Nikkor 200-500?

Why?
You'll get less reach, and no noticeable change in IQ, and more weight than the sigma
I'd keep the 150-600.
 
In all the tests the Nikon comes out better for IQ than the Sigma contemporary that Rich is talking about.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Why?
You'll get less reach, and no noticeable change in IQ, and more weight than the sigma
I'd keep the 150-600.
Click to expand...

Icee said:
In all the tests the Nikon comes out better for IQ than the Sigma contemporary that Rich is talking about.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and the Sigma is fairly soft past 500mm, so needs stopping down to f8, and it's only at f5.6 below around 300mm, so the Nikon is slightly faster too at the long end

Hopefully i'll get a noticeable change in IQ for the better over the Sigma

The fact is, i have a very good lens sitting in the spare room that i hardly ever use, and the main reason for picking the Sigma over the Nikon in the first place was the price, and now the Nikon has dropped to a reasonable price, i can chop in both lenses and get one good lens that will actually get used
 
rpsmith79 said:
Indeed, and the Sigma is fairly soft past 500mm, so needs stopping down to f8, and it's only at f5.6 below around 300mm, so the Nikon is slightly faster too at the long end
Click to expand...

And that's the very reason I stuck with the NIkon. I wasn't using the Sigma but the Tamron; effectively the same problem - soft at the long end and smaller aperture (which had a knock on effect with the AF).
 
chuckles said:
And that's the very reason I stuck with the NIkon. I wasn't using the Sigma but the Tamron; effectively the same problem - soft at the long end and smaller aperture (which had a knock on effect with the AF).
Click to expand...

How are you finding the Nikon, is it usable wide open at the long end?
 
rpsmith79 said:
How are you finding the Nikon, is it usable wide open at the long end?
Click to expand...

Absolutely perfect for my uses and wallet Rich!

At the long end it's as good wide open as it is at the short end - not found any differences through the range. I reckon that's the bonus of having a relatively short range (compared to the other contenders).

I did have to fine tune the D7100 though.

This is D800 f5.6 1/250 ISO 320 (handheld) [the image on Flickr is clickable to full size]

Grey Seal 9 by Barry Cant, on Flickr
 
Wow, nice one Barry, that really is sharp, really nice detail resolution

Think that pretty much makes my mind up
 
rpsmith79 said:
Wow, nice one Barry, that really is sharp, really nice detail resolution

Think that pretty much makes my mind up
Click to expand...

Oh dear! I like to be able spend other people's money ;)

Actually, if I remember correctly this was before I went through all my kit on an "AF Fine Tune" wet Saturday! There is a tad of 'pre-focus' on this - just looked in LR.

There was a guy on the beach with a D4 and 400/2.8 - we compared notes. Given the cost differential he was pretty amazed at the 200-500 (like I was with the 400/2.8)

I'm just processing a shot I took in Ireland of a Dipper.... post it in a minute
 
chuckles said:
Oh dear! I like to be able spend other people's money ;)

Actually, if I remember correctly this was before I went through all my kit on an "AF Fine Tune" wet Saturday! There is a tad of 'pre-focus' on this - just looked in LR.

There was a guy on the beach with a D4 and 400/2.8 - we compared notes. Given the cost differential he was pretty amazed at the 200-500 (like I was with the 400/2.8)

I'm just processing a shot I took in Ireland of a Dipper.... post it in a minute
Click to expand...

Well i've just done a quick quote with MPB to see how much they would take for my Sigma 150-600 and Nikon 300mm, and i would get near on £500 each, which would easily pay for a grey import 200-500mm

Obviously i will try and sell them privately first to get a few more pennies out of them, but worst case i can essentially swap my 2 lenses for the 200-500 for no cost to myself
 
Dipper in Ireland - hence the peaty coloured water in the waterfall. Again full-resolution but cropped (see below). You really couldn't get a worse situation for lighting

On a tripod 1/80 f5.6 D800 ISO 100 - also no cable release (Two questions you shouldn't ask :) ) If the software I have is to be believed, this was at a distance 56.32m

Dipper by Barry Cant, on Flickr

This is the crop.

2016_09_19_10_33_53_Lightroom by Barry Cant, on Flickr
 
chuckles said:
Oh dear! I like to be able spend other people's money ;)

Actually, if I remember correctly this was before I went through all my kit on an "AF Fine Tune" wet Saturday! There is a tad of 'pre-focus' on this - just looked in LR.

There was a guy on the beach with a D4 and 400/2.8 - we compared notes. Given the cost differential he was pretty amazed at the 200-500 (like I was with the 400/2.8)

I'm just processing a shot I took in Ireland of a Dipper.... post it in a minute
Click to expand...

Well, i've only gone and done it, i sold my Sigma 150-600mm and bought a 200-500mm off of the classifieds on here, only just arrived so not taken it for a test run yet, but it looks and feels the part from the very quick play i had with it on my lunch break

While i'm here as well, what recommendations has anyone got regards camo covers for the 200-500mm, as i had a set for my 300mm f4 but they were bought 2nd hand, so i don't actually know what make they were
 
Bigvin said:
Does anyone know if this lens works with a Sigma 1.4x TC?
Or is it just the Nikon version?

Need to know before I put all my gear into MPB so I can get a D500 and 200-500.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Personally I wouldn't put a 3rd party TC in front of a £1200 Nikon lens. I DO know that it works well with the Nikon TC14-III on the D500 although AF struggles with the faster birds in flight. I've also used it occasionally with the TC17-II:
Click on the image for bigger.

DSC_1584 by Mike, on Flickr
 
Took mine out for the first time over the weekend for the annual Red Deer Rut, very impressed with this lens, the weather was terrible, overcast and still very early in the morning, so i was shooting wide open the whole morning, and all the shots were as sharp as i was hoping they would be (except the high ISO noise), but i know full well i wouldn't have got any where near these shots with my old Sigma 150-600mm C


Lone Stag by Richard Smith, on Flickr


Accessorising Stag by Richard Smith, on Flickr


I See You by Richard Smith, on Flickr

Even at incredibly high ISO (for a D7100 anyway) i was pretty impressed with the IQ of this shot at ISO 1800


Spotted by Richard Smith, on Flickr
 
Tried the D800E and 200-500mm in some very poor light today. I shot this Otter 20 minutes after sunset with an overcast sky - the Otter was just a dark silhouette to the naked eye. No problem with the autofocus locking on.

f5.6, 1/200, ISO6400 - at 410mm
Otter, Shetland, Nikon 200-500mm by John Moncrieff, on Flickr

straight from camera, 100% crop of the above
Otter, Shetland, 100% crop, Nikon 200-500mm by John Moncrieff, on Flickr

And a 100% crop of a Long Tailed Duck, taken at f8
Long Tailed Ducks, Nikon 200-500mm, 100% crop by John Moncrieff, on Flickr

Some more on Flickr...


Matt-P said:
Love your otter shots John - especially the second one as it's not something I've seen done before.
Click to expand...
Many thanks - quite tricky to catch this moment as it's over in a fraction of a second - a few more FPS would help - D800's a bit slow. :-)
 
message deleted
 
Last edited:
Thank you for responding guys and forgive the abrupt deletion of the post. I just can't reconcile myself to the "slow to focus comments" and I think the very best thing for me to do is to rent one for a few days and give it a good work out. Strange - since I threatened the Sigma with a trip up to Norwich it behaved flawlessly when I shot a rugby match earlier today in less than good lighting, focus was bang on and quality as good as I'll get - images can be seen www.flickr.com/photos/nikonnorm/
if only life was as reliable as a Volkswagen (although even that's debatable nowadays)
 
nikon.norm said:
Thank you for responding guys and forgive the abrupt deletion of the post. I just can't reconcile myself to the "slow to focus comments" and I think the very best thing for me to do is to rent one for a few days and give it a good work out. Strange - since I threatened the Sigma with a trip up to Norwich it behaved flawlessly when I shot a rugby match earlier today in less than good lighting, focus was bang on and quality as good as I'll get - images can be seen www.flickr.com/photos/nikonnorm/
if only life was as reliable as a Volkswagen (although even that's debatable nowadays)
Click to expand...

Good plan - I've often rented things out in the past before buying, as there's no substitute for using equipment 'in the field' to see how it performs in conditions you're familiar with. I've never shot sports before so can't say how it will perform, though my 200-500 copes well with small and unpredictable birds in flight. I was able to compare the 200-500 with the 300mm/1.4x combo today and got noticeably sharper shots at identical settings - mostly down to the VR I think. I tried the 1.4x teleconverter on the 200-500 and it was terrible - maybe ok on a really bright day, but better for me to crop in afterwards for decent results.
 
Well, after all the procrastination and dithering I've finally gone and done it! Picked up the lens lunchtime from HDEW – who are a delight to work with, and hot footed it back home to Kent.

Got to Oare Marshes on the Thames Estuary mid afternoon and got around an hour of shooting before I lost the light.

Very pleased with the results and all my misgivings gone – ho hum why didn't I do it earlier.

These are a few of the shots:
Oare Marshes06 by Norman Thomas, on Flickr
Oare Marshes08 by Norman Thomas, on Flickr
Oare Marshes13 by Norman Thomas, on Flickr
Oare Marshes04 by Norman Thomas, on Flickr

Brands Hatch on Tuesday for an exclusive testing day - can't wait!!
 
nikon.norm said:
Why did I ever doubt this lens?
Click to expand...

I have no experience of shooting racing cars (is that what you still call them?) but, as relatively frame filling and predictably moving targets I'm not surprised these have come out as well as they really have (y). Especially with a D750. It won't be breaking sweat.

But it's a good question. I think it will be a bit more tricky to capture say a Goldcrest darting around a tree in average/dull light, or a gull in flight against a busy background, or whatever, but I think that that's what I have almost subconsciously in mind when I'm trying to describe how a lens is behaving: the difficult cases. But how often are you going to come up against these? What else does the lens let you do with ease? So, I take from this a renewed appreciation that it's important to try to understand where a reviewer is coming from and what their expectations are when weighing up their verdict.
 
Last edited:
Sorry new here, how do you down load photos from your computer.
 
Last edited:
Chopped mine in today, loved it but it's pretty much what pushed me over the edge and back to mirrorless, too big! Hadn't left my house since July. Thankfully MPB offered a pretty solid price.

McLaren P1 GTR by Chris Harrison, on Flickr
 
crieffy said:
Good plan - I've often rented things out in the past before buying, as there's no substitute for using equipment 'in the field' to see how it performs in conditions you're familiar with. I've never shot sports before so can't say how it will perform, though my 200-500 copes well with small and unpredictable birds in flight. I was able to compare the 200-500 with the 300mm/1.4x combo today and got noticeably sharper shots at identical settings - mostly down to the VR I think. I tried the 1.4x teleconverter on the 200-500 and it was terrible - maybe ok on a really bright day, but better for me to crop in afterwards for decent results.
Click to expand...
Hi John,thanks for your comparison,so the 200-500 with no tc you find best way to go and crop after if needs be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top