Super telephoto zooms

[jon_savage]

<p>I thought these links might be of interest to anyone considering a super telephoto zoom. The first talks about the usefulness of a wide zoom range on safari so it’s applicable to all and the other two are just specific to a Sigma with one about it with its dedicated teleconverter.</p>

<p>I agonised over getting one and in the end I got the Sigma Sport a while back. One reason was because the Nikon 80-400 and new 300f4 (to use with a TC) just felt too expensive in the UK. The other was that I am used to 400mm on DX and when I go to FX I’d miss the reach.</p>

<p>I could imagine I would have stuck with Nikon if it had been around at the time as I would have been hessitant to spend that much on a non Nikon lens. But having got the Sigma and used it I appreciate the build quality so I’ve no regrets. In fact I think I could happily try any of their other Sport or Art range lenses based on my experiance of this one and it's USB dock.</p>

<p>I don’t get how the 200-500 it’s so reasonably priced compared to Nikons other new lenses. I guess that Nikon gold ring uses some expensive paint!</p>

<p>http://www.weblogtheworld.com/countries/africa-africa/shooting-wildlife-with-the-sigma-150-600-mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports-lens/</p>

<p>http://dustinabbott.net/2015/05/sigma-150-600mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sport-review/</p>

<p>http://georghofmeyr.com/blog/sigma-tc1401-teleconverter-review/</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I don’t get how the 200-500 it’s so reasonably priced compared to Nikons other new lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is called competition. There is little doubt that Nikon would like to compete against Tamron and Sigma's 150-600mm zooms.</p>

<p>However, everybody needs to make some money from somewhere. Nikon can't possibly price everything cheap. A Nikon that is financially not healthy is not good news for its customers. For example, a few of those companies that focus on mirrorless cameras have been losing money for a while. Maybe some customers don't care, but that is not a sustainable situation. When Contax got out of the camera business a decade ago, all of a sudden my Contax 645 and a couple of its Zeiss lenses have no future. I'll try hard not to get myself in that kind of situation again.</p>

<p>I wonder what Nikon's profit margin on the 200-500mm/f5.6 is, but that is another topic.</p>

[chuck]

<blockquote>

<p>I don’t get how the 200-500 it’s so reasonably priced compared to Nikons other new lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This really isn't the first time Nikon has released Nikon branded telephoto zoom lenses that are clearly aimed to be price competitive with Sigma and Tamron. Look at the 70-300 lenses Nikon released from about 2000 to 2006, prior to the current VR version.<br /><br /><br>

Making a accessible super-telephoto zoom is also a pretty good marketing move in itself. This lens is position at a point where it is accessible to any semi-serious amateur, and it appears to be quite good enough for respectable professional work. So it probably would entice many semi-serious amateur birders or other wildlife shooters to either move to Nikon, or stay with Nikon.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Nikon did leave some things out that might have been in a more expensive version: 1) nano crystal coating, 2) fluorine coating of the front element, 3) weather sealing, 4) lens carrying strap and attachments for it, 5) real filter slot for smaller filters, 6) super ED or fluorite elements, and 7) some people report the autofocus struggles in bird in flight shots. There were some compromises to achieve the highly competitive price point with 3rd party 150-600mm lenses. However, as it is the product seems to be a major home run for Nikon given the favourable response from customers who have bought it and are using it.</p>

<p>I think Nikon needs/can benefit from some products that are very attractive price- and quality-wise to attract users into the system. They will most likely buy also some other products which may be more profitable to Nikon than the 200-500 by itself. I think the strong emphasis on long lenses in the product portfolio also helps emphasize it as an area of strength of DSLRs.</p>

<p>I personally use the 300 PF as my long lens and also switched my superwide (14-24) to a more portable 20/1.8, which is also a great lens in an absolute sense but especially for the price. I am using these products more because they're compact and easy to bring along, even on trips when I'm traveling by air so carry-on limits apply. I'm very happy with these products even though in some sense they might be seen as compromises. E.g. the 20/1.8's manual focus ring has play and it is tricky to focus it precisely for astrophotography. The 300 PF doesn't quite have the contrast and "pop" of its f/2.8 sibling or my 200/2. However, because of their practicality and quality, I use these lenses a lot. I don't mind the higher cost of the 300 PF however I use it as a 300mm lens and don't try to stretch it to bird photography. If I use a TC on it, it is typically on a static landscape subject. On Sunday I used it for the London Royal Parks Foundation Half-Marathon, and if anything the framing was a bit tight and a 200mm lens would have worked better, perhaps. A 200-500 zoom certainly has applications and for the half marathon I could easily have afforded to shoot at f/5.6. In fact I did stop down to f/5.6 for some of the close-ups. However, a 2.3kg lens is a bit of a drag to carry along unless I know there will be plenty of use for it. With the 300 PF I didn't really have to think about its effect on my bag weight. It is more of a lens for specialists, but because of the price and quality it is likely to be adopted widely.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The 300/f4 prime is going to blow away either of the zooms at it's focal length, but it's expensive and you've got only two or three focal lengths, depending on you TCs and the body you're using.</p>

<p>I think that the Tamron and Sigma long zooms are a good way for many people to get their feet wet in bird and wildlife photography. Over on Canon, I'd suggest also staying with a crop-body, like the Canon 7D MkII, for reasons that I don't fully understand, the Nikonistas don't seem as pleased with the D7200 as we are with the 7D MkII.</p>

<p>The-digital-lens is a great place to see meaningful comparisons between lenses at various focal lengths and apertures. I'd post a link, but some administrator seems to have some irrational fear that that might cause a disruption of some sort.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

If you're referring to the digital picture com, frankly I've never seen another site that manages to focus Nikon lenses in

such a haphazard way, IMO their results are largely invalid with such spectacularly poorly done focusing work on the Nikon test shots.

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The 300/f4 prime is going to blow away either of the zooms at it's focal length</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no clear definition for one lens "blowing away" another lens. However, with my somewhat limited experience with those lenses (as they are both introduced in 2015), I don't think the 300mm/f4 PF is necessarily "better" than the 200-500mm @ 300mm. The 200-500mm zoom also compares very well against 500mm/f4 and 600mm/f4 Nikkor lenses.</p>

<p>The big difference is that the 300mm PF is f4 and is tiny in comparison. If I need to go hiking it would be the easy choice, and max f4 still has a significant advantage over f5.6.</p>

<p>That also confirms my impression that features such as nano coating, Super ED elements, etc. etc. are more marketing slogans. The actual difference is either quite small or is only noticeable in specific situations. (However, fluorite elements and new alloys in the barrel let Nikon shave a couple of pounds off the 500mm and 600mm/f4 lenses. The weight reduction is significant.)</p>

[chuck]

<p>The magnitude of the actual difference that super ED and fluoride elements would make likely increases with aperture. So while a f/5.6 lens may be passable without them, a f/2.8 or f/4 lens would likely need them much more to remain competitive.<br>

If it was pure marketing slogan, Nikon could have shouted those slogans with the 200-500 as well, without making the lens physically any different.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>If it was pure marketing slogan, Nikon could have shouted those slogans with the 200-500 as well</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would you put those supposedly expensive features on a relatively cheap lens? Their purpose is get people to pay extra. If every lens has them, who is going to buy the expensive stuffs?</p>

<p>I have the earlier 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR. Later on Nikon introduced the VR II version, which has improved VR as well as nano coating (version 1 has no nano coating). Otherwise, the two lenses have the same optical formula. I don't think I can see the difference. Additionally, since I don't use VR on that lens, the improved VR is meaningless to me.</p>

[chuck]

<p>I really don't think people would stop buying Nikon's 600mm f/4 if it were the same size, optically just as good, cost just as much, but had no ED, super ED, fluoride, or Nano crystal.<br /> <br /> The reason why those things are there is because a 600mm f/4 can't be just as big and just as good without them.<br>

<br /> Admittedly, not every one of these features, like the Nanocrystal coating, would make a visible difference to every photographer's style of photography. But if it does make a little difference in some applications, and someone paste the image of the difference side by side, I bet 80% of those to whose photographic style it would make difference would want it too. But the key here the feature does indeed make a physical difference under certain circumstances. It's not all hot air.<br>

<br /> Is there some slight marketing effect in putting these acronyms in gold lettering on a lens? Probably, but I think the pricier the lens, the less the effect of the gold lettering. The person who effective pays $150 for a kit lens for the first time might be impressed by the esoteric "ED" in gold letters just behind the narrow ungrippable plastic focus ring, but ultimately the vast majority of the people who pay $12K for a lens, or just $2K for a lens, judges their purchases by the image they produce, not the gold lettering.<br /> </p>

<p> </p>