Home Photography Corner

A few shots from my new Nikkor 200-500 5.6

I had been using the "older" 80-400mm Nikkor lens and just wasn't happy with the results when shooting at 400. I had been reading some good reviews on the 200-500 and decided to go for it. These were all handheld at 500 and they seem much better than the results I was getting from the old 80-400. Very fast focusing in good light.

Replies

  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    pretty sharp images...
    I imagine Nikon may have moved the "sweet spot" towards the long end of the tele...
    with 600mm at the top, I would think that Nikon is probably looking at wild life shooters for this lens and most of the shooting will be from 300mm up...

    the two long canon ef-l 100-400 is usm and the f4 ef-l 70-200 is usm that I have are both sharper at the long end...
    it's kind of hard to tell with these two lenses but there is a very, very fine difference...

    tim
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,415 AG
    pretty sharp images...
    I imagine Nikon may have moved the "sweet spot" towards the long end of the tele...
    with 600mm at the top, I would think that Nikon is probably looking at wild life shooters for this lens and most of the shooting will be from 300mm up...

    Tim, your observations are exactly correct.

    I know three people who have traded their third party consumer wildlife zooms for this lens. I have used one of the three for testing as a BIF lens. Electrodog's images confirm my own ideas. Nikkor did an excellent job with this lens.

    Today, it is possible to trade aperture for ISO. Two generations of cameras ago, that was not really possible.

    A modern body, that has good high ISO control and this lens is all the average African safari, or American safari (Tetons and Jellystone) would need.

    I have been told this lens is hurting the 200-400 f/4 and the current version of the 80-400 Nikkor sales.

    If I have one complaint with this lens it is as follows. I think Nikkor went a bit cheap with the build quality. Nikkor obviously built to a price point to compete with the third party providers. However, I think if the build quality were a bit higher, and this somewhat of an increase in price, I don't think it would have hurt the rice really.

    BTW, you are correct about the older version of the 80-400. It sucks.
  • haydenfox!#$haydenfox!#$ Posts: 2,406 Captain
    Are these touched at all?
  • electrodogelectrodog Posts: 151 Deckhand
    Tim, your observations are exactly correct.

    I know three people who have traded their third party consumer wildlife zooms for this lens. I have used one of the three for testing as a BIF lens. Electrodog's images confirm my own ideas. Nikkor did an excellent job with this lens.

    Today, it is possible to trade aperture for ISO. Two generations of cameras ago, that was not really possible.

    A modern body, that has good high ISO control and this lens is all the average African safari, or American safari (Tetons and Jellystone) would need.

    I have been told this lens is hurting the 200-400 f/4 and the current version of the 80-400 Nikkor sales.

    If I have one complaint with this lens it is as follows. I think Nikkor went a bit cheap with the build quality. Nikkor obviously built to a price point to compete with the third party providers. However, I think if the build quality were a bit higher, and this somewhat of an increase in price, I don't think it would have hurt the rice really.

    BTW, you are correct about the older version of the 80-400. It sucks.

    I agree completely on the build quality. It almost seems like there is a slight "play" in the lens when mounted. The soft case that comes with it offers little to no protection. For the price I am happy with it.
  • electrodogelectrodog Posts: 151 Deckhand
    Are these touched at all?

    Yes, I shoot in RAW, import to Aperture and adjust to my liking.
  • mississippi macmississippi mac Posts: 4,222 Captain
    Craig,
    I would like to try the tamron 200-600 IS glass to see what it will really do...
    a 600mm canon EF-L IS USM would break the bank...

    tim
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The Real White Dog

    if you can't catch a fish...catch a buzz....
    #12976, joined 8-17-2002
  • Stetson LawStetson Law Posts: 489 Deckhand
  • electrodogelectrodog Posts: 151 Deckhand
    I think you will be very happy with the purchase. If you are moving from the 80-400 like I did you will be ecstatic!
  • Cane PoleCane Pole Stuart, FLAPosts: 9,907 Admiral
    I'm not a bird man, but that looks like a great lens for the Sailfish Regatta May 21-22, which I shoot for them very year. I've been using a 500mm mirror lens for some shots, actually not too bad.

    First I have to get the new 24-70 VR lens though. $2300 ouch!!

    10504876_1580485425531622_7263896548408784810_o.jpg

    10838041_1580172515562913_2187326254126082322_o.jpg

    10974423_1580127715567393_4550580698346930009_o.jpg
    Live music 7 nights a week: http://www.terrafermata.com/_events
  • Stetson LawStetson Law Posts: 489 Deckhand
    What tripod head would you guys recommend for this lens on a D7200?
  • ChuckcChuckc Posts: 4,398 Captain
    Cane Pole wrote: »
    I'm not a bird man, but that looks like a great lens for the Sailfish Regatta May 21-22, which I shoot for them very year. I've been using a 500mm mirror lens for some shots, actually not too bad.

    First I have to get the new 24-70 VR lens though. $2300 ouch!!

    10504876_1580485425531622_7263896548408784810_o.jpg

    10838041_1580172515562913_2187326254126082322_o.jpg

    10974423_1580127715567393_4550580698346930009_o.jpg

    I missed the part where you indicated you used a mirror lens for those shots but I do now see the tell-tale circular bokeh artifacts. They are surprisingly (to me any way) good looking shots. Is yours a Nikkor mirror?
Sign In or Register to comment.