D7200 with Nikkor 200-500 f5.6 zoom lens: Contemplating adding the 200-500 Nikkor lens to my collection for nature photography. Have lots of humming birds, monarchs etc to photo and...

njarendt Loc: wisconsin

Contemplating adding the 200-500 Nikkor lens to my collection for nature photography. Have lots of humming birds, monarchs etc to photo and they do not stand still long. Add to that the many flowers and I need something in the 200-500 range. I have a 150-600 sigma and a 18-400 tamron that I use most of the time but need something just a little bit longer than the 400 and lighter than the 150/600. Advice?

Quixdraw Loc: x

Have the combination - excellent. Stays on the D7200 most of the time for birds and wildlife. Personally, I find it awkward for insects and prefer either my AF Micro Nikkor 105 2.8 D or Nikon 75-300 4.5 5.6 for those subjects.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

njarendt wrote:

Contemplating adding the 200-500 Nikkor lens to my collection for nature photography. Have lots of humming birds, monarchs etc to photo and they do not stand still long. Add to that the many flowers and I need something in the 200-500 range. I have a 150-600 sigma and a 18-400 tamron that I use most of the time but need something just a little bit longer than the 400 and lighter than the 150/600. Advice?

Think about an AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR with an AF-S TC-14E III 1.4x teleconverter.
The combination is a lot lighter than either lens you mentioned and is only 80mm less than 500mm.
Very sharp.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

njarendt wrote:

Contemplating adding the 200-500 Nikkor lens to my collection for nature photography. Have lots of humming birds, monarchs etc to photo and they do not stand still long. Add to that the many flowers and I need something in the 200-500 range. I have a 150-600 sigma and a 18-400 tamron that I use most of the time but need something just a little bit longer than the 400 and lighter than the 150/600. Advice?

I have the 200-500 Nikkor and love it. Sold my 150/600. The 200-500 is a great lens and super sharp

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I have both the 200-500 and Tam 150-600 G2. I get faster focus in lower light with the 200-500, but after thousands of shots, it was not worth having two lenses with those focal lengths. If I had to keep only one it would be the 200-500, but either would suffice.

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

njarendt wrote:

Contemplating adding the 200-500 Nikkor lens to my collection for nature photography. Have lots of humming birds, monarchs etc to photo and they do not stand still long. Add to that the many flowers and I need something in the 200-500 range. I have a 150-600 sigma and a 18-400 tamron that I use most of the time but need something just a little bit longer than the 400 and lighter than the 150/600. Advice?

You are now contemplating getting one of the best, sharpest, longest lasting bargains on the planet.
I still shoot Nikon but now own many Sony camera's.
I have owned and shot Nikon 300 2.8, 400 2.8, and 200-400 4 glass. I can tell you that the Nikon 200-500 5.6 is very comparable to these camera's on sharpness. And, it is sharp throughout it's range from 200-500. Now, more importantly, on your D7200, you will only be using the center part of that lens, the sharpest part, so again, your ahead of the game. And your field of view would be 300-750 mm. Very good range for almost all wildlife photography.
Did I mention how sharp that lens is. The following is just some examples of it's sharpness. Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

Jack47 Loc: Ontario

njarendt wrote:

Contemplating adding the 200-500 Nikkor lens to my collection for nature photography. Have lots of humming birds, monarchs etc to photo and they do not stand still long. Add to that the many flowers and I need something in the 200-500 range. I have a 150-600 sigma and a 18-400 tamron that I use most of the time but need something just a little bit longer than the 400 and lighter than the 150/600. Advice?

I have the 200-500 And I use it on my D7000 and the D7500. It is a very nice lens but if I were doing it again I think I would have bought a prime (maybe a 300 or 400) and a 1.4 tc.
While the pics are not bad I think mine could use a tune up from Nikon.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

njarendt wrote:

Contemplating adding the 200-500 Nikkor lens to my collection for nature photography. Have lots of humming birds, monarchs etc to photo and they do not stand still long. Add to that the many flowers and I need something in the 200-500 range. I have a 150-600 sigma and a 18-400 tamron that I use most of the time but need something just a little bit longer than the 400 and lighter than the 150/600. Advice?

It depends on which Sigma you have. The Nikon 20-500 is right between the Sigma Sport and Contemporary. It is a great lens. I went from the old Tamron 150-600 to the Nikon and it’s well worth the extra weight. It’s also much sharper at the long end than the Tamron 18-400.

leftyD500 Loc: Ocala, Florida

Mac wrote:

Think about an AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR with an AF-S TC-14E III 1.4x teleconverter.
The combination is a lot lighter than either lens you mentioned and is only 80mm less than 500mm.
Very sharp.

I agree, I have the 300mm PF plus the 1.4 tele, on my D610, and I could not ask for a better combo (for me!). Very light, and the photos are super sharp!

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

I started out birding with a D7200 and Tamron 150-600mm f5/6.3 G2 and got fairly good images from the combination. Birders are always looking for sharper, longer glass so I ended up buying a Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 along with a Nikon 1.4x teleconverter. The Tamron an Nikon are about the same IQ at the center of the frame, but the Nikon glass is noticeably sharper out from the middle and certainly sharper in the corners. The Nikon focuses much more quickly than the Tamron at longer zoom settings (probably the difference between f6.3 vs f5.6). The 1.4x teleconverter gives me 700mm of reach on the Nikon 200-500mm at f/8 without a noticeable decline in IQ, but I have to use the center of the frame to focus and it takes some time to lock (BBF really helps here), so I use manual focus about 1/2 the time. You will be pleased with Nikon 200-500mm f5.6.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

quixdraw wrote:

Have the combination - excellent. Stays on the D7200 most of the time for birds and wildlife. Personally, I find it awkward for insects and prefer either my AF Micro Nikkor 105 2.8 D or Nikon 75-300 4.5 5.6 for those subjects.

njarendt Loc: wisconsin

Thank you to all of you for your comments very helpful.
norm

Indrajeet Singh Loc: Goa, India

njarendt wrote:

Contemplating adding the 200-500 Nikkor lens to my collection for nature photography. Have lots of humming birds, monarchs etc to photo and they do not stand still long. Add to that the many flowers and I need something in the 200-500 range. I have a 150-600 sigma and a 18-400 tamron that I use most of the time but need something just a little bit longer than the 400 and lighter than the 150/600. Advice?

The D7200 is an awesome body and produces exceptionally sharp images, I use mine all the time, however as for bird action, you might find the AF system slightly slow, add the 200~500 (which is an amazing lens for the price) and you may find the combo slower than with the Nikkor 300 f4E PF with the TC 1.4E III, which will produce slightly better quality images as well.

On the D7200 the 300 + TC will produce a perceived view of 630mm against the PAV of 750mm with the 200~500. Either way, you will have an awesome set up for birds. Have fun!

davidb1879

Re: Billnikon: Bill, the first image is great. But the second is beyond great. Truly one of the best bird shots I have ever seen. Davidb1879.

Muddyvalley Loc: McMinnville, Oregon

Mac wrote:

Think about an AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR with an AF-S TC-14E III 1.4x teleconverter.
The combination is a lot lighter than either lens you mentioned and is only 80mm less than 500mm.
Very sharp.

I'll second that! An excellent combination! Got the 300 because the 500PF was taking too long to get here. Now that I have them both, I seldom use the 500PF. Bonus... the combination will also focus much closer than the 500PF.