Nikkor 200-500?

Either would do the job for you. The Sigma is heaver is said to focus faster, but it can't be by much as my 200-500 is fast enough for sports work and birds in flight, but I'm sure I read that the Sigma has full weather sealing which might be an advantage for what you want it for.
 
Thanks for that.
Would you think that the 1/2 stop difference at full reach, plus the VR of the Nikon is a major factor. I'm looking at some low light photography (dusk/dawn in Finland) as well as high shutter speeds for sports..
 
twist said:
Sure. But digital depot is UK stock. Unless you can find UK stock for cheaper? ;)
Click to expand...
i have uk stock lenses currently being F:":"D about by one of those companies i hear panamoz are very good at solving problems :)
 
dinorock said:
i have uk stock lenses currently being F:":"D about by one of those companies i hear panamoz are very good at solving problems :)
Click to expand...

Okay then. But it's pretty easy to post a grey supplier being cheaper than UK stock. :)
 
Think there is a code for £100 off though once you reach checkout and several others have it at 1097
 
Hi all,
Having recently purchased the 200- 500 to use on my D750 I was wondering has anyone any experience of using the Kirk replacement lens collar on it, I would like to dispense with the extra plate I am using at the moment
on my gimbal, I have two different ones but they both seem to move around a bit, which doesn't fill me with confidence

Thanks in advance for any help or advice.

Cheers Bob
 
nickfole said:
Thanks for that.
Would you think that the 1/2 stop difference at full reach, plus the VR of the Nikon is a major factor. I'm looking at some low light photography (dusk/dawn in Finland) as well as high shutter speeds for sports..
Click to expand...
1/2 a stop is not much, a rise in ISO would fix it but with either of these lenses you may struggle in low light.

What camera body would you be using them on.
 
nickfole said:
Thanks for that.
Would you think that the 1/2 stop difference at full reach, plus the VR of the Nikon is a major factor. I'm looking at some low light photography (dusk/dawn in Finland) as well as high shutter speeds for sports..
Click to expand...
1/2 stop difference isn't much in most situations, however depending on your camera when you're pushing the ISO limits 1/2 stop might matter. That being said, I have the Tamron 150-600mm and prefer to stop it down to f8 to get the best results. I'm happy to shoot at 12800 ISO with my camera though, plus Tamron's VC is excellent meaning I can drop the shutter speed right down assuming I'm not shooting fast moving subjects.

Basically what I'm saying (in a long winded way) is you need to know what ISOs you're happy with, and what you think your other exposure values may be to decide whether that 1/2 stop is the difference between a useable image and one that's not.
 
nickfole said:
Thanks for that.
Would you think that the 1/2 stop difference at full reach, plus the VR of the Nikon is a major factor. I'm looking at some low light photography (dusk/dawn in Finland) as well as high shutter speeds for sports..
Click to expand...

Some good advice above about lens speed. On VR, the Nikon has rather odd behaviour in standard mode which means the image in the viewfinder locks on rock solid before you take the the shot for a still image but jumps all over the place afterwards, so for say a series of BIF shots it's better to stick with the full frame than the 1.3 crop mode to reduce the occurrence birds being half out of the frame. (This with a D7100, so it will be less of an issue with a FF camera.) The sports mode avoids this and still steadies the view in the viewfinder very well, and to me behaves like the Sigma Sport in the short time I used it, i.e. it does the job very well. It probably isn't a big differentiating factor.

I find the AF to be a bit leisurely in comparison to a 300mm f4 though still OK except in really demanding circumstances (e.g. BIF against a landscape). It's also a bit unreliable for static shots and sometimes focuses on an adjacent branch rather than the bird, but this could well be down to my not having found the right settings yet.

I've read the Sigma trounces the Nikon for AF speed and most sites report it's sharper as well. And it's 600mm, which matters, even more more so on full frame. I really would have preferred to have the Sigma but I found it too heavy to hand hold for long -- a style I don't want to abandon. This shouldn't be underestimated. Your physical shape and shooting style may mean these are not considerations though.
 
It looks like a few people have used both the Sigma 150-600 Sports and the Nikon 200-500, how much of a difference does the 500 grams in weight make for handholding? (Please don't say 500g...!) I've got the Sigma but I'm finding it hard to keep steady without support and for my style of shooting (grabbed shots at the zoo whilst being hassled by a 4 & 5 year old) monopods and tripods are a luxury I can't always have.

I'm contemplating moving to the Nikon from the Sigma, is it likely to be much of an improvement?
 
It will be the end of the day when that 500grams will get you. I recently bought a black rapid knock off for about a tenner on evil bay, I find it much easier to carry the 200-500 all day now, with just a neck strap it became uncomfortable after a few hours.

Can't speak for the sigma lenses but I have been pleased with Nikon 200-500mm. Great for Birds and larger bugs. Focus speed is not the fastest but still OK. For BIF's by using the limiter and pre focusing at distance where the target hopefully appears seem to work well for me, if you have to try and find the subject and wait for the lens to focus lock on through the complete range I have found it a bit and miss (read more miss). I was trying to shoot Hobbies hunting over a pond yesterday and did get quite a few in focus to my surprise as they are very quick, but they were to far away and this is a massive crop.


Hobby by Jerry Hawker, on Flickr


Great for static subjects as well.

Stonechat : Saxicola torquata by Jerry Hawker, on Flickr
 
Icee said:
1/2 a stop is not much, a rise in ISO would fix it but with either of these lenses you may struggle in low light.

What camera body would you be using them on.
Click to expand...

snerkler said:
1/2 stop difference isn't much in most situations, however depending on your camera when you're pushing the ISO limits 1/2 stop might matter. That being said, I have the Tamron 150-600mm and prefer to stop it down to f8 to get the best results. I'm happy to shoot at 12800 ISO with my camera though, plus Tamron's VC is excellent meaning I can drop the shutter speed right down assuming I'm not shooting fast moving subjects.

Basically what I'm saying (in a long winded way) is you need to know what ISOs you're happy with, and what you think your other exposure values may be to decide whether that 1/2 stop is the difference between a useable image and one that's not.
Click to expand...


I'm using the D750 and am happy up to 12800.
I guess IQ better and easier DoF at F8?

Very good point w.r.t weight, I use blackrapid (excellent accessory) or no strap. Heaviest lens I have to date is the 70-200 at just over 1.4kg, and I notice this after a day. The 500-200 is 2.3kg (with collar). The 150-600 sport is 2.9kg (double the weight of the 70-200). As an asside, I'm assuming that I'll need the collar on to connect the blackrapid to the lens, or would it be OK suspending a a lens this size off the camera bayonet for any length of time.
 
nickfole said:
I'm using the D750 and am happy up to 12800.
I guess IQ better and easier DoF at F8?

Very good point w.r.t weight, I use blackrapid (excellent accessory) or no strap. Heaviest lens I have to date is the 70-200 at just over 1.4kg, and I notice this after a day. The 500-200 is 2.3kg (with collar). The 150-600 sport is 2.9kg (double the weight of the 70-200). As an asside, I'm assuming that I'll need the collar on to connect the blackrapid to the lens, or would it be OK suspending a a lens this size off the camera bayonet for any length of time.
Click to expand...
You notice the weight at first, but get used to it. That being said I have the Tamron 150-600 which is only 1.9kg, so not much more than the 70-200mm f2.8. I use it at f8 for the sharpness rather than control of DOF as I like everything barring landscapes with as shallow DOF as possible ;) I was shooting a bird at around 8ft the other day ( as was on the limit of the min focus distance) and worked out at f8 the DOF would be about 6mm :eek:
 
Ever since the 200-500 f5.6 was released I've followed user reviews about it. It's a lens that interests but I hear so many conflicting report about, especially about AF. There are some who say it's nearly as fast as a 70-200 f2.8 and others who say it's not as fast as a 300 f4. There are some good images on here but I'm still not sure how well it would fair in low light at sunrise/sunset. Hiring one to test would be good but considering that costs £100 it's a lot for testing a £1000 prior to purchase.
 
Have bit the bullet.
200-500 will be arriving mid week. Thanks for all advice.
Hopefully will post some reasonable images shortly...
 
nickfole said:
I'm using the D750 and am happy up to 12800.
I guess IQ better and easier DoF at F8?

As an asside, I'm assuming that I'll need the collar on to connect the blackrapid to the lens, or would it be OK suspending a a lens this size off the camera bayonet for any length of time.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't suspend the 200-500 on the camera mount, I use a Black Rapid strap but attach it to the tripod collar on the lens.
 
Been busy when the weather was good and then I got cheesed-off not using this lens. So, I sat out in the garden for a few hours in my 'hide' (I'd earnt a couple of brownie points so was good for 'disappearing') but, it was raining! Enter the D750 and it's superb handling and rendering... all these are crops! Well impressed :)

#1
Chaffinch 1 by Barry Cant, on Flickr

#2
Chaffinch 5 by Barry Cant, on Flickr

#3
Chaffinch 8 by Barry Cant, on Flickr

#4
Robin 2 by Barry Cant, on Flickr

#5
Blue Tit 6 by Barry Cant, on Flickr

#6
Blackbird 3 by Barry Cant, on Flickr
 
Love the second one Barry, it looks like the birds are a sick of the weather as us.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•


I love this crazy take!

I am only sorry seeing the feeders…
otherwise, very cool series! :)
Click to expand...

Thanks

Me too.... work is taking me to all over the place Daniel, it's the only way I can get time to capture these little things. I wish I could get out into the 'wild' more. Saw a Short Eared Owl yesterday and a Barn Owl this morning but I had no time to stop.
 
chuckles said:
Chaffinch 1
Click to expand...
•


Maybe this one, and others too, would be worth
repositioning over another more natural BG…

How lucky you are… I don't have the time not
the opportunities to shoot such small birds.
 
The Nikon 200-500mm is a very sharp lens. The attached shot is from the lens on a D500 with TC14-III at F8, i.e. wide open giving 700mm focal length. Check out the original on flickr.

DSC_2580 by Mike D, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Morning all.

My 200-500 has just arrived via the post man. The box has a very small dent in the top corner, nothing significant really, but the lens, when zooming from 200-500, grates, a quite harsh metallic sound.

Any one else had this with their lens? I have contacted the retailer and am waiting for them to get back to me. Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Trev.
 
Hi Jerry

I knew early ones had focus problems and didn't know if it was a known fault or if it is just this one. If I didn't have bad luck I wouldn't have any luck at all!! See what the retailer says, I wanted it for an Airshow at the weekend.

Trev.
 
I get s slightly wheezy breathing noise when I zoom mine which is probably simply due to the barrel moving in and out but it feels smooth. Sounds like yours is damaged. Unlucky...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top