Nikkor 200-500?

Nod said:
Never sure why some reviewers test different system lenses against each other. No point in comparing the Canon 100-400 against the Nikkor 200-500 - quite apart from the obvious difference in focal length ranges, a Canon lens is as much use to a Nikon user as a chocolate teapot! Besides, such things as focussing speeds and accuracy are very dependent on the body as well as the lens.
Click to expand...
The canon 100-400 on a nikon body should be rated at 0/5 as it's bloody useless, it's doesn't even fit! To be honest I ignore Multi manufacturer reviews as it's completely irrelevant as if you have one manufacturers body you are not really interested in the opposites lenses if they are not the right mount.
 
gramps said:
Here you go: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#200-500InGBR
Click to expand...
I've had a read of that review and not sure what to make of it. The rain cover issue is interesting, sounds like he's trying to zoom from outside the cover which isn't going to be easy and it's likely to either pull the rain cover off the end of the lens or stop it zooming. It would be easily solved by a lens coat rain cover that has sleeved to access the zoom ring. The lens hood sounds like it's not put on properly as I've never had a problem with any nikon hood before and it looks like it's the tried and tested design.

It sounds like he pushes and pulls the sigma to zoom rather than use the zoom ring which is an interesting way to do it.
 
matty D said:
The review I mentioned earlier was indeed in the Professional Photo Magazine, and compared the Canon 100-400 Mk2, Nikon 80-400VR, Nikon 200-500, Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, and the Sigma 150-600 Sport.

The lenses were graded on their Features, Handling, Optical Quality and Overall Score.
The Canon scored 5/5 in all categories
Nikon 80-400 scored 5/5, 5/5, 4.5/5 and 4.8/5 respectively
200-500 scored 5/5, 3.5/5, 3.5/5 and 4/5 overall (The least sharp of all the lenses)
Sigma Contemporary scored 5/5, 4/5, 4/5, 4.3/5 overall
Sigma Sport scored 5/5, 3/5, 4.5/5, 4.2/5 overall

The clear winner for Nikon users in terms of IQ is the 80-400, sharpest in the centre wide open
Click to expand...
Other reviews have the IQ as very good, could it be sample variation. Either way I'm going to book a hire lens to do my own testing, much better to make my own decisions on things rather than listen to some reviews.
 
rob-nikon said:
I've had a read of that review and not sure what to make of it. The rain cover issue is interesting, sounds like he's trying to zoom from outside the cover which isn't going to be easy and it's likely to either pull the rain cover off the end of the lens or stop it zooming. It would be easily solved by a lens coat rain cover that has sleeved to access the zoom ring. The lens hood sounds like it's not put on properly as I've never had a problem with any nikon hood before and it looks like it's the tried and tested design.

It sounds like he pushes and pulls the sigma to zoom rather than use the zoom ring which is an interesting way to do it.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is the raincoat being fixed to the hood and when the lens is zoomed, the raincoat turns and in turn the hood turns and detaches.
He uses the push/pull zoom to avoid what he says is the excessive turning required to zoom the lens :)
 
Nod said:
Never sure why some reviewers test different system lenses against each other. No point in comparing the Canon 100-400 against the Nikkor 200-500 - quite apart from the obvious difference in focal length ranges, a Canon lens is as much use to a Nikon user as a chocolate teapot! Besides, such things as focussing speeds and accuracy are very dependent on the body as well as the lens.
Click to expand...

As the magazine is unbiased with regards to brand loyalty, I guess they were trying to review the main players for both the Nikon and Canon readers. If they didn't include a Canon lens then half their readership would be a bit upset.

As it turns out, both Nikon and Canon offer the best options to their users. I really don't think they were comparing the Canon against the Nikon as that would indeed be pointless
 
gramps said:
I think the issue is the raincoat being fixed to the hood and when the lens is zoomed, the raincoat turns and in turn the hood turns and detaches.
He uses the push/pull zoom to avoid what he says is the excessive turning required to zoom the lens :)
Click to expand...

Having used a 200-400 with an optech rain sleeve using the same method of turning the zoom ring from outside the cover it was a case of turning by increments rather than full turns. The hood didn't fall off on that lens but the rain cover meant only small turns could be used as the cover got tight between the hood and the zoom ring (as I expected it to). This all sounds like user error with a rain cover to me. A little big of care and it's likely to be ok. There is an easy way to solve this problem, that is don't attach the rain cover to the end of the hood! I'm sure the plastic hood won't be damaged by a little big of rain water.

I wonder how long the sigma will last by him pulling and pushing it rather than using the zoom ring? I'm sure sigma put a zoom ring on it for a reason, it would be interesting to see what forces he is applying to the zoom mechanism and if those forces damage the zoom mechanism in any way.
 
Last edited:
matty D said:
As the magazine is unbiased with regards to brand loyalty, I guess they were trying to review the main players for both the Nikon and Canon readers. If they didn't include a Canon lens then half their readership would be a bit upset.

As it turns out, both Nikon and Canon offer the best options to their users. I really don't think they were comparing the Canon against the Nikon as that would indeed be pointless
Click to expand...

I can understand the point it's a cross manufacturer review but do the sigma/tamron lenses perform exactly the same on nikon and canon cameras considering they are reverse engineered? These reviews just get on my nerves as all they seem to do is fuel the whole manufacturer vs manufacturer debate that some people love, and sometimes like to remind you of when you are out at wildlife parks or nature reserves.It's the reason the only photography magazine I read is outdoor photography, only 4 pages in the gear section this month, the rest was about photography :)
 
Last edited:
rob-nikon said:
I can understand the point it's a cross manufacturer review but do the sigma/tamron lenses perform exactly the same on nikon and canon cameras considering they are reverse engineered? These reviews just get on my nerves as all they seem to do is fuel the whole manufacturer vs manufacturer debate that some people love. It's the reason the only photography magazine I read is outdoor photography, only 4 pages in the gear section this month, the rest was about photography :)
Click to expand...

Good point I wouldn't be sure if the third party lenses performed the same on both systems.

I have since read a few online reviews of the lens, and most seem complimentary of the IQ, although most of them have been done by individual photogs, whose (IMO) work really isn't that great.
 
I have placed a pre order with amazon at the lower price,
I think the lens is what it is, built to a price to compete with sigma and tamron,
hopefully it will give me another level in my photography...in the wildlife, bird, sport, part of hobby,
 
wallyboy said:
I have placed a pre order with amazon at the lower price,
I think the lens is what it is, built to a price to compete with sigma and tamron,
hopefully it will give me another level in my photography...in the wildlife, bird, sport, part of hobby,
Click to expand...
I've been contemplating doing the same, I think you are right it is what it is. I think I'm going to hire one for when I have a few days off in a few weeks and can test it out to see if it's right for me.
 
rob-nikon said:
I've been contemplating doing the same, I think you are right it is what it is. I think I'm going to hire one for when I have a few days off in a few weeks and can test it out to see if it's right for me.
Click to expand...

that is probably the best way to do it then you are sure,
I was after a longer tele anyway, if this wasn't coming on the market I would have bought a sig or a tam,
 
wallyboy said:
that is probably the best way to do it then you are sure,
I was after a longer tele anyway, if this wasn't coming on the market I would have bought a sig or a tam,
Click to expand...
That's the best way sometimes, just ordering rather than trying to decide. I may be downgrading from a 200-400, that's a great lens but I don't use it enough to really justify having it. I'm currently 80% sure of letting it go but not sure if I will even replace it. The 200-500 looks like a good lens for things like owls or water voles where you need that extra length. The other option is a 300 f4 lens with Teleconverter but you then lose the zooming.
 
rob-nikon said:
That's the best way sometimes, just ordering rather than trying to decide. I may be downgrading from a 200-400, that's a great lens but I don't use it enough to really justify having it. I'm currently 80% sure of letting it go but not sure if I will even replace it. The 200-500 looks like a good lens for things like owls or water voles where you need that extra length. The other option is a 300 f4 lens with Teleconverter but you then lose the zooming.
Click to expand...

too true we do tend to overthink things,
I am under no illusions about this lens it will be limited, I am coming at it from a wildlife bird angle, with circuit racing thrown in, even at somewhere like brands it will be a struggle to get shots,
the main use tho will be birds, where my current 4/5...5/6 300 struggles,
one thing is for sure I will make good use of it,
 
wallyboy said:
I have placed a pre order with amazon at the lower price,
I think the lens is what it is, built to a price to compete with sigma and tamron,
hopefully it will give me another level in my photography...in the wildlife, bird, sport, part of hobby,
Click to expand...

I was hesitant as its a big investment, and I also need to replace the sigma 70-200 I sold recently.

But Amazon price is good against grey market, and I've got some Amazon vouchers to spend after 10 years service at work. So with a bit of man maths and a desire to treat myself it's a bargain. Ordered one last week.

70-200 VRII will have to wait, not available on Amazon and cheaper for grey or used one. but then life would be boring if we didn't have something to look forward to...
 
spudey said:
I was hesitant as its a big investment, and I also need to replace the sigma 70-200 I sold recently.

But Amazon price is good against grey market, and I've got some Amazon vouchers to spend after 10 years service at work. So with a bit of man maths and a desire to treat myself it's a bargain. Ordered one last week.

70-200 VRII will have to wait, not available on Amazon and cheaper for grey or used one. but then life would be boring if we didn't have something to look forward to...
Click to expand...
it is nice to give yourself a treat,
as long as you use it,
and enjoy the experience, all that matters really,
 
matty D said:
Didn't mean you, I don't think Ive read yours :) Do you have a link to it (sorry if you've already posted it in the thread, Im a bit late to the party)
Click to expand...

Matt - I was being a bit tongue in cheek. I've not written a review as such but I have placed a fair amount of my thoughts/opinions (and images) in this thread. I suppose it wouldn't take too much effort to draw it all together into a document. But, what the world doesn't need now is yet another review :)
 
htid said:
@chuckles Would you be able to take an image of a bird or something else that's reasonably small, from the same distance away (i.e filling about as much of the frame) as this picture here? https://flic.kr/p/AiXaZS This is from my current 300f4 + 1.4tc and I want to check the difference in quality fully zoomed in. Can you upload the full raw file somewhere for me to download so I can pixel peep against my own images please?
Click to expand...

@htid Do you have any preference as to how it's taken? I mean (if I get time at the weekend) do you want handheld (VR on/off) or tripod - DX or FX?
 
I guess the ideal thing would be to see the best it can do as I can then I can compare that fairly against the best my current setup can achieve. So that means with VR on and tripod (or at least resting on something like a beanbag), on a DX body. Thanks for all this! To be honest I won't be getting the lens (if in fact I do) until January so no rush if you don't have time :)
 
Considering the (relatively low) price point of the new 200 500 it would be good to see a comparison between that and the (new) 80 400mm and the Nikon 300 f4 PF VR with and without the x 1.4TC

has anyone seen such a comparison on the web?
 
BillN_33 said:
Considering the (relatively low) price point of the new 200 500 it would be good to see a comparison between that and the (new) 80 400mm and the Nikon 300 f4 PF VR with and without the x 1.4TC

has anyone seen such a comparison on the web?
Click to expand...
Including the older AF-s non vr 300 f4 would be interesting too.
 
OldCarlos said:
Comparison between the 80-400, siggy S & C & Bigron; http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200-500mm_f5-6E_ED_VR/index.shtml
Click to expand...

Thanks that's sorted one, .............. from Cameralabs ....... better than the Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VRii - Optically it outperforms Nikon's AF-S 80-400/4.5-5.6G VRii and the competing 150-600mm zooms from Sigma and Tamron at every focal length although the differences may not be too great in some cases........... only negative over Nikon's AF-S 80-400/4.5-5.6G VRii is that it is bigger and heavier, (but also the 200 -500mm is a lot less expensive) ........... so for birds and wildlife the 200 500mm wins over these....... (even versus 600mm?? on the Sigma and Tamron?)
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
(even versus 600mm?? on the Sigma and Tamron?)
Click to expand...

Yeah - I puzzled over that one.

I think (and I know in my case) at 600mm the Tamron is soft until you get down to f8 where there is a slight improvement in sharpness which is completely eradicated at f11. To my mind, in low-light, you stand a better chance with the Nikkor at f5.6 and cropping in than extending the other two lenses the extra 100mm at a smaller aperture.
 
Last edited:
chuckles said:
Yeah - I puzzled over that one.

I think (and I know in my case) at 600mm the Tamron is soft until you get down to f8 where there is a slight improvement in sharpness which is completely eradicated at f11. To my mind, in low-light, you stand a better chance with the Nikkor at f5.6 and cropping in than extending the other two lenses the extra 100mm at a smaller aperture.
Click to expand...

if we take the Tamron/Sigma at 600mm f8 and say that the Nikon at 500mm f5.6 cropped is just as good that still gives it to the Nikon
 
BillN_33 said:
if we take the Tamron/Sigma at 600mm f8 and say that the Nikon at 500mm f5.6 cropped is just as good that still gives it to the Nikon
Click to expand...

Exactly - on top of which you gain an extra stop of shutter speed thereby reducing the risk of 'shake' (even with VR)
 
Also to consider, the 200-500mm Nikon will also take a 1.4TC giving you 700mm at f8. I know some use a TC on the Sigma/Tamron but not sure what AF is like with it and I dont believe their designed for a TC like the Nikon is?
 
Swanseajack said:
Also to consider, the 200-500mm Nikon will also take a 1.4TC giving you 700mm at f8. I know some use a TC on the Sigma/Tamron but not sure what AF is like with it and I dont believe their designed for a TC like the Nikon is?
Click to expand...

Bill's post - (#306) has a field review and test which includes teleconverter performance on the three main contenders.

{edit}
Adding to the Tamron or Sigma would push the AF of some cameras (f9 is pretty much outside the limits of most dSLRs)
 
Last edited:
Met a tog yesterday who had his for about a month, he was pleased with it in general but mentioned that the AF wasn't as quick as he had expected ... he was using it on a D300 and I wondered if that would be reflected in AF on the new lens?
 
BBR said:
Professional Photographer magazine rates the Sigma sport above the Nikon 200-500 in IQ.

Who to believe???
Click to expand...

When some users say one thing and other users say the opposite there is a good chance there is no appreciable real world difference between the results or atmospheric factors affecting image quality played a part and were not the same in all pictures being compared.

Big factor for a lot of people is that a there is now a Nikkor "long reach" tele-zoom capable of producing good images on the market at a much lower price than before.
 
Well after waiting patiently for amazon to deliver lens with no joy, i have cancelled my order, and ordered the 200-500off of digital depot, so fingers crossed i will be the proud owner of 200-500 tomorrow.


Ps I would have waited but on hols next week,:banana:
 
I've been reading and reading trying to decide if this or the sigma 150-600! It's such a difficult decision and most of the shots I've seen with either camera haven't impressed me or being as sharp as I'd be happy with. This lens will only give me 80mm over my 300f4 +tc. Is it worth it? Guess I have to rent one to find out for myself!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top