200-500f5.6 Priced Under $1,400: Are You Excited?

WestEndFoto

Why do you need such a long lens for dragonflies - what's wrong with a 60?

Cos I am aiming for dragon fly in flight :-)

I have a few blurry attempts at that. I thought bees were hard.

One_Oh_Four

I wonder how it will compare with the 80-400 AF-S?

spraynpray

Why do you need such a long lens for dragonflies - what's wrong with a 60?

Cos I am aiming for dragon fly in flight :-)... Yes field-craft does it ..

Cool hearty - can't wait to see your shots.

@WestEndFoto: First time I got that - what the heck is it? Some dumb robot?

heartyfisher

Why do you need such a long lens for dragonflies - what's wrong with a 60?

Cos I am aiming for dragon fly in flight :-)... Yes field-craft does it ..

Cool heaty - can't wait to see your shots.

@WestEndFoto: First time I got that - what the heck is it? Some dumb robot?

Wont be for a while .. budget for 200-500 not quite there yet :-) come think about it ... hmm.. the 70-200 should be sufficient !! but its winter at the moment don't think there are many dragonflies in the southern hemisphere at the moment...

WestEndFoto

Why do you need such a long lens for dragonflies - what's wrong with a 60?

Cos I am aiming for dragon fly in flight :-)... Yes field-craft does it ..

Cool heaty - can't wait to see your shots.

@WestEndFoto: First time I got that - what the heck is it? Some dumb robot?

Basically yes, but people have to legitimately appreciate your images for the dumb robot to pick you up.

BVS

Can you imagine this from the dragonfly's perspective. Imagine a big massive round sphere filling up half the sky.

Not to mention what it looks like when the flash goes off when you've got that many eyes! - Holy crap, the world just exploded!

PB_PM

And back to the topic of the 200-500mm F5.6 Nikkor... I think I'll wait for some reviews before ordering, but if this thing is sharper than the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 with a 1.4x TC, I think it will be a no brainer to get the Nikkor. Of course I would loose F2.8 for low light, but lets face it, I use the Sigma with the 1.4x or 2x TC's 95% of the time.

jdb

I would likely use a tripod or monopod most of the time with this lens. However, part of it's appeal for me is to use it handheld. It's not obvious in the photos, but I'm wondering if it has connection points for a strap(?) If not, this seems a little heavy for hanging off the camera body. Thoughts on this?

heartyfisher

It has a tripod collar .. is that what you mean? You can connect a strap to the tripod collar...

dissent

It has a tripod collar .. is that what you mean? You can connect a strap to the tripod collar...

Yup. This is what I do now with my 300/4D.

jdb

My 300 f/2.8 has rings connected to the lens itself, so when carrying it I have a strap connected to those rings, not the camera body. The new 200-500 doesn't appear to have those rings. Maybe the best solution will be connecting a RapidStrap style strap to the tripod collar(?)

birdman

I am anticipating reviews on this lens. I've been mulling over whether to get 1.7TC for my 70-200/2.8, or go with a 300/4.0 and grab a 1.4TC. Perhaps this lens will be great up to 400mm....which is more than I would have expected just a few yrs back at this price point. Still, the low price is a little bothersome based on pricing of 80-400

donaldejose

I think this would be the best way to use this lens.

1. Set Auto ISO up to ISO 800.
2. Set body to manual with shutter speed at 500th of a second for birds on a perch or at 1,000th of a second for birds in flight.
3. Adjust aperture between f5.6 and f8 as needed.
Shoot away expecting about half of the images to be unsharp.

If your camera body produces good image quality up to ISO 800 you should be able to obtain many good images with this lens. If you find all your images are sharp at these settings you could go down. For example, you could set Auto ISO up to ISO 400 or you could set your shutter speed lower than 1/500th of a second (if the VR is that good and your subject is not moving much). I think the point is to not get 100% sharp images because then you are not using all the "room" available. Using the lowest ISO which gives you more than 50% sharp images may be the way to shoot this lens.

proudgeek

Just read the comparison on the main blog. 95mm filters? I have dinner plates that are smaller.

heartyfisher

All the 150-600 f6.3 have 95mm filters...

WestEndFoto

Just read the comparison on the main blog. 95mm filters? I have dinner plates that are smaller.

Is this a negative? A 600mm f/5.6 will have a front element with an 89.256mm diameter.

tcole1983

Just read the comparison on the main blog. 95mm filters? I have dinner plates that are smaller.

Is this a negative? A 600mm f/5.6 will have a front element with an 89.256mm diameter.

If you have to buy filters for it...have to imagine they are expensive and wouldn't be something you could use on any other lens you have.

WestEndFoto

Just read the comparison on the main blog. 95mm filters? I have dinner plates that are smaller.

Is this a negative? A 600mm f/5.6 will have a front element with an 89.256mm diameter.

If you have to buy filters for it...have to imagine they are expensive and wouldn't be something you could use on any other lens you have.

Sure, But this will be true of any long lens.

proudgeek

Just read the comparison on the main blog. 95mm filters? I have dinner plates that are smaller.

Is this a negative? A 600mm f/5.6 will have a front element with an 89.256mm diameter.

If you have to buy filters for it...have to imagine they are expensive and wouldn't be something you could use on any other lens you have.

Sure, But this will be true of any long lens.

Not necessarily. My 300 f/2.8 takes drop in filters (which I don't use). More than likely I'd just buy the one protective filter and be done with it. There is an additional cost associated with the larger filters though, particularly if you use ND grads, etc. I would also wonder whether the larger glass area might be a little less structurally sound and therefore more prone to breakage.

WestEndFoto

Yes, the drop in filter options did not occur to me, though if you can afford those lenses, the drop in filters will be comparatively inexpensive.

I hear you on filters. My four ND grads cost $2,000. I would hate to have to replace them because I was moving up to a larger lens. Luckily I use most of these filters at the long end.

proudgeek

Truth be told most people using this lens won't be deploying ND grads. Very few will use a CPL. But it did strike me as odd.

manhattanboy

I will be sitting on the side lines for this lens. After using the 300PF, my weight and size requirement are very strict. At almost 11 inches and 5 pounds this thing is huge and heavy. I would have preferred a prime and shaving some weight (e.g. the decades old Canon 400 5.6 is about half that weight). I'm sure everyone will love this new lens and kudos to Nikon for pricing it reasonably. But I now consider even the AFS 80-400 to be big and heavy, and that lens looks anorexic compared to this new 200-500.

donaldejose

Seems to me the 80-400 will be in competition with the 200-500 but if that new 200-500 is sharp it will be the first choice.

spraynpray

Seems to me the 80-400 will be in competition with the 200-500 but if that new 200-500 is sharp it will be the first choice.

The reason I never went for the 80-400 is because it doubles over the 70-200 whereas the 200-500 (or the Tamron) doesn't.

tcole1983

Seems to me the 80-400 will be in competition with the 200-500 but if that new 200-500 is sharp it will be the first choice.

The reason I never went for the 80-400 is because it doubles over the 70-200 whereas the 200-500 (or the Tamron) doesn't.

If it performs pretty good it fills a gap and is a nice range to compliment already existing lenses at a somewhat affordable price. I probably would have been all over it if it were out before I got my 300 f4. Nikon actually seems to be increasing their lineup of lenses and filling long void spaces...an affordable long zoom, 70-200 F4, some wider primes, 24-70 VR, new 80-400.