Nikon 200-500 or 300mm F4 & 1.4TC

N

NIKOND500

Suspended / Banned
Messages
24
Name
Oliver
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I’m hoping for help on this one..

I’ve read fantastic reviews on the F5.6 200-500 and I am considering buying one.

However I already own the Nikon 300mm F4 which is incredible, but looses a little quality when the 1.4TC is added for a little more reach..

Has anyone used both set ups and advise me if the upgrade is worth it or will I get similar results with the 200-500 as I am now..

Regards
 
What will you be using it to photograph?
 
NIKOND500 said:
Has anyone used both set ups and advise me if the upgrade is worth it or will I get similar results with the 200-500 as I am now..

Regards
Click to expand...
I have both these lenses and 1.4TC.

I haven't made any direct comparisons. And in practice there are so many things that affect performance that I find it hard to draw any conclusions about image quality.

However, the extra reach at the 500mm end seems to make a bigger difference than the the numbers suggest. But I find the 200-500 very unwieldily compared to the 300mm +1.4TC, The zoom needs a lot of turning to get through the focal lengths and the balance changes as you zoom. Even on a tripod, I don't enjoy using it, but I still use it far more often than the 300mm as it's now my go to lens.

The 300mm with or without the 1.4 is a bit of a dream to handle in comparison. The 200-500mm is noticeable slower to focus than the 300mm, even compared to the slight slowing down you see with the 300+1.4. I failed entirely to grab some very erratic flying house martins with the 200-500, where as the 300mm (even with the 1.4) was able to grab AF during the short time I managed to the get a bird into the AF area. All on a D500.

I find having both useful, and I wouldn't like to be without either now, as they both offer something very different. But if I had the money, I would switch the 200-500 for a 500mm pf in an instant.

There is a direct comparison here, if you haven't already seen it.

backcountrygallery.com

Nikon 200-500 vs 300PF Review And Comparison - Backcountry Gallery

So, if you landed on this page you’re probably interested in the Nikon 200-500 OR the Nikon 300PF OR maybe just can’t decide which one is the best choice. Well, you’ve come to the right place. In the video below, I go over the two lenses in all kinds of detail, comparing and reviewing them […]
backcountrygallery.com
 
Bird photography, thanks for that link. Mines not the PF but I’m sure it will be similar results..
 
NIKOND500 said:
Bird photography, thanks for that link. Mines not the PF but I’m sure it will be similar results..
Click to expand...
I jumped from the 300mm IFED AI lens (manual focus) with the 14TC to the 300mm F4 pf with 1.4TC, so have no idea how the non pf AF lenses compare. But the 300mm pf is a tiny and lightweight lens so I suspect there won't be as big difference in handling between your lens and the 200-500 as there is between my two lenses.
 
NIKOND500 said:
Bird photography
Click to expand...
Reach is (almost) key to bird photography, you will never have enough.
The 200-500 + 1.4 TC (newest) gives you usable 700mm for birds that are not too fast, static birds very usable.
At 500mm f5.6 it is a sharp lens and works well (at least my copy did)...

https://flic.kr/p/2iqAujq
View: https://flic.kr/p/2iqAujq


https://flic.kr/p/2iDRPii
View: https://flic.kr/p/2iDRPii


https://flic.kr/p/2iez1yy

https://flic.kr/p/2iqAuBj

https://flic.kr/p/2fRDbXP

https://flic.kr/p/25jnS3H
 
Thank you for taking the time to reply.. myotis it’s interesting you have a place for both lenses, I’m holding back buying the 200-500 as don’t want two lenses that do very similar things.
It’s a hame there’s no definitive image difference, but as you say so much affects the outcome. Often I find getting closer being the biggest factor.
Gramps some fantastic images on flicker at 500mm, is certainly pushing me towards biting the bullet and spending the money.. The 500pf is well out of my reach price wise..
I’ve looked as so many reviews on you tube on the lens, but it is difficult to separate the almost Nikon advertisement videos from genuine reviews..

Regards
 
NIKOND500 said:
Thank you for taking the time to reply.. myotis it’s interesting you have a place for both lenses, I’m holding back buying the 200-500 as don’t want two lenses that do very similar things.
It’s a hame there’s no definitive image difference, but as you say so much affects the outcome. Often I find getting closer being the biggest factor.
Gramps some fantastic images on flicker at 500mm, is certainly pushing me towards biting the bullet and spending the money.. The 500pf is well out of my reach price wise..
I’ve looked as so many reviews on you tube on the lens, but it is difficult to separate the almost Nikon advertisement videos from genuine reviews..

Regards
Click to expand...
If I could only have one lens it would be the 200mm-500mm. There are a lot of people getting very good images with the 200-500mm, and I'm not sure it matters if the 300mm prime is a bit better. The main reasons I revert back to the 300mm prime lens is size and handling and if you are happy with the 200-500mm handling, as a bird photographer it’s a far more versatile lens than the 300mm. I now only use my 300mm for fast erratic bird flight, flower and insect close-ups, and as a more casual carry, when I'm not out taking bird photographs, but want a longer lens just in case.

As you say, getting closer, so you minimise the atmosphere you need to punch through, and maximise the image size in the frame is the key to good technical quality; more so than the specific lens.
 
Hi, when I had a similar decision to make (200-500mm v 300Pf & 1.4TC), I looked at my previous photos, particularly the ones I wanted to keep and went through the actual range I was shooting over, and was very surprised to find out that I rarely shot below 400mm, which may be because I'm no good at getting close enough to my subjects (lol), So as the 200-500mm is quite a heavy lens, I opted for the prime, and actually went for the 500mm PF instead. I know that's a lot more expensive, but hopefully you may find the exercise useful (if you don't already know) . regards .. Scott
 
I regularly meet others photographers when out shooting wildlife and there seems to be a 50/50 split between the Sigma 150-600 and the Nikon 200-500. Opinions seem to be mixed between the better image quality of the Nikon and/or the extra reach of the Sigma. Then there are the few of us using the 500PF all of whom agree the weight, speed of focus and ease of use HH is worth the extra £££ (assuming your budget allows).
For health reasons I have just purchased the 300PF (damaged neck) and I am looking forward to using it in anger. I suspect I will want to try with the 1.4TC as I cannot carry both lenses.
Personally I have found other photographers very helpful with advice and often a chance to use their lens for a few shots, otherwise IMHO a visit to a local Photographic shop to try the various options is the best approach. People told me how good the 500PF was, but until I actually got to handle and fire off a few shots I was unsure, now I am a convert to Prime PF lenses.
PS I am now getting shots with the PF that I missed with the heavier zoom
 
From what I gather you have the version prior to the PF. A very able lens, I can confirm from my experience, but once I got the 200-500/5.6 it became redundant in my camera bag, so off to MPB it went.

I know a lot of people who swear by their 300PFs, optically and the fact it is so compact. But I cannot comment on how it compared with the 200-500.

Much also depends which version of the 1.4x you have as well. I have the Mark 2 - it's great but better suited in my opinion to fitting onto primes.... Apparently the Mark 3 is on a different level optically, and price-wise....
 
Compuwight said:
I regularly meet others photographers when out shooting wildlife and there seems to be a 50/50 split between the Sigma 150-600 and the Nikon 200-500. Opinions seem to be mixed between the better image quality of the Nikon and/or the extra reach of the Sigma. Then there are the few of us using the 500PF all of whom agree the weight, speed of focus and ease of use HH is worth the extra £££ (assuming your budget allows).
Click to expand...

Sigmas are the supreme Social distancing lens. My OH had the contemporary briefly, great when we tried it in the shop but in the field we both struggled with it (this was in Costa Rica). Got PX-ed as soon as we got back home - fast forward to today she has the RF100-500 which she is very happy with... I did own the 150-500 in PK fit - very unwieldy although optically good - but once extended you tend to scalp people nearby.... Moral of the story, borrow the Sigma before committing to buy. Never had any issues with handling on the 200-500 (not tried TC on it - as whenever I need it it tends to be where light is at a premium and ISOs shoot up).
 
welshwizard645 said:
From what I gather you have the version prior to the PF. A very able lens, I can confirm from my experience, but once I got the 200-500/5.6 it became redundant in my camera bag, so off to MPB it went.

I know a lot of people who swear by their 300PFs, optically and the fact it is so compact. But I cannot comment on how it compared with the 200-500.

Much also depends which version of the 1.4x you have as well. I have the Mark 2 - it's great but better suited in my opinion to fitting onto primes.... Apparently the Mark 3 is on a different level optically, and price-wise....
Click to expand...
I have the Nikon f4 AFS 300 D IF-ED, which as incredible lens. I just think the 200-500 will give me more reach without the hassle of adding and removing the 1.4TC. Coupled with the image stabilisation could make for better images. It’s just parting with the money that hurts.. I’d love the 500pf but there is no way I will be able to get that passed the wife..
 
Go for the 200-500, as it is a great value lens for the money (especially second hand). However, it does not suit use with any converter, if you want to maintain sharpness

Of course, like us all, you will suffer from 'GAS' and soon want a 500f4

The 500 PF is also a fine lens and easier to hold, but for wildlife, I find the extra stop of light invaluable on my 'old' 500 f4......especially when used with a 1.4 converter!

.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the advice, I bought the 200-500 and as suggested it’s an incredible lens for the money. I’ve not managed to do lots of testing, but very happy with the initial images. As is often the case, closeness to subject as the main factor that improves the picture quality in my experience. The VR is brilliant and the only drawback I can see is it’s size & weight. Both considerably higher than the 300 &. 1.4TC..
 
I’ve not yet, I usually get a newspaper or something with fine text at a shallow angle & check the point of AF is in the correct place for the lens once it’s on a tripod. It’s on my list
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top