coj Loc: NJ, USA

Why don't you mount that monster on a tripod, do another moon shot (let a little more light in) and PP it a little for me. I would love to see the detail. BTW, was that image cropped at all?

coj Loc: NJ, USA

Thanks for the test. Any more to come?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Always! ;-)

NealB Loc: Lowell Indiana

My thoughts exactly. :thumbup:

kavner58 Loc: Portland, Oregon

[quote=Jim Bob][quote=MT Shooter]My Nikon 200-500mm lenses finally arrived today (well 2 of them anyway), so naturally I had to shoot one of them. I decided to do an impromptu long shot test, handheld, wide open against the Sigma S, Sigma C, and Tamron 150-600mm lenses. To make a straighter comparison I shot all lenses wide open at 500mm on a Nikon D750. I did notice the Sigma C model would shoot at F6.0 at 500mm where the Sigma S and Tamron had already stopped down to F6.3 by that time.
Shooting the lenses together did make me notice how large the Nikon is, much bigger in barrel diameter than even the Sigma S. Its also heavy, about half way between the Sigma S and the Sigma C in weight.
One Very obvious thing I immediately noticed was the AMAZINGLY fast VR response time, it was INSTANT. The Sigma S was second fastest, but the delay was noticeable. The Sigma C and the Tamron were the slowest to fully engage, but still did so with acceptable speed.
The pics are available for download so you can make your own judgements, keep in mind this was an off-the-cuff handheld comparison and NOT a scientific one.
Also, the skies are smoky from all the fires still burning in the area and the Crown Plaza hotel is a bit over two miles as the crow flies from me (12,325 feet on the range finder).
None of these lenses have been tuned to this particular body, they are all shot straight out of the box. No cropping or changes to resolution were done.[/quote

Amusing but virtually worthless comparison.[/quote]

Would you explain why it is not a viable comparison? Try to stay within actual photography rational please.
Also, not sure why it is amusing...

-AK

GregWCIL Loc: Illinois

Thanks MT. I appreciate the test shots you've posted. It makes me even more excited to put mine through the paces.

Have you checked the auto focus fine tune? Mine is pretty close, but I dialed in a -1 for it on my D800. We should finish harvest here in the next day or two, so I hope to try it out more this weekend.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

The one I have at the moment is in my rental inventory and out. I will be tuning it to all my rental N ikons as time allows.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Yes, it was cropped, otherwise it would not have filled the whole frame.

All the images I post here seem to come out a bit dark, even though my monitor is calibrated.

I posted another image of the eclipse rising--just barely into the eclipse, on a thread here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-340014-1.html. Ised a tripod on that one and several others. So have several other members on threads about this lens and the blood moon.

Here's a couple more, though, with tripod:

(Download)


(Download)

coj Loc: NJ, USA

I like the second best. Personally, I think if you just shoot the moon I like a bit more detail & light. Just IMHO. BTW, is that image (#2) in the contest?

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

My 200-500 arrived and although I did not have time to do much with it, I stepped outside an shot a stop sign about 300 feet away. The attached image has been cropped to approx 25% of the original frame. The lens was at 500mm, F6.3, 1/500 sec, hand held, VR on. To me the image is as sharp as a tack, one can clearly see the texture of the reflecting material of the sign. Focus was super fast. Can't wait to try it out on a range of subjects

(Download)

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Not in the contest.

I like more of both as well. Unfortunately some seems to get lost in translation when I post on UH.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Good stuff, Dave. Do I understand correctly that these are shot with the new 200-500 Nikkor?

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

I am a Canon guy so I am not "talking up" Nikon; but from the photos provided the Nikon lens is sharper. HOWEVER, to really be valid all lenses should be micro focused before comparing and shot using a tripod.

Not surprising that the VR is so much faster on the Nikon lens; I suspect that you will find that the autofocus is also much faster.

If I have a bias in this it is my belief that Canon/Nikon lenses are better for their respective bodies. I think they are sharper, focus faster. I come to that belief by watching the pros: If they shoot long lenses, virtually none are using anything but the brand of their bodys. I am also very biased toward prime lenses compared to zoom for long lenses; however the Canon 200-400 with 1.4x is very sharp ($12,000!)

Very interesting comparison and if the off brand lenses are significantly cheaper, then it is possible those on tighter budgets can have access to a longer lens with only a small degredation in performance.

One last comment. I see a lot of comments trying to find a good lens at a cheap price. That is understandable, but unattainable in my experience. But, my experience is that money spent on the very best lenses is not lost, just invested. In contrast to selling used bodies, used lenses bring a high price. I sold my earlier 600mm f4.0 purchased for $5000 to get the new Canon 600mm f4.0 and sold it for $6500 after 5 years of use. (Yeah, the new one did cost a lot more)

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

Although the photos here were not shot under controlled and perfect circumstances, I think they show enough evidence contrary to "your experience".






That's a warm and fuzzy thought. But for those who are not pros who get paid for their photos, and who are not independently wealthy...dropping 10-12K on a lens is not a practical idea.

:roll:

from my lowly sigma

(Download)

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Yes, they are--otherwise I wouldn't have posted in this thread. :)