Lens Mistake
Jun 26, 2017 20:24:09 #
Actually not totally a mistake but ....
I have a Nikko 200-400mm lens which is problematic for me. Not quite long enough and since I had an injury difficult for me to handhold. I am looking at the 200-500. Shorter, lighter and nearly as sharp. Don't really want/can't spent thousands more on a pro lens. Will I regret buying this lens. Mostly want it for wildlife which is maybe 30-40 percent of what I shoot with my D810. Have an old D300s and with what I save buying this lens might think about the D500 to get the "extension". Thoughts welcome.
I have a Nikko 200-400mm lens which is problematic for me. Not quite long enough and since I had an injury difficult for me to handhold. I am looking at the 200-500. Shorter, lighter and nearly as sharp. Don't really want/can't spent thousands more on a pro lens. Will I regret buying this lens. Mostly want it for wildlife which is maybe 30-40 percent of what I shoot with my D810. Have an old D300s and with what I save buying this lens might think about the D500 to get the "extension". Thoughts welcome.
Jun 26, 2017 20:37:08 #
I am not familiar with the 200-400 but I know how good of a lens it is. I am more familiar with the 200-500 f5.6 VR not because I have used it but because I have seen many photographs made with it and they look superb to my eyes.
I know the 200-400 is a heavy lens. The 200-500 is also heavy but as you said not as heavy as the 200-400. I know of the 200-400 because Ron Magill, the official photographer for the Miami Metro Zoo and a Nikon Ambassador has used one in his travels to exotic places.
If I were you I would try the 200-500 f5.6 VR first to see if its weight makes you comfortable before making a decision.
I do not own a D500 but everything I have heard about it is awesome, specially AF and noise performance.
I know the 200-400 is a heavy lens. The 200-500 is also heavy but as you said not as heavy as the 200-400. I know of the 200-400 because Ron Magill, the official photographer for the Miami Metro Zoo and a Nikon Ambassador has used one in his travels to exotic places.
If I were you I would try the 200-500 f5.6 VR first to see if its weight makes you comfortable before making a decision.
I do not own a D500 but everything I have heard about it is awesome, specially AF and noise performance.
Jun 26, 2017 21:18:32 #
I have the D500/200-500 combo. It is a bit heavy for my 70+ years, but from a tripod it is awesome.
Jun 26, 2017 21:30:28 #
I shoot with a D800 and a D500 and use the 200-500 on both. It is somewhat heavy and I don't think it would be a good lens for hand-held shooting for a long period of time, I normally put it on the tripod. When shooting with both cameras I use the 80-400 on the D800 hand-held and the 200-500 on the tripod with the D500. I'm completely covered then. I do believe the 200-500 does take a somewhat better photo and it gives me a much greater range on the crop frame D500. I do photograph wildlife often using the cameras as mentioned. I can hand-hold the 200-500 and just did that recently getting shots of two cubs and a mama bear and the images turned out very well, but the lens is heavy.
Jun 26, 2017 21:40:04 #
John Howard wrote:
Actually not totally a mistake but .... br I have ... (show quote)
I love my Nikon Nikkor 200-500 on my D800 and D300S. Super sharp. Enjoy it on your two bodies and forget the D500 for now. My 2 cents. You won't regret it
Jun 26, 2017 21:52:11 #
Does anyone use this lens on a monopod with a flip head or no head. Don't think a ball head is a good solution. Concerned shooting high without a flip head would require leaning the monopod way back.
Jun 26, 2017 22:08:59 #
If the weight is not a problem, it works well hand held.
While it could be done, I do not recommend using a monopod.
While it could be done, I do not recommend using a monopod.
Jun 26, 2017 22:51:09 #
John Howard wrote:
Does anyone use this lens on a monopod with a flip head or no head. Don't think a ball head is a good solution. Concerned shooting high without a flip head would require leaning the monopod way back.
I shoot hand held with my 200-500 95 percent of the time.
Jun 27, 2017 01:05:52 #
www.google.com&cid=CAASE-RoxAcTiTkscJFsocmtK6MF9h8&sig=AOD64_00wKbfCc7ELz-HQLsGcjprr5MyFw&q=&ved=0ahUKEwiKjv3Lnt3UAhUU7WMKHcYHCIE4ChDRDAga&adurl=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwi5rYDMnt3UAhWPiX4KHXDnAy4YABAAGgJwYw&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASE-RoxAcTiTkscJFsocmtK6MF9h8&sig=AOD64_00wKbfCc7ELz-HQLsGcjprr5MyFw&q=&ved=0ahUKEwiKjv3Lnt3UAhUU7WMKHcYHCIE4ChDRDAga&adurl=
Jun 27, 2017 07:12:53 #
I have a Nikon 300 f4 which I think is my sharpest tele. I have the 200-500 also and although I can see a little better sharpness from the 300 at times the 300 sits in the bag most of the time because the 200-500 can't be faulted. I can't see that the weight would be that much different than a 200-400. I have trouble holding it steady sometimes but then I'm shooting wildlife and I set my shutter at 2000 and the shots come out sharp.
Jun 27, 2017 07:31:49 #
John Howard wrote:
Actually not totally a mistake but .... br I have ... (show quote)
I doubt anyone can advise on whether you will regret a purchase. The 200-500 is an excellent lens. It does have some weight as others have mentioned. But it has outstanding vibration reduction, one of the most effective I have ever used. The attached image was taken with that lens and the Nikon D750. It may not seem impressive until you realize the bird was at least a hundred yards away and was shot hand-held at f/5.6. I think the lens is a good value. Good luck.
Jun 27, 2017 08:35:06 #
Bazbo
Loc: Lisboa, Portugal
John Howard wrote:
Actually not totally a mistake but .... br I have ... (show quote)
Grewat lens for rhe money. You probably need to pair it with a tripod with a gimbal head. it is heavy.
Jun 27, 2017 08:36:36 #
John Howard wrote:
Actually not totally a mistake but .... br I have ... (show quote)
IMO, a 200-400 should not be handheld - by anyone - except for BIF - and then only IF you are fully capable ! The 200-500 is a little better, but not by much.
If BIF and hand holding is a high priority for you, using a shorter/smaller lens ( 300 f4 and cropping ) on a high MP crop frame body makes a lot of sense. If not, using support of some kind with what you have - like a bodypod or monopod would also make sense ( to me).
Jun 27, 2017 08:47:31 #
you might check out usedphotopro.com. I only buy used or refurbished lenses for my D810. My Sigma 170-500mm was only $350. It is now about $550 but still a good lens but needs lots of light
Jun 27, 2017 08:48:20 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
John Howard wrote:
Actually not totally a mistake but .... br I have ... (show quote)
John, I have owned the Nikon 300 2.8, I currently own the Nikon 200-400 and Nikon 200-500. No, you will not regret purchasing the Nikon 200-500 and I will tell you why. I use both the 200-400 and 200-500 almost every day when I am in Florida in the winter. Over the past 20,000 exposures I have noticed little differences between the IQ of both lenses. Yes that 200-400 is heavy, the 200-500 is much lighter. I reverse the tripod collar and use it to carry around my D500 with that lens attached. Over the past few months I have used the 200-400 less and less. I love the reach of the 200-500. I shoot at f6.3, seems to be a really sharp setting. I use GROUP AUTO FOCUS using the center spot. You D810 has it, use it. Again, do not hesitate buying this lens, and yes, it is not weather proofed like the 200-400 but I have never shot in the rain so it does not matter. I have been out in light fog without any problems. YOU WILL LOVE THIS LENS. The reviews from ACTUAL users is outstanding.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.