Question on Nikkor AF-S FX 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Mar 1, 2023 11:32:50 #
As if you need another comment!😂
Great lens, the best long and/or zoom lens I’ve bought in the last 50 years!
Heavy ( duh!) but manageable with both and old D80 and a D500…$$ well spent!
Great lens, the best long and/or zoom lens I’ve bought in the last 50 years!
Heavy ( duh!) but manageable with both and old D80 and a D500…$$ well spent!
Mar 1, 2023 11:38:29 #
photon-collector
Loc: Tampa Bay Area, Florida
As an aside..... I've settled on the Nikkor zoom trifecta: 24-70, 70-200, 200-500, with 1.4(III) teleconverter.
All amazing optics.
All amazing optics.
Mar 1, 2023 11:40:50 #
[quote=PSims46]I’m thinking about getting this lens. I was wondering if anyone here could tell me how you like or dislike the Nikkor AF-S FX 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR. Most of the reviews I have seen mentions how heavy it is. Does the weight bother you? Also are there any other issues with this lens you would like to point out. How do you like the sharpness? Any information about the Nikkor AF-S FX 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR would be appreciated. Thanks in exceptional lens extraordinary sharpness a 500 mm lens is supposed to be heavy l
Mar 1, 2023 11:50:12 #
keywest305
Loc: Baltimore Md.
PSims46 wrote:
I’m thinking about getting this lens. I was wondering if anyone here could tell me how you like or dislike the Nikkor AF-S FX 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR. Most of the reviews I have seen mentions how heavy it is. Does the weight bother you? Also are there any other issues with this lens you would like to point out. How do you like the sharpness? Any information about the Nikkor AF-S FX 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
I have mine which I use for wildlife only and it is fast and Images are beautiful in my opinion. I use it on my Z9 and also on a tripod. I don't think you would be unhappy with it
Mar 1, 2023 12:03:42 #
photon-collector wrote:
As an aside..... I've settled on the Nikkor zoom trifecta: 24-70, 70-200, 200-500, with 1.4(III) teleconverter.
All amazing optics.
All amazing optics.
Sorry, but the trifecta is the 14-24, 24-70 and the 70-200!
Mar 1, 2023 12:19:05 #
cjc2 wrote:
Sorry, but the trifecta is the 14-24, 24-70 and the 70-200!
Nah! That's the holy trinity.
---
Mar 1, 2023 12:32:14 #
A little heavy. I use it with a Nikon TCIII 1.4 and get very sharp images. Great for birding.
Mar 1, 2023 13:16:16 #
Mar 1, 2023 13:18:53 #
it is NOT as sharp as a PRIME... for LANDSCAPE work, it is adequate, no problem, but IF NATURE, BIRDS, etc it will NOT be as sharp as a prime. I do know some folks have sharp images, but IF the same pic was taken with a PRIME it will not hold up IN competitive venues for contests, etc... or rarely ... it is LESS expensive than a PRIME and IF you are NOT a pro or trying to win THE BEST photo contest for a big mag, it won't matter
Mar 1, 2023 13:22:27 #
Mar 1, 2023 13:30:31 #
PSims46 wrote:
I’m thinking about getting this lens. I was wondering if anyone here could tell me how you like or dislike the Nikkor AF-S FX 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR.
I keep my well worn 200 - 500 semi-permanently mounted on my D500. Yes, I do find it heavy, but I carry it on its Really Right Stuff foot mount or RRS L bracket. When I need the reach, it's hard to beat...........and I already own it.
Mar 1, 2023 13:39:23 #
Charles Loy
Loc: Wichita Kansas USA
jcboy3 wrote:
Which is why Nikon really needs to put out the 200-600 they've been promising since forever.
Which is why Nikon really needs to put out the 200-600 they've been promising since forever.
Have you seen print from Nikon of that, I'm told it's more a rumor than a reality.
Mar 1, 2023 13:43:05 #
Charles Loy
Loc: Wichita Kansas USA
I love mine, had two and still own the last I bought. The concern with this lens is the long zoom throw, which has locked the zoom by loosening the screws that control the zoom function.
Mar 1, 2023 13:54:46 #
Charles Loy wrote:
Have you seen print from Nikon of that, I'm told it's more a rumor than a reality.
It is on Nikon's list of future lenses, with no further information. Patience!!
Mar 1, 2023 14:29:49 #
alphadog wrote:
it is NOT as sharp as a PRIME... for LANDSCAPE work, it is adequate, no problem, but IF NATURE, BIRDS, etc it will NOT be as sharp as a prime. I do know some folks have sharp images, but IF the same pic was taken with a PRIME it will not hold up IN competitive venues for contests, etc... or rarely ... it is LESS expensive than a PRIME and IF you are NOT a pro or trying to win THE BEST photo contest for a big mag, it won't matter
You should join us here in the 21st century instead of sitting back there in the dark ages. Yes historically primes have been sharper than zooms. Yes maybe the 500 PF is incrementally sharper than the 200-500, but also less flexible. The zooms of today with computer aided design can be very sharp and require extreme pixel peeping to see a difference. The fact is many pros shoot zooms and many awards have been won by photographers shooting zooms. I also don’t get your supposition that zooms are adequate for landscapes but not nature. Why would I want landscapes any less sharp and I would conjecture that primes are used more often for landscapes than nature, and if you’re looking at a 200-500 zoom I’m pretty sure not many landscapes are being shot with it.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.