Nikon 200-500 Steve Perry Review on Youtube
Jul 22, 2018 19:57:55 #
tiphareth51 wrote:
Steve, my comments regarding your review were in n... (show quote)
No worries, my comments were not directed at you in any way, but rather towards those who make the assumption that if I have two poor copies of a lens in a row that it must somehow be user error.
Jul 23, 2018 00:11:25 #
I have used only one 200 - 500 and mine seems very sharp over its range, particularly at 500. I did the AF Fine Tune and got zero correction.
Jul 23, 2018 00:36:41 #
Jul 23, 2018 01:14:15 #
billnikon wrote:
Wait a minute here, you said, "I mean, sure i... (show quote)
Who's Charlie?
One of the beautiful things about living where we do is we are all entitled to an opinion. Your opinion is the Nikkor 200-500 is just as good a lens as the Canon EF 100-400L II. I believe your opinion is based a lot on your being a Nikon shooter, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's normal.
I never said the Nikkor 200-500 is a bad lens or even under rated. For $1300 it is an excellent lens, but it's still just a $1300 lens and no one's opinion will change that.
Apparently there was a problem in the early production run of those lenses, a problem that Nikon resolved. MY copy of the lens is not one of the earlier versions and it works perfectly fine.
Before I got the 200-500 I used a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. The Nikkor lenses is way better than the Sigma C and I've basically replaced the Sigma C with the Nikkor.
You may go ahead and believe the Nikkor is on par with the Canon 100-400L II, it doesn't bother me in the least and I will not loose any sleep over it. Personally I know better. How? Because I own both lenses and have compared them. The Canon is a better built lens, its AF is lightning fast, its IS is amazing, as is the VR on the Nikkor, and I wouldn't be concerned about using it in inclement weather. The Canon focuses much closer than the Nikkor, close enough you could use it as a macro lens. The Canon is all metal construction yet it's lighter than the Nikkor and unlike the Chinese made Nikkor, the Canon is made in Japan. For the money, it is one of the best lenses Canon makes. Image quality of the two lenses is quite similar, they are both sharp. As for the Sigma Sport, it's built to take serious abuse. I believe they actually tested it at the summit of Mt Everest. The Nikkor would not have survived that trip. The Sigma's AF is no match for either Canon or Nikkor and its VC is OK. It is a sharp lens. Because it's built like a tank it's difficult to shoot handheld. It's weather sealed as well as the Canon but it weighs two pounds more.
As for the Nikkor being the most underrated lens, that's not true, I've never read or seen a bad review of that lens and I would personally rate it as an excellent buy.
Again, who the heck is Charlie?
Jul 23, 2018 01:30:14 #
Steve Perry wrote:
No worries, my comments were not directed at you in any way, but rather towards those who make the assumption that if I have two poor copies of a lens in a row that it must somehow be user error.
I hope I'm not the intended one because I did not bad mouth or doubt you. As I said, I did not see the review of the Nikkor 200-500 in question and since my copy of the lens works flawlessly, I was questioning the validity of what the other party said. Somewhere in the thread someone implied I said you were clueless. This is not accurate at all. I basically said that anyone who would give the Nikkor 200-500 a bad review is clueless. As I have not yet watched your review, I couldn't have commented on it.
I remember reading there were early production issues with that lens. The odds of getting two bad ones early on was pretty good. I inquired about whether you said what was wrong with the first two lenses in the review. Never got a clear response on that one.
As I said, my copy of the lens works perfectly. I did not buy mine when it first hit the streets.
Jul 23, 2018 05:55:08 #
Jul 23, 2018 18:15:18 #
Steve Perry]No worries, my comments were not directed at you in any way, but rather towards those who make the assumption that if I have two poor copies of a lens in a row that it must somehow be user error.
Steve; in my book and many others', you don't need to defend your credibility and reputation. I'm mostly a bystander when it comes to this forum, have only been deeply involved in the digital photography world for the last few years and have learned a LOT from many people, but no one has guided me on a straighter, more truthful and knowledgeable photography education path as you have.
If others doubt what you've gone out of your way to print and use as an education tool, then so be it. We're all entitled to our own opinions and not everyone is correct all the time.
Steve; in my book and many others', you don't need to defend your credibility and reputation. I'm mostly a bystander when it comes to this forum, have only been deeply involved in the digital photography world for the last few years and have learned a LOT from many people, but no one has guided me on a straighter, more truthful and knowledgeable photography education path as you have.
If others doubt what you've gone out of your way to print and use as an education tool, then so be it. We're all entitled to our own opinions and not everyone is correct all the time.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.