I Just 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, at this point 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 is bests the other in its range...
cheers,
bruce
Jan 12, 2016 at 04:32 PM
Previous versions of OwlsEyes's message #13370975 « Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR »
