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

9viii

From what I can tell this is Nikon's first entry into the "Budget Supertelephoto" segment, and not only that but they're breaking new ground for basic parameters of a first party lens (from anyone).
Even if the corners aren't great, if they can manage top level sharpness across most of the center then it'll be perfect for crop shooters.

The big question is whether or not the Tamron/Sigma 150-600 owners are totally satisfied with their purchases. For BIF first party AF is normally the only way to go, but maybe third parties are good enough now?

Is this the golden opportunity you've been waiting for or is this lens just late to the party?

donaldejose

Let's see how it tests out. I see it as a "big brother" to the very excellent 70-200 f4. If it is that sharp it will be a great lens and I will get one.

Coastalconn

My guess is a DX lens.. Probably made by Tamron with a Nikon label..

heartyfisher

Could well be a great counterpart/rival to the canon 400 f5.6...
How big is it?

WestEndFoto

Not my cup of tea, but I must admit that I am very intrigued by this move on Nikon's part. It is unexpected.

snakebunk

I think this will be competing against the 150-600 lenses from Sigma and Tamron. I think most people use these lenses with dx cameras and without a tc so the aperture is ok.
If it performs better than the Tamron 150-600 at 500, and the build quality is good, it could be the choice for people starting to photograph birds.
It will be interesting to read the reviews.

JonMcGuffin

If I know Nikon what will probably end up happening is that you'll get a lens that will give you about the same level of optical quality as the Tamron/Sigma C, will AF slightly better, it will cost you 20-25% more and they will rob you of 50mm on the wide end and 100mm on the long.

It won't have to be great at 500mm 5.6 but it'll need to be good. I think this lens has budget wildlife shooters and daylight sports shooters written all over it. My biggest hope is that the AF is very accurate and and fast, but I fear it may just be average in these regards which makes it one of those lenses you're really never that happy with because it doesn't do anything "great" and you still dropped $1300-$1500 bucks on it.

Msmoto

Or, this could turn out to be another version of the 200-400, maybe even better do to advanced technology...at f/5.6 all the way up we may be astounded.....I think Nikon is in the business now, of producing some spectacular products, not to "make up" for some of the recent issues, but simply because they want to be the leader.

As size is pretty small for a big tele, this could be a great companion to some of my current lenses..

dissent

yeah, I'll be watching the reviews on this one.

sevencrossing

My biggest hope is that the AF is very accurate and and fast,.

There is no reason why it should not be
I think Nikon hold patents for VR that third parties cannot use

PB_PM

My guess is a DX lens.. Probably made by Tamron with a Nikon label..

There is no advantage to making a DX lens once you go beyond 200mm, in terms of glass so that would be pointless.

heartyfisher

I have an old tamron 200-400 F5.6 .. its not bad ... in bright light. So I can imagine that the 200-500 f5.6 would be similar except that it has VR which would be a great boon. It could be a great birding lense to counter the "coastalcons" getting the canon birding kits :-) IQ and AF will have to beat the old 80-400 VR which shouldnt be a problem.. would work great with my 70-200 F4 :-)

CaMeRaQuEsT

Wasn't there a previous NR article about a Nikon-Tamron co-patent on a design covering this zoom spread?

BVS

I think it HAS to have better IQ than the Tamron and Sigma C, or there's really no point since the other two have better range and flexibility. However, since it's only a 2.5X zoom vs. 4X for the Tamron and Sigma it should be easier to do so.

JonMcGuffin

I think it HAS to have better IQ than the Tamron and Sigma C, or there's really no point since the other two have better range and flexibility. However, since it's only a 2.5X zoom vs. 4X for the Tamron and Sigma it should be easier to do so.

But what if IQ is just kind of even, but AF performance is better? I mean, I don't shoot birds but doesn't AF performance in this kind of lens me a ton?

snakebunk

AF is very important when you shoot birds but I think most lenses today have fast and accurate AF. When it comes to AF the difference lies mostly in the camera, according to my limited experience. All my Sigma lenses are fast and accurate but there is a clear difference between the D300s and the D800.

A strange thing is why there are so few F mount lenses between the super expensive and the least expensive long tele lenses. I think there is a large market for a top quality 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 for around 5000 euros.

heartyfisher

Wasn't there a previous NR article about a Nikon-Tamron co-patent on a design covering this zoom spread?

Yes, there was ..I didnt look at it in detail but I think it was a variable aperture F4-5.6 or something similar.. still they can always do the fixed aperture "cripple" on the wide end .. especially if its E (for electronic aperture)

Photobug

I have $$$ budgeted in 2016 for the Tamron 150-600 lens. Now things just got interesting. At least by the end of the year we will have reviews on the new Nikon lens. IMHO, this is terrific news for those of us still shooting DX for the reach. Love to have this problem.

spraynpray

I await tests. If it is anything like the 70-300VR, no I'm not excited. It needs to be sharp at the long end. If it is, great, can't wait.

snakebunk

I am afraid it is priced too low to be great, but I hope Nikon surprise us. They have a chance to give Tamron and Sigma a slap in the face.

tcole1983

Guess I am not sure what to think by the announcement. At this focal lengths poor IQ is pretty apparent as most are probably shooting close ups of animals or something. I wish this was around a long time ago though. I already have my 300 F4 which has excellent IQ. More reach and the flexibility of a zoom is always nice, but only if the image quality is there.

sevencrossing

Comparing the old 80- 400 with the new one, shows the improvements Nikon are capable of
Nikon's Dx line up proves they can deliver bangs for bucks

spraynpray

For sure they are. Even the 70-300VR was excellent 'bang for the buck', because it was so cheap. Maybe I am being unreasonable in wanting it to be sharp all the way to 300.

BVS

I am afraid it is priced too low to be great, but I hope Nikon surprise us. They have a chance to give Tamron and Sigma a slap in the face.

The Tamron and Sigma have gotten decent reviews and are even cheaper and longer. I would expect this to at least match them (and hopefully better them) performance wise.

BVS

I await tests. If it is anything like the 70-300VR, no I'm not excited. It needs to be sharp at the long end. If it is, great, can't wait.

I may be new at this, but I've never understood why so many tele-zooms are sharp on the short end and weak on the long end. If you're buying a tele, don't people want it most for the long end? Who buys a tele-zoom to shoot it at 70mm? Makes no sense to me. I'd rather they were sharp on the long end and weak on the short end, if they can't be sharp throughout.

WestEndFoto

I await tests. If it is anything like the 70-300VR, no I'm not excited. It needs to be sharp at the long end. If it is, great, can't wait.

I may be new at this, but I've never understood why so many tele-zooms are sharp on the short end and weak on the long end. If you're buying a tele, don't people want it most for the long end? Who buys a tele-zoom to shoot it at 70mm? Makes no sense to me. I'd rather they were sharp on the long end and weak on the short end, if they can't be sharp throughout.

Lot's must or they would not bother to start at 70. I bet most buy it for the wide end and want the long end "just in case".