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

DaveyJ

I find for tele photos that both ends matter and particularly the long end if it is sharp. The Nikon 70-300 VR 5.6 is a very good lens, but at 300 it is at its weakest. The Tamron 150-600 G2 with Nikon mount is very highly rated. I have shot with the Tamron G1 but do not own that lens. I am still trying to afford the G2. It's rating is very bit as good as the Nikon 200-500. Actually better according to those who own both lens. I plan to focus in single frame mode, then if I do video with the long lens switch after the lens has acquired focus. I have until August until I get the lens and become proficient with it. Then off to Yellowstone.

BabaGanoush

@DaveyJ : The Nikon 70-300 VR 5.6 is a very good lens, but at 300 it is at its weakest.

Agreed. Last week I was out birding with guests from out of town and I took my 70-300 VR 5.6 because I didn't want to carry the heavier 80-400mm while I was acting as host for my guests. I ended up being stuck at 300mm (although I really needed 500mm), where the loss of detail is just unacceptable. My 80-400mm is far, far better at 300mm. Based on the gallery of photos that DPR just posted for the new Nikon 70-300mm lenses, I'd say they may be no better in terms of IQ than my current 70-300mm (but will have to wait for further tests by other reviewers who may be better photographers).

DaveyJ

Based on my Owning and using the new 70-300 Nikons I would say the lens you already have is better so be careful. The Tamron G2 150-600 with Nikon mount is better rated, and B&H is listing a Sigma Contemporary 100-400 that is lighter in F5-5-.6, but no price or availability or obviously rating yet. The 100-400 Nikon is a,very good lens yet exceeds the price I am willing to pay for a DX tele zoom.

vtc2002

I had the opportunity to test out this lens past Friday morning and the focusing to be better than I expected. It is better than my 70 - 200mm G f2.8. It is comparable to my 300mm and 400mm in low light. The following is a continuous 13 shot sequence of photos that I took with the lens on my D810 at ISO 1250. These are straight out of the camera, no sharpening, noise reduction, etc.
This sequence was some of the first 30 to 50 images I took. I think the focusing and tracking is pretty good especially considering the price. What do you think?

Photobug

I agree the images are good. Looks like the AF tracking followed her jump spin. I really like my 200-500mm.

MegapixelSchnitzel

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?

Oh, I think they certainly could.

Photobug

MegapixelSchnitzel 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?

Oh, I think they certainly could.

+1 - also agree that Nikon could if there was a market for such a lens.

DaveyJ

It would have to have a price well under 2K to get many buyers attention.

spraynpray

I think you guys are missing mPs's point - they could, but that would be silly. How many $10k lenses would they sell if they did make one for $2k?

retread

A $10,000 lens just won't happen here. The price is way over my head. My whole kit is about that. A $2000 lens maybe.

DaveyJ

spraynpray: Nikon sales will continue to decline if the market share dries up, $10,000 lens have their market niche and I am CERTAIN they are NOT competitive. The200-500 illustrates what Nikon can do, and a $2,000 telephoto that cut some corners would sell very, very well. In fact the target should be under$1,500. I would probably buy that lens. Amazing how many SALES go to Tamron, Sigma, etc.!

retread

DaveyJ said:

spraynpray: Nikon sales will continue to decline if the market share dries up, $10,000 lens have their market niche and I am CERTAIN they are NOT competitive. The200-500 illustrates what Nikon can do, and a $2,000 telephoto that cut some corners would sell very, very well. In fact the target should be under$1,500. I would probably buy that lens. Amazing how many SALES go to Tamron, Sigma, etc.!

I have a Tamron 150-600, a Sigma 17-50, and the Tokina 11-20. Use them on DX cameras. Was loyal to Nikon for a very long time.

spraynpray

DaveyJ said:

spraynpray: Nikon sales will continue to decline if the market share dries up, $10,000 lens have their market niche and I am CERTAIN they are NOT competitive. The200-500 illustrates what Nikon can do, and a $2,000 telephoto that cut some corners would sell very, very well. In fact the target should be under$1,500. I would probably buy that lens. Amazing how many SALES go to Tamron, Sigma, etc.!

True, but I think the margins on the $10k lens will be so vast and those on the $2k lens so small, that they would HAVE to sell a vast number just to make up for the lost sales of the $10k lens for a net result of not gain.

You are probably right though...

DaveyJ

The market impact of a $10,000 lens sale although it may be pretty cushy does not influence the number of buyers that more modest gear does. Having owned some very pricey camera gear and experienced what a limited niche that is, and in this day of tweets, Instagrams,etc., I fail to see the really expensive glass making as,big a splash as the Tamron150-600 G1and G2, and the number of after market lens is starting to WAY exceed Nikkor glass from what I am seeing. Add to that some of the really popularized young photographers are using so many systems with bodies, whatever lens work, etc., and I do think the best marketing tool is a several pronged approach, produce extreme glass for the few, produce bang for the buck lens that appeal to new entrants, and I totally fail to see why Nikon can't and wouldn't do both.
Tamron for instance is running their 150-600 with virtually no bad reviews and the same price, and heavier 200-500 which one would think would be more compatible with a Nikon D500 or D7200 or D750 etc., yet the satisfaction rating while very high is still no better? Not knocking the 200-500 Nikkor, I think it is total proof Nikon responded incredibly well! Yet many look long and hard at one stat.....85 percent use of the Tamron at 600mm!

But the 80-400 Nikkor new lens....pretty pricey! The 200-500 is in my reckoning a very good lens. I have used it, but will probably settle on the 150-600 G2. Pretty much have not had problems that made cameras or lens worthless except in one arena, underwater. There most fail, and quickly. I have been doing UW a long, long time. But for whatever reason my long super tele for wildlife seems to elude,me.,must get the right one and put it to work.

kanuck

Hey DaveyJ, I was wondering would you trust this 200-500mm Nikkor on a trip to Africa for Safari? As a backup/primary option for shooting? I have heard the reviews of it are very good especially for the price. Still....

DaveyJ

There are a couple who,used the 200-500 in Safari Africa settings, now use the Tamron G2, the husband with Canon FX and the wife's with Nikon DX. My answer right now is YES, but I sure would want to assess the Tamron 150-600 G2 as it is lighter, a little better rated, and has better edge to edge resolution, which is excellent out to 600. I,have used the 200-500 and the older Tamron G1 150-600. Right now I buy the Tamron G2, same money, better range and ratings. But the Nikon 200-500 compared to any other Nikkor? The 200-500 Nikkor! Either a ten year old 70-300 F4.5-5.6 also.....and the 200-500. I have used the $10,000 Nikkor lens. I would take the 200-500! I'm not able to send you the African Safari link but I have found it a number of times on the net. The gal uses a bean bag for steadying her rig from the Rovers and it is what I found best compared to tripods, monopods(make a great hiking stick but a worthless camera support...be interested to see how this works out!

kanuck

Thanks DaveyJ, I kind of made a promise to myself years ago to never buy third party lenses (especially zooms) unless they are Zeiss Primes that's why I was asking about the 200-500. That being said I do have the 14mm Samyang and it has been excellent over the years. I just wonder how the this Nikon 200-500 would hold up under the rigors of the Serengeti for example? Still plenty of time as I have signed up and prepaid for late August til mid September in 2018 but I started my research last Christmas...

spraynpray

Perhaps controversially, I am the opposite - I would prefer the Nikon 200-500 over non-OEM lenses because I really find the focus to be more reliable and snappier. I tried the 150/2.8 Sigma macro on a friends D500 and found the focus to be weird up close. Used as a portrait lens, it was amazingly sharp. It could be his D500 that is the problem though.
EDIT: He researched the problem and it is common with that lens so he is returning it for a 105 Nikkor.

Photobug

My Nikon 200-500 is just 12 months old and will be used on vacation over the next two weeks. So far I agree with spraynpray, the focus is more reliable than my old Tamron 200-500mm lens that I sold 3 years.

kanuck

Photobug said:

My Nikon 200-500 is just 12 months old and will be used on vacation over the next two weeks. So far I agree with spraynpray, the focus is more reliable than my old Tamron 200-500mm lens that I sold 3 years.

Have you taken many wildlife shots with it these past 12 months? Maybe both stationary and moving? Maybe deer and birds?

Spraynpray, what is your go to super-zoom now? The one you would take on a big wildlife trip or perhaps rent for such an occasion.

spraynpray

200-500 for sure. These days they get you close enough that you can be in danger of being too long at 200 but that lens and a 70-200 would be my choice.

Photobug

kanuck said:

Photobug said:

My Nikon 200-500 is just 12 months old and will be used on vacation over the next two weeks. So far I agree with spraynpray, the focus is more reliable than my old Tamron 200-500mm lens that I sold 3 years.

Have you taken many wildlife shots with it these past 12 months? Maybe both stationary and moving? Maybe deer and birds?

Lots of pictures of stationary lions, tigers, buffalo, and Elk with some moving buffalo and elk. Fair amount of moving crane pictures but no BIF. We are headed to several wildlife areas and I am looking forward to seeing how it performs for BIF. Oh yes, I did a two hour outing with Bald Eagles, just after release and in flight over the river next to a dam. Focus was good.

vtc2002

@kanuck I have been using the Nikon 200-500 the past couple of months and recently used it for a job shooting Birds at Lake Mattamuskeet and Wild Horses at Corolla in North Carolina and my client was very pleased with the results. The lens held up very well in pretty rough conditions. One of the days at Lake Mattamuskeet we were caught in a heavy thunderstorm and did not have any problems with water getting into the lens. The wild horses we shot on the beach with wind, ocean breezes and blowing sand and had no issues. I agree with @spraynpray and @Photobug about the focus, I have found it to be much better than a lot of the reviews. I do think the camera makes a difference on the focusing. On the D500 it is a little better than the D810 and it is noticeably better than the D750 or D610. I had the Nikon 400 f2.8 and 500 f4 that I only used for a couple of shots late in the afternoon in low light.

Concerning the discussion about Nikon producing more $2,000 telephotos I agree with @DaveyJ. Nikon can make a quality telephoto lens for $2,000 and sell a lot of them. Nikon is missing a lot of photographers (except those with deep pockets) that do not have the resources to invest $10,000+ in a lens that they may shoot on a limited basis. They would buy a $2,000 lens and as their skills develop or develop a passion for shooting BIF, etc. they might take the leap to the prime lens. Nikon is basically saying if you don't want to buy our professional grade lens we don't want your money. It doesn't work that way in other markets. You can look at the Golf market. The golf club makers sell woods (metal woods) and irons. They make different skill level clubs, that as the golfers skills advance they buy clubs that match their skills. The margin on irons is very low and the advancement in technology is slow for irons. The woods are a different story. The margins are high and technology allows for significant improvement every year. The improvement allows the golfer to hit the ball farther and straighter and the makers sell a lot of them because every golfer wants to hit the ball farther and straighter. The golfer starting out is not going to buy the $400 driver that the pro use, they buy the start set. As there skill develops they upgrade their equipment. The starter set does not cannibalize pro level equipment. The camera bodies would be the equivalent of the woods in golf and the lens would be the equivalent of the irons. I do not know of a golf club manufacturer that only makes clubs that the only sell to the pros and tell all the other golfers we don't want your money. The photographer that needs the extra stops for low light conditions will upgrade their lens to the prime lens (if they have the resources) but they may start with the $2,000 lens.

DaveyJ

If I buy the slightly lower rated Nikon 200-500 I have to spend another $200 to get it to work with my Arca Swiss Mount tripod, and it is heavier. The Tamron G2 has 45 ratings practically all five star and is considered edge to edge sharp at 600mm. However I do think the Nikon 200-500 is the single best lens offerings Nikon has in the telephoto range. I have tried the new 80-400 Nikkor and just cannot ,justify the price tag. Also for just one long lens, my situation seems to be quite needy in the longest ranges. In terms of holding up,the Nikkor 200-500 seems very well built and I believe will hold up on Safari and I hope Kanuck has been able to find the web postings for people that are doing that very often as there are some excellent lessons there on technique that would help you with almost any,lens or camera. And for sure I would also,want a wide camera and lens right there as well, for scenery or the event you are quite close.

kanuck

Hey Photobug & vtc2002 is there any chance you could slip a few images right to this forum from your 200-500?