p.88 #1 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
My research before I bought the 200-500 convinced me that it was sharper than a Sig Sport, especially toward the edges of the frame. I suspect there is some sample variation though as well, as always. Both are sharp lenses.
They are fairly different lenses though, everything from weight to price, so you have to consider how the whole package suits your needs. Other things that sold me on the 200-500 were weight, size, TC usability, the unmatched VR, price, OOF rendering, and constant F5.6. AF is not like the primes, but it's plenty fast enough for BIF. It's build surprisingly well, everything is tight, there is a handy zoom lock, and there is a nice rubber bumper on the end.
While I'm sure there is a small difference (and I'm not saying it's better), I gave myself a blind test with the 200-500 and my 70-200 VR II and honestly it was very difficult for me to tell any difference in overall sharpness. It was very, very, impressed. The VR on this lens as well is unmatched by anything I am aware of - I don't know what they have done with it but it's phenomenal.
Does it replace a 500/4? No, but I think it's an unbeatable value proposition in the segment at the moment.
p.88 #2 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
A bit OOT but I will ask anyway. After 5 months of daily use, and returning from 3 weeks shooting in Sri Lanka, I have noticed that the rubber grip on the zoom ring is starting to "push" over - the grip becoming bigger than the thread. It happened to my previous consumer lenses (18-55, 70-300 VR) to the point I have had to change the rubber grips. But 200-500?! Would a neoprene lens cover helped stopping this unfortunate behaviour of Nikon consumer lenses?
p.88 #12 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
New toy, Nikon D800e, rented lens Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 Football game. Number 95 by Jimmy, on Flickr
Nikon D800e
Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 @400mm
f/5.6 @ 1/250
ISO 6400
p.88 #13 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
I have to photograph an interior concert soon, brightly light. I shot before at 3200iso, 200th at 4,5 with the 120-300 but I think I would like a little more reach. I can either put a 1.4 teleconverter on the 120-300 or try the Nikon 200-500, my only Concern with the 200-500 is the 5.6 aperture. I'm shooting with a D4s so I could probably go to 6400iso and that will make up that stop. any opinions?
p.88 #15 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
david debalko wrote:
I have to photograph an interior concert soon, brightly light. I shot before at 3200iso, 200th at 4,5 with the 120-300 but I think I would like a little more reach. I can either put a 1.4 teleconverter on the 120-300 or try the Nikon 200-500, my only Concern with the 200-500 is the 5.6 aperture. I'm shooting with a D4s so I could probably go to 6400iso and that will make up that stop. any opinions?
Go for the TC on the 120-300, unless you absolutely need 500mm vs 400mm, or if the 120-300 is too heavy. It's good to have f4 in darker conditions, and you shouldn't see a huge difference in sharpness - and stopping down the 120-300 may even make it sharper than the 200-500 by f5.6.
p.88 #17 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Quite an inspiring thread... got a 200-500 last week at a hair over 20% discount, so I just couldn't resist.
A truly surprising optic, which has exceeded my expectations. The VR is simply amazing!
I have a lot to learn, and I'm itching to get to a game farm or national park soon...
I can take the heat, thx! 
