Blog 3/27/16 500mm f4 v 200-500 f5.6

Pistnbroke

Studied the photos and the 200-500 wins every time on my monitor ...the small lettering on the blue bin is way sharper....yet the writer says the 500f4 has better IQ....can someone educate me as to why ? Has he cross labelled the pictures ?

spraynpray

I agree. If there is an advantage to the 500 f4, it is less obvious than the disadvantages. I played with the 200-500 lately and was really impressed with its performance wide open and at 500mm. I can't wait to see the Sigmas and the Tamron tested against it. Although I like the build quality of the new Sigmas, the weight may go against them in this case.

snakebunk

I think the lenses were handheld, but it doesn't say at what shutter speed. Maybe the test shows that low weight is more important than optical quality when you shoot handheld at low shutter speeds? I think it is clear that the VR on the 200-500 is exceptional.

@spraynpray: The Nikon 200-500 is optically better than the Sigma 150-600 C and the Tamron 150-600, but not as good as the Sigma 150-600 S, according to https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr/4.

spraynpray

Good to know @snakebunk, thanks.

starralazn

First of all, the light(er) weight zoom seems to be SHARPER than the prime, at all apertures that I tested (f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16). Secondly, even with the VR turned ON with the 200-500mm, it looks like it’s “softer” than the prime which Doesn’t have any VR in the first place! Odd, eh?

I think he got mixed up. First he 'says' the zoom is sharper(better IQ?) than the prime, then he says that the zoom is softer 'even with' the VR on. oh and he also says that the prime doesn't have VR... the link at the beginning points to the 500mm f/4E, which has VR.

There is no sense of contrast between his first and second point, so it is possible that he meant to say that the prime is sharper than the zoom. idk.

spraynpray

It could be the well known problem that anybody who can make a blog becomes an expert. I would rather wait for a more reliable set of tests before I can be really sure. I know from limited experience that the 200-500 I tried was amazing, but I wasn't able to compare it to a 500 f4 so I don't know either.

As to zooms: Some recent tests of the 24-35 f2 Siggy rate it as three primes in one zoom - a statement that should get a few prime fetishists twitching LOL!

WestEndFoto

I will take that with a grain of salt. Especially when a sharpness test is done on a 16 megapixel camera. I really don't see the point of a sharpness test on anything less than a D800/810. I roll my eyes whenever I see a test on a D4s, the purpose of which is to determine ultimate sharpness on a highquality lens. Even a professional zoom is sharper than a D4.

Have a look at the MTF charts on the Nikon website. The lines are hugging the top for the 500 (at f/4). They are far from it on the 200-500 (at f/5.6). While an MTF chart is useless for comparing between different manufacturers because the measurement standards are not consistent, I will believe them for Nikon vs Nikon or Canon vs Canon.

I wonder if the blog's author dropped his 500?

WestEndFoto

However, I would like to acknowledge that the new 200-500 from Nikon looks like a real winner. While I am unlikely to buy one myself, I am glad that Nikon is producing glass like this.

spraynpray

He used the same body for both tests so that's unlikely to have happened?

proudgeek

I skimmed the post. Call me a skeptic, but I have a hard time believing that Nikon would make a $1,300 lens that delivers the same IQ as a $10,000 lens. Why would they?

Ironheart

In good light, handheld vs no-VR, it's like saying the VW can beat the Porsche, if the Porsche has a flat, and VW has a tail-wind
On the serious side, if under good conditions, the cheaper zoom can give you 90% of the prime for 15% of the cost, it is good option. I think this was the point of the post.

spraynpray

From that I gather that you think the 500 f4 images in that test are 10% better than the 200-500? Can't see it myself, the test may be nonsense though as he is just a blogger.

WestEndFoto

I don't think that it matters who he is. I think it matters if he is following the scientific method. This means things like full disclosure of the testing parameters, reproduction of the test and its results by others and peer review.

While the above views are not peer review, they are the first step on such a review. At the very least, the results need to be treated with scepticism as they are inconsistent with many other facts (such as Nikon's MTF charts, or the premium that Nikon is able to charge for the 500mm f/4.0, to name two examples). These examples are not proof, but the first step in forming a hypothesis on what the truth really is.

I will accept results of the scientific process produced by Mickey Mouse before I will accept results produced by any other body that does not follow the scientific approach.

The popularity of a view often has little to do with its assertion.

And in the absence of poor information, I will make a best guess. This is easy when it is your own money (but also hard).

Nikoniser

Its a bloody useless test from a guy who has no idea how to test lenses. Which is frustrating because I own a 600f4 non VR and would love to chop it in for a lighter cheaper 200-500.

Problems :

1. HANDHELD - a test of a non VR prime vs a VR zoom. who knows how much his hand was shaking ? You should be testing indoors on a very solid tripod with a very solid head, using mirror lockup and remote release for any realistic comparison of the optics. I am not suprised the VR lens looks sharper. Personally my 600 f4 lives on its tripod and gimball, and I have a bean bag for when I lie on the floor to stalk.

2. BODY - a 16mp D4 ? useless, test with a D810 and d7100 for proper test of corners and center sharpness.

3. Testing targets. Should be shooting some feathers for color contrast/ and the enhanced ISO 12333 test chart that goes to 36 lp for resolution.

WestEndFoto

Ah yes! The scientific method at work.

haroldp

I do not have a 500/4, but I do have and use a 400/2.8, ans also have a 200-500/5.6.

Th parameters under which I will choose either have nothing to do with their relative sharpness, once I determined the settings under which they are each 'good enough' for me.

The 400/2.8 with or without TC's is always used on a tripod/gimbal. When I can do that, it has 1.4 stops more light gathering ability than the 200-500, which I can then parlay into faster shutter speed or lower ISO (lighting conditions where I use it are often abysmal and BIF need high SS).

I use the 200-500 for BIF in venues where I require mobility.

I tested them with and without TC's to determine each of their optimal conditions for use, but never actually compared them. My tests were not scientific enough to make any comparison valid.

For the record, the Nikon 400/2.8 is probably the sharpest lens I own, now being joined by Fuji's amazing 90/2 (and a bunch of Leica lenses). I am also never confused as to which of those I will use in any given circumstance, and it is not a 'sharpness' decision.

This decision for most will / should be based on conditions of use, and what one can afford.

Comparisons to the 80-400 G Nikon, and the Sigma 150-600 are much more interesting.

... H

Pistnbroke

Now I find the situation interesting ..I have the Sigma 150-500 and clearly the Nikon 200-500 is sharper and it seems in the same ball park as the Nik 500 f4 but they seem to say the Sigma 150-600 sport is better than the Nikon 200-500 .so is it better than the Nikon 500f4?
I do wish DXO would get there testing act together as so many important lenses are missing from the data base.

spraynpray

Yes. What Pistnbroke said.

snakebunk

I wouldn't say that the Nikon 500/4 is in the same park as the Nikon 200-500. They are pretty different, the zoom being lighter, less expensive, smaller aperture, other focal lengths, steals more light, not as sharp, doesn't work as well with converters, smaller.

After rereading the blog I find it pretty useless and misleading. I don't give it any value at all.

proudgeek

So maybe in perfect conditions — great light, etc. — where you can shoot at f/8 with a high shutter speed they're roughly equivalent. But what you buy the 500 f/4 for is to get the shots you need on days when conditions are less than ideal. You just have to decide if it's worth an extra $9,000 or so. On trips to places like Africa and Alaska, the light has often been poor, but you can't ask the animals to come back later when the sun is out. While I don't have the 500 f/4, if my livelihood were dependent on my getting shots in those kinds of conditions I'd buy one.

haroldp

My 200-500 is very usable at f 5.6.
To me, the key question between it and a fast tele prime is mobility.
If I can set up a tripod and plant myself, it will be the prime.
If I have to move about and shoot handheld (or lightly supported), it will be the 200-500.

80-400 if air travel is involved.

Pistnbroke

We have the added complication in the UK in that if the idiots vote to leave the EU the pound will crash and prices will go up .( if we stay in pound goes up) ..I am looking for grey bargains now ...for me its Nikon 200-500 or Sigma 150-600 Sport
but without some good test pics its a problem

snakebunk

@Pistnbroke : I found this helpful comparison: http://froknowsphoto.com/nikon-200-500-vs-sigma-150-600-sport-real-world-review/

paulr

I Think Haroldp is spot on again, You use the lens which is best suited to the task in hand, clearly, conditions, weight and size are important plus the experience of the user, have a serious bearing on the results obtained.

Nikoniser

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=653&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=1035&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

This compares a Central and Corner Plot of the Nikon 200-500 vs the Nikon 500mm f4 - as you can see the 500mm prime blows the 200-500 out of the water, in the center, in the corners, at f4 at f5.6, it doesn't matter how far you stop it down its still inferior.

The 500 f4 is outresolving the sensor on the D3X so I would expect tests on a d810 and D7100 with a denser pixel pitch to be even more conclusively skewed in the 500f4's favour.

I have found the older 500 F4 *almost* matches the newer VR version optically ( the new version is much lighter, has VR, focuses closer, hence the premium ) so I think this highlights just how poor the testing by the blog writer is.

Ironheart

Great info site @Nikoniser I'm still going to say that for many folks the "bang for the buck" is on the zoom. If money and weight are no object the prime is clearly better IQ as you would expect, but only you can decide if it is $9000 better for your work.