Nikkor 200-500?

Yes its a thought process for me,even shorter now i have the D750,f5.6 should mean quicker focusing but heavier than the 150-600, which caused me problems anyway,sort of decided to get another long lens and just accept there are times and places i just will not be able to take it,i want the Tamron again but after contacting the importers to ask about focus freeze they only said it should not happen,when i was selling that was the sort of phrase i would use when i was forced to sell a product i had little faith in.
 
mikew said:
Yes its a thought process for me,even shorter now i have the D750,f5.6 should mean quicker focusing but heavier than the 150-600, which caused me problems anyway,sort of decided to get another long lens and just accept there are times and places i just will not be able to take it,i want the Tamron again but after contacting the importers to ask about focus freeze they only said it should not happen,when i was selling that was the sort of phrase i would use when i was forced to sell a product i had little faith in.
Click to expand...

You certainly had an unfair share of the problem with yours :( have you thought of a Sigma equivalent?
TBH I rarely used mine hand-held, it was normally on a beanbag, monopod or tripod ... is that an option?
 
gramps said:
You certainly had an unfair share of the problem with yours :( have you thought of a Sigma equivalent?
TBH I rarely used mine hand-held, it was normally on a beanbag, monopod or tripod ... is that an option?
Click to expand...

I cant get it in my mind that the sigma C is as good as the Tamron,it could just have been the Tamron had more contrast,there would be no where to use a bean bag in the places i go and the tripod is just too much extra weight,even a monopod changes the carrying position so making it more difficult,i may have to settle for the Sigma and limited use.
 
Another review here. Google translate gives results that are more poetic than informative :) but it shows it mounted on a camera.

It looks like more of a beast than I was expecting, though I suppose I should have realised from the filter size.
 
rpsmith79 said:
Really?, i thought they all looked plenty sharp, even at 100%

Although i can't see any mention of what body it was attached to
Click to expand...


The ones with human subjects and some of the architectural ones look cracking I agree. But some of the nature ones seem a bit lacking to me, especially the birds (though why he chose 1/2500 for that gull is unclear to me, unless it had been shot out of a cannon :) Edit: most of the buildings were obviously going at a rate as well.).

The ISO performance seems variable as well--in the 'other photos of test' section the car and the creeper look good at ISO 1000 but the rose is noisy at ISO 640. The VR test is very impressive though.

Edit: Are they 100% crops? I'd think not, if the first pic is the whole frame?
 
Last edited:
Very interested in this lens as I was also looking at the Sigma 150-600Sport, so glad to see the reviews of the Nikon 200-500 coming out. I've read about 3-4 reviews to day so will include links to photos.



Its a mixed bag of pros and cons with both lenses for me:
Sigma is weather sealed, Nikon isn't, but you can get good weather protection for lenses these days.
Sigma is 600mm, Nikon 500mm, but looks as if it works really well with 1.4TC.
Sigma is heavier
Nikon is faster.

What are other peoples views on the pros and cons for the two lenses?

Nikon 200-500 @500mm@f5.6

http://www.cyberphoto.se/bildexempel/ni200500/NIK_7056.JPG

Nikon 200-500 +1.4TC @700mm@f8

http://www.cyberphoto.se/bildexempel/ni200500/NIK_7030.JPG


This looks really good at 700mm!!

Simon


STAFF EDIT: IMAGES BROKEN TO LINKS - WARNING FOLKS, THE FILES ARE MASSIVE, AND COMING FROM WHAT APPEARS TO BE A TERRIBLY SLOW SERVER. CLICK ON THE LINKS ONLY IF YOU'RE ON A UNMETERED CONNECTION AND HAVE A DEGREE OF PATIENCE.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SAuchterlonie said:
Very interested in this lens as I was also looking at the Sigma 150-600Sport, so glad to see the reviews of the Nikon 200-500 coming out. I've read about 3-4 reviews to day so will include links to photos.



Its a mixed bag of pros and cons with both lenses for me:
Sigma is weather sealed, Nikon isn't, but you can get good weather protection for lenses these days.
Sigma is 600mm, Nikon 500mm, but looks as if it works really well with 1.4TC.
Sigma is heavier
Nikon is faster.

What are other peoples views on the pros and cons for the two lenses?

Simon
Click to expand...

Yep, the above is pretty much where i am at, not so fussed about the weather sealing though as i rarerly venture out in bad weather, and since i already own a 1.4x TC i think the Nikon might clinch it for me

Are there any confirmed UK prices yet for the Nikon?
 
rpsmith79 said:
Yep, the above is pretty much where i am at, not so fussed about the weather sealing though as i rarerly venture out in bad weather, and since i already own a 1.4x TC i think the Nikon might clinch it for me

Are there any confirmed UK prices yet for the Nikon?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I like the weather sealing as I can be out in all weathers, and its good not just for water, but also sand/dust.

Theres one for sale on Ebay already at £1200 and most places seem to have them about £1179, and then I'd love to have the 1.4TC too! :)
 
mark richards said:
around about the £1100 mark..though they will probable drop in price..
Click to expand...

Nice, so around £400 cheaper than the Sport. sounds good to me, hopefully be able to pick one up for about a grand after the initial rush has died off
 
rpsmith79 said:
Nice, so around £400 cheaper than the Sport. sounds good to me, hopefully be able to pick one up for about a grand after the initial rush has died off
Click to expand...


My thinking as well. Of course, the long awaited Fuji ?-400 might throw a spanner into the works if it turns up before the Nikkor drops to a grand (at a reasonable cost!)
 
micloi said:
Picking up mine in the morning. Should be able to do a quick comparison with a Nikon 500mm f4 mk2, Nikon 300mm pf and a Sigma 150-600mm contemporary
Click to expand...


Lets hope for Nikons sake it doesn't match the 500 f4,looking forward to your conclusions though.
 
micloi said:
Picking up mine in the morning. Should be able to do a quick comparison with a Nikon 500mm f4 mk2, Nikon 300mm pf and a Sigma 150-600mm contemporary
Click to expand...
Will be very interested in your findings Michael :)
 
micloi said:
Picking up mine in the morning. Should be able to do a quick comparison with a Nikon 500mm f4 mk2, Nikon 300mm pf and a Sigma 150-600mm contemporary
Click to expand...

Excellent news, can't wait to see some results and test photos. Will be good to see it up against the Sigma 150-600 as its its main competition. Don't suppose you have a 1.4TC to test on it too?

Cheers

Simon
 
Ken Rockwell says about the new 80-400mm lens Quote" This new 80-400 is more expensive, bigger and heavier than theoriginal 80-400 VR, and it's all worth it. "unquote

Then on the 200 -500 post of his he says Quote" The 80-400mm VR is a swell consumer lens, priced for professionals. You've got to be kidding; it's over $2,000 and made of plastic!" unquote

Doesn't he even read his own reviews???
 
Last edited:
 
micloi said:
There you go:

Nikon 500mm f4 mk2 at 500mm f4
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/3 way comparison/500mm f4 500mm.jpg

Nikon 200-500mm at 500mm f5.6
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/3 way comparison/Nikon 200-500m f5.6.jpg

Sigma 150-600mm C at 600mm f6.3
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/3 way comparison/Sigma 150-600mm C 600mm f6.3.jpg

Nikon 500mm f4 mk2 at 700mm f5.6 (with Nikon TC-14e III)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/3 way comparison/500mm f4 700mm f5.6.jpg

Nikon 200-500mm at 700mm f8 (with Nikon TC-14e III)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/3 way comparison/Nikon 200-500m 700mm f8.jpg
Click to expand...

Looks good so far, apart from with the 1.4 TC attached, as that looks noticeably softer, but that would only really be a nice bonus if it worked flawlessly with the TC attached

I don't suppose you've had a proper play with it yet, but i'd like to know your preference of Sigma 150-600 and the 200-500 once you've got to grips with it and put it through it's paces
 
rpsmith79 said:
Looks good so far, apart from with the 1.4 TC attached, as that looks noticeably softer, but that would only really be a nice bonus if it worked flawlessly with the TC attached

I don't suppose you've had a proper play with it yet, but i'd like to know your preference of Sigma 150-600 and the 200-500 once you've got to grips with it and put it through it's paces
Click to expand...

Seems quite sharp to me with the 1.4x. Will take more photos when the light is better as it is quite overcast at the moment.
 
micloi said:
There you go:

Nikon 500mm f4 mk2 at 500mm f4
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/3 way comparison/500mm f4 500mm.jpg

Nikon 200-500mm at 500mm f5.6
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/3 way comparison/Nikon 200-500m f5.6.jpg

Sigma 150-600mm C at 600mm f6.3
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/3 way comparison/Sigma 150-600mm C 600mm f6.3.jpg

Nikon 500mm f4 mk2 at 700mm f5.6 (with Nikon TC-14e III)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/3 way comparison/500mm f4 700mm f5.6.jpg

Nikon 200-500mm at 700mm f8 (with Nikon TC-14e III)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/3 way comparison/Nikon 200-500m 700mm f8.jpg
Click to expand...


Thanks for this Michael!

Could I ask what ISO you're shooting at and which camera body?

Cheers

Simon
 
Cheers Michael, just had a look and the seem to vary between 600 and 1000 ISO. Would it be possible to shoot some at 100 iso, just so we can show off the quality of the lens and not have any effects from the cameras ISO?

Sorry for all the requests. :)
 
I shot these with a minimum shutter speed to emulate using the lenses in the field. Using the f4 vs the 5.6 and 6.3 would have given me different shutter speeds in real life. Having said that happy to shoot a few in 'laboratory' conditions when I have some time.
 
And a 'lab conditions' comparison with the Sigma 150-600mm C using manual mode and a tripod
Both lenses auto focused using live view
Shot in raw and exported using Adobe RAW after just an auto-balance as the sigma's photos are always more yellow

Sigma at 500mm and 600mm (6.3 for both)
Nikon at 500mm 5.6 and 6.3
Nikon at 700mm f8
Nikon at 850mm f9.5

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...0mm/150-600 AND 200-500/150-600 500mm 6.3.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...0mm/150-600 AND 200-500/150-600 600mm 6.3.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...0mm/150-600 AND 200-500/200-500 500mm 5.6.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...0mm/150-600 AND 200-500/200-500 500mm 6.3.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...00mm/150-600 AND 200-500/200-500 700mm f8.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...mm/150-600 AND 200-500/200-500 850mm f9.5.JPG
 
micloi said:
And a 'lab conditions' comparison with the Sigma 150-600mm C using manual mode and a tripod
Both lenses auto focused using live view
Shot in raw and exported using Adobe RAW after just an auto-balance as the sigma's photos are always more yellow

Sigma at 500mm and 600mm (6.3 for both)
Nikon at 500mm 5.6 and 6.3
Nikon at 700mm f8
Nikon at 850mm f9.5

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/150-600 AND 200-500/150-600 500mm 6.3.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/150-600 AND 200-500/150-600 600mm 6.3.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/150-600 AND 200-500/200-500 500mm 5.6.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/150-600 AND 200-500/200-500 500mm 6.3.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/150-600 AND 200-500/200-500 700mm f8.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16187250/Nikon 200-500mm/150-600 AND 200-500/200-500 850mm f9.5.JPG
Click to expand...

Thanks for those Michael,

To my eyes/monitor the Nikon seems better. The second Sigma photo looks a little OOF when you expand the view. I think I will go for the Nikon next Spring which will give the lens price to settle down a bit. I have been holding off a little on the Tamron / Sigma 150-600mm waiting for this lens and 500mm will be plenty for my needs.

Will be nice to see more user reviews out in the field over the coming months.
 
200% crops

comparison.jpg
 
Thanks for all the test shots in 'lab' conditions, Michael!

After looking at them in Lightroom I think the Nikon@500mm@f6.3 is the sharpest, but its a close run thing with the Sigma and its only in the small rendering of the text where the Nikon takes it.

The Nikon@850mm+1.7TC is impressive too, very surprised.

The Nikon@700mm+1.4TC I was hoping this combo was going to be better as this would be the most used due to its auto focus on some camera bodies, maybe the test shot has a little camera shake?

If we could nail down the problem with the Nikon+1.4TC I think this would be a very good comb and really quite versatile! 200-500@5.6 or 280-700@f8

Cheers

Simon
 
I'm following this with interest, currently using a 200-400 f4 but been wondering about 'downgrading' if IQ is ok, AF is fast enough in low light and it's good open wide. As I see it i lose a stop of light but gain 100mm and less weight too. I think I may have to rent one to try before buying just to get a feel for it. The lack of weather sealing could be an issue as I have been know to visit some dusty/wet/cold/snowing locations whilst out photographing wildlife. I do use waterproof covers but even then you still get condensation on the inside of the plastic (opt each rain sleeve) so the camera still gets a little damp. A damp camera lens isn't much of a problem when it's a weather sealed D750, 70-200 f2.8 vr2 or 200-400 f4.
 
realspeed said:
Ken Rockwell says about the new 80-400mm lens Quote" This new 80-400 is more expensive, bigger and heavier than theoriginal 80-400 VR, and it's all worth it. "unquote

Then on the 200 -500 post of his he says Quote" The 80-400mm VR is a swell consumer lens, priced for professionals. You've got to be kidding; it's over $2,000 and made of plastic!" unquote

Doesn't he even read his own reviews???
Click to expand...
I think Kens 'reviews' are just to drive traffic to his site, I learnt long ago not to trust any of them. I think he try's to get beginners/novices to his site so not to question what he says or be a bit 'out there' to increase site traffic, what ever it is it clearly works well for him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top