Bill_de Loc: US

Never mind.


---

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

It is very good, but I would stop short of saying it is as good as a prime lens at 500mm. I had a 600mm F4 prime and was looking for something hand-holdable, and looked at all of the contenders, with the 200-500 being one of them. I could accept the sharpness compromise without a TC. But as soon as I tried it with a 1.4 TC III it failed to satisfy my needs. Being a member of NPS I was able to test 2 different copies, as well as a friend's. They we pretty consistent. Good, but not in the same league as my prime. The ONLY Lens available at that time (2016) that provided the image quality I was looking for was the Sigma 150-600 Sport, so I bought one. Aside from the image quality issue, I needed a lens that I would not have to worry about using in inclement weather - light rain, mist, snow, etc. and the Nikon was definitely not that lens. I am not saying it is a bad lens - because it really isn't. I found it sharper than the 80-400 and the lower cost 150-600s from Sigma and Tamron. But none of these could compare. If I were a Canon shooter I would have no qualms about getting a 100-400 II and a 1.4 TC - the combo gives excellent, prime-like performance and results. But there is nothing like that from Nikon.

You may want to read an impartial and thorough test - it mirrors my own experience when searching for a replacement for my 600mmf4 and covers all the usual suspects, alone and used with TCs. I had already purchased my Sigma when I became aware of this article, which only confirmed what I had already learned - namely that it is not possible to get the exact experience with a low-cost zoom that you can get with a 600mm prime, but given that you can hand hold it, you don't need a tripod to use it and the 30lb pack that goes along with that, and as far as image quality is concerned you can get really really close - as long as there is enough light. I've shot short eared owls in the golden hour, hand held, and did ok.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Nothing satisfies pixel peepers except a $12,000 or more lens.

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

It is a remarkable lens when used properly. It is great off the D500.
`

uhaas2009

It’s not $12000 f 2.8 ......lol......😉

tshift Loc: Overland Park, KS.

I have one and use it for high school sports. I love it, it works well for me. I shoot for MaxPreps.com. I know some others that shoot with it for sports and it works just fine. I will say at f/5.6 constant f stop it is not a low light lens and the DOF keeps you backed up but 500mm gives good reach. Thanks

Tom

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

I got one in 2015. Naturally when I got it home it was dark and raining. So I went down to the basement to try it out. Put a $50 bill against the wall and went about 20 ft away and took a shot. I could read the microprinting on the bill.

Used it at a concert. Took one shot of a stage hand from the balcony (about 50 meters away) hand held at 1/10 second. Wasn't perfect but it was reasonably sharp. The new generation VR on the lens worked well.

The price is not unreasonable. I took the 200-400 off my wish list.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I use mine on a monopod with the Wimberly mono gimbal and have no problem rotating the camera. Here’s a set taken with the lens.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-668483-1.html

tshift Loc: Overland Park, KS.

I went and looked at your photos. They were really nice shots. I am not a bird guy, I do take photos of the Red Tailed Hawks we have around here but that is about all. You did well and the 200-500mm took excellent photos. Post more when you can. Thanks BE SAFE!

Tom

In-lightened Loc: Kansas City

I echo his sentiments...are you looking for the next level? Primes. The 300 f2.8 takes a tele nicely and is great for BIF! The 500mm pf is good as well and so light weight! Good luck with decision!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

For optics only - https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-597795-1.html Other objective reviews I have seen document that the acuity falls off towards the corners more so than most - making it a better lens for crop frame vs full frame if you want the edges.

Most agree the AF is the best of the affordable big zoom genre on Nikon - which, is to say, can still be challenging.

Like all the big zooms, the tripod collar is heavily compromised.
.

RoswellAlien

But HEAVY. Mounted on 850 with TC14, almost 8 pounds. But worth it.

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

So...so for the price.

Cheers!

Dossile

Excellent. Certainly not a $12000 lens, but a better lens than I am a photographer. I have printed very sharp images up to 20x20 on metal from both a D300 and a D850. This Somali ostrich in Kenya was taken with the D850 and a 200-500 on a cloudy day. When enlarged, I can see the eye reflection, the feather strands and the scale detail on the neck and legs. I am not a birder, but use the lens for wildlife, landscapes and cityscapes and was surprised by the clarity for a $1300 lens.

(Download)

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

It certainly meets my needs. Sharp, easy to handle except for the weight. Far exceeds the capability of the Sigma 150-500mm lens that it replaced. Would buy it again.