snobbish, but to suggest something about my own (personal) expectations for detail. Prior to my current set of lenses I shot w/ 300mm f2.8 AF VR (and IS in Canon) w/ matching 1.4x converters. I would often regret using the converter, but knew that it was necessary to close the focal length gap. I replaced this set up to get a 200-400mm VR so that I would not feel the need to use converters as often. As is often the case, what one perceives to be a long focal length is never long enough. When shooting with my D7200 I never use a converter on my lenses. In contrast, I will use a converter when shooting with my D4 because I find this camera to be less demanding on my lenses than my D7200 or D800E. As for the 200-500 VR, I do not like the low light performance with the converter. The AF slows an misses a lot, and I find there to be an unacceptable loss of contrast. This reduction in image quality is very visible in morning an evening light. However, like I said previously, this lens + converter combination does not meet my needs... others are satisfied with web-ready images. For me, I never display an image on my website, blog or here that I would not be willing to print at least 16" wide... this is my own standard and may not coincide with your expectations.
I'm curious to see if the converter + lens combo meets your needs. Quite honestly, if you really plan to spend a lot of time at 600mm with your DF, I think you should consider the Sigma Sport 150-600 OS. That lens is native at 600mm and if you stop down to f8, it will outshoot the 200-500mm VR w/ converter at f8. I think we often expect too much from our optics... Nikon did a great job producing a long and super-affordable zoom lens, adding a converter really compromises the accomplishments they achieved.
p.55 #11 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
OwlsEyes wroteIf your goal is web-display, then you will be fine with the 200-500 + 1.4x, if your goal is big prints (24" to 36" wide) then you might not like what you get.
While I am sure that you will get alternate opinions here, I find that the low-light performance of the 200-500 w/ converter is below what I'd call "ok," but that is just my opinion.
I would be one of the ones who does not agree with this because thus far, I feel that with the usual amount of a slight boost in contrast, color saturation and sharpness associated with a teleconverter on *any* lens, I will be able to hand over a good D810 file shot with the 200-500 + TC14III to clients with no problem.
One client in particular uses my digital landscape images at between 10-20 feet wide on a regular basis. The sheer impact of a long landscape that has been worked up professionally will easily outweigh any comparative downsides using the converter on the 200-500 just like it does on the 200-400 VRII or 70-200 2.8 VRII, lenses that I often use the 1.4 converter on and see exactly the same amount of image degradation, low light focus ability loss not withstanding.
But, the person with the DF might not fare as well because while the much lower resolution of the 16MP sensor "hides" optical shortcomings, it also leaves a lot less room for bringing an image up to snuff in post, one of the reasons that the lowest MP count I can go is the 24MP of my D750 which shows a remarkable difference in this regard compared to my D810 and an enormous amount compared to my Hasselblad CFV50c back.
The above reasons are why I rented the lens first, I don't have time to read endless reviews that lack key information and 75% of the images I produce annually have to be able to be used anywhere from web to billboard sized with a minimum of massaging in post.
I find the 200-500 to be outstanding on it's own and very much usable for large prints with a TC14III, but only with a high enough resolution camera, 24mp being passable, 36mp much better.
p.55 #13 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I had a meeting in a different town today, which just happened to have a brick and mortar store. I only had about 20 minutes to spare, but decided to stop in and see what they had on display. Low and behold, they had the 200-500mm in the case. They let me put it on my Df and step outside to take a few quick shots. Unfortunately, there was nothing of interest to shoot, but it was good for me to at least see what it felt like to have it mounted on my camera and take a few hand held shots.
I had to shoot across the length of the parking lot and across the street to get these. All four were shot handheld at 500mm with the first wide open at f5.6, second at f6.3, third at f7.1, and then lastly at f8, all strait out of the camera, no PP.
p.55 #15 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Not really a close up of a bird . When I saw those snow geese flying around this morning, I didn't even have time to check my D810's setting. It was under exposed by 3 stops because the ISO was set to 100.
p.55 #17 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
No Regrets wrote:
I had a meeting in a different town today, which just happened to have a brick and mortar store. I only had about 20 minutes to spare, but decided to stop in and see what they had on display. Low and behold, they had the 200-500mm in the case. They let me put it on my Df and step outside to take a few quick shots. Unfortunately, there was nothing of interest to shoot, but it was good for me to at least see what it felt like to have it mounted on my camera and take a few hand held shots.
I had to shoot across the length of the parking lot and across the street to get these. All four were shot handheld at 500mm with the first wide open at f5.6, second at f6.3, third at f7.1, and then lastly at f8, all strait out of the camera, no PP....Show more →
....thanks for those comparisons.
As I see it...there is not much to achieve further stopping it down to f7.1 & f8. I wish to use it at f5.6,wide-open to get the best bokeh,SS and ISO performance.A little bit of PP will take care of the rest.
shekarn64 wrote:
two from last week...
...nice shots. BTW which TC..?? 1.4X TC-II or TC-III..??
p.55 #19 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
dhamments wrote:
I caught this Comb Crested Jacana looking over its shoulder as a "saltie" just splashed into the water about 25 meters behind it.... while this lens shines close up, it's not too shabby resolving detail at distance as well. This little fella was about 50 meters away...
. When I saw those snow geese flying around this morning, I didn't even have time to check my D810's setting. It was under exposed by 3 stops because the ISO was set to 100.
