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

esquilo

Aren't the Tamron and Sigma's all external zoom too? It may be just par for the course in this category of lens.

They are, but Nikon 200-400 is not. I guess it's still not really clear what segment this new 200-500 falls in.

haroldp

Nikon 80-400 expands as it zooms.
... H

DaveyJ

Also looking now to see what jdphoto77 thinks of his B&H bought Nikon 200-500! Hope it is a WINNER!

jdphoto77

Will let you know, scheduled to arrive tomorrow

DaveyJ

@jdphoto77: Best of Luck!!! Keep us posted!!

jdphoto77

Lens came today in great shape. Didn't get home to test it on my D810 until 7pm so it's a bit past dusk here and we're losing light so not much outdoor testing I can do, but autofocus seems very responsive. Weight isn't bad either. While it's heavier than the 70-200 if you put it on the scale I don't feel like it's very noticeable, though this lens is a bit more unwieldy due to it's length/girth but that is to be expected. No more or less than the 150-600 tamron I rented 6 months ago. The VR is also very nice. Fro posted a video of it's performance a few days ago on Youtube and my copy seems accurate to that as well, very helpful especially at 500. Will try and get a few test photos up in a day or two as time permits.

Msmoto

The Main Blog review of this lens suggests it could be an excellent addition to even the kits with the big guns such as the 400/2.8. The primary advantage is the zoom in situations where subject to camera distance is not variable due to shooting conditions.

haroldp

A comparison to the 80-400G with and without tc-14eIII, would be very interesting.

When my 400/2.8 (usually with tc-20eIII) is on a tripod, the 80-400G is usually on another body around my neck if I should be charged by a rogue egret.

When birding, it is never at less than 200mm, and this new lens would be an interesting alternative for this mission.

Photobug

I bet that after the initial lab and field test we are going to see testing with the TC 1.4X, 1.7X and the 2.0X. The results will have a big impact on sales. I don't expect the AF tracking to be excellent for BIF but we will see.

kanuck

Some great looking shots are starting to roll in online from pros who have taken it up north to Alaska etc. I for one am looking forward to Moose Peterson getting his hands on a copy and seeing what he can do with it. So far I like what I am seeing from this lens though including the super moon images recently posted on this forum

spraynpray

+1

Photobug

+1 on field use for a good evaluation. We need more reports and the lab test from Popular Photography.

Snowleopard

I want to see more samples from this lens, I am not convinced that it is what I am looking for..... I have gotten lazy with F/1.4, and F/2.8 glass.... I just feel from the samples I am seeing so far, the images are missing that "something" and it has to be due to the F/5.6.

PB_PM

You don't buy a lens like this for that reason, you buy it for the same reason people buy the cheap Sigma and Tamron super zooms. Price and price alone.

esquilo

You don't buy a lens like this for that reason, you buy it for the same reason people buy the cheap Sigma and Tamron super zooms. Price and price alone.

If you are going for price alone you can have a go at my Kenko 420-800mm f/8.3-16 Vari-Zoom.

spraynpray

Yes, of course we all want best quality at budget prices, and something has to suffer. In this case, it looks like it is just speed because if the sample variation is tight, looking at the pix from the comparisons, the quality is great so I'll very happily accept the slower speed.

kanuck

I am waiting on the DXO reports for the 24-70 VR and this 200-500 for the D810. I know many don't like DXO, but I have found their results bang on so I will continue to pay attention to their reports.

haroldp

It is not a matter of liking DXO r not. I believe they are honest, but I have found their reports to not be detailed enough to be really useful to me. A single number encompassing resolution , contrast, distortion and light transmission aggregated for all f stops and focal lengths (for zooms), both center and edge, is not useful to me.

Imaging Resource tests are far more useful because they give me center, edge, corner resolution at all f stops and multiple fls.

Then I can evaluate the trade offs as relevnt to me, and also know how to use the lens.

.. H

donaldejose

"Imaging Resource tests are far more useful because they give me center, edge, corner resolution at all f stops and multiple fls." Yes!

pictureted

I always thought lens tests were for people who took photos of brick walls using tripods, Mirror-up and cable releases. I much prefer seeing a wide variety of work created with the lens - tags on flickr are always a good start.

WestEndFoto

I always thought lens tests were for people who took photos of brick walls using tripods, Mirror-up and cable releases. I much prefer seeing a wide variety of work created with the lens - tags on flickr are always a good start.

Sure, but these are never controlled conditions, so not very reliable. I prefer to investigate all sources and keep digging until the credible sources line up.

PB_PM

You don't buy a lens like this for that reason, you buy it for the same reason people buy the cheap Sigma and Tamron super zooms. Price and price alone.

If you are going for price alone you can have a go at my Kenko 420-800mm f/8.3-16 Vari-Zoom.

I think I'd keep my Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 with TC's over that... but thanks.

Let's face it, for a telephoto lens the Nikkor 200-500mm F5.6 is cheap. It's like the 70-300mm VR, but it is a super telephoto instead. Basically, what it means is, decent value for the money, but it won't knock your socks off. That's okay for a fixed aperture lens in that range, coming in at $1500.

If someone wants better, the lovely 200-400mm F4G VRII is available for $6k.

manhattanboy

It is not a matter of liking DXO r not. I believe they are honest, but I have found their reports to not be detailed enough to be really useful to me. A single number encompassing resolution , contrast, distortion and light transmission aggregated for all f stops and focal lengths (for zooms), both center and edge, is not useful to me.

Imaging Resource tests are far more useful because they give me center, edge, corner resolution at all f stops and multiple fls.

Then I can evaluate the trade offs as relevnt to me, and also know how to use the lens.

.. H

I posted the center and corners compared to other teles done by camera labs in the comparison thread here along with an NFL field review of the lens. This budget zoom is sharper than either the 300 pf and the 80-400. It's really impressive until you hit 500. IMHO they should have ended at 400 and just made a budget version of the 200-400 at 5.6 and shaved some size and weight.

Snowleopard

I would assume that a 200-500 F/3.5 would be an odd ball lens also..... Cheaper and lighter than an F/2.8, more expensive than the 200-400 F/4........... Cheaper than the 500m F/4.....

There is a market for anything these days.

Msmoto

As this new 200-500/5.6 is interesting to me for the compactness (relative to 400/2.8) and price, I can only suggest this is a great addition to the Nikkor line-up.

Also, the same lens as an f/3.5 would be very expensive I would guess... in the >$10,000 range.