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

retread

+1 Daveyj

DaveyJ

@Photobug: There are a number of Boss Straps....the 3 slide rig??? I am going to get the one you recommend and I assume have used on say a 200-500 (using mine on the D7200), and I will use another D7200 with the 16-80 most of the time. Hoping I can get by with those two lens/camera combos, but for sure my 70-300Nikkor probably BOTH the AF-P VR and the 4.5-5.6 FX and a 10-20 wide zoom. No I won't have a Sherpa, good thing I'm used to carrying farm equipment for hours.

Only plan on leaving the rental SUV with two cameras and two lens! My travel agent friend will be just using a Nikon P550 or so with a serous zoom feature! She gets great photos with it. She also has a Nikon DSLR with several lens like the kit lens, and a 70-300 4.5-5.6 but won't even bring it on our two week trip.

Capt_Spaulding

A second to @Photobug"s recommendation of the Boss Strap. I have 2 of them, one on my D7200 and another on my D610. I could not be happier with them. Mine are the standard Gen 3s without the quick release tails and such. When I bought mine the more elaborate products were not on the market.

The lack of a QR isn't a problem as I leave the straps on their respective cameras all the time.

retread

I also have two of them but upgraded to the QR so I can take them off easily when I use a monopod or tripod.

spraynpray

I saved some money by using BR parts on a super soft copy of the BR strap and got a more comfortable strap. I love it. I also made up a double rig for wedding work.

Photobug

After I left that message I went back and checked out the Boss web site. They certainly added a lot of new sling straps. Thanks @DaveyJ for mentioning the many models.

We recently returned from a 10 day vacation and I continue to enjoy my Boss Strap. Looks like more and more NF members have them.

spraynpray said:

I saved some money by using BR parts on a super soft copy of the BR strap and got a more comfortable strap. I love it. I also made up a double rig for wedding work.

That was the turn off for me when I checked out the BR strap...the strap width was not very wide. So how wide a strap did you get Spraynpray? How about sharing a picture of the strap and BR hardware?

spraynpray

It is an eBay cheapie strap with a 2-1/2" wide neoprene strap - so comfy I forget it's on me. The standard BR replica parts go in the bin and are replaced by BR parts. The arca plate is my add-on too. The double rig is not neoprene, but is pretty comfortable anyway.

DaveyJ

Almost looks like spraynpray's double rig should be introduced as a Nikon Rumors members special! I will carry two Nikon DX DSLRs and a Nikon 200-500 on one and a 16-80 Nikon lens on the other. What happens to my two 70-300 lens I use a lot I do not know, and I doubt if I will use my 10-20 lens much in Yellowstone, but for room interiors it is essential. Hope to have some interiors of Old Faithful Inn, etc., other than that I'll mostly be shooting outside. I will use an Arca Swiss head tripod some and handhold as much of the time as possible. Luckily I have some contacts from Park specialists and wildlife biologists to decide where I will take some of my shots, but much is dependent on weather, etc! I do know I need a Boss Strap that is set up for carry and hand holding while shooting and can be left on while I use the Oben carbon fiber Arca Swiss head tripod. My travel agent will have her Nikon P900 along and the 83X zoom will,serve quickly to get shots that will be pretty good for a lighter weight rig. She is bringing a tripod she bought with her camera deal. I think the 200-500 Strap attachment should be on the Kirk plate as I am struggling with the notion of attaching seven pounds to the camera D7200 Strap attachments???

Photobug

Like what you did for the sling strap spraynpray. Very cost effective solution. I like dumping the replica parts and using the BR hardware. Nice.

Interesting double rig set up. In my younger days I would have tried that but I don't do enough double cameras work.

DaveyJ. I agree with your comments about leaving the 10-20mm lens at home. If you are staying at the Old Faithful Inn you need a wide angle lens for the room interior...they are not that big. Also a 10-20 would be good in the lounge area for shooting the fireplace and the beautiful wood timber look. Be sure to hike up to the top and shoot down into the room....I got some nice shots.

When you are at the crest of the upper water falls, that wide angle lens can do things that the 16-80 won't do. With all that being said, I would stay with the 16-80 and leave that 10-20 at home. Planning a trip to the Grand Tetons and Yellowstone NP requires a lot of thought. You can't take all your stuff.

I should have used my polarizer more than I did...so that is my tip for the day.

DaveyJ

The Nikon 200-500 is one of the most impressive lens I have seen for the price and what it will do! Handholding it Shooting at 500 mm is pretty easy for me and the results greatly worth the weight, etc., The lens with my Kirk Arca Plate is 5.7 pounds approx. weighed on a produce scale. I have found often a heavier rifle is easier to shoot long distance offhand and the same is true here. I will take a while to settle on what strap system to use. It will be Boss or Black Rapid. The D7200s and the 16-80 and 200-500 will be on the cameras most of the time. The 10-20 will come out there with me in my carry on which will have my cameras and capture cards. Tripod, chest high waders, wading shoes, fly rods and reels in my 50 lb. checked bag. The carry on will be in a Lowe Pro still small enough to meet airline carry on status, and has really nice support and carry system. I figure I need the 10-20 for interiors and about the only walk it will go on is to Yellowstone Falls. Other than that a 70-300 AF-P VR DX for a lens and light backup. May also take a 18-55 kit lens for any carry with me when in fishing gear. Nothing else will go with me when I am wading.

Between the Madison, Firehole, Slough Creek and Lamar River that will be about two days out from straight camera work. Each day if I land a dozen fish I will stop releasing them and stop fishing. I will have a NP 7 day fishing license. Which by non-resident standards is a bargain, about $30. Since aerial is out due to Park regulations I won't be able to get the usual eagle eye view.

Again the 200-500 Nikkor is a phenomenal value and lens quality. I have tested at close to 650 ft. And all shots are keepers in terms of sharpness, color, etc.!!! Glad I got the Nikon. Even heavier than the stats I read in advance, but after a trial run I will have no problem shooting it. My Oben Carbon fiber Arca Swiss Mount tripod is lightweight but rock steady, at least without much wind, but it is set up to weight rapidly if needed. The lens though is nothing short of amazing for the price! I know of no other lens ever that has impressed me as a great buy! Now it is a matter of getting it at the right place at the right time. I do not plan On any half day hikes during our trip and my TravelAgent going with me has done this on her own several times already! Her P900 Nikon will come back to her place with fine photos without needing a pack mule. It is a good thing I am used to 12 hour work days but in such fine scenery and in a place Our Country was wise enough to have set aside so many years ago, it will be a RUSH!
Between Photobug, Thom Hogan, SpraynPray, and other NR regulars I will.be about as set up as possible. My travel gal has made the reservations and dinner accommodations that will be partly lost on me and that will make the trip as well planned as possible. Hopefully the weather, the wildlife, etc., will be optimum, and I am sure the 2 weeks will race by! I'll try to keep my lens cleaned and all that stuff. The thread 200-500 F5.6 for under $1,400 are you excited! has quite a few pages now. Nikon Rumors don't get any better than that from my point of view. Good Luck to All of You!

DaveyJ

The 200-500 with the D7500 is blazingly fast! I now am not sure I will use the D7200 with it most of the time!

PB_PM

I used the 200-500 VR in a store this week, so I have some thoughts. Yeah, nothing too much, but it seems to line up with everything I've read here.

I think Nikon nailed it with that lens, it's light weight when compared to the big gun super telephoto lenses. Build quality seems to be very good. It tends to get front heavy as you zoom though, but I guess that's common for this class of zoom. Zooming was smooth with the demo, which is a good sign, considering lots of people have played with it.

Focus speed, AF is kind of slowish indoors, which is expected given the F5.6 aperture. I sure wouldn't use it for indoor sports, or a night event under uneven lighting. Other lenses in the same price bracket are most definitely faster. I'm sure Nikon's team decided zoom range and a fixed aperture where the budget priority. Changing from a distant subject to a closer one was where it struggled the most. Okay, I should quantify that, slow compared to the first gen AF-S 200-400 F4 VR I also tested, it took twice as long for the 200-500 to focus on the same objects. I'd say performance of the 200-500 is better than the 1st gen 70-300 VR, but slower than the 1st gen AF-S 300mm F4. Not bad, given its consumer grade parts. I know it sounds kind of negative, but I was actually impressed overall. It did much better with well lit subjects.

One thing I did notice was that there is practically no difference between 400-500mm. I don't think it would be due to focus breathing, because I was targeting a lit sign down the hallway (more than 10 metres away). It didn't seem much tighter on the target at 500mm than the 200-400mm at 400mm (nor itself at 400mm for that matter). Of course the 200-500 is cheaper and lighter than the 200-400, so no complaint there, just an observation.

spraynpray

What body was it on PB?

PB_PM

I was testing on my D750.

DaveyJ

I admit that I would always chose a DX camera for the 200-500. I am not sure that a FX camera makes much sense to me given all of the design and function aspects. I have used the 200-400 on FX D4 and that was OK but where it was being used in Alaska my DX got better photos as I was right out there rather than using telephoto from further away. On the other hand few are comfortable with big Brown Bears some of which are remarkably aggressive! The longest lens I used on that trip was a 70-300 4.5-5.6 FX capable lens. Now I am going to be looking at the D850 and if I get it......certainly then the 200-500 would get tested.....and hopefully I would like it. One thing I notice though in what PM PB writes, initial focus is slower than say a 70-300 AF-P, but once it is locked on it can bang out a series nicely. If I could afford a 200-400 I would buy it. But it is HEAVY and expensive, more than I would devote and my instinct is to get closer, and to stay solvent. I'd rather put my hard earned dollars into a new D850 than so much in a heavy and pricey lens! I also am more impressed with the build quality of the 200-500 in relation to price than the mega bucks fir the 200-400 f4.

But I would not buy the 200-400! Too big, too expensive! And I do not shoot wide open, now if that lens was available in f5.6, it would be better for me! I have shot this 200-500 in quite low light at Whitetail Deer, 1600 ISO and very clear detail! Since I was on cH single focus grid center every photo was sharp! I would not hesitate to use it for indoor sports and thank my lucky stars that I don't have the need or desire to take that kind of photo! And yes, when I say low light here, it was still somewhat darker than the last Ultimate Fighting Championship Match I was at. A basketball court in night lights is lighted higher than My photo op here.

PB_PM

Yeah I bought the used AF-S 200-400mm F4G VR gen 1 today, rather than the 200-500. Keep in mind it's a gen one, and a price has dropped on them, because they lack the newer VR and Nano coatings. Less than $3k for a spotless copy with the RRS tripod mount. It's kind of heavy, but that doesn't bother me too much, it's no heavier than you'd expect a super telephoto lens to be. I actually find anything over 1KG, and under 25KG, to feel about the same after holding it for more than a few minutes anyway. I just put the tripod with lens over my shoulder and go.

I've come a long way experience wise with telephoto lenses, from the old AF 70-210 from 1989 that I started with to the 200-400 today. I think I'm a little more demanding in terms of performance, just because I've shot high speed action a lot and been let down too often by consumer stuff. After trying a 70-200 VR1, AF-S 300mm F4D and AF-S 300mm F2.8G II, I've never really been satisfied with the consumer lens AF. If I was more weight conscious, the 200-500 or 70-300 VR P would be the way to go. I learned over time that good lenses are as if not more important than the camera body. I would pick the 200-400 with a D5600 over a D850 with a 70-300VR, let's put it that way.

DaveyJ

Sounds like you got a good buy on the lens you just bought!

PB_PM

Yeah, considering that it was cheaper than a new 80-400, I think it was a steal for $2500 (before taxes). Still if I wasn't so picky, I'd grab a 200-500 no questions asked.

DaveyJ

I feel the 80-400 is severely overpriced! I have photographed with the lens, and feel the 200-500 is a way better deal. The 200-400 you have is an unusually good deal! Not sure if the nano coatings of the newer ones are worth the difference! Still it is big!

FreezeAction

I'm needing a longer than 200mm now and wanting the reach of the 200-500 and the up close of the 80-400. All shooting will be done from a tripod so weight is not a problem. I like the price of the 200-500 but lots for me to miss below the 200 mm. With a 1.4 and the 80-400 the question I have is the IQ much different than the 200-500 without? I'm doing birds not in flight but rather feeding in a natural environment I create in an outdoor studio. Only started shooting on the outdoor deck a week or so ago. New studio will try my equipment as early as next week. Then I need to choose from the two lenses. Up close the shutter scares them off.

PB_PM

The 200-500mm VR is sharper than the 80-400 without a TC, so with a TC, I doubt the 80-400 could even touch the 200-500mm.

DaveyJ

Now having used the 200-500 and used it a lot! This is an absolutely fantastic lens. I have owned some supposedly faster
Nikon lens and they were 2.8, some were primes, the 200-500 has them all beat from what my lens results have been. This could be one of the most important lens of an entire career. The build quality is unbelievable fir the price. My trials of the 80-400 VR, the newer one were comparatively a total failure. That lens is so overpriced it is unacceptable! I have not though used it on FX as I want the 1.5 multiplier and regard DX as better for wildlife shot my way using often f11.

Photobug

Solid recommendation DaveJ. Agree with you, it's an excellent lens.

Capt_Spaulding

@DaveyJ You ought to write ad copy for Nikon. You've convinced me I need this puppy. Not sold on the D7500 but you have me on the hook with the 200-500.

FreezeAction

Looks like my next lens will be a 200-500mm f5.6. Sitting birds in natural settings from a blind. They are to skittish for the D810 with 70-200 even in quiet mode. The D7200 with the 200-500 should let me move the blind far enough away to fill the frame and not spook the subjects.