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

Photobug

I gave the 200-500 a workout on the D7100 while on vacation. Very pleased with the lens. I shot too many hand held shots but the VR and higher ISO allowed higher shutter speeds. When I did use the tripod the shot are impressive.

Photobug

Nice comparison of the 200-500 5.6 to the 300 F4. It's long but an excellent review.

Ironheart

@photobug Is there a link?

spraynpray

I advised a club member to get it and on Monday he turned up with it on his D610. I put it on auto-ISO, opened it up and let rip - brilliant lens.

Photobug

@Ironheart - my mistake. Guess who forgot to paste the web site. Lets me see if I can find it and I will update this post.

Review by Back Country:

DaveyJ

I have used the D500 with the 200-500 Nikkor. I thought it was fine! Then I put it back on the D7200 as I was using the 16-80 range more. I found hand holding the D500 and the 200-500 lens OK. But then I am drawshaving big timber a fair amount and I am used to needing to grip something firmly. I do think the D500 focuses maybe even a little faster than the D7200 with that lens. I though do tend to take stills with the 200-500 and a fair amount of video with the 16-80. The D500 biggest requirement for me is the need to adjust to the reduced view the same lens gets with stills compared to video. Don't know about you but I find this quite annoying and it does occasionally get in the way of proper focus before starting a video with the rig......hand held video with the D500 and the 200-500 is probably NOT a good program.
That I find probably is way better with a tripod. Wide angle is decidedly video more friendly handheld than long teles.......But my feeling though is that the D500 and 200-500 together is very good for the price. Again.....the 80-400 new one is just plain to pricey for me. I tried it and was impressed. Just resistant at that price point.

MegapixelSchnitzel

If I owned a D500, this would be one of the first new lenses I would pick up. In a heartbeat.

Ironheart

Good luck actually picking it up and hand-holding it for any reasonable period of time. I own a D500 and much prefer the 80-400 and the 300PF with a tele over the 200-500 beastie. Now, on a tripod, esp gimbal mount, go for it.

MegapixelSchnitzel

I've always tried not to let practical issues get in the way of my desires.

Ironheart

But of course More just a play on words...

Fozzyffp

D500/200-500 Combo

MegapixelSchnitzel

You photographed a North Korean missile test recently?

Ironheart

Ha, they wish. This is the Atlas V pushing a secret navy spy satellite into orbit.

Pistnbroke

Well I am less excited for two reasons...no DXO test .The only way I can judge it against what I have....and no base for programming like the new Sigma G2

Photobug

DxO will catch up eventually. Patience.

spraynpray

They are selling like hot-cakes now, two blokes in my club have got them and a third is weakening. D500 is making an appearance now too.

Photobug

Spraynpray - Does not surprise me about the sales of the 200-500 lens. I have been happy with mine. When you look at the competition you get a lot, in my opinion, over the Tamron and Sigma lenses. Now with the new Sigma coming on-board it could get interesting.

I spent about 5 minutes with the new D500. Like how it felt and the ergonomics were good. A few button locations to adjust to. Four years ago I would have bought it but now its a hard justification since I don't shoot a lot of BIF, sports cars, and other fast moving objects.

As an aside, I am very disappointed in how the used price of my D7100 fell after the D7200 came out. Did not expect the price to fall to where its at currently. The new D7100's are a bargain for someone wanting to move up from the entry level models and can't afford a new D7200/D500. What a great bargain. If the D7100 was closer to $800/$900 when the D500 was released I would have consider the upgrade. Any way, wanted to get that one off my chest.

NSXTypeR

Photobug, prices of cameras always drops after a new camera comes out, that's not exactly new. I got my D7000 right before the D7100 came out, partly because I needed a new camera and my D40 died. I got it for $1000, but it quickly dropped to around $800 right after the D7100 came out.

You don't buy camera bodies to invest in, it's a tool. You also don't buy cars (usually) to invest in either. Unless you happen to have bought a Mercedes SL Gullwing for a few thousand dollars in the mid 70's, then you're sitting on a pile of cash.

Photobug

I hear you but to see a $800 to $1000 drop in one month was unnerving. I have had excellent luck selling digital cameras but the D7100 price drop was more than the wives D90 and a few others.

donaldejose

Remember when just a few years ago we all believed you could not get a full frame camera for less than $2,000.00? Now you can get a used D600 or D700 for $800.00, a used D610 or D3 for less than $1,000.00, and a used D750 or D800 for $1,500.00. Amazing choices for far less than $2,000.00! Also, remember when the 500 mm range for wildlife photography had an entry price of about $10,000? Now look at the wonderfully sharp and bokeh images jimo is posting on PAD using a $1,400.00 lens. I few years ago I would not have thought you could produce this image for less than about $15,000.00 invested in equipment. https://www.flickr.com/photos/joskam/28424613946/in/dateposted-public/

BabaGanoush

Question: If Nikon can release a 200-500mm f/5.6 AF-S lens that costs just $1400, why can't it produce an optically-decent, stabilized, autofocusing 500mm PRIME that sells for less than $10,000?

webmastadj

I wonder how this would preform on a D5600? I have the 70-300 but thinking about getting the 200-500 just to get me up to the 500mm range.

PB_PM

BabaGanoush said:

Question: If Nikon can release a 200-500mm f/5.6 AF-S lens that costs just $1400, why can't it produce an optically-decent, stabilized, autofocusing 500mm PRIME that sells for less than $10,000?

Answer is simple, those big lenses cost big bucks to develop and tests. Oh and the sales of them really pad the bottom line of the company too.

BabaGanoush

PB_PM said:

BabaGanoush said:

Question: If Nikon can release a 200-500mm f/5.6 AF-S lens that costs just $1400, why can't it produce an optically-decent, stabilized, autofocusing 500mm PRIME that sells for less than $10,000?

Answer is simple, those big lenses cost big bucks to develop and tests. Oh and the sales of them really pad the bottom line of the company too.

Why would it cost Nikon big bucks to design a 500mm prime that was at least as good as the 200-500mm zoom AND affordable to boot? Much of the requisite design work (or similar spin-off design work) has surely already gone into creating the zoom lens. And there must be a bunch of tentative but rejected designs that were created for the very expensive pro version of the 500mm prime. An optically decent prime that's at least as good as the zoom, if not several times better, should not require that much new design and testing work on Nikon's part. I'd be surprised if Nikon did NOT have filing cabinets full of possible designs for low cost 500mm, 400mm, and 600mm primes that they could build tomorrow. Is it they just don't want to? I'd like to know why. I think it would be a big seller. Am I wrong about that? At $2-2.5K a pop, I'd probably buy both a 400mm and a 600mm as long as they didn't weigh a ton.

snakebunk

@BabaGanoush: I agree with you, there is a very big difference in price between the 200-500/5.6 and the 500/4. It should be possible to make something in between (like a high quality 500/5.6 or 600/5.6). If you want a 500/4 I recommend the Sigma Sports, it is equally good as the Nikon but less expensive.