MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Last week I posted some shots (hand held) of the new Nikon 200-500mm F5.6 lens compared to the 150-600mm offerings from Tamron and Sigma.
This week I decided to see what it would do against the MUCH heralded Nikon 200-400mm F4 Pro lens, again in poor conditions and wide open. (I will try differing aperture shots later)
Since both lenses VR is "tripod aware" I decided to leave the VR turned on and shot these test samples on a tripod. All are at ISO 1600, wide open, full zoom, I also added a Nikon 1.4X TC to the 200-400mm F4 lens just for a comparison.
To me it appears the new 200-500 model holds its own VERY well, especially at less than 1/4 the price!
The 200-400mm shot looks lighter since it was shot at F4 rather than F5.6. Like I said, I took these shots wide open, cloudy day, heavy haze in the air, as poor of conditions as I could imagine for this long glass. I may repeat this same test in good light if we ever get any more of that around here! :thumbup:

200-500mm at 500, F5.6

(Download)

200-400mm at 400, F4

(Download)

200-400mm at 550 (1.4X TC attached)

(Download)

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

Is the haze still from the smoke? Sure nice to see and compare photos without any processing. I had to get rid of my avatar. It made me too good looking.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

There is still some smoke, but most of it today is because of high humidity from last nights rains.

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

What might have been interesting would be to compare shots from the 200-500 at 400mm f5.6 and the 200-400 at 400mm f5.6! As it stands, the new 200-500 seems to be a winner, and, by Nikon standards, a relative bargain!

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Thanks for posting.

Judging image quality on a monitor has its limitations but that's the best we can all share.

The 200-500 holds up well. I think with a little post processing one could equalize all three.

bobbygee

I just finally got a chance to use my new Nikon 200-500 and was blown away by the sharpness of this lens. These pictures were taken SOOC, jpeg, 100-400 ISO, all wide open and cropped to around 100%. All I can say is good job Nikon!

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

It looks like this lens needs to be in my bag.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Ditto :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

This is not the way to compare lenses. All lenses are sharp in the middle, but getting the image sharp edge to edge is another question. There are other significant differences between these two. There are more elements and groups in the 200-400, just more glass. The 200-400 has nano-crystal coating to reduce flares, the 200-500 does not, it also has more ED glass. Better lenses significantly reduce chromatic aberration and distortion. Better lenses also increase color tones and saturation. They have superior optics, materials and are in part hand assembled. The optics are just better in the pro line. Between these two there is a significant weight difference. I am not able to ascertain whether or not all the elements are actually glass. Cheaper lenses often use a polycarbonate substitute.

The 200-500 has VR while the 200-400 has VR II. That is a big difference.

1. The Nikon VR zooming mechanism “creeps” while the VR II had improved on this. The Nikon VR II does not get out of zooming position easily by creeping.

2. The Nikon VR has 3 stops compensation while the VR II has 4 stops.

3. VR is the earlier implementation of Nikon’s vibration reduction technology and it is later improved by the release of VR II.

5. VR II is naturally more expensive than the VR.

Many of these quality features cannot be evaluated by simply posting LCD/jpeg images. You really don't need to post images to show differences between f/4 and f/5.6. I think we all understand that.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

Everyone knows that but thanks anyway. :thumbup: :D

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

I seriously don't think everyone knows that. In fact I have never read any post where one or another member discusses elements, groups, coatings, VR or IS differences, etc. But if you can find one, I would be interested in reading it. They are mostly like what you have here, two or STATIC images on a LCD, when in fact these lenses not more for sports and wildlife than anything else where AF becomes a critical function. How do you not include that in the discussion?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Simple fact is that Nikon has not introduced a new lens with "VR 1" technology in 7 years. Wake up and check spec sheets before you feel the need to make more of these inept remarks.

So what about VR III???

Again, READ SPEC SHEETS BEFORE MAKING THESE CONTINUING INEPT REMARKS!!!
The Nikon 200-500mm F5.6 allows for a 4.5 stop improvement in shooting speeds.
Why is it you feel the childish compulsion to keep making up your moronic statements that can EASILY be dispelled with anyone who can read?

See all the above replies.

And the point is??

When you feel the desire to make these inept attempts to discredit someone, think ahead at the end result of your idiotic posts. No one comes away from this looking more foolish than you, as always.
Please take a remedial reading course so you can better inform yourself on facts.....of, I forgot, facts have no place in your posts.

I never claimed a $1400 lens was "better" than a $7000 lens, no one has, I merely presented comparable images for others to judge the value for themselves. LOTS of people would like the 200-400mm F4 that simply cannot afford it. Nikon has made a VERY competitive consumer level alternative for shooters to consider. Me, yes I have both, and like both, but I would not use the 200-500 in bad weather, the 200-400 would be the clear choice there for me.

You want to buy and compare them and post a definitive, valuable synopsis?
I thought not.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

It is the idiot like yourself who posts marginal images and attempts to make a comparison without considering all of the criteria needed to make a good analysis. I have NO problem with recommending lower cost cameras and lenses but I think it is important to list the trade offs. But you can't do that and in fact you are not qualified to even make such comparisons. Leave that to the labs, experts who have the equipment and expertise. If you want to make a summary of what the the experts have provided, that is just fine, but link the sources.

I am not discrediting you. You're doing a good job all by yourself with this type of post. As for facts, you left most of them out. Let me repeat, you left most of the out.

Did you do that on purpose or where you just ignorant? Likely ignorant as you posted static images for lenses that are clearly made for sports and wildlife market.

Then you actually state that in poor weather you would use one over the other. You never mentioned weathersealing until now. Why would you not include that in your initial post and share that with the members?

Don't tell me what or what not. I did not make this post, you did. As they say, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen or camera business.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Thanks Carter. Appreciate your efforts. Been getting some time with my 200-500 and am very pleased. It seems the lens just 'knows' where I want focus to be.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I knew you couldn't come back with anything factual or constructive, you never do. Do the entire forum a favor and disappear. Oh, and proper spelling is taught in the second grade, try it sometime.