Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I have the 200 to 500mm Nikon and use it with a D7100. Best long lens I've ever used. It's a bit heavy, I hand hold it a lot but prefer it with a monopod. I wouldn't hesitate to buy it again. I replaced a Tamron with it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I just saw the Imatest numbers for the 500PF yesterday - as a practical matter, around the center, they are the SAME - but the prime does a littler better going into the corners of full frame - but it's real claim to fame is the less size and weight !! How fast can your feet zoom ??
.

djbolden Loc: garrett co maryland

Thanks DirtFarmer Appreciate the response

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I agree with your observations here. Performance wise, the 200-500 is a very good lens. The VR is great. I've done numerous hand held exposures of the moon (several posted on this site) at 500mm that are far better than what a lot of comments would lead you to expect. But when you roll the price into the equation, it becomes a great lens.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I should also note that the new version of the 70-200 and 24-70 with VR also use the new generation of VR. Does much better than the old version. Price to match. I believe the 24-70 VR runs $2800

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You're welcome. My basis for comparison on image quality is my 600mm F4. The G2 and Sport are the closest in image quality, with the main difference being that I can get that quality on the 600mm F4 at F4, and the other two lenses need a lot more light - to at least F7.1. Now the reality is that I often am pretty close to my subjects and end up closing down to F7.1 or F8 anyway, just to get a little more depth of field. Nikon does make some outstanding lenses, and they also make some real duds. While the 200-500 is definitely not a dud, it does not compare with the 600mm F4 or 500mm F4 either in image quality or build quality - or cost for that matter. As you can see, the Sigma has got some serious "chops" when it comes to image quality.

I like the 200-500, but I find the others better. The G2 is a direct price competitor, with moisture sealed construction, it's ultra-hard Fluorine Coating on the front element, and it's light weight (for a 600mm) makes it a no-brainer. The Sport has a similar hard coating that resists smudges, dust etc - a superb build quality reminiscent of my 600mmF4, and VR that is nearly as good as the Tamron and Nikkor.

About the cat picture. In addition to being shot hand held at 600mm at 1/25 sec, it represented a pretty serious crop.

Here is the original it was cropped from. Shooting a feral cat is a bit of a cheat - they can hold a pose for quite a while, barely blinking and stay with that hard cold stare. So as long as I didn't move, there was no camera motion induced blur.

Unlike many who post on these and other forums, I actually own or at least have used the equipment I comment about. It's not hypothetical, or knowledge acquired from other sources, some of which can be pretty questionable. It's all first hand. I try to support my commentary with real examples, too.

.

(Download)

Dossile

I enjoy my Nikon 200-500. The G2 was not available for me to look at the time of purchase, but I did look at the Sigma Sport. The Sport was well made, the mechanics and autofocus seemed sound. But it weighed 1 lb more and was slightly over an inch longer. I went with the constant aperture and the lighter lens. Looking at reviews for all 3 lenses, both by professionals and on B&H, the lenses all seem to perform well. If you can, handle all 3 and make a choice. The weather sealed lens should be highly considered if you wander through deep woods though. The 200-500 isn’t weather sealed. I live in a drier climate, so water and condensation aren’t big issues. The photo was taken with the 200-500 on a Nikon D850. I like that I could put it on the camera and start shooting. Adjusting focus and the likes on 3rd party lenses intimidates me.

Pistnbroke Loc: UK

I have the 200-500 and the tam 100-400 . I had the tamron 150-600 and it was terrible.
If you buy the 200-500 make sure you get the fine focus adjust spot on. I use it with a D7100/7200 and D850 usually at F8min 1/500 auto iso max 3200 and its excellent. the tam 100-400 is almost as good as the Nikon on the 7200 and as good as the Nikon on the 850.
The tam 100-400 will not work with Z series which might be a future problem.
Why not buy it grey ? I get all my gear from e-infinity paid under $1000 for the 200-500

Dosille ..get that fine focus done its easy on the D850 and I have seen people quote from +5 to +10 being required so you are not getting the best just putting it on the camera.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

It is a brilliant lens and I had no trouble with mine on the end of my D500 - but that camera is pretty good in lower light/higher ISO. I also owned a Nikkor 300mm f4 PF ED VR and used it with a Nikkor 1.4TC when required. Though more expensive brand new, you may be able to pick up a good used version. It is incredibly lightweight and produces excellent results. I did, however, favour my 200 - 500mm.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

The long range zoom choices for a Nikon 7100/7200 are:

The Nikon 200-500 you listed
Tamron 150-600 5-6.3 G2 (also the G1 but not recommended)
Sigma C 150-600
Sigma S 150-600 ($2000+)

They are all very good quality lenses optically, but I liked the construction on the Tammy the best within my budget so I have that one. You should not have a problem in wooded areas in daylight.....dusk or darker no bueno....but about 2 hours before perfect....these are all "sunny day" lenses but I've taken shots on cloudy days at f/8-9....don't be afraid to up the iso to 1200-2000. I suggest you try them in store or renting before buying.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Sigma S is $1799

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Yes, and it costs only $3,600 - a real bargain.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

He said he was stretching his budget at $1400.00. So why even mention a $3500.00 lens. Daaaa.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The 200-500 is sharp at every zoom level. Below are just a few captures. I chose these two because they were taken very early in the morning in light similar to what you will be experiencing in the woods.
You need to crank up the ISO but I shoot wide open or at 6.3, about a 1/3 stop down.
You will be very pleased with the results from this lens. I sold my 300 2.8 and 200-400 4 primarily because of the weight but once I saw the results of my 200-500 I was won over.
Proper technique is very important using this lens. Practice, practice, practice.

ozarkdon1

A great lens, especially considering the cost. Took this photo in Ranthambhore National Park in India three weeks ago