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:

If you look at the EXIF on the pictures, one was shot at 400mm (that was by me) and the other was shot at 500mm (by my wife). I was using the 2 to 4 and she was using the 2 to 5. Both are sharp, but my photo exhibits better micro-contrast. Note, I did the post work on both images and processed them in the same way.

I looked at your website and can see you have spent a lot of time trying to evaluable these two lenses, as well as comparing to your 500, Bruce. Very thoughtful and well done!

Does that little owl visit you often? I looks like you have some kind of bone or stick on your fence to get it to come and visit you! Really cool. I love owls, and once saw one in peril on the street, on Maui of all places. It actually let me pick it up! I put in my back seat and brought it straight to a veterinarian. She took it (the owl) in and told me it would be okay. I never followed up, but think it might have hurt it's leg.

In any event, my post is because I have a line on a 200-400 for 1700. It is a goof VR1 (looking in photos, I wouldn't know until I had in my hands and sow what it does), and for what, 1200 used can get the 200-500. Been reading all I can on both and what gets me is why you and your wife aren't both shooting the 200-500?

I have to think you can afford two 200-500s, so the 200-400 must be worth hauling and keeping and using, and micro contrast I must confess is not a term I use often, and will look it up, but imagine (having adjust contrast in PS for 20 years) it has to do with contrast :-), and that is often important... there must be value there.

Thom, in his long review, http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-200-400mm-f4g-af-s.html doesn't sound extremely enthusiastic about this. lens, and it is not dated, so I'm not sure if this 200-500 (in his mind, which I imagine is pretty informed) eclipses the 200-400, or not!

He leads me to believe 30-yards and in are ideal. The focus motor is faster and AF better as it lets in more light.

If you are shooting far away birds, the 200-400 loses umph when it is trying to get farther that 100 yards away things, right?

The 200-500 I read is good 200-300, edges lose acuity at 500, but in focus at 500. Is the 200-500 more versatile and giving you as good quality? It must be if you are using it, or so I imagine.

Really have to think the older 200-400 isn't as new as the 200-500, and weather sealing aside (I read in your site how it has managed to survive the elements), tank build, and micro-contrast, speedy motor, am I going up the vp the valuable 100mm of added reach for a sharper edge?

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