Good Lens Outdoors in Daylight, BUT...

[mako69]

Not very good indoors or in low light.

This is an amateur lens designed for the weekend warrior who wants to shoot the kids sports or some birds, etc. It worked great when there was plenty of light, but it struggled to find focus indoors and at low light settings, with my D4s. The 80-400 4.5-5.6 had no problems in low light, indoors on a D7100, at 400mm f/5.6. It went back to B&H the next day (great store, no hassles!)

I question the T-stop value of this lens. F/5.6 is the theoretical f stop (focal length divided by diameter), whereas the T-stop is the actual amount of light that is transmitted through the lens at a given aperture. At a T-stop value of f/8, Nikon lenses are at their AF limit. There are many reviews by other users who cite the limitations of this lens.

Overall it's a good lens, but very limited.

 

[Per Baekgaard]

Mine works very well indoor; I use it frequently in e.g. concert situations shooting close-ups, when I don't want to move too close to the players/singers (using it with a D500 and a D800), although that Is not my primary use. Not sure why yours didn't, but mine has been nailing focus quite well over the years I've had it.

It is a speciality lens and delivers excellent and very sharp results in many settings, and for those of us that also need to carry a lot of gear long distances outdoor (binocs, scope, tripod and a DSLR with something in the 400-500mm range), it is a much nicer asset than hauling a significantly heavier f/4 lens. It is not just for the "weekend warrior", shooting "some birds" -- I see a lot of passionate and dedicated "full-time" birders here with them too.

The best alternative in this setting is the 300mm f/4 with a TC, but you then loose the ability to zoom, which can be quite handy too!

 

[YRUNVS]

I'd be a bit surprised if many potential customers for this lens bought it for indoor, low light usage. That seems a bit of a mismatch between tool and task. I'd also be surprised if the lens lost a full stop between f-stop and t-stop.

 

[T O Shooter]

2.5 is not a fair rating for that lens. It's a 5.6 Len at less than 1/2 the price of 80-400G. What did you eexpect

i did find it very good AF wise on the D4 and 4s though

As a mark on the wall I did own the 80-400 G and do own 200-500, 70-200 VRII, 200 f2 VRII, 200-400VRII, 300 2.8 VR, and 500 f4VR

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

I question the T-stop value of this lens. F/5.6 is the theoretical f stop (focal length divided by diameter), whereas the T-stop is the actual amount of light that is transmitted through the lens at a given aperture. At a T-stop value of f/8, Nikon lenses are at their AF limit. There are many reviews by other users who cite the limitations of this lens.

Your profile lists a Nikon 300 f2.8.

At 300mm the 200-500 is in a lower performance league, but is a zoom at a quarter of the price.

T stop does not seem to affect AF ability to operate.

My 200-500 does AF OK with my TC 14e attached.

I agree the 200-500 is not a 140-400, being about 10% of the price.

 

[FreemanB]

I respect your opinion, but I'd give this lens 4/5. It certainly has its limitations but, like any other tool, we have to use what works for us and we have to use our tools where they shine. I wouldn't consider using this lens indoors because it needs a nice dose of light. The image quality you can get from this lens is really good - colors & contrast - it's a winner. I've shot with this lens enough to recognize that it's not a fully pro lens, but it can deliver professional results in favorable conditions. I prefer the IQ and keeper rate of my 500mm F4, however, when lighting is optimal, the 200-500 is much easier to handle and carry.

Mark Smith (Youtube/Stitchclips on DPReview) used the 200-500 primarily for a while, but then he got the 500mm F4 VR G. All I can say is, he doesn't post much from the 200-500mm anymore.

 

[LondonWhiteWalker]

I bought mine because it was affordable and when things are affordable you learn to work with them to overcome any limitations they may have. I don't have 5 grand to just go splashing around on lenses and i doubt a lot of other people do either.

When you say "indoors", indoors where ? your toilet, lounge, kitchen, sports arena or Olympic Stadium ?

And as for "This is an amateur lens designed for the weekend warrior", i've used mine on a tuesday so i think you may be wrong and if i'm honest a bit elitest and pretentious.

Another question i have to ask is if you hated it that much and sent it back, why review it ? It seems to me that you may be the kind of person who thinks only the best will do when to the rest of us what we can afford and work with will do.

I honestly think that you sent it back way too quickly without using it as what it is and that is a superzoom that doesn't come with the Prime price.

Lastly, if you want something that works amazingly in low light even i wouldn't have bought it for that. Maybe you were expecting it to do things beyond its capabilities.



Taken in very low light. 1/40s f5.6 at 500mm.



--

S Robinson

Explore S Robinson’s 456 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[DenWil]

I must be the least average consumer on the planet. I have never bought a lens to shoot in low light indoors.

Low light often equals under lit and compared to properly lit content will always result in severely hobbled results if not outright crap. That the camera may or may not want to AF becomes irrelevant.

I guess it boils down to different expectations. I will not shoot under completely inadequate circumstances just to have a shot that I would never use with my name attached.

 

[NatureFiles]

Not very good indoors or in low light.

This is an amateur lens designed for the weekend warrior who wants to shoot the kids sports or some birds, etc. It worked great when there was plenty of light, but it struggled to find focus indoors and at low light settings, with my D4s. The 80-400 4.5-5.6 had no problems in low light, indoors on a D7100, at 400mm f/5.6. It went back to B&H the next day (great store, no hassles!)

I question the T-stop value of this lens. F/5.6 is the theoretical f stop (focal length divided by diameter), whereas the T-stop is the actual amount of light that is transmitted through the lens at a given aperture. At a T-stop value of f/8, Nikon lenses are at their AF limit. There are many reviews by other users who cite the limitations of this lens.

Overall it's a good lens, but very limited.

My copy does well in low light. In fact, I'd say the 200-500 is in the top 5 best value Nikkor lenses in history. Every lens has limitations, it's the photographers job to use it as it was designed for. What kind of miracle were you expecting out of a f5.6 lens indoors;-)

 

[lokatz]

Use your 50 f/1.4 indoors, and you'll be fine. The 200-500 is fantastic at what it does, and the fact that the vast majority of owners love it is testimony to that, but it is neither meant for low light nor for indoor shooting.

BTW, the Porsche Boxster absolutely sucks at beach racing and is one of the poorest moving vans I ever owned.

 

[calson]

There are trade-offs with any lens. I use the 80-400mm more often on a DX camera as the view angle of the 200-500mm is too small in many situations. On the other hand I will use the 200-500mm for hand held bird photography where I get to 500mm without need for adding a teleconverter.

Try adding a 1.4x teleconverter to the 80-400mm to get a comparable focal length and image magnification and then see what you get in terms of autofocus performance.

And I paid $2400 for my 80-400mm lens and $1400 for the 200-500mm. I would expect to get better performance from a lens that cost me an additional $1,000.

 

[Jimusny]

Seriously? you have to take in account its price when rating something, and for the price it should be rated 5 stars.. I was skeptical about it, but am very happy with the results I am getting, much happier than I was with my 80-400 G when I considered the cost which was 2799 when I got mine! I really expected more from that lens than I did with the 200-500, and turned out I am happier with it. I really dont think it was intended to be an indoor lens anyway.. it was Nikon's answer to the after market zooms and I think they did a good job and having owned both the Sigma C and Tamron G2 versions of those, I am happier with it over all, as far as weekend warriors, I see quite a few guys that use long primes carrying one around instead some days... that has to tell you something

I am pretty sure my 200-500 is sharper than at least my copy of the 80-400G was.. and for sure it is at distance. been so long since I used it I cant remember how the AF compared, but it didn't seem to me the 80-400 was a speed demon either, and as the sun went down it suffered quite a bit too.. It was made for those that cant afford long primes or want to hand carry and sharpness alone for the price should get it at least a 4.5 rating from even those that expect too much from it.. turned out much better than I thought it would be or I would have bought one a long time before i did.. it may be the best value for performance lens I ever bought, at least new anyway

 

[Ernie Misner]

Seriously? you have to take in account its price when rating something, and for the price it should be rated 5 stars.. I was skeptical about it, but am very happy with the results I am getting, much happier than I was with my 80-400 G when I considered the cost which was 2799 when I got mine! I really expected more from that lens than I did with the 200-500, and turned out I am happier with it. I really dont think it was intended to be an indoor lens anyway.. it was Nikon's answer to the after market zooms and I think they did a good job and having owned both the Sigma C and Tamron G2 versions of those, I am happier with it over all, as far as weekend warriors, I see quite a few guys that use long primes carrying one around instead some days... that has to tell you something

I am pretty sure my 200-500 is sharper than at least my copy of the 80-400G was.. and for sure it is at distance. been so long since I used it I cant remember how the AF compared, but it didn't seem to me the 80-400 was a speed demon either, and as the sun went down it suffered quite a bit too.. It was made for those that cant afford long primes or want to hand carry and sharpness alone for the price should get it at least a 4.5 rating from even those that expect too much from it.. turned out much better than I thought it would be or I would have bought one a long time before i did.. it may be the best value for performance lens I ever bought, at least new anyway

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

My 200-500 is definitely sharper than my 80-400.

Depending on the definition of "definitely" I rate my 200-500 as sometimes slightly sharper as distinct from definitely sharper.

If the sun is near the edge of the frame the 200-500 is extremely flare prone and performs much worse than the 80-400.

This aside with current body good high ISO performance and much improved AF speed in either lens compared to an f5.6 telephoto 5 years ago low light is far from the challenge it used to be.

 

[breivogel]

Not very good indoors or in low light.

This is an amateur lens designed for the weekend warrior who wants to shoot the kids sports or some birds, etc. It worked great when there was plenty of light, but it struggled to find focus indoors and at low light settings, with my D4s. The 80-400 4.5-5.6 had no problems in low light, indoors on a D7100, at 400mm f/5.6. It went back to B&H the next day (great store, no hassles!)

I question the T-stop value of this lens. F/5.6 is the theoretical f stop (focal length divided by diameter), whereas the T-stop is the actual amount of light that is transmitted through the lens at a given aperture. At a T-stop value of f/8, Nikon lenses are at their AF limit. There are many reviews by other users who cite the limitations of this lens.

Overall it's a good lens, but very limited.

You obviously don't have much idea what you are talking about.

PDAF is related to F-stop, not T-stop. Also, no one would use this lens shooting kids! It is a very good bird lens for theprice (much better than the 80--400 in my experience, especially if using a teleconverter), and has no relationship with weekend warriors (whatever than means?)

 

[cistercian]

I agree with those that say this lens is a bargain and a jewel. The VR is fantastic, and the lens outperforms it's price point to an almost ridiculous level.

It is 5.6. So blazing fast...NO. The AF is not super fast as well. But the sharpness is really very good! I like it and will not sell it. It is easier to handle than my exotics too. For long reach hand held I like it best in strong light but I see no reason not to put it on a tripod for slower shutter speed when light is not Ideal.

I think it is an epic bargain and a fantastic birding lens...it rocks on my D500.

It cost a lot less than my 200 F2G VR2. I certainly don't expect it to be epic in low light...because F5.6.

 

[Tootsall]

I will not buy this lens for indoors use; for that I go to my Tokina 11-16 f2.8 or Sigma 17-50 f2.8. No, I will buy this lens to replace the Sigma 150-600C that I sold to help fund the upgrade to D7200 and for use outdoors at long distance. Just as soon as there is a solid discount sale on it....

--
https://picasaweb.google.com/105219675253032708516
(Ed)

 

[cistercian]

I will not buy this lens for indoors use; for that I go to my Tokina 11-16 f2.8 or Sigma 17-50 f2.8. No, I will buy this lens to replace the Sigma 150-600C that I sold to help fund the upgrade to D7200 and for use outdoors at long distance. Just as soon as there is a solid discount sale on it....

--
https://picasaweb.google.com/105219675253032708516
(Ed)

I just bought a 7200 for my stepson as a wedding present. It was 100 dollars off.

997 from B&H If I remember correctly. It is a hell of a nice DX camera.

 

[Tootsall]

I will not buy this lens for indoors use; for that I go to my Tokina 11-16 f2.8 or Sigma 17-50 f2.8. No, I will buy this lens to replace the Sigma 150-600C that I sold to help fund the upgrade to D7200 and for use outdoors at long distance. Just as soon as there is a solid discount sale on it....

--
https://picasaweb.google.com/105219675253032708516
(Ed)

I just bought a 7200 for my stepson as a wedding present. It was 100 dollars off.

997 from B&H If I remember correctly. It is a hell of a nice DX camera.

Oh I bought the 7200 already...I meant discount on the 200-500. Agree, a great camera at that price. I paid $1100 Cdn or about $820 US. (body only)

--
https://picasaweb.google.com/105219675253032708516
(Ed)

 

[DJF77]

it’s an f5.6 zoom, ofcourse it’s not going to be useful in low light situations where the subject is moving. I’m not sure why you are even judging this lens on this factor? Next you’ll be telling us AIS lenses aren’t great because the autofocus is slow....