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

<p>As a lot you are aware, Nikon has started shipping the new 200-500mm/f5.6 E lens in Europe and North America, although shipment in Asia was about a week and half earlier: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dTiB">Nikon 200-500mm/f5.6 E Shipping in Taiwan</a></p>

<p>I would like to thank <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=9020100">Chris H</a> and <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=291498">Mary Doo</a> for their comments on the earlier thread. As people are receiving this new lens, I encourage everybody to contribute their impressions and comments to this new lens.</p>

<p>Personally, I have used it for about an hour, mostly on a D7200 and also a bit on a D750. Therefore, obviously my experience with it is quite limited and will evolve. So far everything looks great. Before this lens was officially announced, photo.net had a conference call with Nikon about new lenses. When they told me that (at the time) while the price for the new 200-500mm wasn't finalized, it would definitely be below $1500. My first reaction was that "do you mean $15,000?" Clearly Nikon wants to compete against the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm/f6.3 lenses and prices this lens low. However, IMO they could have easily sold it at $3000 with plenty of takers. Another side effect is that the new 200-500mm would put price pressure on the excellent but expensive 80-400mm AF-S VR as well as various used 200-400mm/f4 and 500mm/f4 lenses and of course those Sigma and Tamron lenses.</p>

<p>There is little doubt that the 200-500mm/f5.6 is a hot lens, at least for those who are into wildlife and bird photography, probably less so for sports. It is probably too long for general use. And keep in mind that any f5.6 lens is going to be mainly an outdoor lens when there is plenty of light. At maximum f5.6, AF speed and accuracy will suffer under heavy overcast or dawn/dusk situations. Those 500mm/f4 and 600mm/f4 lenses, while heavy and super expensive, still have their advantages.</p>

<p>As far as I can tell, those large mail-order stores have received a large initial shipment so that the early orders are fulfilled. There maybe some short waits, but on going supply shouldn't be too tight.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18093253-lg.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Nikon provides a large 95mm lens cap and a huge lens hood for the new lens. A lot of us are familiar with the 77mm lens cap. See how much larger the 95mm cap is.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18093254-lg.jpg" alt="" /><br>

A side-by-side size comparison against the 80-400mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR, which uses a 77mm lens cap.</p>

<p>Shun, thank you for this early peek at this interesting lens. Have you formed an opinion as to the supplied tripod collar? This has been a problem with many Nikon lenses. At present, neither Kirk Enterprise Solutions nor Really Right Stuff have listed replacement collars.</p>

Yes, I think this is the first time Nikon provides a good removable tripod collar. Nikon is notorious for their terrible

removable collars. The ones on the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S and 300mm/f4 AF-S are probably worst as the rotation is rough.

Later on the two 70-200mm/f2.8 have fixed collars while only the foot is removable. The time, Nikon finally does a good

job with fairly smooth rotation. The thumb screw for loosening the collar is well designed so that it doesn't come all the

way off. It is retained on the collar so that you won't lose it.

 

However, I haven't used the lens on a tripod yet.

<p>I'm less concerned with rough rotation (although I would probably be complaining about it if I hadn't replaced the original Nikon collar on my 300mm f/4) than with resistance to vibration. Once you have a chance to try the lens at 500mm on a tripod, please let us know how stable the collar is.</p>

<p>I find the RT-1 collar for the 70-200/4G and 300/4E PF to be of good quality and it has an excellent locking mechanism (and velvet-like lining inside the collar). It doesn't flex like the poor collars for the 300/4D AF-S and both 80-400's. It's an accessory and in my opinion mainly useful for use with TCs but it's nice to have as an option. I also have the RRS collar for these lenses and consider it not as well designed since it has metal on the inside of the collar and you have to open the locking screw quite a bit to get easy rotation and it can then be an issue that the collar segments can separate (whereas the RT-1 has distinct open and locked positions and to remove the collar you use a separate action where you pull from the locking knob). Both collars work with both lenses and can be used in forward or reverse orientation, the latter of which helps with balance when using the 2x TC.</p>

<p>It is nice to hear that the collar supplied with the 200-500/5.6 is well designed. This should help avoid extra costs for the majority of users (unless they want a foot with specific QR plate built in, such as the Arca Swiss style dovetail). I'm sure that Kirk and other manufacturers will work on their versions but they can't start working on the design before they get the lens in their hands to take measurements. I would guess that some third party collars are likely to become available in a couple of months.</p>

<p>The tripod and head obviously affect the stability as well as the collar. I find that quite a lot of people use undersized tripods for long lens photography, but I suppose many users they will still have their hands touching the lens and camera to follow the subject while shooting and in this case it may be sufficient that the tripod holds the weight of the lens safely and provides some degree of stability. On the other hand for those of us interested in long lens use for landscape photography, it is often necessary to obtain stability at slow speeds (1/4s to 1/100s I find the most commonly needed range if the lens is stopped down to f/8, e.g. for shots in the moody light before sunrise). This is a bit more difficult to achieve.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Chuck Fan asked (from the prior thread): If you have the 80-400 VR II as well, could you give an evaluation of how this lens stack up against the 80-400 in terms of of the range where they overlap?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chuck, I think you meant the 80-400 AFS vs the 200-500 at similar focal lengths?</p>

<p>As I mentioned before, I have only tried it at 500mm, where I am most concerned about. And it appeared to be very good. Chris H. also thinks it's great at 500mm. For most long zooms, the long end is where people worry about. I am sure Shun will follow up with thorough information on various aspects.</p>

<p>I'm very interested to hear how people get on with this lens - thank you to those who have shared so far. I once had a 150-500 Sigma, and greatly valued the hand-holdability, the OS (VR), and - especially - the ability to zoom out to find a subject before zooming in. Unfortunately, that lens - despite initial glowing reviews - is what I'd describe as "a bit pants" at the 500mm end, at least on my sample. My 500 f/4 AI-P is much better, but doesn't get much use because of the bulk, the front-heaviness making it almost impossible to hand-hold (especially with a hand on the focus ring), and the lack of autofocus. And I've lost birds that I've been trying to track because the crop is so tight - especially with a TC-16A on it.<br />

<br />

I'm a little worried by some of the bokeh I've seen so far, but that may be the result of sharpening (sharpening hurts bokeh). I'm not offended by the sharpness, though, and it promises to be way more practical than my current options. I'll have to consider ditching my 300 f/4 AF-S. To an extent, shame the 200-500 is an E lens - my TC-14E is the mk2, so I'm in danger of needing two TC14s. (It's also had its tab filed for my 500 f/4's benefit, so I'm not sure about resale.)<br />

<br />

More fuel for my NAS. And when the Samyang 135 f/2 is calling me, too.</p>

<p>Andrew, the TC-14E II should work fine with the 200-500/5.6E and other E lenses (with AF limited to f/8 compatible AF points), at least regarding technical compatibility. Image quality is a separate matter.</p>

I hope to see some links to images taken with this new lens. At its price point, it is very attractive to me as a travel/safari

.lens given all of the international travel restrictions on weight and baggage sizes.

 

Joe smith

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=291498">Mary Doo </a>has posted a few images on the previous thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dTiB</p>

<p>I would imagine that whoever already has this lens only has a small number of images at this point. I would rather wait a bit to have something of higher quality and more representative. Concerning sharpness, I don't think that is a concern at all. I have compared the 80-400mm AF-S VR side by side with a 600mm/f4 AF-S VR (the earlier non-E version), and the 80-400 is right up there with the best Nikon super teles. As far as I can tell, this 200-500mm/f5.6 E is in that same class. What differs these 80-400 and 200-500 from those lenses that cost around $10K is that they are f5.6. For one thing they don't isolate the subjects as well, and their AF is going to be slow and inaccurate under dim light. If you read the follow up comments to <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-80-400G/">my 80-400mm VR review</A>, check out the comment posted on 3rd March 2014 @ 6:21pm.</p>

<p>I captured the attached pixel-level crop at 500mm, wide open at f5.6, 1/1250 sec and ISO 360 on a 24MP DX-format D7200. (See the propeller is "frozen" at 1/1250 sec. That is probably not a desirable effect.)</p>

<p>Concerning teleconverters, E long teles will work with all TC-nnE teleconverters, although I wouldn't hold my breath for a slow f5.6 zoom with even a 1.4x TC. With a 2x TC, you end up with a 1000mm/f11 lens, and I wish you luck.</p>

<p>So far, the main limitation is that the TC-14E III can only work with G and E lenses. I.e. the TC-14E III cannot work with any (early) AF-S lens with an aperture ring.</p><div></div>

<p>Certainly not bad, Shun. :-) I belatedly realised that my TC-14 should work, although I guess I'll be interested to know how well - it doesn't play all that nicely with my 200 f/2. Your maximum aperture assessment certainly encourages me to think of the 400 f/2.8 rather than my 500 f/4 to go with it, if I could just win a lottery... (The same argument has discouraged me from the 200-400 f/4 in the past. It's a better argument with wide open actually being acceptable on this, unlike my 150-500.)</p>

<p>I have seen some compare this lens to the Tamron 150-500mm and obviously the Nikon 80-400mm but does anyone here own the Sigma 150-600mm Sport that also purchased this lens? I would be curious to see a comparison between those. <br>

Though in general it has been very difficult for me to find any concrete reviews on the Sigma 150-600mm Sport from a source that I recognize.</p>

<p>Andrew, wide open the VR 200/2 original version and the TC-14E II produce a halo (presumably due to internal flare) around high contrast edges which bothered me as well. This problem is reduced in the nano-coated second version of the 200mm lens, and the TC-14E III further improve the colour and contrast a bit, in my perception. So there is some progress but I would still stop down at least 2/3 stops with the 200/2 II and TC-14E III, and usually I shoot this combination at f/4. The best image quality is actually obtained at f/8, where the image is close to perfect. It is clearly sharper at equal apertures than the TC-20E III with the same lens (where there is significant LoCA at f/4 and f/5.6, with good image quality obtained at f/8, but not as good as with the TC-14E III). The VR 200/2 II + TC-20 E III further suffers from inconsistent AF at mid to long distances, whereas the VR 200/2 II + TC-14E III autofocuses excellently at all distances.</p>

<p>I have obtained good results with the 300/4 PF + TC-20E III, stopping down only 1/3 to 2/3 stops (with the lens firmly on a tripod, and using EFCS), though this test was at a fairly short distance of approximately 10m. I would guess the PF element is very effective in reducing CA and this seems to extend to the case where the TC is attached. I will need to do some further shooting to decide if this combination is something I'd use regularly. I am looking forward to using this combination for some landscape shots with the moon included (on Monday morning hopefully the skies will be clear). It would be interesting to find out how the 200-500/5.6 compares to the 300 PF for landscapes. Less portable, but more flexible certainly, and I would expect any good telephoto to be better at its native focal length than a TC combined with a shorter focal length lens, particularly wide open.</p>

<p>Kyle, I found this comparison between the 200-500 mm Nikkor and Sigma Sports 150-600</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56517630</p>

<p>but I can't really know how representative those results are. I would wait for more user comments as well as formal test results. Many people are eager to see test results immediately after a lens has become available (to help with the purchase decision obviously), but it is good to remember that mature understanding of a lens's performance can take months or even longer to form.</p>

<p>This lens seems really promising! I look forward to more in-depth reviews since most early impressions seem so positive.</p>

<p>Since F 5.6 usually means slower AF than F 2.8 I would like to highlight that Swedish camera dealer Cyberphoto noted that this F 5.6 lens on <em>several occasions</em> focused faster than the Nikon 70-200/2,8G IF ED VR II and 300/4 PF ED VR on the D810 which they tested it.</p>

<p>Perhaps it features a new AF motor, a faster one with higher resolution? Most tend to agree that it is more quiet, so something should be different about it.</p>

<p>In the following review, it discusses that the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses drop to f6.3 somewhere around 300 to 400mm. They are definitely all f6.3 by 500mm. Personally, I simply don't like f6.3 lenses as AF performance on Nikon bodies is very suspect. In fact, I don't particularly like max f5.6 either, but sometimes I just have to compromise.<br>

<br />

<A HREF="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Contemporary-Lens.aspx">

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150-600mm-f-5-6.3-DG-OS-HSM-Contemporary-Lens.aspx</A></p>

<p>And I believe E lenses are the future. Therefore, I don't think I'll bother to check those third-party alternatives now, although some time last year they did look a bit attractive to me.</p>

<p>But those third-party lenses do reach 600mm and the Nikkor is only 500mm.</p>

<p>Below is another casual image I captured this morning. I zoomed back to 410mm or so to include the entire car. This time the camera is an FX D750. Clearly sharpness is very good. Check the car door handle; there is barely a hint of chromatic aberration in the dark-to-light transition area.</p>

<P>

The pixel-level crop is 1000x1000. You need to click on the link below the image to see the full, 1000x1000 image.

</P>

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dVOM-558570284.jpg">

</P><div></div>

<p>I haven't been able to get out with the new lens much but here is a pic i took just after picking it up last week. The picture was shot at 200 feet or so and the eagle was in full flight.<br /> This is where the rubber meets the road for me as these are the real world shots I'll be taking and I'm pretty pleased so far.<br /> 1/1500 sec f5.6 @ 500mm<br /> <br>

edit: sorry but i just cant seem to post it. Can anyone point me to the forum instructions for posting pictures? Thanks!</p>

<p>Sorry Chris, please see my 2nd post on this link on how to attach JPEG images. photo.net's user interface is quite old: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00W7km</p>

<p>Saw a link to Brad Hill's blog on his early impressions on the 200-500mm/f5.6 E: http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#200-500FIRST</p>

<p>Of course nobody has had this lens (production version) for more than a few days, but clearly Brad Hill has used it a lot more than I have.</p>

Out of sheer curiosity, I wonder how this lens performs against Pentax FA 250-600 f/5.6. That was a $7000 lens from

1990s, in 1990s $. Difficult to test for the moment, I know.

<p>Hmm. I have Nikons 70-200mm f2.8 VR and 80-400mm AFS. I don't like having two similar lenses but there are jobs I do where I must have the f2.8, and I sometimes shoot wildlife and 200mm isn't anywhere near enough. I have to keep the 70-200mm although I never travel with it. The 80-400mm is GREAT for travel (relatively compact and long enough for most wildlife.) I've been happy with it. However, OTOH, I could sell it and buy the 200-500mm and have a bit more length for wildlife and maybe a bit more sharpness at the long end? AND, pocket about $600 net. Dang, this is tough. I wouldn't make any changes until February, when there might be some used copies of the 200-500 lens floating around and prices on used gear are at low ebb. In the mean time, I'm not really unhappy with what I have. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Shun, thanks for the Brad Hill link. Quite interesting. He uses a D4 - and I wonder whether that accounts for the fast focus speed that he noticed. I also find it interesting that he wrote "<em>This is an absolutely incredible lens for the price." </em>- That he needed to add "for the price".No doubt this lens is a good value.</p>

<p>I haven't used mine since my previous comments about shooting a few at 500mm. My initial impression was that it did not seem to focus as fast as my 80-400mm. Now his review makes me wonder if my D800 was the variable, as it recently had a focus issue - although it was supposed to have been fixed by Nikon. I have not re-tested the camera with the 80-400 since. Nor have I tested the 200-500 with another camera. More testing needed! :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My 80-400mm AFS is superb on my D800E as far as focus speed, but still the D7100 seems to edge out the D800E just a bit.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Nikon ambassador Nick Didlick shot indoor sports with the 200-500. His comments and samples are here: </p>

<p>http://nickdidlick.com/nikkor-200-500mm/#prettyPhoto</p>

<p>Also, in some earlier comment in this thread I saw that Shun compared the focal length of the third party 150-600 lenses to the Nikkor. According to some sources the third party lenses exhibit quite a lot of focus breathing and at closer distances they are not even near 600 mm. Can anyone with a third party lens verify this?</p>

 

<p>Peter, thanks for the link. I know who Nick Didlick is. When I took Nikon School back in 2007, he was one of the instructors. Needless to say, he has close tied with Nikon.</p>

<p>I, for one, would not shoot indoor sports with an f5.6 lens. For one thing AF speed and accuracy is suspect, and if you take a look at Didlick's sample images, he was in a well-lit professional arena, but he was using 1/500 sec @ f5.6 and ISO 3200. IMO that shutter speed is too slow for sports in general and there is too much depth of field in his images. For serious indoor sports photography, a 300mm/f2.8 or 400mm/f2.8 would be a much better choice, of course at a much higher cost.</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing the link, Peter. The background blur on those shots stood out to me. Maybe this is a function of lens speed. As Shun alluded, it will be harder to limit DOF on this lens versus a 2.8. But the bokeh just looks a little nervous to me nonetheless. I am not a certified bokeh expert.</p>