Nikon 200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR Lens Early Impressions

<p>Hmm. Well, at such time as I have some disposable income, I'm on the horns of a dilemma again. I agree with Chip that there seems to be some highlighting on the bokeh in Nick's shots (maybe some sharpening was going on?) - but Brad seemed to be quite effusive about the bokeh being good. That, if anything, would tilt me towards the 200-500 rather than the sports Sigma (which is only slightly heavier and more expensive, in percentage terms - and less unwieldy than the 200 f/2 I'm happy carrying). What might also convince me is using a TC14 on the 200-500 to get a 700mm lens, albeit at f/8 and the limit of autofocus. Still, I can see that birding with an f/6.3 lens is a step down from an f/5.6 one, if only in terms of number of supported autofocus points.<br />

<br />

I still have vague designs on a 400mm f/2.8 in the distant future, which makes me think that a 600mm zoom is a better complement - but maybe not if 700mm is viable with the teleconverter. Choices choices. More information needed!</p>

<p>After reading Brad Hill's blog, this morning I took some f4 teles with the 200-500mm for some comparison. Around 8 am, I set auto ISO with a minimum shutter speed of 1/1250 sec. With f4 lenses, I was getting ISO 150 to 200. With f5.6, it becomes ISO 400 or so. There is definitely a bit more noise when I look closely, although the D7200 has very good higher-ISO results.</p>

<p>I also tried the TC-14E III with the 200-500mm, wide open. While zooms generally don't work well with TCs, the result is definitely better than what I had expected.</p><div></div>

<p>Hmm. Thank you, Shun. A little glowy, I think, but certainly not bad - and your D7200 is a bit more demanding than my D810 for per-pixel detail. Still a dilemma. (Not that this information likely helps anyone else, except to share sympathy.)</p>

<p>Hmmm, a little soft with the TC, but I can live with that degree. Add one TC-14EIII to the budget.</p>

 

<p>Can't contribute much to this thread, but I currently have the Tamron 150-600 and the Sigma 150-600 C for testing and I'm told the 150-600 S should be here next week. Hopefully I'll have a comparative review written up and posted here in a few weeks. All of them are in a Canon EOS mount though, since that's what I shoot, so I won't be doing a side by side comparison with the Nikon 200-500!</p>

<p>I haven't shot a great deal with them because I'm waiting to get all three together so I can shoot them side by side, but I'm quite impressed with the image quality from the Tamron and Sigma C so far. They seem very close in terms of sharpness all the way out to 600mm based on the shots I've taken. Images look better then I've seen from previous generations of 3rd party telephoto zooms.</p>

<p>BTW they both seem to drop from f5.6 to f6.3 (indicated) somewhere around 400mm. There will obviously be a gradual change with focal length, aperture doesn't really change in 1/3 stop steps, but that's the resolution of the camera readout. They do focus breath, but I have not quantified that yet. I presume the Nikon 200-500 will also be subject to focus breathing.</p>

<p>Back of the envelope calculations based on Minimum focus distance and magnification suggest that at closest focus the 600mm drops to something in the 350-400mm region. The Nikon 200-500 doesn't look too different with 0.22x at 2.2m. The 500 maybe drops to 350mm or so. It's hard to do exact calculations unless you know where the nodal points of the lens are.</p>

<p>At least with Canon (so far) we don't have the complication of a direct Canon lens competitor unless you count the 100-400L.</p>

<p>Thanks, Bob. Brad suggests focus breathing is quite well-controlled, but perhaps not at minmum distance, and also suggests that the Sigma sport is appreciably ahead of the other two third-party options optically. I'll be interested to know your take. It sounds like they're all a significant bump up from the 150-500 Sigma, which was such a disappointment to me. If you're able to comment relative to Canon's 200-400 f/4 (with its teleconverter on), I'd be interested (academically).</p>

<p>I evaluate the 200-500mm/f5.6 from a very different angle. Except for the price and that it is an E lens, its pros and cons are very similar to those for the 80-400mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR. (IMO the 80-400 is overpriced while the 200-500 is under. It might make more sense if Nikon swaps their prices.)</p>

<p>Both their advantage and disadvantage are that they are f5.6 lenses, which has a lot of implications on lens size, weight, lens price, AF speed and accuracy, exposure, subject isolation .... Yesterday at 8:30am with plenty of light (but not quite noon, sunny 16 type strong sunlight), f5.6 and 1/1250 sec to stop motion of birds forced me to ISO 300 to 500. On the D7200, the additional noise @ ISO 400 is obvious, less so on the FX-format D750. With an f4 lens, I am very close to the base ISO 100.</p>

<p>In my mind, there is no more concern about the sharpness of the 200-500mm. I compared it side-by-side with a 600mm/f4 AF-S VR. If they are not equal, it is close enough. The other factors such as AF speed and accuracy far outweight any sharpness difference.</p>

<p>While the 200-500mm is small for a non-mirror type 500mm, it is still a pretty big lens. If you specialize in wildelife and bird photography, of course we frequently carry much bigger lenses, but most people wouldn't consider the 200-500mm (roughly 5 lbs) a travel lens. Below is an image with it side by side with a 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR version 2 and the 80-400mm AF-S VR.</p>

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18094688-lg.jpg">

</P>

<p>Hmmm. Looks like the 80-400mm AFS is obviously a better lens to travel with. I've actually been quite happy with it. I suspect the nano coating might give it more flare resistance than the 200-500mm has too (although I've seen no testing.) Flare resistance is important to me. I might try a TC-14E on the 80-400mm and see what I think. For wildlife, more reach is generally appreciated. OTOH, f8 is starting to get very dim. Sigh.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Another "early impression" type article from a Norwaygan photographer Roy Mangersnes, who is also a Nikon ambassador. (I.e. expect him to have good things to say about Nikon products.) Similar to Nick Didlick, Mangersnes uses a Nikon D4S, which has very good AF and high-ISO performance to compensate for a relatively slow lens.</p>

<p>http://roymangersnes.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/field-test-nikkor-200-500mm-f56e-ed/</p>

<p>Mangersnes took the 200-500mm to Svalbard in the Arctic. (I have been there once many years ago, but much earlier in the summer, early July.)</p>

<p>Today I stopped back at the local camera store where i purchased the 200-500 and we hooked it up to a TC-1.4 III just for fun. using it hand held, the results were pretty impressive and the auto focus only balked once on a shadowy subject (D7200 body). I had previously tried a couple of shots with my TC-20 III and I really wasn't all that happy with the results....I plan on trying it again, though.<br>

Here's the pic I tried post the other day. One of my initial shots with the 200-500</p><div></div>

<p>For me there is not much more to hope for: http://jti.kuvat.fi/kuvat/AF-S+NIKKOR+200-500mm+f5.6E+ED+VR/_DSC4577.jpg<br>

Sorry, I did not find the way to attache the photo straight to my response.</p>

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://jti.kuvat.fi/kuvat/AF-S+NIKKOR+200-500mm+f5.6E+ED+VR/_DSC4577.jpg?img=img2048">

</P>

<p>Jukka, I managed to link your image into the thread. However, to see the original larger version, we still need to click on the link in the post.</p>

<p>And Chris' eagle looks very good as well.</p>

<p>Thank you both, and I hope more people already with this lens can provide more personal experience and images.</p>

<p>Thanks for the heads up pre-review Shun!<br>

This looks like an incredible lens (especially for the price) and may finally be the VR zoom answer<br>

for my travel needs. I'm getting older and travelling to far off places with a 500 f/4 + tripod is<br>

getting to be a bit much. :) -g-</p>

<p>I received my lens last Wednesday and only finally got a chance to use it this evening. Handheld with my D800E.<br /> Out of camera JPEG (PS Auto Level only) @500mm, f5.6, 1/320, Auto ISO, Subject dist 20m.<br /> <img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5637/21123855284_0b9c27ac47_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here's a 100% crop.<br /><br /><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/727/21746563805_d0876e5b1d_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Interestingly Brad Hill's continuing comparison of the 200-500mm 5.6 to similar zooms finds that the Nikon 80-400mm zoom goes soft after 380mm relative to <strong>all</strong> of the competing zooms. His original analysis of the 80-400mm about a year ago was much more glowing. Most of look for sharpness at the longest end of zooms in this category as we tend to already have pretty capable mid range zooms at more modest cost. If the long end is not sharp, why buy it? That was the complaint heard from many about the earlier Sigma zooms, soft at the long end. Those of us who want the long end for wildlife may have to re-think the 80-400mm as it appears not to compete well at 400mm with the Sigma sport or the primes. </p>

<p>See, his notes at http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html, at paragraph "3. Optical Quality - Preliminary Findings and Thoughts...", under the heading, "23 September 2015: Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6E VR - A Cautionary Green Light?"</p>

<p>My experience with the 80-400mm is different from Brad Hill's. I find it to be quite sharp at 400mm (in my judgment, anyway). With a 400mm f/2.8 being out of reach, it remains my standard of sharpness as I consider something longer, in the event that I should need that. I'm following this conversation with interest and thank everyone for posting their experience.</p>

<p>(Nikon D7100, ISO 400, 80-400mm @400mm, f/7.1, 1/1000 sec)</p><div></div>

<p>That is sufficiently sharp in my opinion, Noreen!<br>

I only have old (1980 [400/3.5] ..and 1988 [300/4.0]) lenses in comparison.<br />How how does the 200-500 compare to this, is the question!</p>

<p>Two years ago, we have already established that the 80-400mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR is very sharp at 400mm, wide open @ f5.6.: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bnh5</p>

<p>For this type of lenses, I mainly evaluate them at the longest focal length and widest aperture. f5.6 is already slow to begin with. This pixel-level crop from the 80-400 was on a 24MP D7100, which was latest technology two years ago: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00b/00bnxH-541195584.jpg</p>

<p>Now after using the 200-500mm for close to a week, I find it to be a very sharp zoom. We have posted quite a few sample images. Not sure any more images will prove anything beyond what we have done.</p>

<p>I found my copy of the 80-400 AF-S to have a slight halo at 400mm, f/5.6 which cleared at f/8. At f/8 the image quality was very good, provided I used a fast shutter speed and/or tripod (although I wasn't able to obtain sharp results consistently at slowish shutter speeds on tripod, this may have been partly due to my use of a 3-series gitzo instead of something with thicker tubes for more rigidity, and at the time lack of EFCS). I would not however put the lens in the same category of image quality as the current 70-200mm Nikkors or the fast long Nikkor tele primes. I don't mind the difference much - there is a bit more clarity in those better lenses but on the other hand in some circumstances the portability or 5x range of the 80-400 can be very useful if you have enough light to use the lens. I've framed one large print of a sunrise with sea smoke at -17C that I captured with the 80-400mm at 340mm, f/8 and it really has its place in contributing to the atmosphere in my living room. I don't think anyone would pay attention to what difference might have been made by shooting that image with a 300/2.8. Sometimes one has to look at real world factors including portability and getting to the location etc. I sometimes struggle to accept lenses because I'm used to the image quality of the VR 200/2 II but at least I've accepted the 300 PF as part of my kit and carry it around a lot, despite it lacking the contrast and "pop" of some of the bigger lenses, it is very sharp and autofocuses excellently, and with some minor post work the results can be remarkable (especially considering the size and weight of the lens). But although it is a good compromise for me I wouldn't rank it in the same class of optical quality as the 200/2. I can however understand that in subjective judgments of a lens' quality often the practicalities of the lens use play a role even if it is just subconcious. I think there is no point in trying to make everyone agree about these matters. For example I regard the 58/1.4 AF-S to be a better image quality lens than the 300 PF, but the latter gets stellar reviews whereas the former gets routinely trashed by test chart / technical image quality tests. Interestingly enough a lot of the time the 58mm shots get picked up by the people whose events or portraits I used it for, so perhaps I'm not alone in defying what the technical measurements' real world implications are, and what they're not.</p>

<p>Without personally having used the 200-500/5.6 (caveat), the images posted (here and in reviews elsewhere) illustrate to me that the lens is of high quality although the backlight performance could be a bit better; in some images shot against the light there is flare and also the shadows seem more blue than with nano-coated lenses where the contrast is higher and shadows appear warmer/more neutral compared to highlights (or so is my perception). I think the size, weight, price and image quality balance seems likely to make the lens very popular. I would personally have preferred a lens with nano crystal coating (to make the images in backlight more consistent in "look" and colours with other current high end Nikkors) and fluorine coating (a large front element can accumulate some dust and smudges, and the fluorine coating on the 300 PF makes cleaning the lens remarkably easy and fun). I am very happy to find that all the reports have been complementary of the provided tripod collar, as for landscape use this is very important. In my perception the 200-500 appeals to a number of photographers, 1) those who need a quality long lens but are on a budget, 2) those who use long fast supertele primes but also need a more portable long lens alternative, 3) those who only occasionally need a supertele and cannot thus justify the high cost of the fast options, 4) those who are any combination of 1-3. ;-) I think Nikon's recent line of affordable high quality lenses (20/1.8, in fact the whole series of f/1.8 AF-S primes, the 70-200/4, 300/4 PF, and 200-500/5.6 as examples) have a good chance of defending Nikon's market position and financial well being, and even improving it. Although other manufacturers also have been making impressive products lately.</p>

<p>The only personal nit that I have with the lens -- and this is EXTREMELY minor -- is that I would preferred the foot on the tripod collar to be a little bit longer and have two mounting holes instead of just one. I use a Wimberley P-50 QR plate (which has two mounting screws). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I found my copy of the 80-400 AF-S to have a slight halo at 400mm, f/5.6 which cleared at f/8. At f/8 the image quality was very good, provided I used a fast shutter speed and/or tripod</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would let Nikon repair take a look at that lens.</p>

<p>The 80-400mm AF-S VR is one lens that I am very familiar with, as I have used three different samples. The first one was a Nikon test sample which I used to write the review: <a href="/reviews/nikon-80-400G/">Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens Review</a><br /> Later on I bought a refurbished one since I was able to save $700. That refurbished lens was great except for at 400mm, f5.6. It was wonderful on the short end and if I stopped down to f8, 400mm was great also. See the A/B comparison I had against a brand new copy: <a dir="ltr" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00c0Fc" target="_top" data-ctorig="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00c0Fc" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00c0Fc&sa=U&ved=0CAQQFjAAahUKEwjGz-a3nZrIAhWBwJQKHW9ZDYM&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNEsIzjaej07OmDUBUtcL6eIFJIp3A">Refurbished Nikon 80-400mm AF-S VR from Adorama</a><br /> I could have gotten that refurbished lens repaired, but I was concerned that I would get into an argument whether it was "within specs" or not, knowing how good that lens should be/can be. Eventually I bought a new one and returned the refurb to Adorama. That is what I have today; while my lens is excellent, somehow I feel that maybe it is not quite as great as the original test sample I had, but I never had those two lenses at the same time to compare.</p>

<p>Concerning the 200-500mm/f5.6, mine is simply wonderful for an f5.6 lens. I have checked it side by side with a 600mm/f4 AF-S VR (2007 version). As I mentioned earlier, the big advantage as well as disadvantage for these zooms is the fact that they are f5.6. A 400mm/f2.8 and 500mm/f4 still have their advantages; that is why some people pay a lot of money to carry those huge lenses.</p>

<p>Now that I have used the 200-500mm on a couple of tripods and different heads (RRS BH-55 and Wimbeley), its tripod collar and foot is indeed a bit of a drawback. Nikon's removable collars are still not as good as their fixed ones. I'll add more details in an eventual review; it is related to Nikon's removable design. I'll probably purchase a RRS or Kirk replacement collar some day.</p>

<p>Additionally, the 200-500mm/f5.6 is a big lens with a plastic barrel. While it is great as a new lens, how well it holds up after some field use/abuse remains to be seen. I also wish Nikon would add two strap lugs on the barrel so that we can put a strap on it, as Nikon does with all of their expensive big lenses (300mm/f2.8, etc.). I think there maybe too much stress on the lens mount when you have a 5-pound lens hanging off a camera body.</p>

<p>I did meet up with someone who had a 200-500mm over the weekend and played around with it and my 80-400mm AFS. Both are nice, but I'm feeling better about keeping what I have. The 80-400mm is noticeably better at resisting flare, something that is important to me and my train shots. It's also somewhat more compact which works great for me and travel. I like the 77mm filter size as that's the only size I carry now (polarizer,) and honestly I'm quite happy with the sharpness of the 80-400mm. There are times that 500mm would be nice, but it's not a deal killer for me. The range of the 200-500mm would be a little less convenient for me since I would have to carry a lens to fill the 85mm to 200mm gap--I do take shots in that range fairly regularly. If I was more into wildlife the 500mm would be more of a benefit for me, but really I'm more of a "general outdoor" and travel guy. I really can't justify having two similar lenses, so the 80-400mm stays.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Kent, I think you made a good solid decision.</p>

<p>I received a promotion from KirkPhoto today for free shipping on these pre-orders (<a href="http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Plate_for_Nikon_200-500mm_AF-S_f_5.6E_ED_VR.html">link</a>). The third one is puzzling. I'm sure it will help but, really, one more piece to carry?</p>

Well, they seem to have made their lens support systems modular so that you can choose whether to install the front

support. There is a similar thing for the 300mm PF as well.

<p>The problem is that you can easily spend close to $300 ($190 + $90) for a replacement collar, on a lens that costs $1400 itself. I am considering a clear filter also (since the front element of the 200-500 is quite close to the rim, see my first two images above). One can easily spend an additional 30% of the lens cost on a few accessories.</p>