NR Blog NR Forum ebay Finds Nikon Deals Nikon Buying Guide Leica Rumors Pentax Rumors Photo Rumors Contact NR
›

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

1…34689…28

Comments

  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 5,751Member
    I want to see comparison of the new Nikon 200-500mm lens against the Tamron 150-600mm lens and the new Sigma 150-600 lens. Since the Tamron and Sigma are priced under $1100 this is going to be interesting. I prefer Nikon lens but did own a Tamron 200-500 for 5 years and sold it before the 150-600 was shipped and saved money as the price dropped once the new Tamron was in stores. So the decision is going to come down to IQ and user reviewers. Bring on the comparisons.

    +1 @NSXTypeR
    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 |
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    I want to see comparison of the new Nikon 200-500mm lens against the Tamron 150-600mm lens and the new Sigma 150-600 lens. Since the Tamron and Sigma are priced under $1100 this is going to be interesting. I prefer Nikon lens but did own a Tamron 200-500 for 5 years and sold it before the 150-600 was shipped and saved money as the price dropped once the new Tamron was in stores. So the decision is going to come down to IQ and user reviewers. Bring on the comparisons.

    +1 @NSXTypeR
    Indeed, and it would also be interesting to see how it compares to the more expensive Sigma 150-600mm "Sport" version.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator

    Indeed, and it would also be interesting to see how it compares to the more expensive Sigma 150-600mm "Sport" version.
    Can't wait. If it is as good, it will be a kick in the pants for Sigma and they will have to lower their prices to sell to Nikon owners.
    Always learning.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 993Member
    edited August 2015
    The Sigma 150-600 Sports is of course longer and wider, and it is weather sealed and has great build quality. If I was to buy this kind of lense I think the Nikon would have to be optically better than the Sigma at 500mm, if they performed similar I would probably choose the Sigma because of +100mm and what I believe (?) is a better build quality.

    Do we know anything about the build quality and weather sealing of the Nikon?

    I should add that I like the constant maximum aperture of the Nikon lense. I think it shows that Nikon has not made any compromises to open up the lense at the shorter focal lengths.
    Post edited by snakebunk on
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    The Sigma 150-600 Sports is of course longer and wider, and it is weather sealed and has great build quality. If I was to buy this kind of lense I think the Nikon would have to be optically better than the Sigma at 500mm, if they performed similar I would probably choose the Sigma because of +100mm and what I believe (?) is a better build quality.

    Do we know anything about the build quality and weather sealing of the Nikon?

    I should add that I like the constant maximum aperture of the Nikon lense. I think it shows that Nikon has not made any compromises to open up the lense at the shorter focal lengths.
    And at a sensible price point too.

    Perhaps if the Nikon offering falls short of the more expensive Sigma Sports model, it would still be better than the Sigma Classic model. We'll see when the lens tests get hold of all three.
    Always learning.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 5,751Member
    The Sigma 150-600 Sports is of course longer and wider, and it is weather sealed and has great build quality. If I was to buy this kind of lense I think the Nikon would have to be optically better than the Sigma at 500mm, if they performed similar I would probably choose the Sigma because of +100mm and what I believe (?) is a better build quality.

    Do we know anything about the build quality and weather sealing of the Nikon?

    I should add that I like the constant maximum aperture of the Nikon lense. I think it shows that Nikon has not made any compromises to open up the lense at the shorter focal lengths.
    +1 @snakebunk. IMHO the competition in the 150/200 to500/600 focal length just got very interesting. My Tamron 200-500 was a good lens and the new Tamron and Sigma lens are really nice. Totally agree that if the Nikon is as good as the Sport version of the Sigma lens that Sigma price is going to have to come down.

    But if the new Nikon lens is only as good as the current Sigma and Tamron 150-600 lens the pressure will be on Nikon because they have the higher price but with a fixed aperture.

    Looking forward to seeing the reviews and hearing about the construction of the Nikon lens..
    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 |
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,293Member
    Just wondering, how useful would the 200-500 be for macro work? I think the close focusing distance is 7.2 feet... which I'm not sure what that equates in magnification.

    I mean, the 200mm F4 macro might have been great, but you can't beat a zoom on versatility.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    Just wondering, how useful would the 200-500 be for macro work? I think the close focusing distance is 7.2 feet... which I'm not sure what that equates in magnification.

    I mean, the 200mm F4 macro might have been great, but you can't beat a zoom on versatility.
    Not very useful. The reproduction ratio is only 0.22. A lens is not considered a true macro until you hit 1.0.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    So many people walk around with a long lens - often the 300/4 - snapping insects in ambient light and think it is macro. WestEndFoto is right and I would also add that they make macro lenses for a reason - best performance at very close distance. If your goal is a little file for PAD and Flickr, then that is one thing, but if you want to shoot very good macro shots, then that is quite another for which a telephoto isn't good enough.
    Always learning.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    Yes a true macro cannot be replaced by a telephoto, of course they can be handy for situations when you don't have a macro lens with you. A set if extension tubes would also help you to focus closer if needed.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • picturetedpictureted Posts: 153Member
    So many people walk around with a long lens - often the 300/4 - snapping insects in ambient light and think it is macro. WestEndFoto is right and I would also add that they make macro lenses for a reason - best performance at very close distance. If your goal is a little file for PAD and Flickr, then that is one thing, but if you want to shoot very good macro shots, then that is quite another for which a telephoto isn't good enough.
    Yes indeed, true "macro" is 1:1. Not that most people care about that definition. The current Zeiss 100/2 and 50/2 are called "Makro" and Nikon's 55/2.8 (macro) are 0.5x. The 300/4 AF-s with the tc1.4 approaches .4x and is very close in IQ to the 200/4 macro (IMHO - I use both).


    pictureted at flickr
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    edited August 2015
    So many people walk around with a long lens - often the 300/4 - snapping insects in ambient light and think it is macro. WestEndFoto is right and I would also add that they make macro lenses for a reason - best performance at very close distance. If your goal is a little file for PAD and Flickr, then that is one thing, but if you want to shoot very good macro shots, then that is quite another for which a telephoto isn't good enough.
    Yes indeed, true "macro" is 1:1. Not that most people care about that definition. The current Zeiss 100/2 and 50/2 are called "Makro" and Nikon's 55/2.8 (macro) are 0.5x. The 300/4 AF-s with the tc1.4 approaches .4x and is very close in IQ to the 200/4 macro (IMHO - I use both).


    I am sure that the 300 is a sharp lens, but once you crop 80% (do the math on 0.4) away to get the same frame as the 200 f/4, the 200 f/4 will be a lot sharper. I tired out exactly what you are proposing with the 300 2.8 (and a 200 f/2) and gave up before I bought the 200.
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • picturetedpictureted Posts: 153Member




    I am sure that the 300 is a sharp lens, but once you crop 80% (do the math on 0.4) away to get the same frame as the 200 f/4, the 200 f/4 will be a lot sharper. I tired out exactly what you are proposing with the 300 2.8 (and a 200 f/2) and gave up before I bought the 200.

    No cropping involved. That 0.4 is the repro ratio 1:0.4 vs 1:0.5 (Zeiss and Nikon 55/2.8) and 1:1 ("true" macros - 105/VR, 200/4, 60G, etc.
    pictureted at flickr
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,192Member
    edited August 2015
    I have the 150 F2.8 macro from sigma.. Its nice and sharp but I also use my 70-200 F4 which does ok on a crop sensor and with TC1.4 does even better but the Raynox DCR250 is more convenient than putting on a TC even though the range is too close with the Raynox. I am considering replacing my DCR250 with a new achromatic close-up filter called the XPRO-F500 67mm. Still these attachments are compromises in IQ compared to a real macro like the 150. However, they are more convenient than carrying around a big heavy macro lense. For the 300mm F4, if I get one and want to use it for macro I would seriously consider an achromatic closeup filter similar to my Raynox for it. There seems to be one that would fit it (XPRO-F300 77mm), but there are no reviews besides a small number of amateur comments on XPRO FXXX series close up filters that say its good. Still they look promising.
    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.

    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,192Member
    edited August 2015


    No cropping involved. That 0.4 is the repro ratio 1:0.4 vs 1:0.5 (Zeiss and Nikon 55/2.8) and 1:1 ("true" macros - 105/VR, 200/4, 60G, etc.
    Thats not how you quote macro magnifications. The 0.4 magnification is correct but 1:0.5 Ratio terminology you are using is wrong, you should be saying 1:2. or keep using the 0.5 magnification terminology. don't mix them.

    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.

    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    edited August 2015




    I am sure that the 300 is a sharp lens, but once you crop 80% (do the math on 0.4) away to get the same frame as the 200 f/4, the 200 f/4 will be a lot sharper. I tired out exactly what you are proposing with the 300 2.8 (and a 200 f/2) and gave up before I bought the 200.

    No cropping involved. That 0.4 is the repro ratio 1:0.4 vs 1:0.5 (Zeiss and Nikon 55/2.8) and 1:1 ("true" macros - 105/VR, 200/4, 60G, etc.

    Yes there is. With a reproduction ratio of 0.4, an object 36mm long will form an image 14.4mm long on an FX sensor (36mm * 0.4 = 14.4mm). Now if you want that to fill the whole sensor like a lens with a reproduction ratio of 1.0 will, you will need to crop the 14.4 mm image until it is 36mm long. You will be cropping 84% of the image to do that (1-(0.4*.04)). Your 36 megapixel image on a D800 is now 5.76 megapixels.
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • picturetedpictureted Posts: 153Member
    edited August 2015

    I rarely need 1:1. If I do, I can use tubes and then I don't crop. I doubt many "macro" lenses spend significant time at 1:1, it's just an available option. With 36MP on FX I do have quite a bit of cropping latitude, but rarely use it if I can get closer (and with tubes, etc. I almost always can). An advantage of the 105VR is that it takes the tc1.4 quite well if you want more than 1:1 (i.e. 1:1.4). The tc2.0 while usable, isn't sharp enough for my taste in most situations.
    Post edited by pictureted on
    pictureted at flickr
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    "I doubt many "macro" lenses spend significant time at 1:1, it's just an available option."

    I wish my 60 was 2:1 as it spends so much time on the stops at 1:1!
    Always learning.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,745Member
    Yeah, mine is there most of the time and I move the camera to get focus sometimes. I am going to start using my Kenko extension tubes more.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    How did this thread become about macro again? Can we not have a separate thread about the fine details of what defines macro elsewhere?
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    edited August 2015
    Back to the 200-500mm F5.6...

    Looking under the included items list for this lens, I don't see the tripod collar included. Is it built into the lens? Is it optional? I cannot seem to find any details.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 5,751Member
    Back to the 200-500mm F5.6...

    Looking under the included items list for this lens, I don't see the tripod collar included. Is it built into the lens? Is it optional? I cannot seem to find any details.
    That sounds like an opportunity for RRS and Kirk to develop a collar if there is a place to secure it on the lens.
    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 |
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • picturetedpictureted Posts: 153Member
    Back to the 200-500mm F5.6...

    Looking under the included items list for this lens, I don't see the tripod collar included. Is it built into the lens? Is it optional? I cannot seem to find any details.
    They include a collar. It looks about the same kind they shipped with the 300/4AF-s - which means it will need replacement. I already heard RRS is working on their replacement. Kirk can't be far behind.
    pictureted at flickr
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    Back to the 200-500mm F5.6...

    Looking under the included items list for this lens, I don't see the tripod collar included. Is it built into the lens? Is it optional? I cannot seem to find any details.
    They include a collar. It looks about the same kind they shipped with the 300/4AF-s - which means it will need replacement. I already heard RRS is working on their replacement. Kirk can't be far behind.
    Good to know. Never had any issues with the AF-S 300mm F4D IF-ED collar, even for long exposures, so I'm sure the 200-500mm's collar will be fine as well. No need to fall for the marketing racket of RRS and Kirk.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    Mild excitement happening. This or Tamron 150-600...

    Looking forward to tests.
    Always learning.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.