Jump to content

Using a Nikon 200-500mm 5.6 as a Push-Pull Zoom??


mike_halliwell

Recommended Posts

I was at the UK's Duxford airshow over the weekend and saw a couple of shooters using the Nikon 200-500mm 5.6 on a wide variety of FX and DX bodies.

 

Now one of the things often mentioned about this lens is the very large degree of rotation you need to go from 200 to 500 or back again. When using the left hand as support, it's difficult to twist and hold simultaneously.

 

One of the users was using the part of the lens where the hood meets the body to physically push-pull the zoom.

 

In discussion with other Nikon users there, some thought this would wear out the zoom helicoid in a few weeks, others thought it would be OK, but wouldn't do it themselves and a few others admitted to doing it sometimes.

 

What's the view of users here on the forum?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've certainly never done it, when shooting although I'd be happier with "pull" than "push" - I'm fairly paranoid about the amount of force I want to put through the small screws holding the mount onto the camera. I'm not all that comfortable with the amount of force needed to turn the zoom ring in a hurry either, though. It is a pain to try to go through the whole zoom range with the hand that's supporting the camera, although fortunately I relatively rarely need to do that. Presumably Nikon expect the zoom to move a bit anyway, or there wouldn't be a zoom lock on the lens. If the lens has extended a little sitting on my car seat, I've probably been known to push it back the cm or so of travel that it might have moved away from 200mm, although mostly I've used the zoom ring, and certainly if there was any significant distance to travel.

 

I believe the Sigma 150-600 Sport has a deliberate indent just behind the front element which is intended to be used to allow the lens to be push/pull zoomed, although I'm not sure whether wherever I saw that claim was sanctioned by Sigma. Obviously none of these have the actual push-pull benefit of the old 80-200 lenses, where the zoom ring is the focus ring (which might be fiddly in an AF-S lens because you might accidentally override the autofocus).

 

Generally my biggest complaint about the 200-500 (and the new 70-200, not that I've given it much of a workout yet) is that the zoom ring is partly hidden under the lens hood when it's stored reversed - and I'm sometimes in lighting conditions where, for a quick shot, I'm happy not to waste time putting the hood back on the right way round. It's probably less of a problem on the 200-500, since once you've zoomed it a bit the zoom ring is clear, and it's vaguely at the balance point; I'm not sure that's true of the 70-200 FL (certainly about clearing the hood, probably about balance). I find push/pull zooms to be a bit imprecise (with my experience of only the 80-200 mk1), so I'd far rather turn a ring, even if it's a bit like hard work on the 200-500.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect it's not going to do the internal threads a lot of good, leading to a sloppy action after a while. However, if you're always going to use the lens like that, then it may not matter.

 

You have to remember that the zoom action usually affects at least two lens groups, and the wear on one group may well be different from another; eventually leading to poor optical performance.

 

FWIW, a while back I bought a used Sigma 135-400 Apo zoom. The zoom action was stiff to the point of nearly seized when I got it. A simple removal of the rear mount allowed access to the major zoom thread, to which I (shamefully) applied a tiny drop of WD40 (Noooooo!). The action freed up immediately - to the point where the zoom would slide under its own weight if the lens was pointed up or down. Anyway, long story short, that Sigma's still working well and zooms very smoothly now.

 

The usual YMMV and 'entirely at your own risk' small print applies!

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, I would consider forcing the 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR to zoom by pushing and pulling the front part of the lens a kind of abuse. Can't imagine that is good for the long-term health of the lens. But if an owner chooses to use their lens that way, the consequence is theirs to accept.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies. They pretty much mirror my own.

 

I wonder if mechanically, it could have easily been designed that way (to be a push-pull for zoom only)? I've noticed modern Canon zooms are often push-pulls.

 

The benefit of having a zoom to relocate the target and zoom back in, is kinda negated a bit by the sheer rotational amount needed, esp. when handholding for a BIF pic.

 

Obviously, if I asked Nikon this question they'd say 'Don't do it!', but I wonder if they actually know it will fail prematurely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if mechanically, it could have easily been designed that way (to be a push-pull for zoom only)? I've noticed modern Canon zooms are often push-pulls.

 

Are they? The older 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS was (the new one isn't), and it looks like the 28-300mm might be, but I think those are exceptions. I don't think putting tension on the lens mount is ever likely to be a good idea, whereas I'd expect it to be more resilient to rotational force.

 

The benefit of having a zoom to relocate the target and zoom back in, is kinda negated a bit by the sheer rotational amount needed, esp. when handholding for a BIF pic.

 

Oh, agreed. I just zoom out as far as is comfortable so that I can zoom back in again, but it would be nice to get out to 200mm sometimes. I've lost several subjects recently, while trying to train myself to track swifts. I'm also beginning to wish the 200-500 had a "memory recall" button like the 200 f/2 (disappointingly it looks like the 70-200 f/2.8e's buttons can't be used for that): once focus misses, it ends up in an arbitrary position, and if you're pointing at a plain blue sky with a bird in it somewhere it's impossible to tell whether you're not pointing at a bird or whether you're just too out of focus to see it. Pressing a button to get back to "focus 20m away" would at least get a fuzzy bird in my shot, on which I could then train the AF points I'm using.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I tried pushing back my 24-120VR from 120 to 24 in a hurry once, it struck me how much pressure it really took. Can't image the 200-500 would be less. And I try to stick to the adagium that if mechanics like this show resistance, it's a sign they shouldn't be operated that way.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the issues mentioned above, I would not do that because, over time, the zoom may become too flexible and cannot hold a focal length reliably when tilted at an angle. Remember people complained about the 18-200mm's zoom creep?
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not.

The problem is that is going counter to the designed method of zooming.

The lens zoom mechanism may not be able to handle the repeated stress of zooming in this way.

Use the lens as designed.

I would say using it as a push/pull is abuse.

 

The push/pull zoom was really for the old manual focus lens. Rather than have 2 rings (focus and zoom), you had a single ring that did both (turn to focus, push/pull to zoom), so your hand did not have to shift between 2 rings. This worked GREAT for fast action, like sports.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone.....I don't think I'll be adding this to my technique repertoire!

 

However, is there a reason why a lens like this couldn't or shouldn't be push-pull for zoom only, esp. considering the rotational issues with such a high degree needed. It appears that it's only the mechanics. The fact it can be push/pulled would imply (?) it could be designed to do so without excessive wear.

 

The AF/MF ring on the 200-500mm 5.6 is a bit of an afterthought anyway!

 

It appears I have seen a few of the more unusual Canons, thanks Andrew! Were they push/pull zoom and focus?

 

Has anyone noticed that the lens can manually focus about 10cm closer than the AF can? or is it my copy? There was a firmware update but mine hasn't had it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone.....I don't think I'll be adding this to my technique repertoire!

 

However, is there a reason why a lens like this couldn't or shouldn't be push-pull for zoom only, esp. considering the rotational issues with such a high degree needed. It appears that it's only the mechanics. The fact it can be push/pulled would imply (?) it could be designed to do so without excessive wear.

 

The AF/MF ring on the 200-500mm 5.6 is a bit of an afterthought anyway!

 

It appears I have seen a few of the more unusual Canons, thanks Andrew! Were they push/pull zoom and focus?

 

Has anyone noticed that the lens can manually focus about 10cm closer than the AF can? or is it my copy? There was a firmware update but mine hasn't had it yet.

 

I am sure Nikon could design the lens to be push pull but the trend is to go away from that design probably because push pull zoom's don't hold their zoom setting well. They tend to creep if you point the lens up or down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Bear in mind that the argument has been made for the 200-500's zoom ring requiring quite so much rotation is that it was a "budget design". That said, it's moving a lot of glass, so just changing the gearing would have required quite a lot of force to zoom - a better solution would be a more complex optical arrangement, which would push the price up. I'm not so unfamiliar with it - when I first got a D700, one of the first lenses I got was the Sigma 150-500, and to zoom that you basically had to tilt it down to zoom to the 500mm end and up to zoom to the 150mm end. I don't find creep to be such an issue with these though, since I'm usually holding them by the zoom ring anyway.

 

Mike: I believe the older 100-400 had the focus ring on the section that was pushed in order to increase the focal length, but there was a separate grip so you had a way to avoid overriding the focus while doing so (although I suspect that was mostly a problem just from holding the lens - none of these are true zoom lenses that maintain focus as they zoom, so you need the focus to change anyway, and the 80-200 AF-D obviously didn't have an override for autofocus anyway). It looks like the 28-300's design is similar, although I've never seen one in person (and I last saw the 100-400 about ten years ago when playing with someone else's).

 

On that note, did I mention that it's almost exactly ten years since I started shooting Nikon? Happy anniversary to me. I'm told that the modern gift list says ten years is diamond, so if Nikon would like to give me a diamond lens... (I'll sell it, obviously, but I might then buy a 400 f/2.8 with the proceeds, so they wouldn't lose out). Sadly, more traditional lists say "tin", which is a bit less appealing. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed all good points, but for a sub £1000 lens, I might just try and push-pull;)

 

I'm guessing if a lens is even capable of 'lens creep' under gravity, the amount of force is well under 1500gm. (err, 15 Newtons?)

 

That's nothing, what's that like, 3lbs of pressure?

 

Andrew, "I don't find creep to be such an issue with these though, since I'm usually holding them by the zoom ring anyway."

 

Exactly, so why did they put a lock at 200mm, apart from to keep it compact for carrying, if there's no way it could slide out under gravity?

 

I think the earliest Fluorite lenses were chunks of naturally occurring mineral; now they grow the stuff.

 

There's a Diamond analogy there...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, the 200-500 certainly creeps away from the 200mm end when I have it sitting on a car seat. I suspect that's being pushed around rather than the zoom ring being rotated, although it doesn't move very far. It would probably happen less if the lens didn't often have its hood extended (giving the seat more to grip) - which I need to in order to get at the zoom ring in the first place. I don't particularly recall the lens extending under its own weight when I've been carrying it around by the tripod foot/handle; I certainly don't always have it locked, but I probably also keep it horizontal more than not.

 

I'd take a synthetic diamond lens (given that it would have to be jewel grade to be optically useful). But I'm just going to claim that this was my justification for buying the 70-200 FL, rather than a general hatred of my credit card. Sadly the 400mm FL will have to wait a bit longer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Bear in mind that the argument has been made for the 200-500's zoom ring requiring quite so much rotation is that it was a "budget design". That said, it's moving a lot of glass, so just changing the gearing would have required quite a lot of force to zoom - a better solution would be a more complex optical arrangement, which would push the price up. I'm not so unfamiliar with it - when I first got a D700, one of the first lenses I got was the Sigma 150-500, and to zoom that you basically had to tilt it down to zoom to the 500mm end and up to zoom to the 150mm end. I don't find creep to be such an issue with these though, since I'm usually holding them by the zoom ring anyway.

 

Mike: I believe the older 100-400 had the focus ring on the section that was pushed in order to increase the focal length, but there was a separate grip so you had a way to avoid overriding the focus while doing so (although I suspect that was mostly a problem just from holding the lens - none of these are true zoom lenses that maintain focus as they zoom, so you need the focus to change anyway, and the 80-200 AF-D obviously didn't have an override for autofocus anyway). It looks like the 28-300's design is similar, although I've never seen one in person (and I last saw the 100-400 about ten years ago when playing with someone else's).

 

On that note, did I mention that it's almost exactly ten years since I started shooting Nikon? Happy anniversary to me. I'm told that the modern gift list says ten years is diamond, so if Nikon would like to give me a diamond lens... (I'll sell it, obviously, but I might then buy a 400 f/2.8 with the proceeds, so they wouldn't lose out). Sadly, more traditional lists say "tin", which is a bit less appealing. :)

 

I am afraid diamond anniversary is 75 years and although you're not that old the chance that you are going to make it is slim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've certainly never done it, when shooting although I'd be happier with "pull" than "push"

I might have a different definition of "push" and "pull" - I have on occasion "pushed" the lens back from its longest zoom extension (which others might be considered "pulling" in a "push/pull" zoom) but I wouldn't dream of actually pulling the lens by its front out into a position of greater zoom extension (which others might consider "pushing" in a "push/pull" zoom) as the force required seems to be quite large and I'd be afraid to stress the screws in the camera mount unduly. I never engaged the zoom lock and it has never extended under its own weight (but occasional due to friction when sitting on a car seat).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm prepared to accept that my definition of "push" and "pull" may be inverted, Dieter. And yes, it's putting tension on the mount that bothers me.

 

BeBu: think modern! But yes, I know - my father had two silver wedding anniversaries (my half sister being a lot older than me); I've just passed 25 years with my wife, although only married for six. I'm the romantic who tracks these things - her, not so much. (Besides, a tin lens is a bit less interesting.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...