Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 or Nikon 300 mm f/4 PF ED VR

[rajesh_kallaje]

<p>Recently I tried out the Nikon 300 mm f/4 PF ED VR lens and was really impressed with the results. The pictures came out crisp, colours were great and of course there was no need to use a tripod. But occasionally I rued the lack of flexibility in zoom. Now we hear about the new 200-500 lens. I understand that buying a lens is mostly a compromise but for wildlife photography, will this new zoom lens give the same output as a prime? Or is the compromise in quality not much when compared with the flexibility of a zoom? I am not a professional photographer and use a Nikon D7000. I carry my camera and lenses in a backpack when I go for treks or walks. I am eager to hear suggestions from users. Thanks. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I understand that buying a lens is mostly a compromise but for wildlife photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I happen to have some experience with both of those lenses, and they are quite different. It would help if you can tell us a little more about your photo subjects. Generally speaking, 300mm is on the short side for wildlife photography unless you are into large mammals, bears, mountain goats, etc., even on a D7000 body.</p>

<p>The 200-500mm is of course a much bigger lens and a better choice for wildlife photography.</p>

[greg s]

<p>I waited what seemed for forever for Nikon to produce a stabilized 300mm f/4, and just as I see they have finally come out with it ... they also introduce the 200-500 at an incredibly attractive price. So I'll go with the zoom as I need/want as much 'reach' as I can get. I have a Nikon 500mm f/4 and love it, but for travel it is a challenge as it requires a tripod, large carry bag, is hefty, etc. Also, it's minimum focus distance is approx 12 ft or so which is problematic for some subjects (e.g. a bird at 11 feet). To get a hand holdable Nikon 500mm lens with a min focus of 7 feet puts me in a position to easily bring the gear to other countries (or domestic hiking) with almost no hassle and get the image quality that has been shown in some early testing. Here's one of my favorite links, from a guy in Australia.<br>

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/nikon_200_to_500<br>

So, I'm passing up what had been my previous dream travel lens (stabilized 300 f4) and going for the 500 zoom (hopefully with super fantastic firmware :).<br>

Cheers, -Greg-</p>

[rajesh_kallaje]

<p>Thanks Shun and Greg. My worry is that it is difficult use 200-500 while on treks and walks. Ans also does it have the quality of 300 mm prime? I am not a professional but I am a forester and have lots of opportunities to shoot birds and large mammals. Will 420 mm (300 mm + 1.4 TC) or 600 mm on D7000 too less for wildlife including birds? </p>

[greg s]

<p>Hi Rajesh, I have travelled to Australia twice with a 300mm f/4 (also 1.4x TC) and took a lot of bird/wildlife photos, quite successfully. Granted, the subjects there tend to be more approachable, but there is a lot one can do with a high quality 300mm prime (mine needs a tripod/monpod). Here are photos from those 2 trips for sake of example, all taken with Nikon's first 300mm AF f/4.<br>

http://www.pbase.com/coraltown/australia_2005&page=all<br>

http://www.pbase.com/coraltown/australia_2006&page=all<br>

So, both of the lenses are excellent choices and I don't think you can go wrong with either. As for packing the camera/lens along on hikes, I'll inevitably have it stowed in a pack at times for quick access as opportunities arise. Currently I have a pack for my 500 f4 which I carry like a sherpa, with a tripod as well. Anything to lighten that load is what I'm looking for.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The image below should immediately show you the big difference between the two lenses. Since the OP has handled the 300mm PF, it should be clear that the 200-500mm is a much bigger lens.</p>

<p>And since 300mm is not quite long enough for wildlife photography, be prepared to use it in conjunction with a 1.4x TC such as the TC-14E III fairly regularly. That will add to the cost, and the lens will no longer be f4; it will be f5.6 just like the 80-400mm AF-S VR or the 200-500mm AF-S VR.</p><div></div>

[greg s]

<p>the 300mm looks like an amazingly short lens, and I'm under the impression that my old AF version is almost twice the weight</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The 300mm PF is indeed small, for a 300mm. I do have another image showing it next to the previous 300mm/f4 AF-S, no VR.</p>

<CENTER>

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18077411-md.jpg">

</P>

</CENTER>

[greg s]

<p>thanks, that is remarkable ! :)</p>

[chuck]

<p>Shun, what is your impression of the image quality and out of focus highlights of the 300PF vs the older 300 AFS?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Usually I paid attention to sharpness, AF speed, weight ... but not so much about out-of-focus areas on a 300mm.</p>

<p>I took these two snapshots with the two 300mm/f4 AF-S lenses. I can assure you that one was captured with the 300mm/f4 E PF and the other one the old 300mm/f4 AF-S without VR, both wide open @ f4 on the D750.</p>

<p>Do you see any significant differences?</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>the other image</p><div></div>

[chuck]

<p>Hmm, not at this scale. I asked about out of focus high lights because Canon's diffractive optic lenses have a reputation of rendering out of focus highlights very harshly, with sharp edges on the outside and concentric rings on the inside.<br>

I don't see it in your images. Maybe it's not an unavoidable result of using diffraction rings, and Nikon's implementation is better.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Chuck, that is not something I pay much attention to. Just for fun, I took a couple of quick pictures of a neon sign at a convenient store. I set the 300mm PF to out of focus on purpose for the main image. The body is a D7200.</p><div></div>