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

Snowleopard

Out of curiosity..... Most Nikon DSLR's won't focus at F/8 in low liight.... If you pull up the AF-S NIKKOR
200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR on Nikon USA's website; it says that the AF-S NIKKOR
200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR is compatible with the AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III.

That would make the lens a 400-1000mm F/11.2.

I guess if you are using it in the middle of the day, that might not be a problem.... F/11.2 that is.

donaldejose

This lens should mostly be used for birding in bright direct sunlight which is needed to show feather texture.. I doubt a 2x teleconverter will be used much. You already have 500mm and a 1.4 teleconverter will give you 700mm. It is hard enough to try shooting with 500mm or 700mm I doubt many people would try for more magnification. If needed to blow up a huge moonrise or sunset just manual focus at infinity.

haroldp

My 200-400 f4 is sharpest (hugest resolution) at 400mm wide open.
Stopped to f5.6 , contrast improves slightly but not resolution.

My experience is consistent with others reports on this lens (see Thom Hogan).

A designer can optimize on a wide range of parameters within cost and size limits.

... H

spraynpray

Lets be real for a minute - Nikon will not make the 200-500 as sharp as the 200-400 is even if it is possible.

I'm happy to be wrong, but we'll see.

WestEndFoto

Lets be real for a minute - Nikon will not make the 200-500 as sharp as the 200-400 is even if it is possible.

I'm happy to be wrong, but we'll see.

They may come closer than you think. The 200-500 has an advantage because it is a stop closer and people usually make comparisons wide open, not with both lenses at the same aperture which is a more honest test.

donaldejose

spraynpray: consider the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200 f4. The f2.8 has a DxOMark sharpness rating of 24 (on a D800) and the newer f4 has a DxOMark sharpness rating of 21 (on a D800). The newer cheaper one is less sharp and you lose one f stop but can you really tell the difference in a photo between 21 and 24? Also, if you shoot them both at f5.6 will there be any real difference in sharpness?

spraynpray

spraynpray: consider the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200 f4. The f2.8 has a DxOMark sharpness rating of 24 (on a D800) and the newer f4 has a DxOMark sharpness rating of 21 (on a D800). The newer cheaper one is less sharp and you lose one f stop but can you really tell the difference in a photo between 21 and 24? Also, if you shoot them both at f5.6 will there be any real difference in sharpness?

Very good point Donald, and one I heartily agree with and can be applied to almost every thread on NR!!! I am sure it will sell many times more than the 200-400 and I wait with bated breath for the tests.

nek4life

This is a lens I didn't know I wanted until I saw the announcement. The sample images (albeit tiny) looked great and the price tag seems too good to be true for a lens like this. I can't wait to see more sample images and information about this lens. I think they are going to sell like crazy if it performs well.

retread

The Nikon website lists it as having Super Integrated Coating. Is that the same as the coatings used on the high $$$$$ lenses?

pictureted

Nano crystal is the more expensive coating. I thought the value proposition too compelling to resist - ordered it the day announced. I expect to use it mostly at 500mm and at just 1 stop slower than the f4 it's just soooo much cheaper. If center resolution is good at f5.6 and good overall by f8, I'll be happy.

donaldejose

It will have some limitations. The absence of Nano coating will mean it will flare when pointed into the sun; just always use the lens hood and shoot with the sun to your back or side. The f5.6 will mean it will be best at about f8 to f11 which is pretty slow. Shoot in bright light with a body that shoots clean at ISO 800 (D4, D4s, D610, D750, D800, D800e, D810, D7200) and you should be fine. The new bodies able to shoot clean at higher ISOs make slower optics workable. It won't replace an f2.8 or f4 for bokeh but you can compensate somewhat by adjusting your position to place the background as far away from the subject as possible. For the price is should be a home run.

Photobug

+1 donaldejose
My hunch is demand will exceed supply for months, especially if the early reviews are positive.

donaldejose

Yes, supply will dry up. I don't have a need for one currently but fear if I don't buy one now they won't be available when I need one.

heartyfisher

spraynpray: consider the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-200 f4. The f2.8 has a DxOMark sharpness rating of 24 (on a D800) and the newer f4 has a DxOMark sharpness rating of 21 (on a D800). The newer cheaper one is less sharp and you lose one f stop ....

I think you have it wrong.. the F4 is sharper. Its one of the reasons I got the F4 instead. Especially at the edges and even at the same apertures and has no issues with the focus breathing.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-F4G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D810__406_963_1071_963

WestEndFoto

This sharpness is very close according to DXOMark on either a D800 or D810. I can't imagine sharpness considerations being a factor in choosing either of these lenses. Cost, weight, build and speed seem much more significant.

haroldp

Ken Rockwell just published some MTF charts for this lens, and it looks to me to be optimized for the long end of the zoom.

The ize / weight of the new 300/4 and tc combo still intrigues me.

... H

spraynpray

Ken Rockwell just published some MTF charts for this lens, and it looks to me to be optimized for the long end of the zoom.

The ize / weight of the new 300/4 and tc combo still intrigues me.

... H

Hallelujah! Nikon have been reading NR. :P

Snowleopard

95mm filters aren't that expensive depending on what you want. They make 145mm filters now that fit the 14-24 F/2.8 and those are around $120 US each.

As a reference, my 77mm CPL filter on my 70-200 F/2.8 ran me $195 US. The 77mm 1000nm IR Filter I have cost $395 US.

nek4life

How practical is having a 5.6 aperture with a lens like this? I'm thinking shooting wildlife during the golden hour into dusk or early morning. I've never done this particular type of photography so I'm just interested to hear what other people think on the matter. I have a D810 so I can definitely bump the ISO if necessary and this lens sounds interesting, but I usually try to avoid buying lenses with a 5.6 aperture, but there's no way I could afford a tele lens like this at F2.8 or even F4 for that matter.

tcole1983

How practical is having a 5.6 aperture with a lens like this? I'm thinking shooting wildlife during the golden hour into dusk or early morning. I've never done this particular type of photography so I'm just interested to hear what other people think on the matter. I have a D810 so I can definitely bump the ISO if necessary and this lens sounds interesting, but I usually try to avoid buying lenses with a 5.6 aperture, but there's no way I could afford a tele lens like this at F2.8 or even F4 for that matter.

Well if money is any any sort of object then buying a lens with an F5.6 aperture is very practical. Lots of the kit lenses have a max aperture of 5.6 and are capable so I wouldn't see why you couldn't manage...especially on a D810. Says it will have VR so that will help if the photographed subjects aren't in motion. Of course in not stellar light you will probably need a combination of things such as bumping the ISO to get some sharp shots.

Also besides the 400 F2.8 there isn't really much faster lenses in this range. The 800 is an F5.6 and the 500 and 600's are F4. Put a teleconverter on any of the others and you get F4+...I think it will be nice for those that don't have $10k to spend on a lens. I have the 300 F4 and it kind of makes me want one still.

pictureted

I don't consider this as a substitute for the more expensive exotics - If I shot sports or wanted state of the art, those lenses are the best tools. But 200-500/5.6 should be more than adequate for many situations. It should be perfect for surfers on Maui, elephant seals off the California coast, ski photography. It should be a terrific tool if the IQ is as good as the last group of "G" lenses (85/1.8, 28/1.8 & 20/1.8). And I can afford it. (It's on pre-order).

spraynpray

How practical is having a 5.6 aperture with a lens like this? I'm thinking shooting wildlife during the golden hour into dusk or early morning. I've never done this particular type of photography so I'm just interested to hear what other people think on the matter.

You are talking about the kind of photography that pushes the whole system to the limit - you will be able to get the best results using the most expensive gear AND using the slowest shutter speed that you can AND pushing the ISO as high as you can. You cannot just say "I can push the ISO to compensate for the slower lens", because you would already be doing that. You have to accept that you are one or stops worse off with that lens, but several thousands of dollars Better off. In effect, that means you will have to wait a little while for better light.

tcole1983

I don't consider this as a substitute for the more expensive exotics - If I shot sports or wanted state of the art, those lenses are the best tools. But 200-500/5.6 should be more than adequate for many situations. It should be perfect for surfers on Maui, elephant seals off the California coast, ski photography. It should be a terrific tool if the IQ is as good as the last group of "G" lenses (85/1.8, 28/1.8 & 20/1.8). And I can afford it. (It's on pre-order).

Of course it isn't a substitute for the exotics...just an affordable option for normal people that want more range. The only option via Nikon prior to this was a 70-300 with so so performance or 80-400 and the 80-400 is $2000+, and the 300 f4 at $1000+. If I didn't already have the 300 f4 this lens would be for me....I would have preorder it.

pictureted

In effect, that means you will have to wait a little while for better light.

I get to sleep in and save $10,000!

NSXTypeR

This is definitely a great option for those who want a big zoom range but want something under $2000. The 200-400 F4 is over $10,000. I think this would be a great lens on DX or FX for anyone who's into big game photography. You're not shooting well into the night anyway. Birders should be happy too, although it might be a bit slow for them.

At a little more than the 300mm F4, it's giving you more than than enough zoom range. That's pretty awesome.