Nikkor 200-500?

SsSsSsSsSnake said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hi, it suits me better to crop in - I'm often shooting unpredictable animals in lower light and don't want to hinder myself with having to start at f8. If I ever had the money I'd love a 500 or 600mm f4, but until that happens I have no regrets with the versatility of the 200-500mm :)
 
I recently took the plunge and went with a 200-500 over the Sigma 150-600 sport simply due to the weight difference and the fact I mainly hand hold on long hikes. I have to say however that I feel the Sigma Sport had a slight edge on sharpness. I have not run it through its paces yet, but I am off to Costa Rica Thursday for 2.5 weeks and will post up my shots when I get back.:)
 
Well i've just taken the plunge too, and gone for the nikon after reading too many reviews.
I think there will be good and slightly not so good copies of all of them, that's a fingers crossed thing. Too many reviews and technical controlled testings with not totally decisive outcomes.
I've not tried any of them personally, but the 200-500 won my choice because of weight and predicted ease of use. If it gets close to or as good as my 300af-s with 1.7 i'll be happy and hoping the zoom and VR will mean it will beat that combo.
Just got to wait for the postman now. Looking forward to posting some pics on this thread soon.
 
Unless you know it's going to get sprayed with grit or such, you don't need one.
Think about it, birders have been using their 'scopes in varied inhospitable environments for years, like me, without the need for a filter on them or binocular.
 
Yes, I'm thinking that, as long as the hood doesn't fall off when walking through some brambles, is the hood as bad as some of the reviews state?
 
idigitize said:
Yes, I'm thinking that, as long as the hood doesn't fall off when walking through some brambles, is the hood as bad as some of the reviews state?
Click to expand...
In my case the hood fell off the first time I used it fortunately I was able to find it approximately half a mile back up the path I had just walked down ended up using sticky tape to keep it in place, you shouldn't have to do that on a £1000 lens, maybe I was just unlucky and had a bad example but I thought the build quality was poor, here was nothing wrong with the image quality but I sold it and bought a Sigma 150-600 sport instead and I am very happy with this the only downside is the weight everything else is better in my opinion.
 
I must be honest and say that I gaffer tape hoods on anyway as I've lost too many.
 
Not used mine much, but i thought the hood snaps in place very securely, and my lens was 2nd hand when i bought it, so already had some prior use
 
rpsmith79 said:
Not used mine much, but i thought the hood snaps in place very securely, and my lens was 2nd hand when i bought it, so already had some prior use
Click to expand...

Yes, I wonder whether people realise it's a snap fit? I was a bit wary until I got my hands on one but have had no problems.

Watch this--next trip it will be down an open mine shaft. :)
 
Last edited:
How the hell does a lens hood blow off, all lens hoods on any lens i have ever owned snap into place, no way these would blow off

Oh, and that's 10 mins of my life i won't ever get back :confused:
 
The 200-500mm hood does snap into place but the snap isn't as positive as I would like. Having said that, mine hasn't fallen off so far. I'm surprised at the report of the Sigma Sport being as good/better. I suspect that some micro-adjustment might have helped the Nikon lens. Mine benefits significantly from a +7 tweak on my D500 with a similar adjustment with the TC14-III.
 
Considering one of these lenses, anyone own this that previously had a Tamron or Sigma 150-600 ?
 
idigitize said:
Great shot, love landscapes at longer focal lengths, nice conversion - there is a lot going on in this scene!
Click to expand...

Thanks

Trying to stay vertical was one, for sure! I love the isolation you can achieve- people don't necessarily get the idea of Telephotos for a Landscape.
 
Well, I've just taken delivery of one of these - seems a very nice piece of kit. Going to be using it with a D750 and Nikon 1 V1/FT1. Now all I need is for it to stop bloody raining when I'm out of work so I can give it a proper go! To add insult to injury it seems to be sunny most of time when I'm in work! :banghead:
 
Very tempted by this lens to replace my 70-300mm vr, also looking at the Sigma 150-600 sport. Which seems to trump this lens on reviews.

They don't make it easy for you!
 
White230 said:
Very tempted by this lens to replace my 70-300mm vr, also looking at the Sigma 150-600 sport. Which seems to trump this lens on reviews.

They don't make it easy for you!
Click to expand...

I replaced a 70-300 VR with the 200-500 after spending months trying to decide what to do. Well, in actual fact I've still got the 70-300, but it hasn't left the house for months.. I always found the 70-300 to be pretty soft at the long end and I was really struggling for reach on FX, but the 200-500 is much better all round IMHO. I also find it works well with a 1.4x teleconverter in good light. I find it to be sharp wide open. It does take some getting used to though being a lot heavier. My technique needed some work moving to a much longer/heavier lens (about 3x the weight of the 70-300) and I'm now using support with it a lot of the time, but having had the 200-500 for a couple of months I'm getting shots that I'd have no chance of (me) achieving with the 70-300 so I'm very happy.

I had a look at the Sigma 150-600 Sport, but thought it was far too heavy. The 200-500 was borderline for me weight-wise, but it's not so bad once you get into using it... It only goes out for dedicated wildlife shooting trips though, it stays at home for family days out due to weight/bulk. I'd say the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary is also worth a look if you don't need the weather sealing/heavy duty build of the Sport.
 
White230 said:
Very tempted by this lens to replace my 70-300mm vr, also looking at the Sigma 150-600 sport. Which seems to trump this lens on reviews.

They don't make it easy for you!
Click to expand...

Sigma nearly 1kg heavier, which could be an issue. I see Lenses For Hire do the 150-600 Sport so you could maybe try one out for a few days?

John
 
Some from the 200-500mm on a rented D500
Otters, Shetland, Nikon D500, Nikon 200-500mm by John Moncrieff, on Flickr

100% crop of the above pic..
Otters, Shetland, Nikon D500, Nikon 200-500mm by John Moncrieff, on Flickr

And one from my own D500
Rabbit, Sumburgh Head by John Moncrieff, on Flickr

I tried a few birds in flight last night - I do wish there was less turning required to zoom in and out, as for fast approaching Puffins it was a bit difficult to keep a steady hold. Other than that I am still pleased with it - unless I'm walking 6 miles for Otters, lol :)
 
Always love to see the otters. John how was the 200-500 on the D500? I'm currently shooting with a D800, but keep thinking about getting a D500 for wildlife.
 
SAuchterlonie said:
Always love to see the otters. John how was the 200-500 on the D500? I'm currently shooting with a D800, but keep thinking about getting a D500 for wildlife.
Click to expand...

I'd forgot how much closer things appear in the viewfinder on a DX body, so I quite like the extra reach. I've compared a few shots side by side with both bodies on the same subject and I really can't see any negatives.

This is a D800E shot
35212029212_9241ced5d4_o.jpg

And a D500 one, both at ISO1600, f5.6 of the same Otter a few minutes apart.
34537818463_0dae05c177_o.jpg

And a D500 one at 12800
View attachment 105320

I'm planning to sell my D800E, mainly due to the shutter noise, and the autofocus, but the extra FPS of the D500 is handy too. (friend from working borrowing the D800 for a boat trip today, so I do hope she's got the strap around her neck!)
 
Recently acquired a 200-500 with the intention of doing some wildlife photography, just messing around with it in the garden - no birds to practice on, so a static subject had to suffice.

Have to say I'm impressed with the sharpness of this lens particularly as it was handheld.

Rose by Iain Buchanan, on Flickr
 
crieffy said:
I'd forgot how much closer things appear in the viewfinder on a DX body, so I quite like the extra reach. I've compared a few shots side by side with both bodies on the same subject and I really can't see any negatives.

This is a D800E shot
View attachment 105317

And a D500 one, both at ISO1600, f5.6 of the same Otter a few minutes apart.
View attachment 105318

And a D500 one at 12800
View attachment 105320

I'm planning to sell my D800E, mainly due to the shutter noise, and the autofocus, but the extra FPS of the D500 is handy too. (friend from working borrowing the D800 for a boat trip today, so I do hope she's got the strap around her neck!)
Click to expand...


Thanks for the info John. Do you find that the AF on the D500 improves the AF on the 200-500? I just find sometimes that the D800 200-500 struggles in certain conditions.
 
SAuchterlonie said:
Thanks for the info John. Do you find that the AF on the D500 improves the AF on the 200-500? I just find sometimes that the D800 200-500 struggles in certain conditions.
Click to expand...

Not had it very long, but I feel it's better - certainly for birds in flight. And it had no trouble on Otters moving around in shadow just before sunset.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top