200-500 and 200-400 moving forward, e.g., Z.

Started Aug 17, 2019 | Discussions thread
olindacat
OP olindacat Regular Member • Posts: 456
Re: 200-500 and 200-400 moving forward, e.g., Z.

owlseye wrote:

y lens than the 200-400VR when comparing equal focal lengths at equal apertures. The 200-400's focus acuity diminishes when photographing very distant (50 meters +) subjects.

I read these remarks elsewhere on this site, as well as on Fred Miranda's forum. Some said they could never spot tune the 200-400 and gave up, others didn't have that problem, or were able to fix it. I guess these long zooms are all hit or miss to a degree. I have owned the VR1 70-200 f/2.8 so know the build, and value it. Once fell off a golf cart roof and tore the mount right out of my D800E! Lens lived!

This flaw is reduced significantly when I use my lens with a Z6.

I have been asking F shooters about future proofing in an effort to allude to the Z series, inadvertently. I get these sense they are on the fence about the Zs. Ive taken hits with being an early adopter but so see those lower prices. Seems new tech, read the Z7 is a lot like a D850, but not quite. I am glad the Z6 bumps up the usability of the lens. I am right about to pull the trigger on one. Maybe tonight!

When photographing subjects within 25 meters or so, the lens is prime sharp by f4.5 to f5

Wow. That's nice to know. I used the 300 f/2.8 for years. Also shot both 400 and 500s.

he 200-400mm F/4 you are looking at has VR 1... good for 2 stops on an FX camera and 1 stop on a DX camera. I rarely shoot mine handheld.

I had the VR1 on the 70-200 and didn't think much of it. I rented the F FL copy and also didn't get the benefit of the VR, but that was my shooting priorities and not th lens. I'm sure that isa fine lens. I don't need VR, so that's okay.

Attached are similar images shot at the same time w/ each lens.

I had a typo in my response "The 200-400VR is definitely a sharper and more contrasty lens than the 200-400VR when comparing equal focal lengths at equal apertures."

I wanted to say that the 200-400VR is sharper and more contrasty than the 200-500VR... this is an important point! Also, if it was not clear... if I had to choose one... (especially if I did not have the 500PFE), I'd choose the 200-400.

That is very helpful to know. Do you value the added reach of the 200-500? I've read some use the TCs with success with the 200-400, or simply attach it to a D500 and are happy.

Thanks for the help!

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow