Nikon 200-500 vs. 500 PF
Jul 16, 2021 10:40:43 #
Jul 16, 2021 14:14:15 #
PixelStan77 wrote:
My 200-500 copy was sharp through the range
I use my 200-500 5.6 vr for all kinds of sports. At 500mm it may be a bit soft at times but at other times sharp as a tack. This is operator error on focusing. When you nail the focus your just fine.
Many hogs have seen my work and what the lens will do. For the money I can't complain at all.
For soccer, football (daytime only) baseball not softball to long, it's a very good lens.
Jul 16, 2021 18:34:02 #
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
Jul 16, 2021 18:52:58 #
Thomas902 wrote:
Amazing... four pages of discussion and yet no one... (show quote)
Thomas as you know I own and shoot a lot with my 200-500 5.6 vr lens. A bit soft at 500mm but that may have been because using to slow of a shutter speed. Always use my monopod as the lens is a beast and for this old guy hand holding is not an option for more than 10 minutes.
500mm 1/2500 at 5.6
(Download)
500mm same settings as above
(Download)
500mm 1/2500 at 5.6
(Download)
Jul 16, 2021 20:50:48 #
tcthome
Loc: NJ
pendennis wrote:
I can only speak to the 200-500 f/5.6, but it's among my favorite lenses. It is heavy, but with the VR, I've handheld it and gotten some great photos. At the 500mm setting, I've gotten some fine shots of lighthouses when they were .25 miles, using it on a tripod.
The following was shot using VR, handheld, ISO 400, 1/640, f/11, @500mm setting
The following was shot using VR, handheld, ISO 400, 1/640, f/11, @500mm setting
Nice photo.
Jul 16, 2021 20:54:36 #
tcthome
Loc: NJ
With the kids playing the 200-500 sounds like a better option. The 500 pf would be my choice if I didn't need the zoom to back off for taking photos tof he kids playing.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out True Macro-Photography Forum section of our forum.