Avis sur le Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500 mm F5.6E ED VR

[guenole]

Je suis l'heureux propriétaire de cet objectif que j'utilise le plus souvent monté sur un monopode. Je fais principalement de l'animalier et des oiseaux, mais il m'arrive également de shooter des insectes avec.

Je n'ai pas noté 5 car très déçu par le pare-soleil, indigne de Nikon.

--
Amitiés et à bientôt.
Guénolé

 

[Parry Johnson]

Je suis l'heureux propriétaire de cet objectif que j'utilise le plus souvent monté sur un monopode. Je fais principalement de l'animalier et des oiseaux, mais il m'arrive également de shooter des insectes avec.

Je n'ai pas noté 5 car très déçu par le pare-soleil, indigne de Nikon.

 

[Blufftonian]

It’s a budget lens - lenses like the 500 PF have a much better shade - but for the money, the 200-500 is a great buy. If you would prefer a metal screw-in lens shade you can find them inexpensively on Amazon.

 

[guenole]

Merci à toi.

--
Amitiés et à bientôt.
Guénolé

 

[Parry Johnson]

It’s a budget lens - lenses like the 500 PF have a much better shade - but for the money, the 200-500 is a great buy. If you would prefer a metal screw-in lens shade you can find them inexpensively on Amazon.

Even at $1500 CAD, I wouldn't call it a "budget" lens. The Tamron SP Adaptall-2 lens I mentioned is currently a budget lens (I paid $225 CAD with two Tamron teleconverters in immaculate shape), but that lens was originally priced higher than the Nikkor.

There really is no comparison, as the tech in these two lenses is decades apart -- my point is simply that the latest and greatest is not necessarily the best in all situations, especially if one doesn't have deep pockets. I'm in no rush to upgrade.

 

[Blufftonian]

It’s a budget lens - lenses like the 500 PF have a much better shade - but for the money, the 200-500 is a great buy. If you would prefer a metal screw-in lens shade you can find them inexpensively on Amazon.

Even at $1500 CAD, I wouldn't call it a "budget" lens. The Tamron SP Adaptall-2 lens I mentioned is currently a budget lens (I paid $225 CAD with two Tamron teleconverters in immaculate shape), but that lens was originally priced higher than the Nikkor.

There really is no comparison, as the tech in these two lenses is decades apart -- my point is simply that the latest and greatest is not necessarily the best in all situations, especially if one doesn't have deep pockets. I'm in no rush to upgrade.

By Nikon standards it is. Especially since the 500 PF retails for $3,600 US and the 500 f/4 for $10,300 US.

I guess it’s all relative.