Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 ED AF-S VR
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
Mar 25, 2019 12:42:56   #
djbolden Loc: garrett co maryland
 
I am considering purchasing this lens to photograph wildlife. I will be using a Nikon d7100. My concern is the 5.6 aperture I'm sure it will be fine in the open but not sure how it will work in the woods. I am just a hobbyist and the $1400 price tag is stretching my budget. So I am wandering what your thoughts are Thanks

Reply
Mar 25, 2019 12:48:29   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
The zoom is a nice feature but the 500PF is sharper and lighter.

Reply
Mar 25, 2019 12:48:58   #
fetzler Loc: North West PA
 
I took wildlife pictures at f5.6 with iso 64 film. You can use at least iso 3200

Reply
 
 
Mar 25, 2019 12:51:49   #
PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago
 
djbolden wrote:
I am considering purchasing this lens to photograph wildlife. I will be using a Nikon d7100. My concern is the 5.6 aperture I'm sure it will be fine in the open but not sure how it will work in the woods. I am just a hobbyist and the $1400 price tag is stretching my budget. So I am wandering what your thoughts are Thanks


Great lens, Have one, Go for it! Not an issue in the woods.

Camera: Nikon D800
Lens: Nikon 200-500 mm f/5.6
Shot at 200 mm
Exposure: Auto exposure, Aperture-priority AE, 1/2,000 sec, f/6.3, ISO 2000, Compensation: -1/3
I use it on a Monopod as I wait for expressions on wildlife



Reply
Mar 25, 2019 12:52:08   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
djbolden wrote:
I am considering purchasing this lens to photograph wildlife. I will be using a Nikon d7100. My concern is the 5.6 aperture I'm sure it will be fine in the open but not sure how it will work in the woods. I am just a hobbyist and the $1400 price tag is stretching my budget. So I am wandering what your thoughts are Thanks


Its a good lens for the money although heavy.

If weight is a concern you may want to consider the Sigma or Tamron 100-400mm lens. Cost less and are easier to carry.

Reply
Mar 25, 2019 13:03:55   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
Your center AF point is good to f8, others are good to f5.6, so this lens will work fine and autofocus just fine. I have this lens and find it very good. It is not weather sealed, and it draws ambient air (and moisture and other goop) in each time the zoom is extended, so keep that in mind. But many others here also reported very good results with this lens.

Reply
Mar 25, 2019 13:15:49   #
Muddyvalley Loc: McMinnville, Oregon
 
Fotoartist wrote:
The zoom is a nice feature but the 500PF is sharper and lighter.


If a $1400 price tag is stretching his budget, paying $3,600 for a lens that is also f/5.6 and might possibly become available at an unknown date in the future is kinda out of the question no?

Reply
 
 
Mar 25, 2019 13:30:19   #
djbolden Loc: garrett co maryland
 
Beautiful picture pixelStan77 if I could get shots like that I would not hesitate to get one. Thanks for your response

Reply
Mar 25, 2019 14:31:13   #
PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago
 
djbolden wrote:
Beautiful picture pixelStan77 if I could get shots like that I would not hesitate to get one. Thanks for your response


You will. Think positive.

Reply
Mar 25, 2019 15:19:32   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
Muddyvalley wrote:
If a $1400 price tag is stretching his budget, paying $3,600 for a lens that is also f/5.6 and might possibly become available at an unknown date in the future is kinda out of the question no?


I did not know it cost that much more. I already own the 200-500. The 500PF wasn't yet available when I bought it. But seeing the specs showing it to be sharper would make a case for paying a bit more for it. But who would buy it if it cost that much more? It must also be the weight and the compact size that lets it fit into a shoulder bag that helps, I guess.

Reply
Mar 25, 2019 15:25:24   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
On the other hand, I've always maintained that buying good glass would more or less hold much of its value like a rare commodity would. This would no doubt be a sound principle in inflationary times. However, at this time, not as much.

Reply
 
 
Mar 25, 2019 15:58:53   #
djbolden Loc: garrett co maryland
 
Thanks to all I appreciate your responses

Reply
Mar 25, 2019 16:43:16   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
djbolden wrote:
I am considering purchasing this lens to photograph wildlife. I will be using a Nikon d7100. My concern is the 5.6 aperture I'm sure it will be fine in the open but not sure how it will work in the woods. I am just a hobbyist and the $1400 price tag is stretching my budget. So I am wandering what your thoughts are Thanks


It shouldn't be an issue if you exercise good technique.

These three images show what can be done with a similar lens - a Sigma Sport 150-600 F5-6.3. These were all shot hand held and in pretty crummy light. I would not expect to get results like this with the Nikon 200-500, since it is a little soft at 5.6 and should really be closed down at least to F7.1 or even F8 for better results. I have the same issue with my lens, though it really doesn't get much sharper beyond F7.1, but I do get a little extra depth of field.

I had the 200-500 for 2 weeks and though I thought it was a decent lens, I was unhappy with the 500mm being the longest focal length, the build quality, and the bit of softness where it counted. I found the Sigma Sport to be better in all respects, and I bought a clean used one for $1100. Another lens worth considering as you think about the Nikkor is the Tamron G2 - 150-600. I found it every bit as sharp as the Sigma Sport at 600, and even sharper than the Sigma at shorter focal lengths. It is also almost 2 lbs lighter, making it easy to hand hold. Both are better than the Nikkor in all respects, but not by a huge margin, and the Tamron has the better warranty. If I were to do it again, I would likely get the Tamron, especially after having taken over 6,000 images with the Sigma, and borrowing a Tamron for a couple of weeks. I think the price of the G2 is the same as the Nikkor.

D800, 1/25, ISO 400, 600mm, F8
D800, 1/25, ISO 400, 600mm, F8...
(Download)

D800, 1/400, ISO 2000, 600mm F7.1
D800, 1/400, ISO 2000, 600mm F7.1...
(Download)

D800, 1/100, ISO 800, 600mm F7.1
D800, 1/100, ISO 800, 600mm F7.1...
(Download)

D810, 1/200 ISO 2500, 600mm, F7.1
D810, 1/200 ISO 2500, 600mm, F7.1...
(Download)

Reply
Mar 25, 2019 18:25:54   #
djbolden Loc: garrett co maryland
 
Thank You Gene51 I have a Tamron 18 -270 and I have not been happy with the performance of the lens that is why I was considering purchasing a Nikon lens this time hoping to get better photos I m sure some of the problem is operator error But after viewing your photos im not so sure What to buy. I really like the cat and the owl ,they are awesome. I guess I will need to do more research

Reply
Mar 25, 2019 18:56:28   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
I had the 200-400 on my wishlist for many years. When the 200-500 came out I thought about it for a while and finally junped on it about 4 years ago. I noticed almost immediately that it was a high performance lens compared to everything else I had. The lens produces sharp images, but the biggest advantage I noticed was the VR. I had the 70-200 with VR from about 12 years ago and while VR helped a bit it wasn't all that great. The 200-500 VR is the new generation of VR. I have used the lens at 500mm down to 1/10 second hand held. I took the 200-400 off my wishlist.

With this VR, one thing you will notice is that when you hand hold a telephoto lens the image moves around erratically. When you switch on the VR, the image jumps around rather than moving smoothly. That's because the VR holds the image in one spot until it hits the edge of its range, after which it jumps to a new position.

The lens is not built to pro standards, meaning it's not moisture sealed and it's built from lighter materials than some of the higher priced lenses, but I have had no problems with it even in light drizzle. The lens hood is not all that great, hard to get on and prone to being knocked off.

In my opinion, the lens is a good value for the price. It is now one of my 3 most used lenses, and most of what I do is event photography. I use the 24-70-200-500 lenses and the 200-500 was the least expensive one.

Reply
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.