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

TriShooter

@sevencrossing and @snakebunk, I generally agree but keep in mind the relatively inexpensive Tammy 200-500mm, and their newer 150-600mm appear to me to be sharper toward their long end. In fact the Tamron 200-500mm blew by my old 300mm F4, with the TC-14, when shooting toward infinity, and the weight of the Tamron was extremely light compared to the Nikon 500mm F4.

sevencrossing

Slightly off topic: Has there ever been a variable (zoom) tele converter? It sounds like an interesting idea.

there is a Vivitar 3x-4 Variable Auto Teleconverter on ebay

Komura also seem to have made one

heartyfisher

There are many lenses that are sharper or just as sharp at the long end.. from Nikon or the third party.
Its a false assertion that the wide end is sharper though its is in some lenses. a few example of lenses sharper at the longer end.. 120-300 Sigma F2.8, Nikon 24-70. as mentioned my 70-200 F4 is quite nice at 200mm..

My 18-140dx is quite good through out the range. The 70-200 F4 is also really nice and sharp though out the range although the Bokeh is variable. From very awesome good to meh..

Lenses that I know that are sharper at the wide end are 18-200 DX, 24-70 tamron, 35-70 F2.8 Nikon.. I think its just what was designed.. a zoom lens is not a lense + TC.

Lenses with a bit of a dip in IQ in the middle are 24-120, 16-85. Tamron 24-70 F2.8.

Its all in the design decisions made by the lense engineers..

WestEndFoto

I will keep an open mind on this topic. Interesting.

WestEndFoto

It is under $1,400. Did the OP have a crystal ball?

Snowleopard

I like the idea of a super zoom that is "more affordable" from Nikon, but since I have been looking at the 200 - 400 F/4, and all my lenses are F/1.4, or F/2.8, this is some what disappointing because you won't be able to affectively use a 2x TC on it.

heartyfisher

It is under $1,400. Did the OP have a crystal ball?

I think its called google translate...

heartyfisher

I like the idea of a super zoom that is "more affordable" from Nikon, but since I have been looking at the 200 - 400 F/4, and all my lenses are F/1.4, or F/2.8, this is some what disappointing because you won't be able to affectively use a 2x TC on it.

But a 1.4 tc will work fine.. especially with a crop sensor camera.. I guess if you intend to use a 2x converter then the 200-400 F4 would be the lens for you or the 300 f4.

For the BIF shooters its been the Canon 400F5.6 vs the Nikon 300F4 + TC1.4 now we have the 200-500 F5.6 to add to the mix, and including VR as well although for BIF it doesnt really add much especially for tripod shooters.

I think this would be a great addition especially for DX shooters that want a bit of range. In that space it will be competing with the Tamron and Sigma 150-600. add a 1.4 TC and it beats the 3rd party for range.

sevencrossing

Most people seem agree TCs work well with primes
but when it comes to TCs and zooms opinion seems dividend
most reviews feel the 200 -400 is fine with 1.4 TC but few if any recommend it with a x2
my gut feeling is with the 200-500f5.6 and a 24 mp Dx camera you would be better off cropping than using 1.4 TC

jdb

I just pre-ordered this 200-500 F/5.6 from my local shop. Looking forward to using it and providing feedback. I mostly photograph birds and have been using an old (no VR) AF-S 300 f/2.8 with teleconverters.

WestEndFoto

I just pre-ordered this 200-500 F/5.6 from my local shop. Looking forward to using it and providing feedback. I mostly photograph birds and have been using an old (no VR) AF-S 300 f/2.8 with teleconverters.

I wonder if you are downgrading?

jdb

Well, I'm keeping the old set up just in case... Part of the attraction of the 200-500 is the weight savings, VR, and little bit smaller size.

pictureted

I'm betting they optimized towards the long end of the range. 500/5.6 should prove useful and this is so much cheaper than other Nikon alternatives it's worth a try. If a wider range is good and/or it works with tc's so much the better.

NSXTypeR

Interesting indeed- Nikon hasn't done a lens with such a slow aperture in a long time. The zoom range is pretty interesting, and it's relatively affordable- the 80-400 is almost 2x the price of this lens.

Should be good paired up with a D7200, especially with the AF module that senses down to F8.

Shucks, and I was thinking about splurging for a 70-300 VR.

Msmoto

This looks to be at least as sharp as the 300/2.8, especially if one adds the teleconverter to the 300. I may have to get this just for .....mmmm I will think of some reason...LOL.

The size, when compared to the big guns, 400/2.8, 500/4, etc. primes, is a distinct advantage. Some times a 15 pound camera/lens set up gets heavy.....

heartyfisher

Its lighter than the Sigma sport 150-600 but similar in weight to the tamron and "C" version of sigma. and about half a cm longer :-) so its really the same size and weight. I was hoping that it would be smaller and lighter. which it kind of is if compared to the "S" version of sigma. Will have to wait for reviews as it seems too similar to make any decisions.. besides trusting that Nikon will give these tele-zooms the boot. (at least vs the Sigma C and the tamron)

I have been considering the tamron for a while now.. but this 200-500 would complement my 70-200 f4 and 1.4 tc very nicely 200-500 + tc gets me 700 and on my D7200 would be rather nice ! rather nice .... I may have finally got an excuse to upgrade my old Tamron 200-400 F5.6.. may even go shooting dragonflies in flight again :-)

newfoundlander61

For my type of nature/bird photography my choice would be the updated 80-400 nikon lense instead of this one.

spraynpray

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

BVS

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

Wow! Very nice!

Just curious, how close did you have to get for a shot like that?

WestEndFoto

I bet about 4 inches.

pictureted

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

How about working distance? I've seen a wide-angle macro, but that doesn't mean it's a general solution or a good idea. The 60 is a fine lens (I have one), but certainly not optimal for field use with small critters in most circumstances. But then I guess you were just being a contrarian.

WestEndFoto

Hmmm......60mm on dragonflies???

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

I say that Spraynpray is either communicating telepathically with the dragonfly to keep it calm or he is using Raid.

;-)

spraynpray

HAH! No, it is just knowing your subject and using that knowledge - I think you call it fieldcraft. I have been into insects since I was a kid and know what I can get away with under most circumstances. I was actually 3" away right on the limit of closest focus as it is 1:1 and so qualifies as a macro not a close-up shot.

Normally there would be a massive light modifier beside the subject as well as the lens in its face.

Why didn't it fly away this time? it was dark and cold as well as sheltering from a gale for the night. I saw it land and gave it time to settle down and then - apart from moving a heck of a lot in the wind (him and me) - we were golden.

WestEndFoto

Well it is a great shot and it got explored, so congrats.

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 ..