Hummingbirds with the Nikon 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR

[ShunCheung]

<p>I am among the very early adopters for the Nikon 200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR. Since I had a photo trip to the Galapagos Islands scheduled for late October, 2015, I pre-ordered it and took delivery as soon as it was available in September last year. My early impression has been excellent for that relatively inexpensive super tele. The 200-500mm is definitely sharp and AF, while on the slower side, has been sufficient for more distant subjects, including birds in flight.</p>

<p>Spring has finally arrived here in California and there has been some hummingbird activities. I have been photographing hummingbirds for years in the area. Today it was the first time I used the 200-500mm for that purpose. Since that lens can focus down to 8 feet or so, I was quite close to the hummingbirds, which don't have much fear of humans since they are highly maneuverable and are essentially impossible to catch. When the subjects are 10, 15 feet away, AF on the 200-500mm is definitely slower and tends to hunt a bit. I tried that lens on a D7200 and a D750, and I had a friend there with a D810. He used the lens for a while and was a bit disappointed about its AF.</p>

<p>Perhaps on a D4 or D5 the 200-500 would work better. Hopefully I'll get to try that when the D5 becomes available. For subjects that are farther away, the 200-500's AF is fine as it doesn't need to hunt as much, but its AF motor is definitely a bit under-powered for those economy lens.</p><div></div>

[Bill J Boyd]

<p>Shun, an amazing shot of this hummer. Very impressive. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps on a D4 or D5 the 200-500 would work better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I rented a D4 for the weekend and just played with it and the 200-500 mounted. Doesn't appear to be any faster focusing than mounted on the D7100.</p>

[ShunCheung]

I am hoping that the higher battery voltage from the D4 and D5 will help the AF motor in the lens, but maybe not.

 

Thanks Bill. Having 500mm and getting closer than the minimum focusing distance for my 500mm/f4 helps.

[thirteenthumbs]

<blockquote>

<p>I was quite close to the hummingbirds, which don't have much fear of humans since they are highly maneuverable and are essentially impossible to catch.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One evening at the hardware store a customer walked up and said "there is a humming bird sitting on a price holder down there." Humming birds frequently came into the store from the open air nursery. I walked down to the area and there it was on a cil holder. I gently put my hand around it, picked it up, took it outside, and sat it on a tree limb. It took off within 5 seconds. I thought it too exhausted to fly.<br>

Very nice shot. You've got me contemplating adding the lens to my "to be purchased" list. </p>

 

[Javier Gutierre]

<p>Curious Shun,<br>

Which of the three bodies that were there focused the quickest? How would you rate them? 1,2 and 3?<br>

Killer capture by the way.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>While I had used a D810 when it first came out a year and half ago, I only had a D7200 and a D750 yesterday. I think AF is faster on the D750 especially because I prefer the group area AF mode, which is not available on the D7200.</p>

<p>I was there with a friend of mine whom recently bought a 800mm/f5.6 AF-S VR. Therefore he is familiar with Nikon's super teles. He was there with his D810 and 80-400mm AF-S VR. I let him try the 200-500mm and he too felt that AF is faster with the 80-400mm, which he bought a couple of years ago upon my recommendation. Yesterday we never compared the D810 vs. D750. For hummingbirds I would always prefer the D750 due to the higher frame rate.</p>

<p>It is probably not too surprising that the 80-400 has faster auto focus. It is quite a bit more expensive and likely has better components. The 200-500 is more an economy lens to compete against the Tamron and Sigma 150-600. I am sure Nikon needs to compromise somewhere. I am glad that the 200-500 has excellent optics. The compromise seems to be slower AF, which is fine for distant subject but tends to hunt a bit @ 10 feet or so. The 200-500 is still a big lens with a 95mm front element (or filter). The AF motor needs to move a lot of optics to focus. The 200-500's construction also seems more mediocre.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Here is another sample with the D7200 and 200-500mm @ 500mm, f5.6. The background is underexposed such that it is already showing some noise @ ISO 800. The optics is really good, especially for $1400.</p>

<p>I'll post better images to Monday in Nature: http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00do4v and Nikon Wednesday this week.</p><div></div>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Great shot, Shun! Is your first example from your D7200 or D750?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I was mostly using the D750 because I could get quite close with the minimum focusing distance being 8 feet. I suppose I could always zoom back to the 200mm end, but I found the D7200 was cropping too much. Keep in mind that these birds move quickly such that precise framing is difficult. They hop from flower to flower and would typically stay for a few seconds. I prefer to leave more room and then crop in post processing, such as the D7200 image above.</p>

<p>And as I said earlier, I prefer the AF from the D750.</p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<p>Excellent Shun. I personally have found the D750 with its group focus to be blazing fast. Well said.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Shun, those are excellent shots. If I didn't already have a D500 on pre-order, I would be getting close to purchasing a D750. Close but not quite there yet. </p>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>When the 200-500mm was first announced, the initial reports looked very good but at the time it did not entice me to purchase one since I already have the first version of the 200-400mm VR lens as well as the 600mm f/4 lens. After reading more and more positive reviews I decided to order one after the first of the year. I do a lot of bird photography this time of year while they are migrating through and there are no leaves on trees. I normally do this with the 600mm mounted on a gimbal and large tripod. When I see interesting birds out the back windows I grab the setup and take it on the deck. I have missed many shots because the setup is bulky and heavy and takes a moment or so to get it set up. I have always wished to have something I could grab quickly and shoot handheld. When I first put the 200-500mm on the D7200 I used a monopod but removed it after the first couple of days. I have been shooting with the 200-500mm now for about six weeks handheld with very good results, even though my original intention had been to go back to the 600mm after a week or so. Is it as good as the 600mm? Of course not, but you wouldn't expect it to be based on the price differential. First of all the AF isn't nearly as fast as Shun has pointed out and tends to hunt occasionally based on the light. BIF results also aren't as good handheld vs the 600mm/gimbal combo. What I like is that I can just grab it by the foot and start shooting immediately when I see birds in the backyard. And the results are very good. I also tested it using the lens with the TC1.4 III and was pleased with the results, but keep in mind that you need very good light with that combo. I am posting a photo without the TC here and will follow with a photo using the TC1.4 III. I will follow that with a BIF shot handheld as well. As I stated, the 200-500mm will not replace my 600mm f/4, but my 200-400mm may be getting a little more rest than normal.</p><div></div>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>Here is the photo using the TC1.4 III</p><div></div>

[Barry Clemmons Photography]

<p>And here is the BIF shot.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Today I paired up the 200-500mm with the D7200, but I encountered very few hummingbirds. Instead, this is a butterfly sample.</p><div></div>

[Javier Gutierre]

<p>Wow Shun, That butterfly shot is truly impressive. Really, really good.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Other than slower AF under some situations and just ok construction quality (appropriate for a $1400 lens, but certainly not the best construction from Nikon), I think the 200-500mm is fantastic. My butterfly image is mediocre, though.</p>

<p>Thanks Javier.</p>

[Albins images]

Thank you, Shun, Barry, and others. This was all the extra

recommendation I needed!

[Greg Fight]

<p>Shun, your hummingbird photos are superb. It looks as if the 200-500 would surely meet my needs for birding, small birds at the backyard feeders as well as waterfowl in the wild. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Here is a pixel-level crop of the 200-500mm/f5.6 @ 500mm, wide open on the D750, 1/1250 sec, and ISO 640.<br>

Click on the link below to view the slightly larger, full-size version.</p>

<p><img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dqaK-561890784.jpg" alt="" /></p><div></div>