Nikkor 200-500?

chuckles said:
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?
Click to expand...

@htid - Still not had the time or light to do this.... sorry.
 
@chuckles no problem. As I said it won't be till after Christmas that I aim to get a new lens so no rush :)
 
I'm like you Chris, originally I thought this lens would be brilliant but the more images I see from it the less I think it would work for me ... I certainly don't see anything from it that works better than the Tamron/Sigma 150-600.
 
gramps said:
I'm like you Chris, originally I thought this lens would be brilliant but the more images I see from it the less I think it would work for me ... I certainly don't see anything from it that works better than the Tamron/Sigma 150-600.
Click to expand...

To be honest from the images I've seen (there are probably lots I don't even realise are from that lens obviously) none of the sigma ones match my current 300 f4 (non pf) and 1.4tc II. My problem is that the sharpness I want only comes from £XXXX lenses!
 
htid said:
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!
Click to expand...

I'm in the exact same situation, but i bit the bullet at the weekend and ordered a Sigma 150-600 C, i figured that the Nikon is the best part of twice the price of the Sigma and from looking at the images certainly not twice the lens in terms of IQ, plus the Sigma has more reach, and the added bonus of the Sigma USB dock to tweak the lens to suit

Should turn up this week as ordered from DigitalRev............. hope i haven't made the wrong decision

Also, in buying the cheaper Sigma it allows me to keep onto my 300mm F4, had i gone the 200-500mm route i would have had to sell/part-ex my 300mm in against it
 
Last edited:
rpsmith79 said:
I'm in the exact same situation, but i bit the bullet at the weekend and ordered a Sigma 150-600 C, i figured that the Nikon is the best part of twice the price of the Sigma and from looking at the images certainly not twice the lens in terms of IQ, plus the Sigma has more reach, and the added bonus of the Sigma USB dock to tweak the lens to suit

Should turn up this week as ordered from DigitalRev............. hope i haven't made the wrong decision

Also, in buying the cheaper Sigma it allows me to keep onto my 300mm F4, had i gone the 200-500mm route i would have had to sell/part-ex my 300mm in against it
Click to expand...

I know where you're at with this. The only thing that swayed me was the constant (usable) full aperture of f5.6 at the fact both the Sigma and the Tamron is unusable (probably too strong a word, but definitely IQ takes a hit) at 600mm until you get to f8

Having used the Bigron and the Nikkor I have to say the Nikkor is far more balanced in hand. But, for the money none of them are failures! It just comes down to degrees and preferences.
 
Yep, i was trying to convince myself that the constant aperture was a big bonus of the Nikon, but then the Sigma as a little quicker wide open, and it's only 1/3 stop slower at 600mm, though not sure how that compares at 500mm with the Sigma

But at £620 for the Sigma, it's a steal really
 
FWIW, I had the opportunity to try the 200-500mm last month. Sharpness is very good and I shot 6 hours handheld. I found this to be an immensely useful lens. In my mind, the only true contender is the Sigma 'Sport' - based on sharpness. Also, it worked well with the new TC-14E III. Focus speed is OK but did not get the chance to try action. My genre is wildlife.
 
chuckles said:
I know where you're at with this. The only thing that swayed me was the constant (usable) full aperture of f5.6 at the fact both the Sigma and the Tamron is unusable (probably too strong a word, but definitely IQ takes a hit) at 600mm until you get to f8

Having used the Bigron and the Nikkor I have to say the Nikkor is far more balanced in hand. But, for the money none of them are failures! It just comes down to degrees and preferences.
Click to expand...

Possibly asked before (possibly even by me!!!) - do the Tamron and/or Sigma ?-5/600 lenses work on 1 series Nikons with the FT-1 adaptor? I know the 18-270 Tamron doesn't but do the newer models?
 
chuckles said:
I hasten too add - that's the problem everyone has ;)
Click to expand...

Haha very true! My thinking (pre testing the lenses for myself) is:
200-500 = 500@f5.6
150-600 = 600@f.6.3
keep my current 300f4 + 1.4tc = 420@f5.6
depending on christmas bonus, get used 300 f2.8 + 2xtc III = 600@f4.6 (not sure about that). This is my ideal as it seems the 2x on the 300 2.8 works brilliantly, but whether it'll be sharper/faster focusing than the 200-500 I don't know!
 
Nod said:
Possibly asked before (possibly even by me!!!) - do the Tamron and/or Sigma ?-5/600 lenses work on 1 series Nikons with the FT-1 adaptor? I know the 18-270 Tamron doesn't but do the newer models?
Click to expand...

My Tamron 150-600 would not work,my Sigma 150-600 C does work this is on a V2,think i put some pictures in the series 1 show us your shots thread.
 
htid said:
300 f2.8 + 2xtc III = 600@f4.6 (not sure about that).
Click to expand...
The lens *becomes* a 600/5.6 in every way. You get 2x the FL and 1/2 the DOF (assuming you are using the TC because yo cant change the distance). The main reason I choose to use the 400/2.8 +TC's is because it gives me the option to go wider/sharper (and shorter) if lighting demands it. There are times where I can keep shooting and everyone else has given up (or should have).
 
sk66 said:
The lens *becomes* a 600/5.6 in every way. You get 2x the FL and 1/2 the DOF (assuming you are using the TC because yo cant change the distance). The main reason I choose to use the 400/2.8 +TC's is because it gives me the option to go wider/sharper (and shorter) if lighting demands it. There are times where I can keep shooting and everyone else has given up (or should have).
Click to expand...

Sorry I meant f5.6, typo.
 
htid said:
150-600 = 600@f.6.3
Click to expand...

My experience at 600mm at f.6.3 is soft on the Tamron (I've seen similar softness in reviews of the Sigma at 600mm) to get any where near acceptable IQ you need f8 - hence why I like the f5.6 of the Nikkor
 
gramps said:
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?
Click to expand...

@gramps Yep - it's as fast as with D750 and D800.... I would qualify that it struggled a bit with lower contrast subjects (I'm talking exceedingly lower) but I put that down to the camera rather the lens. The D300 struggled with other lenses too under the same tests.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the answer, Mike. The C is the expensive version, isn't it? Pricier than the Nikkor IIRC. Used to have a 150-500 OS but that was well before I had a 1 series so never tried it. The idea of a 1000mm+ EFL f/5.6 rather appeals and the quality from a "proper" lens/body will be far better than my current long set up which is a Panasonic bridge... Mainly to be used for Moon, ISS and possibly planet shots but maybe the occasional wildlife foray as well. I simply don't have the attention span for serious wildlife shooting.
 
'C' is the cheaper one, approx £600-800 depending on source, 'S' is the pricier one :)
 
Thanks for the clarification, R.. My APs are in another room and I was being lazy!
 
:grumpy:Oh dear, just when I thought that I was completely happy with my lens collection.......... here I go again. Being "a wildlife", do I keep my 80-400mm Afs VR or do I part-ex it for the new 200-500. How available are the 200-500mm lens now? Will I see that much of a difference in IQ? :(
 
rogerj said:
:grumpy:Oh dear, just when I thought that I was completely happy with my lens collection.......... here I go again. Being "a wildlife", do I keep my 80-400mm Afs VR or do I part-ex it for the new 200-500. How available are the 200-500mm lens now? Will I see that much of a difference in IQ? :(
Click to expand...

And then.... there's that little extra r_e_a_c_h .............. :naughty:
 
rogerj said:
:grumpy:Oh dear, just when I thought that I was completely happy with my lens collection.......... here I go again. Being "a wildlife", do I keep my 80-400mm Afs VR or do I part-ex it for the new 200-500. How available are the 200-500mm lens now? Will I see that much of a difference in IQ? :(
Click to expand...
The question is whether an extra 100mm on the long end is worth losing 120mm at the short end. 100mm on the long end only ready means a little extra cropping to get 400mm to look like 500mm but the change from 80mm to 200mm is huge. It all depends which end you use the most.
 
Last edited:
The way I'm looking at it with the lenses I have:

  • 18-35
  • 24-70
  • 70-200
  • 200-500
  • 280-700 with 1.4 TC

I think this rounds out my focal length pretty well on my D800.

Simon
 
chuckles said:
And then.... there's that little extra r_e_a_c_h .............. :naughty:
Click to expand...
Yes exactly chuckles!
rob-nikon said:
The question is whether an extra 100mm on the long end is worth losing 120mm at the short end. 100mm on the long end only ready means a little extra cropping to get 400mm to look like 500mm but the change from 80mm to 200mm is huge. It all depends which end you use the most.
Click to expand...
Yes, true Rob-nikon, but I have most of the short end covered. I had a Sigma 500mm 4.5 a while ago, and hanker for that reach again. On the other hand I've gotten used to the 80-400mm now. I'm going to have to think this one through
SAuchterlonie said:
The way I'm looking at it with the lenses I have:

  • 18-35
  • 24-70
  • 70-200
  • 200-500
  • 280-700 with 1.4 TC

I think this rounds out my focal length pretty well on my D800.

Simon
Click to expand...
That will do nicely!
 
@rogerj do you use the 80-400 on theNikon 1? If so you've already got some serious reach so do you really need more? I think you just have lens envy :P
 
Not wishing to put any cats among pigeons..... I have read a couple of reviews which tends to suggest the 200-500 has better IQ than the later 80-400 ....

.... just saying!
 
chuckles said:
Not wishing to put any cats among pigeons..... I have read a couple of reviews which tends to suggest the 200-500 has better IQ than the later 80-400 ....

.... just saying!
Click to expand...

Yeah I've read that too which is strange considering the extra reach of this lens and the extra cost of the 80-400!
 
htid said:
Yeah I've read that too which is strange considering the extra reach of this lens and the extra cost of the 80-400!
Click to expand...

I had (still have) the older 80-400 which is a complete slouch compared to the modern lenses. It was the first Nikkor with VR. Then the current model appeared on the market and it cost an arm and a leg, so I never upgraded. That was some time back - now, things have changed and these modern optics are cheaper to produce but not necessarily inferior in IQ.

And sometimes (not often it has to be said) a lens turns out better than anticipated and gets marketed too cheaply - commonly known as VFM. Not saying the 200-500 is in this category but what I am saying the 80-400 was way overpriced for what it delivered - it believe it was marketed on the success of the (very expensive) 200-400.

Only my opinions - anybody want an 80-400 D?? ;)
 
htid said:
Yeah I've read that too which is strange considering the extra reach of this lens and the extra cost of the 80-400!
Click to expand...
Not overly strange really - the 80-400 is a 5x zoom vs the 200-500 which is a 2.5x zoom - so needs less compromises ...
 
htid said:
@rogerj do you use the 80-400 on theNikon 1? If so you've already got some serious reach so do you really need more? I think you just have lens envy :p
Click to expand...
Chris,
So far our little nikon 1 V2 has been used as a carry anywhere family camera with the stock 1 series lenses. I guess I'm a bit hesitant about the IQ with a big lens on it. Worth a try though - thanks:)
 
I managed to have a little play with the 200-500 at the nikon amateur photographer event tonight. The build was better than I expected and on par with the 80-400 I've played with before. The front element doesn't twist when zooming so that's a plus for using rain covers. The zoom ring looks ok, it needs more turning from 200 to 500 than I expected. AF speed was ok, no way as fast as the 200-400 f4 (they also had one there too , both with the d750 attached so I was able to test each). Weight isn't bad, you can feel it's 2kg weight but it depends what you are used to. It's noticeably lighter than the 200-400 but not as much as I expected.

Overall it seems to be a nice lens. If it's a first long lens then it seems to be a great buy. If you already have 300 f4 and 1.4 TC than it's a hard choice that really depends on if you need the faster f4 aperture or the extra 80mm. I'm not sure if there is a difference with AF with the 300 f4 and 200-500. For me replacing a 200-400 f4 I think I would miss the differences between the two. If you have got used to fast primes and f4 zooms then it's easier to notice the differences. I remember noticing them after using the 300 f4 for a while and then going back to a 70-300.

Overall if I didn't have a 200-400 I would have most likely have purchased it as it does seem good especially considering what the price will be in a few months time.
 
chuckles said:
I know where you're at with this. The only thing that swayed me was the constant (usable) full aperture of f5.6 at the fact both the Sigma and the Tamron is unusable (probably too strong a word, but definitely IQ takes a hit) at 600mm until you get to f8

Having used the Bigron and the Nikkor I have to say the Nikkor is far more balanced in hand. But, for the money none of them are failures! It just comes down to degrees and preferences.
Click to expand...
I don't know what samples you've seen but my Tamron is excellent at 600mm wide open, the difference from 500mm is marginal. And yes I am picky :p Maybe I got a good copy :D
 
chuckles said:
My own ;)

I can definitely detect a difference wide open :(
Click to expand...
I assume you mean between 500mm and 600mm wide open and not wide open vs f8 for example :p
I guess this is the joys of sample variation.
 
snerkler said:
I assume you mean between 500mm and 600mm wide open and not wide open vs f8 for example :p
I guess this is the joys of sample variation.
Click to expand...

Ha ha!

Actually, I tried both at 500mm - seemed silly to do it any other way. Tamron is fine at 500mm wide open as is the NIkkor - at 600mm the Tamron is definitely soft at f6.3 -BUT- you do get a bit more reach -AND- is quite good on a D7xxx :)

Now, whether I'll keep both is an interesting thing :help:
 
chuckles said:
Ha ha!

Actually, I tried both at 500mm - seemed silly to do it any other way. Tamron is fine at 500mm wide open as is the NIkkor - at 600mm the Tamron is definitely soft at f6.3 -BUT- you do get a bit more reach -AND- is quite good on a D7xxx :)

Now, whether I'll keep both is an interesting thing :help:
Click to expand...

Both??? Now that's greedy haha. Are you still in a position of whether to keep either then, or are you definitely keeping the Nikon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top