Review Nikon 200-500mm 5.6

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by mike_halliwell, Nov 7, 2018.

  1. 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 -

    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 -

    Bottom line, if you use 500mm more than 90% of the time, get the PF...;)
  2. 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.
  3. It's only money....;)

    and it would quite a modest house....:D
  4. The PF is more £££s, is quite a bit sharper, has better VR and is a KILO lighter!

    ..and, being a prime, less flexible.
  5. I wonder what it would cost to have a 500mm f/5.6 prime with the same performance as the 200-500mm?
  6. BeBu. Err, you want Nikon to make a cheaper, but 'worse' 500mm 5.6 prime?
  7. less flexible.

    More flexible, if you are shooting at 500mm and need to crop.
  8. 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....:)
  9. 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.
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2018
  10. Aw heck, some of us like donuts and it gives a lot of bang for the buck ($100-$300 on eBay):
    with its tub-lid lens cap
    Albin''s images likes this.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
    mike_halliwell likes this.
  13. 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

Share This Page