Wow, I just bought the 200-500mm, because I had to see what all the haters (who don't own this lens) are going on about... and I have to say, its really fantastic.
Personally, I would never buy a 400mm, 500mm or 600mm prime lens (not because I haven't heard that they are fantastic, but because [A.] I don't care to spend $10,000 that way because its not a proper investment for me, and [B.] I don't have as many opportunities for this lens around where I live as do some others, with their nature-filled home turfs). And yet, always wanting to try out something longer than 300mm, I have to say the 200-500mm is just wonderful.
I took about 150 shots, in half a day, so I guess I'll be at 10,000 images in about 2 months, at this pace...
But seriously, every shot I take with it is sharp (and even close-up with VR off). Which is odd, because I also have the 300/4VR, and that's not the case with it. For the first few shots, I thought I had VR on.. the lens is that sharp, and it works some magic. Handheld. I didn't actually believe that the weight of a lens helped stabilize it, alone, but it does in fact seem to be the case -- this lens is damn heavy!! Manageable, but damn heavy. Yet super stable. Its front-heavy (compared to any decent lens) so it constantly feels off-balance single handed, but two handed, I don't know what it is, but you get stabilized by its weight (as long as your strength holds out). The technique to use it is going to be very different than with any other lens I own (although the 70-200/2.8VRII begins to have a similar demand). This will be my only lens that gives my left arm a work out (the 70-200/2.8 comes close, but this new lens is far more challenging in that regard for any medium period of time).
Now when I turn VR on -- I am astonished! It has the best VR i have ever used... ever! And its far better than the VR on the 300/4VR. Which, again, confuses me. My 300/4VR has very good VR. In fact, its really good. But the 200-500VR is utter perfection and I'm convinced they are using advanced super prime tele technology in the lens for VR. I got one from the latest shipments, no firmware update needed. And all I can say is -- WOW. AMAZING VR. I don't know what is the difference between this, and the Sigma and the Tamron, but, hey man, where the 300VR could use some help here or there, I could not ask for better VR than what this lens has, that's how impressed I am with this lens.
I have a very severe criticism of this lens though.
And its not a small one.
This lens focuses slow as mud. Slow as a snail. Its absolutely HORRIBLE at AF focusing. And I think for 50% of the purchasing community, this could be a very serious, upsetting setback for an otherwise amazing lens. I think Nikon cannot be excused for having such horrible AF in this lens. They need to get a damn firmware update to speed it by 50%, because this is a sad performance. Sad, sad, sad, and slightly shameful, I think. This AF does NOT belong under the Nikon brand, and Nikon tarnished itself by putting it in this lens. Anyone who is getting perfect focus with this lens during action -- you have to appreciate the PHOTOGRAPHER, not the lens, because Nikon did everything they could to stop you and cripple you, with this AF. Nikon just can't stop CRIPPLING their own gear, can they? Its unbelievable, because I easily would have paid $2,000 if this lens was just 50% faster, in AF. Oh well. End of complaints. Because that truly is the only one. This lens is sharp, its incredibly stable. I would gladly pay Nikon $500, right now, to upgrade its AF module to something speedier. Why don't they offer a lens dock, yet, so we can adjust focus speed ourselves?? I don't understand, at all, why Nikon made this one so slow. Do they think its a studio, prime lens, or something?? I think the 85/1.4G has faster AF! Pathetic.
I also don't know why Nikon skipped on the coatings & ED glass. This lens could use a pinch of both. Was this their way of forcing people to buy their new 95mm Circl Pol filter with Nikon coatings on it??? I hope not. Because that is a dirty trick if so. I feel this was a dirty marketing trick by Nikon, and therefore I will not be buying their Circular Polarizer, and will instead go with another brand. Advice to Nikon: next time put your anti-glare etc, coatings on your LENS, Nikon; if you put it on your filters, then it belongs on the lens! Stop being cheap, Nikon! On the other hand, I guess this lens wouldn't be a "sensation" if it was over $1,500, so maybe Nikon is smart, and I'm just greedy. After a sharper Circular Polarizer with nice coatings, that's what this lens costs, $1,500 (since your 77mm filters won't fit the 95mm thread, which is to be expected, adding another expense).
I don't consider this a complaint, but it is something to consider: 200-500 feels like a very, very narrow bandwidth of focal lengths for the weight. I can't explain it, but I'm pretty sure that you could basically be just as happy with the 300/4VR + 1.7 TC (on sale right now). My guess is that I'm probably going to "repurpose" this lens and put a 1.4 x TC on the 200-500/5.6 and pretty much leave it there, using it on sunny days, with a coated high transmission circular polarizer (so now we're at $2,000). But the 300/4VR will be what stays in my bag and go with me everywhere; and for those with less of a budget, a 150-600, will probably feel just as good.
Another note for those not totally experienced, but reading: f/4 is dark-ish. f/5.6 is DARK. You know this from your cheaper & ultra-zoom lenses, but somehow never quite feel comfortable with it on your "nice" lenses. Anyway, that's not a complaint, just a reality.
You won't need an extra super long backback, this isn't "exotic" big. Its borderline. So a normal, big backpack should be totally fine. You don't need anything special; but its also going to be that much more harder to fit than a 70-200/2.8. No chance for this one to fit into anything that isn't extra roomy, because its also much fatter than most lenses (as a 95mm thread, instead of say a 62mm or 77mm), and will extend out more than the average backpack padded "column" meaning that it will squeeze your other gear space. Your 77mms probably won't fit next to it in a "normal" backpack, even if the length is fine, unless its a LARGE (wide) backback.
I can't get over how sharp it is. At 500mm/5.6, its sharp. I wish it had some more/any ED lens or corrections or coatings in it. I can tell this is not an exotic lens. But it is a fantastic lens for sub-$1500. Anyway, if people feel pretty much the same way about the Tamron 150-600, or Sigma 150-600, I would say go ahead and try them out and buy those lenses -- theyre either going to be significantly (35%) cheaper, or theyre going to be just as good (the Sport) if gigantic. 200-500 feels very, very restrictive. I think you really, truly need to know what you are going to use this lens for or its going to sit around quite a bit.
You're going to have to go out there and chase Nature. But man, this is a good lens. This lens screams to be put in a backpack with a 14-24, and a 50mm. Or maybe a 105/2.8 VR Macro for when light gets low, and a 1.4xTC for fun. This lens is so big, you're going to look like a total weirdo in public -- so you basically want to take it out for scenic views on cool crisp clean air days, or to look at animals, bird watch, photograph surfer and any predictable motion sports (the VR will keep up, but the AF will fail you unless you manually take over), those kinds of things.
Somebody point me to the nearest nature park...
--
Sincerely,
GlobalGuy
