Best Nikon 200-500mm F5.6E Review To Date

[beavertown]

This shows the abilities of this lens in a practical way. Enjoy.

 

[Kadidal]

One difficulty noted with this lens is that there is quite a lot of travel in the zoom ring to get from 200 to 500. The video shows that this guy is quite excellent at framing (and anticipating where the ball is going on the crosses), but you can see him occasionally using the wider end to pick up the scene, and that is where the practical problem posed by the long ring travel presents itself. Last night I found myself turning both the ring and the camera (opposite directions!) while chasing a relatively immobile object (the moon) around the sky and thru the trees.

Some non-camera-related thoughts: 1. poor Gibraltar! 2. I wonder if even a single photographer set up near the other goal? 3. Lewandowski plays his international games for Poland? i guess I was confusing him for Klose and thought he played for Germany.

 

[Moonwalker]

This shows the abilities of this lens in a practical way. Enjoy.

Awesome video. Perfect.

Markus

 

[Padsterman]

The youtube comments are interesting. He shot on D4s, ISO 3200 + f/5.6 + 1/800 s, manual. Good news is that the images seem clean enough for my use and clients and he is shooting JPEG, I always shoot RAW so even more room for improvement in post. He also thinks it is sharper than the 200-400 F4. Ideally I would like a somewhat faster shutter speed but this is a night time game but in a presumably better lit stadium. I probably would not use it in a poorly lit high school or whatever venue, but that's when my 300 2.8 would be used. Yes, there is a zoom travel but may be quicker than going back and forth between the 300 or 400 2.8 (which I rent) and the 70-200. At 500 or whatever he was at he managed to cover the far end goal mouth, then at 200 the near goal, bloody handy that is!

I am looking at the 200-400 F4 to buy but may well consider this 200-500 and put the cash difference to something else. I like the flexibility and convenience of this focal range. These days the reaction of players behind the critical action is just as important so being able to zoom to that is great.

I will probably keep my 300 2.8 VRI as it is stellar, yeah the 400 2.8 is stellar as well but this 200-500 seems more than fine. So, overall I am pleased with what I am reading about this lens and what a good price! Will decide on this or the 200-400 soon. The downside may be the weatherizing or lack of with this lens and also if I will miss F4 or 2.8 for separation of the subject, but hey it won't break my bank and I have the 300 2.8

 

[Rolleix]

The youtube comments are interesting. He shot on D4s, ISO 3200 + f/5.6 + 1/800 s, manual. Good news is that the images seem clean enough for my use and clients and he is shooting JPEG, I always shoot RAW so even more room for improvement in post. He also thinks it is sharper than the 200-400 F4. Ideally I would like a somewhat faster shutter speed but this is a night time game but in a presumably better lit stadium. I probably would not use it in a poorly lit high school or whatever venue, but that's when my 300 2.8 would be used. Yes, there is a zoom travel but may be quicker than going back and forth between the 300 or 400 2.8 (which I rent) and the 70-200. At 500 or whatever he was at he managed to cover the far end goal mouth, then at 200 the near goal, bloody handy that is!

I am looking at the 200-400 F4 to buy but may well consider this 200-500 and put the cash difference to something else. I like the flexibility and convenience of this focal range. These days the reaction of players behind the critical action is just as important so being able to zoom to that is great.

I will probably keep my 300 2.8 VRI as it is stellar, yeah the 400 2.8 is stellar as well but this 200-500 seems more than fine. So, overall I am pleased with what I am reading about this lens and what a good price! Will decide on this or the 200-400 soon. The downside may be the weatherizing or lack of with this lens and also if I will miss F4 or 2.8 for separation of the subject, but hey it won't break my bank and I have the 300 2.8

......or you may want to wait for "The 200-500MM f4.0 VR PFD".

 

[Padsterman]

The youtube comments are interesting. He shot on D4s, ISO 3200 + f/5.6 + 1/800 s, manual. Good news is that the images seem clean enough for my use and clients and he is shooting JPEG, I always shoot RAW so even more room for improvement in post. He also thinks it is sharper than the 200-400 F4. Ideally I would like a somewhat faster shutter speed but this is a night time game but in a presumably better lit stadium. I probably would not use it in a poorly lit high school or whatever venue, but that's when my 300 2.8 would be used. Yes, there is a zoom travel but may be quicker than going back and forth between the 300 or 400 2.8 (which I rent) and the 70-200. At 500 or whatever he was at he managed to cover the far end goal mouth, then at 200 the near goal, bloody handy that is!

I am looking at the 200-400 F4 to buy but may well consider this 200-500 and put the cash difference to something else. I like the flexibility and convenience of this focal range. These days the reaction of players behind the critical action is just as important so being able to zoom to that is great.

I will probably keep my 300 2.8 VRI as it is stellar, yeah the 400 2.8 is stellar as well but this 200-500 seems more than fine. So, overall I am pleased with what I am reading about this lens and what a good price! Will decide on this or the 200-400 soon. The downside may be the weatherizing or lack of with this lens and also if I will miss F4 or 2.8 for separation of the subject, but hey it won't break my bank and I have the 300 2.8

......or you may want to wait for "The 200-500MM f4.0 VR PFD".

Ya what? When? WTF? At the price of the 200-500 f5.6 I may just buy one, not going to bust me and just use it right now in the right conditions.

 

[jeminijoseph]

This shows the abilities of this lens in a practical way. Enjoy.

Awesome video. Perfect.

Markus

Or may be tripod..
--
Thanks
Jemini Joseph

www.wildbirdimages.com

 

[Rolleix]

The youtube comments are interesting. He shot on D4s, ISO 3200 + f/5.6 + 1/800 s, manual. Good news is that the images seem clean enough for my use and clients and he is shooting JPEG, I always shoot RAW so even more room for improvement in post. He also thinks it is sharper than the 200-400 F4. Ideally I would like a somewhat faster shutter speed but this is a night time game but in a presumably better lit stadium. I probably would not use it in a poorly lit high school or whatever venue, but that's when my 300 2.8 would be used. Yes, there is a zoom travel but may be quicker than going back and forth between the 300 or 400 2.8 (which I rent) and the 70-200. At 500 or whatever he was at he managed to cover the far end goal mouth, then at 200 the near goal, bloody handy that is!

I am looking at the 200-400 F4 to buy but may well consider this 200-500 and put the cash difference to something else. I like the flexibility and convenience of this focal range. These days the reaction of players behind the critical action is just as important so being able to zoom to that is great.

I will probably keep my 300 2.8 VRI as it is stellar, yeah the 400 2.8 is stellar as well but this 200-500 seems more than fine. So, overall I am pleased with what I am reading about this lens and what a good price! Will decide on this or the 200-400 soon. The downside may be the weatherizing or lack of with this lens and also if I will miss F4 or 2.8 for separation of the subject, but hey it won't break my bank and I have the 300 2.8

......or you may want to wait for "The 200-500MM f4.0 VR PFD".

Ya what? When? WTF? At the price of the 200-500 f5.6 I may just buy one, not going to bust me and just use it right now in the right conditions.

Cool, that is what I would do.

 

[Osvaldo Cristo]

I am surprised as that "lower end" lens can perform in real world. I think Nikon has a best seller in their hand...

Thanks for share the link.

Regards,