How to handle this massive 200-500?

I had the 50-500mm (non-VR version), and the 200-500mm has noticeably better IQ. AF speed is about the same though (never did a head-to-head).

The Sigma is great for when you need to zoom out (eg during a Blue Angels show), but I wouldn't go back to it.

SoCalEsq said:

armin304 said:

I got myself a Lowepro LP36307 for storage and transport, when I don't want to use one of the backpacks. Ok, the 200-500 is a little bit bigger and heavier than the old Sigma 50-500 I have replaced with it, but not by much. I use my Z6 without any strap and haven't mounted a strap to the lens yet, so I just carry the camera at the lens, when it's not in the bag.

Click to expand...

How do you compare the 200-500 to the Sigma. I currently have the 50-500 but its not my favorite.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

You need a new camera bad, preferably a backpack.

That is how I carry my 200-500. If I am actively photographing birds, the lens is in my hands or on a tripod. A tripod is nice because you can set the lens-camera-tripod down any time you want and the weight is off your hands.



200-500 yesterday:

SoCalEsq said:

armin304 said:

I got myself a Lowepro LP36307 for storage and transport, when I don't want to use one of the backpacks. Ok, the 200-500 is a little bit bigger and heavier than the old Sigma 50-500 I have replaced with it, but not by much. I use my Z6 without any strap and haven't mounted a strap to the lens yet, so I just carry the camera at the lens, when it's not in the bag.

Click to expand...

How do you compare the 200-500 to the Sigma. I currently have the 50-500 but its not my favorite.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

My 50-500 was the original mk 1 version, bought 2005, with aperture ring, no OS, no DG and did not reliably AF with the Z6, which was the main reason to get a more modern lens. The 200-500 is wide open a good deal sharper than the old Bigma stopped down and regarding vignetting it's better too. Vignetting is really bad with the old Bigma, when used at a FX camera.

[email protected] said:

You need a new camera bad, preferably a backpack.

That is how I carry my 200-500. If I am actively photographing birds, the lens is in my hands or on a tripod. A tripod is nice because you can set the lens-camera-tripod down any time you want and the weight is off your hands.

Click to expand...

When on the tripod do you sometimes leave the VR on, ball head slightly loose, and shoot with your finger? I find that works really good although VR is not recommended for tripod use. I give the tripod a little jiggle to reset the VR right before firing. That works great when it is too windy for the tripod also.

[email protected] said:

200-500 yesterday:

Click to expand...

--
Ernie Misner
"I bet we'll find hints of extraterrestrial life before 2030" - Jamie Shreeve, Popular Science

maybe you should move to M 4/3 and the 100-400MM.

rick in vegas said:

maybe you should move to M 4/3 and the 100-400MM.

Click to expand...

Or look forward to eventually getting equivalent full frame lenses that should be as small -- the rumored Canon 800mm f/11 is equivalent to m43 400mm f/5.6.

The 200-500 is not pro grade either. A 100-400 f/4 would be completely uninteresting for me. It would cost probably upwards of 4000€ and it would be even heavier than the 200-500 since the 200-400 is already heavier. Sorry, no interest, no matter what kind of image quality...

If they sacrifice 1/3 or 2/3 stops on the 200-600 but make it lighter I'd say it's interesting. I don't care if it's variable aperture when the lens is excellent wide open.

michaeladawson said:

Atahualpa said:

I understand such decisions, but well, the 200-500 is at a more attractive price point

Click to expand...

You can only afford what you can afford. Or want to afford. However, the 500mm PF has clearly better IQ than the 200-500. Three times better IQ? Well, no. I shoot mostly birds (some larger wildlife as well) with my long telephotos. Even with a 1.4X TC I'm still often not able to fill the frame. So the zoom ability of the 200-500 is mostly wasted.

The 500 PF is roughly the size of the 70-200 f/2.8. And with the better IQ it's well worth the additional cost to me. So again, you have to buy what you can afford. I'm glad to be able to afford the 500mm PF. And I'd snatch up a 600mm PF if they ever release one.

Click to expand...

The zoom ability on the 200-500 is mostly wasted? I constantly hear from photographers with a long prime that the subject was too close, they had to step back, couldn't step back and missed the opportunity, the bird flew too close, etc..

Wasted - Hardly. Three times better - how about not two times better.

You probably couldn't get this shot with a 500 prime.

Atahualpa said:

Do you have a picture?

Click to expand...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59301261

The above-linked post illustrates how I attach the PD Slide strap and wear the camera. Typically, I retract the lens to 200mm and lock it at that focal length when walking. Another common method is to attach both anchor links to an adapter plate on the tripod foot and to attach both ends of the strap to that adapter plate.

Why don’t you post a photo of a bee taken with a 200mm macro lens and tell me I couldn’t get that shot with the 500mm PF?

I also have the 200-500 and a Tamron 150-600. But 90% of my bird shots are taken at 500mm. The 500mm PF is clearly superior for these cases. If I know the other lenses are the lens for the job I’ll use it.

michaeladawson said:

Why don’t you post a photo of a bee taken with a 200mm macro lens and tell me I couldn’t get that shot with the 500mm PF?

I also have the 200-500 and a Tamron 150-600. But 90% of my bird shots are taken at 500mm. The 500mm PF is clearly superior for these cases. If I know the other lenses are the lens for the job I’ll use it.

Click to expand...

Why don't I post a bee? I don't get it... I'd much prefer a macro lens over the 500 PF for a macro shot. Those lenses are clearly superior for that type of photography.

As for using other lenses when the job requires, if you can tell which direction the bird is gonna fly and therefore not need less than 500, you're more intuitive than I.

stevef1961 said:

michaeladawson said:

Why don’t you post a photo of a bee taken with a 200mm macro lens and tell me I couldn’t get that shot with the 500mm PF?

I also have the 200-500 and a Tamron 150-600. But 90% of my bird shots are taken at 500mm. The 500mm PF is clearly superior for these cases. If I know the other lenses are the lens for the job I’ll use it.

Click to expand...

Why don't I post a bee? I don't get it... I'd much prefer a macro lens over the 500 PF for a macro shot. Those lenses are clearly superior for that type of photography.

As for using other lenses when the job requires, if you can tell which direction the bird is gonna fly and therefore not need less than 500, you're more intuitive than I.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... you choose not to hear what I’m saying. Who said anything about being intuitive. 90% of my shots, probably more, are taken at 500mm. Half of those with a 1.4x TC. For those shots the 500mm PF is superior and that’s the lens I’ll use. For superior IQ.

If I’m going to wetlands where I’ll be shooting larger birds like egrets, herons, ibises, etc I’ll probably have one of the zooms attached. Sacrifice a bit of IQ to get the right focal length.

What I should do is get the 300 PF and put one lens on the Z7 and the other on the D850.

You post a photo as some sort of example of why the zoom was the right lens. Only problem is that it’s a D500 taken at 390mm. I’ll go out on a limb here and say my full frame bodies would have needed more than 500mm to get the same shot.

michaeladawson said:

Why don’t you post a photo of a bee taken with a 200mm macro lens and tell me I couldn’t get that shot with the 500mm PF?

Click to expand...

Perhaps this part of the off topic discussion highlights the difference between "gets" and "gets good".

The 200-500 unaided on FX at minimum focus covers a subject about 6 inches wide - or about 4 inches wide with a 1.4x.

The 200 macro on FX covers a subject 1.5 inches wide unaided or about 0.8 inches wide with the 6T CU.

The first decisions are what species of bee (they do vary in size) and how much of the frame do you want to fill with the bee?

The second decision is how well can you hand hold in close-up without camera shake issues?

By about 3 inches wide a shutter speed at least 5x focal length for sharp hand held images (because of the narrow image crop) is a good starting point. VR on the zoom helps a bit - but less so if you crop to get close to 1:1 image size.

By 1x magnification total depth of field is down to about 2mm on FX.

While I am not saying bee shots are impossible with a 200-500, I would start with a tools better suited to the task - such as a 200mm macro, probably a tripod, and maybe flash.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else.

michaeladawson said:

You post a photo as some sort of example of why the zoom was the right lens. Only problem is that it’s a D500 taken at 390mm. I’ll go out on a limb here and say my full frame bodies would have needed more than 500mm to get the same shot.

Click to expand...

Valid point!