Testing Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 vs. 300 f/4 for Birds

<p>I wanted to see how the new Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 VR zoom performs in comparison to the 300 f/4 lens I've been using for birds.</p>

<p>First a little background:<br>

- I've been happy with my results from the 300 f/4 on a DX body, typically shooting with a monopod. I shoot birds at FL locations where they are close and un-bothered by humans on the boardwalks. Sometimes I could use more reach; instead, I just shoot loose and crop.<br>

- I was ready to buy the new 300 f/4, but savvy friends encouraged me to think about the 200-500 zoom. I've been leery of zooms; I like a really sharp image. <br>

- I'm not interested in the rig the serious pros use: 500 or 600 f/4, pro body, TCs, heavy tripod and gimbal head. This comparison is about lenses for bird shooting at a more moderate price point.<br>

- My present DX body is getting old, only 12MPx (a D300). My lens is the original 300 f/4 AF from 1988. It's time to upgrade some of my gear.</p>

<p>Here's a sample of the kind of shot I'm making:</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/150200-AttitudeInWhite-SanibelFL-D038271.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>So my questions are:<br>

- Will I lose sharpness with a zoom vs. the 300 f/4? <br>

- For my typical shot at 450mm equiv focal length, what's best: 300 f/4 on a DX body, the zoom at 300 on the same DX body, or the zoom at 450mm on an FX body?<br>

- For longer reach on a DX body, do I want the 300 f/4 and crop the image vs. the zoom at 500mm?<br>

- Will the VR help a lot for bird shots?</p>

<p>(I started <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dd7c">another thread on shooting birds with these lenses</a>; I wanted to separate this thread to focus on the lens test and comparison.)</p>

 

<p>The test:<br /> - I rented the 200-500mm lens from LensRentals, a terrific outfit.<br /> - I have a D600 FX 24MPx body, and a D300 DX 12MPx body.<br /> - I don't have a current 24MPx DX Nikon body, but I have a good Sony APS-C 24MPx body and adapter. I can't shoot birds with this adapted lens setup, but I can use Live View for precision focusing to test image quality. <br /> - I'll use stuffed animals for my subject. Lit quite brightly with LED spotlights to EV13, not that much below the shooting conditions.<br /> - Cameras on sturdy tripod at about 50'.<br /> - Here's the full image of my test set from shooting position. This is at 450mm on FX; the view is the same with 300mm on DX. Typical shot is 1/750 at ISO800 and f/4 (Exp comp -1.5EV, just like when shooting a white bird). I'll add an ISO12233 test target once with each lens. With the Nikon bodies, I use AF. With the Sony, it's manual focus in magnified live view with focus peaking.</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-TestScene-D600-ZoomVR-450mm-f56-DSC0184.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></p>

<p> - I have some high contrast areas (the loon and white-toy) and lower contrast areas (the basket and horse).<br>

- Processing: Shoot RAW. Process in Lightroom. Equalize brightness, white balance. Bring up FX shots at 200%, DX shots at 300% in Lightroom X-Y comparison panel. Screen shot. Add captions. No additional sharpening. </p>

<p>First Question: Will I lose sharpness with a zoom vs. the 300 f/4?</p>

<p>Shoot both on the Sony APS-C body, 300 f/4 prime and the 200-500 zoom at 300mm. Here's the result. I call it a toss-up. In judging these screen grabs, remember I've magnified the result so you'll see a little blur below, and remember than my 300 f/4 produces good images.</p>

<p>My concerns about sharpness of the 200-500 zoom are erased. </p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-DX-Prime-vs-Zoom-300mm.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>Next Question: What's best for my typical shot at 450mm equiv focal length?<br /> <br /> Shoot the 300 f/4 on Sony APS body. Shoot the 200-500 zoom at 450mm on my FX body. <br /> <br /> Same magnified 200% pixels X-Y comparison in Lightroom. My conclusion: The zoom on FX is better than the prime image from DX. Both bodies are 24MPx. Both are on tripods; the zoom has VR, and I'm sure that is helping. So, I'll shoot the new zoom even on just on an FX body for the same reach and better image quality than I've been getting.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-DX-Prime-vs-FX-Zoom-450mmEquivFL.png" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>My concerns about sharpness of the 200-500 zoom are erased.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good to hear. The 200-500mm really is a good tele zoom that is sharp enough -- as I had mentioned in my PM, the 300/4 AFS may be a tad sharper, but for me, not enough to outweigh the extra reach and convenience of the 200-500mm.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Next question: OK, sometimes I need longer reach. With a DX body, compare a crop of the 300 f/4 prime vs the longer reach of 500mm on the zoom.</p>

<p>Shoot both lenses with the Sony APS body. Live view critical focusing. There's no VR in this setup. Both are wide open.</p>

<p>The result is no contest. Shoot the 200-500 zoom at 500mm, not the 300 f/4 and crop.</p>

<p>Here's the high contrast area of the Loon:</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-DXPrime-300-Cropped-vs-DXZoom-500-Bird.png" alt="" width="800" height="507" /></p>

<p>Here's the lower contrast area of the toy horse:</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-DXPrime-300-Cropped-vs-DXZoom-500-Toy.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>My net conclusions for these two lenses:<br>

- The new 200-500 f/5.6 zoom has comparable sharpness to my reliable 300 f/4. I release my concerns about shooting with this long zoom (even wide open, and it will generally be wide open for birds).<br>

- Best would be the 200-500 on a new 24MPx body with current AF technology. This will be a big step up from my 12MPx body, and the lens is as good as what I've been using.<br>

- It will also be a step up to shoot the 200-500 on my FX body. I won't have the advantage of longer reach.<br>

- It's not shown above, but the VR makes a big difference. I can see this in the informal shooting I've done with the 200-500 lens. And, in my testing on tripods, with the 300 f/4 prime (no VR) about 1/4 of my shots were visibly unsharp from camera movement. With the zoom and VR, also on tripod, none were unsharp.</p>

<p>I want to thank all the friends here and off-site who gave me help and advice. Especially my pal Mike who pushed me to the zoom in the first place.</p>

<p>I'll welcome comments on these comparisons and tests. I know there are other medium-priced long zooms which are comparable. I've simply omitted these because I have no experience with them, not because I think they are inferior.</p>

<p>Other threads here have links to sample images and reviews of the 200-500 zoom. I think it's terrific. I wish you all good shooting.</p>

<p>Correction. In the 10:00 post above, I wrote</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Bring up FX shots at 200%, DX shots at 300% in Lightroom X-Y comparison panel.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Should read: ...24MPx shots at 200%, 12MPx shots at 300% in Lightroom X-Y comparison panel.<br>

<br>

This is the show things at the same size for comparison. Note that the 24MPx shots are at 200%, not 100%; I find I can see things better this way. It introduces some blur, so just judge these as comparisons, not vs. 100% crops you've seen in other tests.</p>

<p>Excellent evaluation. Thanks for the work. The 200-500 is now on my "to buy" list.</p>

<p>I wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Best would be the 200-500 on a new 24MPx body...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Should be: Best would be the 200-500 on a new 24MPx <em><strong>DX</strong></em> body...</p>

<p>Just to be sure: is your 300 f/4 the original AF one, or the AF-S version? I got the faint idea my AF-S 300 f/4 is better wide open, with less CA than what yours show here. That said, the 200-500VR makes a terrific case for itself.</p>

We confirmed that a few days ago on Sebastian's earlier thread: http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00dc74

He is testing with a 300mm/f4 AF, the screwdriver, pre AF-S version that uses 82mm filters.

 

As I pointed our before, optically the 200-500mm/f5.6 is very good. However, you need to take it out to the field and use it

in real-life situations to observe its strengths and weaknesses. It is still a big lens such that it is heavy carrying it. I can

hand hold it for a while, maybe an hour, but eventually it feels heavy. AF is on the slow side such that I got plenty of out of

focus images with the D750 shooting birds in flight; perhaps it is better with a D4 or D5, but I don't have those to use (the D5 is not even available).

Some people also find that it takes a 270-degree turn of the zoom ring to go from 200mm to 500mm, and that is slow.

That is why I pay little attention to DXO tests in the labs. Camera equipment needs to be evaluated in the field.

 

Still, the 200-500 is a major bargain, but it is better for static subjects such as a bird on a tree rather than one in flight.

And it is best to use it on a tripod. For 300mm/f4, perhaps it is not surprising that I prefer the PF version now.

<p>Not quite a 270 degree turn, but it's maybe 160 degrees (estimating by eye). :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>is your 300 f/4 the original AF one, or the AF-S version<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun's correct, the original 1988 lens, screwdriver AF, 82mm front, drop-in filter/polarizer. <br>

<br>

It's been one of my most trusted lenses for years. I've shot the AF-S version as well, and I expect, but can't verify, that it would come out the same in this comparison.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>you need to take it out to the field and use it in real-life situations ... better for static subjects such as a bird on a tree rather than one in flight<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Shun, and I'll second all that. I've invited all my local photo-friends to come give it a try. As for BIF, these shots are tough, very tough in the realm of moderately priced, easier to carry, gear (my focus in all this). From my use, the AF on this lens is way better than my old 300 f/4 and subjectively feels to me on a par with the 300 f/4 AF-S. <br>

<br>

For a moderately priced bird lens, for my upgrade today, I'm choosing this zoom over either of the 300 f/4's. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it's maybe 160 degrees</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good catch. You are right. Looks like 170 to me, still a long throw.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not quite a 270 degree turn, but it's maybe 160 degrees (estimating by eye). :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>More like 170 (afraid it was me in the other thread who wrote 270 degrees by mistake) ;-) Definitely less than 180. Still a lot of turning to do (IIRC, then the Sigma 150-600 Sports covers the wider range in about 120 degrees - but with a very stiff zoom ring feel).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>with less CA than what yours show here</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I owned the old non-AF-S 300/4 and can't recall having seen CA this bad with it.</p>

<p>Why did I think the 200-500 needed a 270-degree turn? Thanks Ilkka for the correction. However, half a turn is still a lot of movement to get it from 200mm to 500mm and vice versa. For comparison, the 80-400mm AF-S VR only needs a 90-degree turn from end to end. Of course, the big difference is that the 200-500 is much larger and heavier front element. If a short turn can push it from 200mm to 500mm, the zoom ring would have been extremely stiff and the stress on the zoom mechanism would have been much larger.</p>

<p>Re the CA comments: I assume we are talking about the purple fringing at the bird's neck-body transition and on the vertical lines of the bird's neck, right?</p>

<p>Yes, it's there. There's <strong>no</strong> lens correction applied in the crops above. Lightroom's "Adj Defringe" removes the purple. </p>

<p>Just for reference, this was shot with a D810 and the 200-500 at 500mm. Distance of approximately 100' and 35' in height. edited and cropped in LR. <img src=" alt="" /></p><div></div>

<p>I pulled the trigger on one of these yesterday, in honor of which it seems every living thing within a hundred mile radius has gone to ground. I'm walking around with this super-duper lens and the world looks like a set from <em>The Road</em>!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nice shot Pat. I just wish they would perch at our level, and maybe a little closer. </p>

<p>200-500 seems to do well.</p>

<p>I captured the following image yesterday, a pair of mallard ducks flying. (The male is the one with the green head. The female was in front and a bit out of focus.) With 15x magnification at 500mm on the D7200, it was hard to keep the subjects in the middle of the frame. With good late afternoon light, AF worked quite well.</p><div></div>

<p>Shun, thanks. Nice to see that we can get good AF, a sharp image, and capture birds in flight (BIF). Just out of curiosity, what was your "hit" rate on the BIF. Mine has been no more than 1 in 3.</p>

 

<p>I have mixed success using the 200-500mm for birds in flight. Yesterday I was walking around with only one lens and one body: 200-500mm/f5.6 + D7200, from about 3:30pm to 4:30pm in a sunny afternoon, about an hour before sunset. With that setting, I had 80%+ in-focus images with that combo. The image below was typical for yesterday. Most blurriness was more related to bird motion (even though at 1/1200 to 1/1600 sec) rather than focusing errors.</p>

<p>However, two months ago in an overcast morning, I was getting mostly out-of-focus results using the 200-500 + D750 for birds in flight. It was almost like the mirror opposite as yesterday's result, i.e. close to 20% success rate when it is overcast.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a LightRoom slide grid view of several images from that session. In that occasion, the biggest difficulty for me was to keep the flying birds in the center of the frame with the magnification from 500mm on a DX body. That highly depends on the flight speed and whether the flight path is erratic or not.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>- I'm not interested in the rig the serious pros use: 500 or 600 f/4, pro body, TCs, heavy tripod and gimbal head. This comparison is about lenses for bird shooting at a more moderate price point.<br>

<br /> - My present DX body is getting old, only 12MPx (a D300). My lens is the original 300 f/4 AF from 1988. It's time to upgrade some of my gear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not a serious bird shooter but when I do I use a Nikon 500mm f/4 or Nikon 1000mm f/11 mounted on a heavy wooden tripod with a Wimberley gimbal head or I use a smaller and lighter Nikon 400 f/5.6 on a monopod. Since my DX bodies are D200 and all my lenses are old, manual focus, and no vibration reduction, it may be time to upgrade some of my gear.<br>

<br />Based on your excellent review, I am considering the 200-500mm f/5.6 lens. Does this lens have the aperture ring I need to allow it to work on my older Nikon F2 film bodies? <br>

<br />

<div></div>