nikon 200-500/5.6 comparison with Tamron 150-600/5-6.3

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, David. (Any credit is entirely the model, not me. And I suspect the other person on a tour with a current 500mm prime and big tripod was doing better - this was hand-held.)<br />

<br />

And phew, slightly - the sharpness your image got made me worry a lot about my choice, so not being at 1:1 reassures me! At 1:1 your owl actually still looks pretty good to me, except for some motion blur (which is normally the cause of the line doubling) - I do like the VR on the 200-500, even if I didn't need it much for my shot - though I can't say if yours was subject motion. I should clarify my eagle went through DxO, so it's had a little (default) sharpening and been flattened a bit to darken the sky and lift the shadows. It also has a little more CA than I'd have expected - though it was off to the left of the frame a bit.<br />

<br />

Some day I'll have a 400 f/2.8 and be able to see what real sharpness looks like in a telephoto. :-) (Even <i>I</i> didn't decide to carry my 200 f/2 around half of the US, and most subjects weren't close enough for it anyway...)</p>