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

[ShunCheung]

<p>The 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR is an E lens. Not only it has no aperture ring, any Nikon SLR body prior to the D3 and D300 (introduced on 23 August 2007) cannot control its aperture electronically, including the D200.</p>

<p>However, that might not matter. I almost always use the 200-500mm wide open @ f5.6 anyway. Whether I can control the aperture ring is not that critical, although occasionally I do stop down to gain some depth of field. If you use it on a film SLR or an old DSLR such as the D200, without the benefit of good high-ISO results, it'll be difficult to deviate from wide open @f5.6 anyway. In fact, max f5.6 maybe too slow.</p>

<p>See this thread on additional info on Nikon E lenses: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dSpx</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Ditto what Shun said: The 200-500 will definitely be useful wide open, and that's what you'll get with your old bodies.</p>

<p>Nice to see a D200 in service. I got great photos from mine, and from my D300. But, once you've seen the advantage of 24MPx... Some of the new bells/whistles are pretty good as well.</p>

[bill_brooks]

I have had both the new 200-500

and the 300 PF. The 300 PF

remains in my kit after careful

use and comparison in the field.

 

There is a *lot* to like about

the 200-500. I purchased it to

replace my 80-400G. Okay, I

realize I'm sounding like a quick

change artist, but I carefully

decided that as much as I loved

the 80-400G, it was just

delivering satisfactory sharpness

at 400mm (or near to 400 as

well). That characteristic has

been discussed elsewhere in

forums.

 

To the point, the 200-500 *did*

deliver wonderful sharpness at

400-500 especially at f/6.3 and

tighter. I was thrilled... as

long as I was shooting in the

sunlight. Then the all too common

Minnesota gray skies returned and

the dark side (sorry) of the 200-

500 was revealed- in low light,

acuity is very elusive. More so

than a 80-400G, which handled

higher ISO settings quite

admirably given it was a variable

zoom. (I'm getting to the 300

PF).

 

Specifically, the 200-500 focused

very slowly in low light; and it

yielded many grainy and soft

focused shots, despite all

serious efforts. For me it was a

deal breaker.

 

I thought that giving up the 80-

400G was a mistake. However...

 

...in the end I realized that for

the value presented by the 200

500 I was asking too much. I

realized that if I wanted liw

light condition sharpness within

my budget that I'd better

consider 300 as my focal length.

I knew the previous versions of

this prime at f/4 were well

loved, so I purchased the 300 PF.

 

So far it has been wonderful.

Sure, the 300 PF likes sun as

much as any long lens, but it

delivers solidly sharp and

contrasting images in low light

conditions and at higher ISO very

satisfactorily. At 300mm for

sharpness it beats anything I

produced with the 80-400G or the

200-500 E, and I had sharp images

with both.

 

Along with the Sigma 1.4 Art

lenses (I have two) I've never

felt so confident and been so

happy with results as I am with

the 300 PF.

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Bill, thanks for the comment. I have for years been quite happy with one or another of the 300 f/4 lenses. Good AF, great sharpness, easy handling. I think the extra stop helps AF; of course the 300 f/2.8 would be even better. </p>

<p>Thanks for the comments about low light focusing. I'll be shooting in good light. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have great experience with the 80-400mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR. To me, sharpness is excellent @ 400mm, f5.6: <a URL="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bnh5">Nikon 80-400mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR, Early Impressions</a></p>

<p>To me, the 80-400 is the most useful lens among the three: 300mm PF, 80-400 AF-S VR and 200-500mm AF-S VR. However, it is also the most expensive and IMO still somewhat overpriced, although it has come down from the initial $2700 price tag.</p>

[bill_brooks]

<p>Shun, I hear you loud and clear about the 80-400 G and concur; it is a great lens. Certainly the most versatile. I had a blast using it for field sports shooting (especially in good light.)<br /> I'd love to be able to keep both the 80-400G as well as the 300 PF (I think the former would remain my travel lens aside from say, the 35 Art for city walk-around) but I am content with my decision.<br /> I decided to go for the 300 PF to discipline myself on shot composition, for one. I really like to position myself as close as possible to wildlife subjects. I will working more with blinds this coming season (and perhaps this winter; owls are lurking nearby!)<br /> I will probably spring at some point for the TC-14E III as it appears people are having good experiences shooting the PF with that teleconverter to gain 420mm. (Not so much with the TC-20E III, so it seems, unfortunately.)<br /> But the main reason I gave up the long range was to get the gain in low light shooting. The bonus is that I am getting shots at f/4 and f/4.5 with wonderful bokeh, and that means a lot to me.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Bill (Brooks), you definitely should use whatever lens that works best for you. However, I too have read about the 80-400 AF-S VR being not so sharp @ 400mm; my experience is quite different. That is one lens which I have used multiple samples. Both the test sample I got from Nikon to use for a few weeks and the new one I eventually bought are excellent. Unfortunately, the one refurbished sample I purchased was still quite poor @ 400mm and I returned it and bought a new one stead.</p>

<p>Personally, I find the 300mm/f4 PF the least useful lens. It is excellent and very light weight, but for me, the lack of zoom makes it not as versatile for wildlife photography, especially flying birds. It does work well with the TC-14E III (and perhaps TC-14E II as well, but I haven't tried that). However, for me, adding a TC and taking it off is too slow a process. When a bird approaches, the ability go zoom back to 80mm is critical.</p>

[bill_brooks]

<p>Well, I agree that the 300 PF will probably not work best for me in as many situations as I've been able to compose shots before with a variable zoom.<br>

But I'm willing to try to make that prime lens adjustment to seek sharpness in lower light conditions that I just couldn't fully discover with the variable zooms. It so happens by luck that many of my birding subjects fall into the 300mm range. I also like to shoot around 400, so the TC-14E III teleconverter may stay on for many sessions, once I get one. Some excellent photographers I've seen are doing just so.<br>

I do wish the 80-400G copy I owned (NIB) was sharper at 400G, or I'd likely not gone this route. Who knows, I may end up back there with a 80-400G someday, time will tell.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Friends -- </p>

<p>Just wanted to update based on my experience with the lens. I now have some experience with the lens in the field. I find it plenty sharp (after using a 300 f/4 for years). The AF is fine, and VR works well. The only complaint I have is the zoom ring has a long twist to go from one end to the other.</p>

<p>Here's a sample shot at Wakodahatchee, D7200, ISO200, 1/500th, f/5.6, tripod, some post.</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/160207-GBH-Wakodahatchee-D721089-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[evannorth]

<p>I have recently started using the nikon 200-500vr on both the d7100 and more lately the d7200 after about 3 years of ownership and heavy use of the 300f4 ed af-s and tc14eii plus 1 years ownership and heavy use of the sigma 150-600c.<br>

For close quarter birding I can honestly say that the nikon 200-500vr is my current lens of choice.<br>

It equals my 300f4/tc14eii combo in its image quality and beats it hands down in its flexibility (although the former combo is far better for smaller critters like butterflys and dragonflys), when compared to the sigma c it still comes out on top in every aspect.<br>

With its light weight and excellent vr the 200-500vr is looking more like a godsend every time I use it.</p><div></div>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Evan, that image is SHARP!</p>