Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 200-500 f/5.6E ED VR is Shipping in Asia

Go to last post
It is a big lens! Compared it to the 150-500 Sigma I used to own it's Sigma 1780g vs Nikon at 2300g. Length is Sigma 252mm vs Nikon at 268mm.

So it's a lens you need a purpose in mind to put on the body. I've got the 80-400AFS and I can carry that in my camera bag and use it like a general purpose lens. Just couldn't do that with the Sigma 150-500, and the 200-500 will be even worse. Most of the reason I sold the Sigma right there.

I was shooting yesterday with the D4 and 500f4VR and TC1.4III and even with a D4, I wouldn't want to be shooting an f5.6 lens in anything but the best of light.

And continuing to be pessimistic :) my main issue with the Sigma 150-500 was that 500 was always too short. I got good IQ from my copy both on the ( then ) D800 and the D4. The D4 autofocused it very well in good light.

So certainly some compromises. If I were looking for one, I'd want for it to be out for awhile and see some impressions from owners on here before plunking down any cash.
 
I'd rather have 80 on the wide end and lose 100 on the long end than have 500mm reach and only get 200 on the short end. That kind of corners this 200-500 as a birding-only lens. And let's be honest, do we really want more bird pictures on the internet? But that's besides the point. What I'm saying is that the 80-400 will be more useful *for me*.
 
xtm said:
I'd rather have 80 on the wide end and lose 100 on the long end than have 500mm reach and only get 200 on the short end. That kind of corners this 200-500 as a birding-only lens. And let's be honest, do we really want more bird pictures on the internet? But that's besides the point. What I'm saying is that the 80-400 will be more useful *for me*.
Click to expand...
Bill, +1 :-)

I have wondered from time-to-time whether folks just getting into photography naturally gravitate towards bird pictures, when otherwise, the only interest they have in birds is Thanksgiving Dinner!

My nephew, for example, (age-15), constantly emails me his "bird pics", but I don't recall him being much interested in birds prior to his interest in photography. He does shoot lots of other subjects, (and is a budding photographer!) but there just seems to be something magnetic about birds and folks with cameras.

That said, some people are truly "into" birds and can name obscure species by their latin names! Not me so much, but I did put a bird feeder out back once. (And got some awesome photos!) But honestly, that was more in response to my (3rd and favorite) dachshund passing away after a long happy life. I just couldn't bring myself to rush out and get a new puppy right away, so I put the bird feeder up instead, for about a year, sort of as "surrogate" pets.

Would I have done that just for the bird pics? Probably not.

Disclaimer: There was the time about the Sandhill Crane, but that's an outlier story. IMO.
 
Anduril said:
xtm said:
I'd rather have 80 on the wide end and lose 100 on the long end than have 500mm reach and only get 200 on the short end. That kind of corners this 200-500 as a birding-only lens. And let's be honest, do we really want more bird pictures on the internet? But that's besides the point. What I'm saying is that the 80-400 will be more useful *for me*.
Click to expand...
Bill, +1 :-)

I have wondered from time-to-time whether folks just getting into photography naturally gravitate towards bird pictures, when otherwise, the only interest they have in birds is Thanksgiving Dinner!

My nephew, for example, (age-15), constantly emails me his "bird pics", but I don't recall him being much interested in birds prior to his interest in photography. He does shoot lots of other subjects, (and is a budding photographer!) but there just seems to be something magnetic about birds and folks with cameras.

That said, some people are truly "into" birds and can name obscure species by their latin names! Not me so much, but I did put a bird feeder out back once. (And got some awesome photos!) But honestly, that was more in response to my (3rd and favorite) dachshund passing away after a long happy life. I just couldn't bring myself to rush out and get a new puppy right away, so I put the bird feeder up instead, for about a year, sort of as "surrogate" pets.

Would I have done that just for the bird pics? Probably not.

Disclaimer: There was the time about the Sandhill Crane, but that's an outlier story. IMO.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's unfortunate that they don't gravitate towards taking pictures of waterfalls with long shutter speeds. Or even ocean scenes with long shutter speeds. Both relatively untouched areas of photography.
 

Loading…

www.facebook.com

Another set of photos (Facebook) of the 200-500 f/5.6E in the wild...if you can call a Nikon camera store in Singapore, "the wild."
 

Loading…

www.facebook.com

And another sample photo. Edwin Giesbers is a professional nature and wildlife photographer who was hired by Nikon Japan to shoot with the 200-500 f/5.6E for the promotional campaign. I would assume he is embargoed from commenting in detail about the lens for at least some period of time. However, in reply to a comment in the above thread asking about sharpness, wide open at 500mm, Giesbers replied, "What can I say? very sharp :)"
 
Earlier today, the 200-500 f/5.6E owner posted a photo comparison featuring that lens mounted to a Nikon D4s and an "old" Canon 400mm f/5.6L USM mounted to a Canon 1DX. The test subject was a box of Zeiss lens wipes, which was set up on a tripod. Both lenses were set to 400mm, f/5.6. Both cameras were set to ISO 800, 1/50-second. with no flash and no exposure compensation.

Here's a link to the page where the images can be viewed. Click on an image to open full-size in a new window and to inspect the image properties:

Loading…

www.mobile01.com
 
Bill Ferris said:
Earlier today, the 200-500 f/5.6E owner posted a photo comparison featuring that lens mounted to a Nikon D4s and an "old" Canon 400mm f/5.6L USM mounted to a Canon 1DX. The test subject was a box of Zeiss lens wipes, which was set up on a tripod. Both lenses were set to 400mm, f/5.6. Both cameras were set to ISO 800, 1/50-second. with no flash and no exposure compensation.

Here's a link to the page where the images can be viewed. Click on an image to open full-size in a new window and to inspect the image properties:

http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=248&t=4525712&p=5
Click to expand...
 
It is difficult to compare across systems especially when you are dealing with different JPG engines. One thing is obvious though. The Canon 400 f5.6 actually has a narrower FOV of the image even through the Nikon is shooting at 500mm. This is a big advantage for primes over zooms.

--
My Flickr Birds
 
Last edited:
SHood said:
It is difficult to compare across systems especially when you are dealing with different JPG engines. One thing is obvious though. The Canon 400 f5.6 actually has a narrower FOV of the image even through the Nikon is shooting at 500mm. This is a big advantage for primes over zooms.

--
My Flickr Birds
Click to expand...
Eh? A 500mm will always have a narrower field of view than a 400mm... doesn't matter what brand, jpeg engine... sensor... whether zoom or prime...

Even "apparent FOV" will be narrower on a longer focal length if sensor size is the same...

How do you think prime 400mm can have a narrower FOV than a zoom 500mm?
 
Last edited:
If you click on the comparison images, you'll be able to view them at full size and check the image properties. Both the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6E and the Canon 400 f/5.6L lenses were used at 400mm f/5.6 for the test shots. The Nikon D4s and Canon 1DX bodies were set to ISO 800, 1/50-second, with no exposure compensation and no VR. (The older Canon lens has no IS.) Assuming the Canon lens performs as a true 400mm, the Nikon may have exhibited a touch of focus breathing, which would explain its image being slightly smaller in scale than the photo made with the Canon.
jambalawa said:
SHood said:
It is difficult to compare across systems especially when you are dealing with different JPG engines. One thing is obvious though. The Canon 400 f5.6 actually has a narrower FOV of the image even through the Nikon is shooting at 500mm. This is a big advantage for primes over zooms.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
jambalawa said:
SHood said:
It is difficult to compare across systems especially when you are dealing with different JPG engines. One thing is obvious though. The Canon 400 f5.6 actually has a narrower FOV of the image even through the Nikon is shooting at 500mm. This is a big advantage for primes over zooms.

--
My Flickr Birds
Click to expand...
Eh? A 500mm will always have a narrower field of view than a 400mm... doesn't matter what brand, jpeg engine... sensor... whether zoom or prime...

Even "apparent FOV" will be narrower on a longer focal length if sensor size is the same...

How do you think prime 400mm can have a narrower FOV than a zoom 500mm?
Click to expand...
Focus breathing, which is a much bigger problem with zoom lenses than with primes. Basically the focal length of a lens is rated at infinity focus (and even then it tends to be cheated a bit, for example a true focal length of 190mm gets rounded up to 200mm). In order to allow for closer focus many lenses expand their fov as they focus closer. Of course for bird photography you may not be focusing that closely to be a huge issue and the advantage of closer focus is often welcome. Primes have less complicated designs and usually maintain much closer to their specified range throughout their focus throw.

That being said I cannot tell anything about the setup. The images posted are cropped so its hard to say for sure if indeed the fov is smaller on the 200-500 @ 500 than on the Canon 400. That would be a huge disappointment though if true.
 
Glen78 wrote:

[snip]
Glen78 said:
That being said I cannot tell anything about the setup. The images posted are cropped so its hard to say for sure if indeed the fov is smaller on the 200-500 @ 500 than on the Canon 400. That would be a huge disappointment though if true.
Click to expand...
Both lenses were set to 400mm, f/5.6 for the test shots of the Zeiss lens wipes box.
 
I apologize for any impression that I might be hijacking the thread, but--the early test photos plus the incomprehensiblly translated review linked via Nikon Rumors makes me wonder how seriously one might be about using this lens with a 1.4x teleconverter. The latest Nikon TC 14III is quite good I gather, and having the option of shooting at up to 700mm at F8 (at least in decent light) seems alluring, provided the quality of the images does not diminish unduly.

I have always been prejudiced against the use of teleconverters with zooms, but I do recognize that when really high quality zooms are used with well-matched tc's, the results can be quite good. However, we are talking here a zoom that conceivably might not stand up to additional glass as well as the really premium zooms.

But clearly I have no basis for believing one way or another. Like everyone, I await the reports from users. I should beware of being too eager to spend another $500 on top of the $1400 already committed.

--Doug
 

Loading…

blog.iamnikon.com

Formula 1 photographer Mark Sutton test drove the 200-500 f/5.6E lens during a practice day at the Belgian Grand Prix. Nikon Europe shared his sample photos and comments in the above blog post.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the links, Bill (BTW your own link is missing an "l").

Fast AF tracking, it does sound more and more interesting...

Markus
 
Thanks for posting the link, Bill. I'm guessing this trickle of images will gain speed in the next few days. I hope that means the lens will ship on schedule. I too pre-ordered on August 4.
--
greglepper.zenfolio.com
 
Glen78 said:
[snip]
Bill Ferris said:
That being said I cannot tell anything about the setup. The images posted are cropped so its hard to say for sure if indeed the fov is smaller on the 200-500 @ 500 than on the Canon 400. That would be a huge disappointment though if true.
Click to expand...
Both lenses were set to 400mm, f/5.6 for the test shots of the Zeiss lens wipes box.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top