Review Nikon 200-500mm 5.6

Lenstip have finally done their review of the above lens, and the feeling that up to @ 420mm it's absolutely fine, but beyond there it suffers from slightly soft FX edges. DX is OK,

 

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 200–500 mm f/5.6E ED VR review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

DoF aside, you could almost use it as an f8 preset as it's DX sweet-spot up to 350mm is pretty peaky. Your FX edges may benefit from f10.

 

VR is measured as a reassuring 4 stops.

 

For comparison with the 500mm 5.6 PF, under the same testing model, look here..

 

Nikon Nikkor AF-S 500 mm f/5.6E PF ED VR review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Bottom line, if you use 500mm more than 90% of the time, get the PF...;)

For the price of the 500mm 5.6 PF you could get two AF-S 200-500's and have enough left over to make a house payment.

It's only money....;)

 

and it would quite a modest house....:D

The PF is more £££s, is quite a bit sharper, has better VR and is a KILO lighter!

 

..and, being a prime, less flexible.

I wonder what it would cost to have a 500mm f/5.6 prime with the same performance as the 200-500mm?

BeBu. Err, you want Nikon to make a cheaper, but 'worse' 500mm 5.6 prime?

less flexible.

 

More flexible, if you are shooting at 500mm and need to crop.

More flexible, if you are shooting at 500mm and need to crop.

 

Try getting a 200mm FOV shot by cropping from a 500mm prime!:D

 

Same 'flexibility' cropping from a 500mm prime than a 200-500mm (@500mm) zoom....??

 

Poorer quality (from the zoom), for sure, but just the same flexibility....:)

Well if you crop too deep from the 200-500, the quality will fall below expectations (or level of what is considered acceptable), so there is a limit to it. Given the higher sharpness of the 500 PF, you can retain acceptable image quality while cropping deeper. I expect that most people who use a 500mm are a lot of the time in a situation where they still can't fill the frame with the subject in the intended composition without cropping. A 70-200 can do 200mm if that's needed and given how stiff the 200-500's zoom is, probably one can switch lenses in the same time one would take to zoom from 500mm to 200mm with that lens. And with the 70-200 you can further zoom down to 70mm (which takes about 1 second and not 10).

 

I do understand that the 200-500 is excellent value.

Edited November 7, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

Aw heck, some of us like donuts and it gives a lot of bang for the buck ($100-$300 on eBay):

BeBu. Err, you want Nikon to make a cheaper, but 'worse' 500mm 5.6 prime?

 

Sure! I think the 200-500 is good enough for me but I don't need the shorter focal length. I don't want to pay for the 500 f/5.6 PF.

The 200-500 is a great value if the lens works for you. My primary and major dislike is the slow AF. This isn't a problem for some (and perhaps for better photographers than I) but I've missed a number of shots waiting on it to focus. It's great for cityscapes and still animals, a challenge for anything that's moving.

Steve Perry's field test review of the Nikon 500mm f5.6 can b e found aat the link below. He makes comparisons of it to the Nikon 600mm f4, 300mm f4 PF and the 200-500mm:

 

Nikon 500 PF Review - Backcountry Gallery