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

1235728

Comments

  • SnowleopardSnowleopard Posts: 244Member
    edited August 2015
    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.
    Post edited by Snowleopard on
    ||COOLPIX 5000|●|D70|●|D700|●|D810|●|AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D|●|AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D|●|AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G|●|AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D|●|AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED (Silver)|●|AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III|●|PB-6 Bellows|●|EL-NIKKOR 50mm f/2.8||
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    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.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    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
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    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.
    Always learning.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,742Member
    edited August 2015
    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.
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    edited August 2015
    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?
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    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.
    Always learning.
  • nek4lifenek4life Posts: 123Member
    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.
  • retreadretread Posts: 574Member
    The Nikon website lists it as having Super Integrated Coating. Is that the same as the coatings used on the high $$$$$ lenses?
  • picturetedpictureted Posts: 153Member
    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.
    pictureted at flickr
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    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.
  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 5,751Member
    +1 donaldejose
    My hunch is demand will exceed supply for months, especially if the early reviews are positive.
    D750 & D7100 | 24-70 F2.8 G AF-S ED, 70-200 F2.8 AF VR, TC-14E III, TC-1.7EII, 35 F2 AF D, 50mm F1.8G, 105mm G AF-S VR | Backup & Wife's Gear: D5500 & Sony HX50V | 18-140 AF-S ED VR DX, 55-300 AF-S G VR DX |
    |SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    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.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,186Member
    edited August 2015
    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
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,742Member
    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.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    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
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    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
    Always learning.
  • SnowleopardSnowleopard Posts: 244Member
    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.
    ||COOLPIX 5000|●|D70|●|D700|●|D810|●|AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D|●|AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D|●|AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G|●|AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D|●|AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED (Silver)|●|AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III|●|PB-6 Bellows|●|EL-NIKKOR 50mm f/2.8||
  • nek4lifenek4life Posts: 123Member
    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.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    edited August 2015
    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.

    Post edited by tcole1983 on
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • picturetedpictureted Posts: 153Member
    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).
    pictureted at flickr
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    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.
    Always learning.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    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.

    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • picturetedpictureted Posts: 153Member
    In effect, that means you will have to wait a little while for better light.
    I get to sleep in and save $10,000!
    pictureted at flickr
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,286Member
    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.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
Sign In or Register to comment.