lokatz

No, you won't know. All you will have is a belief. And that's where the problem lies: belief starts where knowledge stops.  Since I prefer knowing, I do spend the time to take test shots and base ...

I have the lens and am also happy with the image quality.  Bought it after I saw it scored higher in a comparative test of similar zooms, and I've never been disappointed, so it is a keeper for ...

This is not a critique of the 200-500's VR, which is good, but just so others won't get confused, I need to observe that NONE of these shots needed VR in the first place.  The 200-500 would have ...

;-)

Just so you know, I filed a complaint about you. This is simply getting to be too much - a nuisance for everyone looking for serious information to see your rants for the umpteenth time without ...

I just KNEW I could depend on you!  :-)

That's the problem: all this guy does is take every single one of the contrarian views as an opportunity to repeat his rant. For my part, I've owned the lens for almost a week now, I published a ...

You remind me of my grandpa: at age 95+, he also used to say things again and again, long past the point where everyone already fully understood what he wanted to say. Having had it for almost a ...

Not necessarily inaccurate, but with a larger margin of error and not that relevant at the distances where I guess you use the lens most of the time, namely at longer distances.  The 25-50x ...

I wish everyone had the same diligence, focus and dedication you have when determining the sharpness of their lenses. That way, we wouldn't have to deal with tests, figures, details or any other ...

And then what?

Absolutely correct. FoCal offers an explanation for why this is the best choice: http://s449182328.websitehome.co.uk/focal/dl//Docs/FoCal%20Test%20Distance_1.1.pdf

You may want to read Friedrich's post.  The only reason why photographers use high-speed continuous shooting is that the subject is moving fast.  At 1/125s and below, no camera/lens combination is ...

Couldn't agree more, Friedrich.  :-)

As my data (further up in this thread) show, it's not even hard to get plenty of sharp shots at 1/20s.  It is significantly more difficult to do the same at 1/80s, though.  The lens's VR seems ...

Hi Ole,  Take another look at the data I shared: at 1/160s, I got an 80 percent keeper rate with the 500 PF on my D500, and about 60 percent with the TC-14E III added.  Good enough for what you're ...

Same is true for me - but then, my copy of the 300 PF was really lousy. Again, I struggle with the term 'sharpness at slow speeds'. What you tend to get at slow speeds, depending on the quality of ...

Makes sense to me, as well. Don't overlook the fact that the 500 PF weighs nearly twice as much as the 300 PF does, though.  It is lightweight for a 500mm lens, but it is not lightweight.  ;-)

If interested, take a look at my latest post on the "Nikon 500 pf vr" thread, where I am sharing more pics taken with and without TC (1.4x).  I mostly second Steve's findings.

I already saw a few videos where people commented how well balanced the lens is, and I feel the same way.  It does not have the 300 PF feeling of "something missing up front".