Nikkor 200-500?

You're the only one with the lens, take over all you wish! :D That's what we're all here for, to decide if to buy one...and hearing the opinion of the person who has it is exactly what we're after :)
 
chuckles said:
Ok... spent time subjectively testing this, one against the other. I don't quite know where I got the idea the Tamron was faster than the Nikkor. I reckon I was just going from memory and how pleased I was with the Tamron's speed.

Today, I found there is nothing in it. Ok, I don't have the ability to put a stopwatch against either of them but in my playing around with both lenses on different cameras they seem to be pretty much the same. If anything the Nikkor 'hunts' less and snaps to focus with more certainty. Even on 'old' kit like an F100 :)

I feel like I'm taking over this thread, not my intention - I just want to feed into you guys my findings (ramblings).
Click to expand...


As the OP, please help yourself, Barry! At a guess, both the Nikkor and the Tamron will AF faster that I can (accurately) MF as well as being more accurate these days!

How does the Nikkor feel on the 1 series? Again, guessing it looks a bit odd but not as odd as a 600 f/4...
 
rpsmith79 said:
I'm in exactly the same boat, but i'm somewhat undecided as wether to chop my 300mm f4 in against the 200-500mm, or keep the 300mm and add a Sigma 150-600 C as i can't justify the cost of having both 300mm and the 200-500mm, but then i don't know if i will regret not getting the 200-500mm on IQ over the Sigma............. arghhhhhh :mad:
Click to expand...

There is a tamron 150-600 in the classifieds if that's any good. I'm in two minds about this lens and I think I'm going to hire one for a few days to try it out. I'm coming the opposite way from a 200-400 (great lens but heavy and doesn't get enough use for the cost), the thing that stops me without testing is it's a f5.6 lens so a loss of a stop, although I can always revert to my 70-200 f2.8 with 1.4 TC for something faster if needed. It does look a nice lens but I would like to know what it's like with backlit BiF and low light BiF as I would be using it at sunrise/sunset. I'm a little worried AF is going to be too slow.
 
Is that spam? You've posted a link to that site in 2 threads now, neither link works
 
Ok sorry must just be because I'm on my phone. Thought he might have got a Trojan or something. Given that he's a long time poster I didn't think he'd purposely be doing it. Sorry Mark!
 
wallyboy said:
I think I will hold on,
No disrespect how does this seller get hold of one, when other camera shops are struggling, phoned camera world london to day they haven't got any, jessops are still waiting for over twenty units, just curious.
Click to expand...

Probably purchased grey on release and now selling, work out quite nice now with limited supply. Supply was always likely to be lower than demand. It probably needs to go back in the recall. I seem to remember the same happened with the D7000 after the Thailand floods.
 
That's a good price third party if they do have stock. I noticed amazon uk had them for £1019 at one point but price is back up again. They were on back order but it should have been uk stock and warranty as it was amazon direct. I'm thinking we are now likely to not see the stock situation get better until January with the recall.
 
rob-nikon said:
Probably purchased grey on release and now selling, work out quite nice now with limited supply. Supply was always likely to be lower than demand. It probably needs to go back in the recall. I seem to remember the same happened with the D7000 after the Thailand floods.
Click to expand...

Yes makes sense, had a funny feeling they were grey import, not that makes much difference.:)
 
mark richards said:
been tempted....good and bad reviews with this company though..... ....
Click to expand...
Sometimes price seems good until it has to be backed up with any faults, then the wheels come off, personally rather pay bit extra for piece of mind, by that I mean a physical place to go if anything go's wrong:)
 
@mark richards

You asked about this lens on Nikon 1 V1.... the handling is ok but not as good as the V2 - that little grip makes a vast difference. With either camera it's fine and works well, better than I expected actually. Can't find the shot I took with the V1 but this is from the V2 at about 4.6 metres - handheld 300mm 1/250 f5.6 ISO 400

DSC_4773.jpg
 
chuckles said:
@mark richards

You asked about this lens on Nikon 1 V1.... the handling is ok but not as good as the V2 - that little grip makes a vast difference. With either camera it's fine and works well, better than I expected actually. Can't find the shot I took with the V1 but this is from the V2 at about 4.6 metres - handheld 300mm 1/250 f5.6 ISO 400

DSC_4773.jpg
Click to expand...
Oooooo thats nice....
 
matty D said:
I read a recent review (think it was in professional photo magazine but could be wrong) and this lens only scored 3.5/5, with image quality being its downfall
Click to expand...

Well, it depends how it was tested and against what it was being compared. My findings are that it rates 4.7/5 and I'm comparing that against the Tamron 150-600mm

This test/review (which is also posted somewhere else earlier in this thread) tends to confirm my opinion too.

ETA - among it's peers it ranks very highly - notably image quality!
 
Last edited:
matty D said:
I read a recent review (think it was in professional photo magazine but could be wrong) and this lens only scored 3.5/5, with image quality being its downfall
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends what they are comparing it too though, is that 3.5/5 compared to a 500mm prime (fully understandable given the price and zoom), or 3.5/5 compared to its main rivals the Sigma and Tamron 150-600's (which would be very disappointing)

EDIT: Beaten to it ;)
 
There are a number of reviews now and the variety of conclusions is considerable ... one Pro rated the images discarded at 21% compared with single figures for the Sigma 150-600 and hated the hood, which apparently kept falling off!
Wex currently have two OB returns at a slight saving.
 
gramps said:
There are a number of reviews now and the variety of conclusions is considerable ... one Pro rated the images discarded at 21% compared with single figures for the Sigma 150-600 and hated the hood, which apparently kept falling off!
Wex currently have two OB returns at a slight saving.
Click to expand...

Have you got a link to said review Gramps, don't think i've read that one
 
gramps said:
hated the hood, which apparently kept falling off!
Click to expand...

I can only say he didn't put it on correctly - if anything I need two hands to get it off
 
chuckles said:
I can only say he didn't put it on correctly - if anything I need two hands to get it off
Click to expand...

I have no experience of the lens Barry ... he complains of when it was fitted with a rain cover and every time the zoom was turned the hood fell off and obscured the lens with the rain cover. Clearly in his situation it was a major issue and he does speak of thinking about throwing the lens into the water!
I'm sure most users wouldn't get to that level of frustration but it does illustrate the variety of reviews out there, which was the point I was making :)
 
chuckles said:
Well, it depends how it was tested and against what it was being compared. My findings are that it rates 4.7/5 and I'm comparing that against the Tamron 150-600mm

This test/review (which is also posted somewhere else earlier in this thread) tends to confirm my opinion too.

ETA - among it's peers it ranks very highly - notably image quality!
Click to expand...
rpsmith79 said:
I suppose it depends what they are comparing it too though, is that 3.5/5 compared to a 500mm prime (fully understandable given the price and zoom), or 3.5/5 compared to its main rivals the Sigma and Tamron 150-600's (which would be very disappointing)

EDIT: Beaten to it ;)
Click to expand...

I'll double check later but I'm sure it was up against the canon 100-400, Nikon 80-400, and one of the sigma super teles.

The canon won, followed by the Nikon 80-400 iirc

ETA: I could be wrong on the other lenses, I'll post the review when I'm home
 
Last edited:
matty D said:
I'll double check later but I'm sure it was up against the canon 100-400, Nikon 80-400, and one of the sigma super teles.

The canon won, followed by the Nikon 80-400 iirc
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in how it compared to the Sigma as that is this lenses main competition price wise i'd say (depending on which variant it was, Sport or Contemporary)
 
rpsmith79 said:
I'd be interested in how it compared to the Sigma as that is this lenses main competition price wise i'd say (depending on which variant it was, Sport or Contemporary)
Click to expand...

I've seen a number of reviews (don't ask for links though as it's been in passing :) ) that seem to indicate that there is little difference in IQ between the two and that the main difference is just in construction.
 
gramps said:
I've seen a number of reviews (don't ask for links though as it's been in passing :) ) that seem to indicate that there is little difference in IQ between the two and that the main difference is just in construction.
Click to expand...

Cheers Gramps

I think i'm leaning towards the Sigma C now, that way i can afford to keep my 300mm f4 (which i wouldn't if i went for a 200-500mm), and it gives me 100mm extra reach for a fair bit less money than the 200-500mm

Plus with the Sigma you can get the dock to tweak AF/IS performance............ arghhh, such a tricky decision
 
rpsmith79 said:
Plus with the Sigma you can get the dock to tweak AF/IS performance............ arghhh, such a tricky decision
Click to expand...
I really like the idea of the dock, would be good to see Nikon adopt the idea :)
 
@chuckles Would you be able to take an image of a bird or something else that's reasonably small, from the same distance away (i.e filling about as much of the frame) as this picture here? https://flic.kr/p/AiXaZS This is from my current 300f4 + 1.4tc and I want to check the difference in quality fully zoomed in. Can you upload the full raw file somewhere for me to download so I can pixel peep against my own images please?
 
The review I mentioned earlier was indeed in the Professional Photo Magazine, and compared the Canon 100-400 Mk2, Nikon 80-400VR, Nikon 200-500, Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, and the Sigma 150-600 Sport.

The lenses were graded on their Features, Handling, Optical Quality and Overall Score.
The Canon scored 5/5 in all categories
Nikon 80-400 scored 5/5, 5/5, 4.5/5 and 4.8/5 respectively
200-500 scored 5/5, 3.5/5, 3.5/5 and 4/5 overall (The least sharp of all the lenses)
Sigma Contemporary scored 5/5, 4/5, 4/5, 4.3/5 overall
Sigma Sport scored 5/5, 3/5, 4.5/5, 4.2/5 overall

The clear winner for Nikon users in terms of IQ is the 80-400, sharpest in the centre wide open
 
htid said:
@chuckles Would you be able to take an image of a bird or something else that's reasonably small, from the same distance away (i.e filling about as much of the frame) as this picture here? https://flic.kr/p/AiXaZS This is from my current 300f4 + 1.4tc and I want to check the difference in quality fully zoomed in. Can you upload the full raw file somewhere for me to download so I can pixel peep against my own images please?
Click to expand...

I'll try - first, I'll need some sunshine :(
 
matty D said:
The review I mentioned earlier was indeed in the Professional Photo Magazine, and compared the Canon 100-400 Mk2, Nikon 80-400VR, Nikon 200-500, Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, and the Sigma 150-600 Sport.

The lenses were graded on their Features, Handling, Optical Quality and Overall Score.
The Canon scored 5/5 in all categories
Nikon 80-400 scored 5/5, 5/5, 4.5/5 and 4.8/5 respectively
200-500 scored 5/5, 3.5/5, 3.5/5 and 4/5 overall (The least sharp of all the lenses)
Sigma Contemporary scored 5/5, 4/5, 4/5, 4.3/5 overall
Sigma Sport scored 5/5, 3/5, 4.5/5, 4.2/5 overall

The clear winner for Nikon users in terms of IQ is the 80-400, sharpest in the centre wide open
Click to expand...

Which is at complete odds against the other review I read - certainly image quality was better over the Sigma. In all the reviews I've read they pretty much all come to the same conclusion (and I've found the same with the Tamron) at 600mm the image quality is poor unless stopped down to f8. The Nikkor performs better at it's (wider) aperture of f5.6 albeit 500mm but what's the use of something you can't sensibly use (600mm @f6.3)?

On top of which I don't have Canon - and I ain't jumping ship to lose 100mm ;)
 
Never sure why some reviewers test different system lenses against each other. No point in comparing the Canon 100-400 against the Nikkor 200-500 - quite apart from the obvious difference in focal length ranges, a Canon lens is as much use to a Nikon user as a chocolate teapot! Besides, such things as focussing speeds and accuracy are very dependent on the body as well as the lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top