I just bought the 200 - 500 5.6 for use with my Z6. I have no dought that the 500mm is a better lens but currently is $9,000 more. Thanks for the review.
Great review and agree 100%. I got the 200 - 500 back in February and have been using it on both a D610 and a D7100. Last week I picked up a D500 and it is fantastic on that body. Have been going out shooting flying birds, all hand held and it does a great job and I have excellent mobility with it. Anyone who wants to get flying birds and uses a DX camera will be very pleased.
Nice review. I just bought this lens and my findings are pretty much in agreement with yours. No, it doesn't match the big expensive primes but the AF/IQ isn't that bad when you look at the price difference. I'm grateful that Nikon finally produced a good affordable super tele zoom that most of us can afford.
Thanks for sharing this. Well I bought the 400 2.8 FL ED VR boxed and sealed from my NPS dealership last November and when used for hand held shots it just didn't live up to expectation at all. People say it's not that heavy but in reality it's bloody heavy and especially so when paired up with the D850 plus the battery grip which renders it pretty much useless for shooting hand held. The depth of field at 2.8 is also ridiculously thin for moving subjects so for most of the time I'm shooting at 5.6 anyway with the constant hassle of the weight factor. So after watching this review I've just purchased the 200-500 that's here hopefully tomorrow. Fingers crossed and looking forward to seeing how it compares when on the move without a tripod! John
Can quite clearly see the Prime is superior,better color and contrast seem to the most obvious difference rather than outright sharpness, I put most of this difference down to the lack of Nanocoat on the 200-500. The prime is well out of my budget so the very good value for money 200-500 will have to do.
Tamron 150-600mm G2 is slightly sharper and better with the extra 100mm magnification. I am using it with Nikon D7200 and love it. Also the Tamron is 300 grams lighter. About 2kg. For 600mm lens that weight is just a amazing. That's why I choose Tamron mainly because the weight and better magnification. The VC on Tamron is incredible as well. Thank you for the video.
Thank you for a very timely review, as I have reserved a 200-500mm from BorrowLens for a trip to Africa. I plan to use it on my D5300, with a 28-300mm on my D800. That covers situations calling for 28mm to 750mm. I expect that capturing fleeting moments of shy critters from a Land Rover may be something like shooting from a blind, though I've done neither. A T14 is coming too, so the 200-500mm may end up on the D800 from time to time. I rented the 200-500mm earlier this year after reading Ken Rockwell's review and decided it would be the way to go. Your positive review gave me a confidence boost. Thanks for all you do for us!
"Let's say my small teddy bear becomes a large real bear, I could zoom out with this lens" Haha I think I'd rather run the hell away than zoom out to 200mm if there was suddenly a grizzly in my garden :p
Good overview & comparision. The 200-500mm is certainly more versatile and lighter of course! I suppose what photographers have to weigh up is the cost difference versus the quality difference-which seems minimal. The only other issue is with the 200-500mm-has it had some technical problems/bad copies as some people have reported?
Hi Jason, I am lookng at your vid @11:52 and I think what you find to be less sharpness on the 200-500 is just a different focus point. Because to me it looks as if the bow of the left bear is way sharper than the bow of the 500mm bear. But besides fro that, I liked your review...
I just bough this 200-500 Nikon zoom lens to work on my D500 and my D600. Didn't get the lens yet but in few days I'll be an happy guy following your excellent review. Thanks to share
If you look carefully.The first teddy shots@ 2-1 The 200-500 is clearly focusing behind the nose on the left shot .! the dickie bow is sharper left 2 the eyes are a littlr sharper and the hair on the shoulder of teddy left is also sharper at the side ,so it,s down to focus error here .If it were re focused again it would all but level the playing field .CHECK ON FULL SCREEN >Oh and im off now to get me a 200-500 nikkor. Great video though.
Great review mate. Surprising performance from the 200-500mm lens. I have the 500mm F4 and once you've had one you can never go back. Yes you make sacrifices but the AF speed, sharpness and contrast and also i must note the excellent colour reproduction of the 500mm F4. Stunning colour reproduction. A lot of people only look at sharpness in a lens but colour is just as important. You will notice in your comparisons the 500 prime has much better colour saturation than the 200-500 which has a flatter colour pallet. Chalk and cheese lenses mate. Not to mention the bokeh. But again if you're not professional it probably doesn't matter so much. For the massive price difference the 200-500mm makes an excellent vacation lens. Easy to transport, wide range of focal length plus if it gets stolen while on vacation you won't go into the fetal position and cry like a baby! LOL. Love your work mate and thanks for sharing! Cheers from Australia.
Excellent video review Jason, it may not matter much but I wonder what happens if you choose F/4 instead of 5.6 on the 500mm. Most lenses improve a bit from wide open; maybe the sharpness advantage of the prime diminishes. Again thanks for this review.
The 500 f/4 is deadly sharp even wide-open, at least in my experience with mine. It doesn't get much better even when stopped down; you mostly gain depth of field.
I'm with you Juan, although the difference was very minor (but noticeable), I think it would have been more fair to compare the two wide open to wide open and then at a common stop down aperture (but not too deep in to the diffraction limit of the sensor), e.g. f8. I like wide open to wide open, because in most cases that's what you buy a lens to do these days. Either way... thanks Jason. I appreciate the effort and time it took to produce a useful comparison.
Hi Jason, 6 months ago i have bought the 200-500mm, and i found it wonderful in any circumstances , but recently i plan to change to 500mm f/4G, I am so upset because 200-500mm actually got so much of advances compare to prime, especially min focus distance, I understand than 4m and 2.2m actually a very huge different, so i coudn't make my decision where i should give up my 200-500mm or just own both of them, and make 200-500mm as my backup tele lens?
I love the 500/4 any time I know I'm going to be working at a predictable distance or when I need the faster AF. I don't like having to travel with it, though.
Depends what you are shooting. Moving subjects it's easier with the 200-500. Image quality doesn't really matter if you are printing, zooming on a pc isn't what photography is about. Now portraits go with the prime, cuz you can back up most of the time.
Hi Jason, thanks for the review. I received my D500 and 200-500 about a month and a half ago, and have had mixed results so far. Still trying to figure things out. You mentioned that you would not recommend a filter on the 200-500, and would like to know why. I added a UV filter (95mm btw), mostly just for protection of the glass, as I believe I read that it is not coated. Would the filter affect critical focus? I find that the speed of the AF is quite satisfactory for me but find that I am not getting as sharp images as i was expecting. I did a AF Fine Tune and adjusted to -9 and to seems to be a bit better...I will try and get out for some more birds this weekend and compare to what I have already captured.
Great review, thank you. I take pix of wildlife and could never get the reach with my 300mm, swans,ducks,geese. This lens, (200-500) is amazing, and also at a price I can afford.....Luv this lens. The 500 prime is waayyy out of reach price wise, and actually....not that usable for wildlife, ...you're stuck at a distance.........and yes , I've been in some "sketchy" situations with bears, bison and others.....this lens rocks!! Thanks for this post David
I was wondering if you knew how the Nikon 200-500 Compared to the 80-400 when it comes to image quality and sharpness. I know the 80 400 Cost more around $2,000.
Haha. Take this to a moving subject behind some shrubs, fast track changing subject then only someone can feel the significance the price and weight the 500mm prime poses. But your thoughts are really true when the price is considered. I love my 500mm madly even with a 1.7 TC attached at 850 mm f6.3 it gives immense detail around f 7.1 to 8!
I never suggested that the 500 f/4 doesn't have advantages. It's whether or not those advantages have application and meaning for the subject you are trying to photograph. I have both lenses. In terms of absolute optics and performance, the 500mm f/4 is one of the best lenses Nikon makes. But that doesn't mean that the 200-500mm is a slouch. In fact, the point of this review was to demonstrate that the 200-500mm is actually quite good, especially considering the price... and there are some things that it can do that the prime cannot (like become a 750mm macro lens on a DX body).
+Jason Odell yes I understand the point and appreciate your logic. the 200-500 is never a slow Slough lens at all. Yes it has more practical advantage of minimum focusing distance and maximum versatility and many pro photographers also have that.. But I wonder which animal/bird sit next to you within 4 meter range!! Very occasionally one will get that! No point to disagree with this. but sometimes the 70-200 f2.8 barely and with 1.4 tc becomes the best partner of a 500 mm prime. I appreciate your review and no point of disagreement!!! If you use Fx you will notice the difference more. Many thanks for your reply.
Jason many thanks for this comprehensive review, I notice you also took a look at the 300mm F4 VR PF, using this (300mm) and 1.4x teleconverter would it give better IQ on my D500 than the 200-500 f5.6?
it will I think. the primes are named to justify their nomenclature. Even my old generation full metal 300 f4 IF ED non VR gives stunning results barely and with 1.4TC. More stunning are the results of 300mm f4 with Fx.
I have both the 300 PF and the 200-500, I generally get very good results with the PF and my D500, but the 200-500 gets superior results on my D810. Beautiful and sharp. I calibrated both lenses on both bodies - and so I’ve been frustrated that I don’t get better results on my D500 (with my 200-500). It’s time I test again, it’s possible technique is my issue.
Great video, thanks from Italy.. I've a question..I've two zoom one for me and one for my wife: Nikon 200-500 and Sigma sport 150-600 Sport. I want to buy a prime.. After seeing this video, I thought that I have to wait a moment.. Sigma 500 sport f4 it's my obsession...What do you think Jason?
Thank you for this excellent review. I just bought a Nikon D500 + 200-500mm in the hope of getting a perfect budget wildlife combo. However, the lens seem to be a lemon...the photos at 500mm at f5,6 are just not acceptably sharp. I´ve had all the Sigmas and Tamrons and the results are about the same with my lens- not very impressive. Now that I know they should be comparable in quality to a 500mm prime I know I have a bad copy or I need to seriously calibrate it to my body :)
I have a DX (D7200) that I use for birding. But the kit 70-300 just isn't cutting it for me. Glad to hear you say this is a good lens for DX. I hope the crop factor doesn't blow out too much of the sharpness since the 500 changes to 750mm.
And how do you think it will perform with larger moving birds. Hawks etc. will morning and mid-late afternoon or slightly overcast light still get a good shot of a hawk etc?
not sure if you already bought the 200-500 for your D7200 but your camera is comparisable with the D500. Both crop and only 24MP and 21 MP resp. I used this lens on my D7100 (also 24MP) and now on my D500... it is amazingly sharp. Examples on FB: cameralex.nl
@@Malinois_Whisper This lens is very sharp for birds in flight on crop sensor cameras.If you care to see examples here is a shot that I took of a short eared owl in lflight with nikon d500 with 200-500mm nikon added.www.flickr.com/photos/81289492@N03/32806310472/in/photolist-RYYV9C-RWTQKF-QUF4a7-RybkDq-SWqbbF-RbScez-RFY5dH-Sk2PWg-Sr7GLs-SsuNrw-J5KPnP-SfyRNK-T3hofA-SUBSzM-SzkuWs-RFXeFn-ShocNw-S9mT8u-RrpnaN-SPb6y8-Spnbdf-T6MhAJ-SztH3w-T6LG2o-ShqN6L-SM9Ur9-SfouGB-Rybmc9-RVtU8P-S8LW5i-QTQA2e-RWVcaz-SZhtdt-S77Rx5-RW5Wxi-QT9vBU-RGvJRU-T1znAs-QrJTNL-RPfTRu-SxcH8M-RuMVfQ-QuvRWB-RMmb3u-RDPrcX-QzmKHx-QzmMsz-Rza4z8-RQTT58-QysKgf/
With Nikon glass you get what you pay for :-) In a good way, I have a D810 and would LOVE a Nikon 400mm 2.8 for concert & wildlife shots. From all I have heard the Nikon 200-500 is good bang for your buck but doesn't hold a candle to the 400 2.8 which is crazy sharp. Still looking for a good clean used 400, they are out of my range brand new. LOL I don't earn a living from photography anymore. Good video.
sorry sir is 200-500 good for beginer birding photo?i am a portrait photographer and event photographer but i like birding,but now i confused between buy tele lenses like your nikon 200-500 or tamron 150-600 new g2 or digiscoping with celestron telescope ed series?could u please to help me give some info?nice video and lenses thanks alot
I'm sorry but that review is extremely flawed. First, one shot of a teddy's nose does NOT, EVER a scientific, accurate review make, exactly WHERE was the focus? the similar tones on the bear's nose could make for a bad focus, was there enough light and contrast?But most importantly, did he fine tune the focus with that lens on that camera? I have the exact system, and after fine tuning (it actually changes the af distance) I get absolutely INCREDIBLY sharp photos.You CANNOT take a Nikkon 200-500 out of the box, slap it on a D500 and expect sharp photos.
xman2229 I totally agree xman, I’m a beginner using the 200-500 on the D500 for birding and I’ve never been really happy with the images. A video on setting the lens up would be useful as I’ve not had a lot of luck using the built in fine tune particularly at the long end of the lens.
Mick Hursey you may have a bad copy. There was a lot of variation in the copies and some people had to return their lenses. I rented the 200-500 and was not impressed. I borrowed someone else’s and was. I purchased one and sent it in with my camera for cleaning and calibration. The facility I sent them to said that my new 200-500 was the sharpest one they had tested. I guess I got lucky. But variation is an issue with this lens.
Interesting review. I bought the 200-500mm when it was launched last year as I as an amateur can not defend spending $8k on a 500 prime besides, I love the versatility of zooms. I actually brought it with me to work today and was out shooting with it on my D810 an hour ago. I think it is a stunning lens and the image quality is superb, if you wanna see some of my images, check out my 200-500 gallery on 500px: 500px.com/w00ster/galleries/nikon-200-500mm I shoot handheld almost exclusively and have never had any issues with it. Along with my Otus 85mm, Nikon 70-200mm, this is my most used lens.
Hi Jason, can you give me an opinion on another comparison, Nikon 200-500mm vs a manual Niikon 600mm f4 ai or ais version? I might be able to get a 600mm f4 ai for 1300. thanks.
Hi John- In my opinion, I'd go with the 200-500 for several reasons: 1) It has autofocus 2) It has VR 3) You can hand-hold it easily 4) It has nano-coated glass optimized for digital Any gain in focal length with the 600mm is going to be lost dealing with manual focus and weight.
thanks for the reply, and thanks for the great video. since I asked you for your opinion I have since purchased a af-s 300mm f.4 nonvr mint, (delivery in route), and I almost purchased a af-s 300mm f2.8 ed ii non-vr (which I tested, loved, wish it had vr, and the seller backed out at the last minute). I will have to go and test out a 200-500, thanks for your great video. lets see how i like the 300 f.4 and if I can buy a 300mm f2.8 af-s vr for under 2k. I will test out the 200-500mm in the meantime. thanks
I've been searching for a comparison of this Nikon 200-500mm lens and the new Tamron 150-600mm 2G lens. Do you plan to, or could you please do a review of these two lenses? I haven't really seen any good comparisons. I currently Have the first generation of the Tamron lens. Thank you. PS: I'm using the Nikon D500 and with the lens, for birds-in-flight.
Hi Monica- As I generally have to purchase all my own gear, I don't have a copy of the Tamron to test. However, I'll keep it in mind and see what I can do.
Thank you Jason. I've not seen many comparisons of the Tamron 2G and Nikon 200-500. I'm leaning towards up grading to the Nikon lens, but hate to miss the focal lengths on each end. IQ and good contrast is important to me.
Monica Pileggi I can certainly understand where you're coming from. My experience with Sigma/Tamron super zooms is that they autofocus more slowly due to the f/6.3 aperture at the long end. This can be noticeable when trying to photograph fast-moving subjects like birds.
The 300 + TC14 might be *slightly* better, but it's a whole different comparison. If you're using the older AFS 300mm lens, it doesn't have VR, so hand-holding requires much faster shutter speeds. On the other hand, it's small and light, and easier to hand-hold than the 200-500 VR.
A friend of mine did a comparison between his 300mm f/4 PF with 1.4 TC and my 200-500mm on his D7200. Honestly the images from the 200-500mm matched or surpassed the 300 in both of our opinions. It wasn't a scientific, thorough review so do take it with a grain of salt but I doubt you'd be disappointed by the 200-500mm. The 300mm PF would be much nicer to take hiking though!
That's interesting. As you'd expect the 300mm is sharper without a TC at 300mm but add a 1.4 teleconverter and at 400mm f/5.6 the 200-500mm is sharper. At 500mm there is very little in it but at f5.6 the 200-500mm is sharper than the 300mm + 1.7TC wide open at f6.7. I think the 300mm only has one big advantage and that is its size. I would love to own both as I know the 300mm is what I would take on my upcoming holiday, instead of having to lug the 200-500mm about.
My big problem is still Nikon 200-500 5.6 VS Sigma 150-600 Sport ...... I really can't decide even after testing them for a few shots :-) the only thing that scares me a bit is the weight of the sigma
¿Que diferencia hay entre comprar un lente telefoto de 500 mm, que cuesta como $10.000, es enorme, pesado y hace bastante estorbo a que yo adquiera un Nikon P1000, de unos $1700 dólares, con un zoom equivalente a 800 mm, que no es ni tan voluminoso y estorboso?
Yes, the 500/4 is sharper. But that doesn't mean that it always is better. Things like the ability to focus more closely could be the difference between picture and no picture.
And the point is so that viewers can make up their own mind if the image quality is actually $6.5K better :-) I don't think it is. I appreciate that other things like AF speed, f/ make a large part of the price difference but viewers can decide if and how much such things may worth to them as well.
the focus test is so layman. so people who buy either of these lenses would go out and shot a street plate ? these lenses are supposed to shot actions/ flying birds, really can understand how a static subject can be used to do a focus test
sorry sir is 200-500 good for beginer birding photo?i am a portrait photographer and event photographer but i like birding,but now i confused between buy tele lenses like your nikon 200-500 or tamron 150-600 new g2 or digiscoping with celestron telescope ed series?could u please to help me give some info?nice video and lenses thanks alot
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I just bought the 200 - 500 5.6 for use with my Z6. I have no dought that the 500mm is a better lens but currently is $9,000 more. Thanks for the review.
JasonI agree about the 200-500. I have used it with a D810 and the D500 easily handholdable and in fact sold my 500 f/4
Great review and agree 100%. I got the 200 - 500 back in February and have been using it on both a D610 and a D7100. Last week I picked up a D500 and it is fantastic on that body. Have been going out shooting flying birds, all hand held and it does a great job and I have excellent mobility with it. Anyone who wants to get flying birds and uses a DX camera will be very pleased.
Watched this video in 2018, I spent 4 years with my 200-500 and all I can say is “wow!”
And as always, its the photographer not the gear! Thanks man!
Nice review. I just bought this lens and my findings are pretty much in agreement with yours. No, it doesn't match the big expensive primes but the AF/IQ isn't that bad when you look at the price difference. I'm grateful that Nikon finally produced a good affordable super tele zoom that most of us can afford.
Thanks for sharing this. Well I bought the 400 2.8 FL ED VR boxed and sealed from my NPS dealership last November and when used for hand held shots it just didn't live up to expectation at all. People say it's not that heavy but in reality it's bloody heavy and especially so when paired up with the D850 plus the battery grip which renders it pretty much useless for shooting hand held. The depth of field at 2.8 is also ridiculously thin for moving subjects so for most of the time I'm shooting at 5.6 anyway with the constant hassle of the weight factor. So after watching this review I've just purchased the 200-500 that's here hopefully tomorrow. Fingers crossed and looking forward to seeing how it compares when on the move without a tripod!
John
Can quite clearly see the Prime is superior,better color and contrast seem to the most obvious difference rather than outright sharpness, I put most of this difference down to the lack of Nanocoat on the 200-500.
The prime is well out of my budget so the very good value for money 200-500 will have to do.
Best review I’ve seen of the 200 500 f/5.6. The comparison with the 500 f4 prime, added a very valuable perspective. Thank you Mr. Odell.
Tamron 150-600mm G2 is slightly sharper and better with the extra 100mm magnification. I am using it with Nikon D7200 and love it. Also the Tamron is 300 grams lighter. About 2kg. For 600mm lens that weight is just a amazing. That's why I choose Tamron mainly because the weight and better magnification. The VC on Tamron is incredible as well. Thank you for the video.
Thank you for a very timely review, as I have reserved a 200-500mm from BorrowLens for a trip to Africa. I plan to use it on my D5300, with a 28-300mm on my D800. That covers situations calling for 28mm to 750mm.
I expect that capturing fleeting moments of shy critters from a Land Rover may be something like shooting from a blind, though I've done neither.
A T14 is coming too, so the 200-500mm may end up on the D800 from time to time. I rented the 200-500mm earlier this year after reading Ken Rockwell's review and decided it would be the way to go.
Your positive review gave me a confidence boost. Thanks for all you do for us!
Enjoyed the review, thank you.A factual comparison with the F4 500. I have the 200-500 on my D800 and very pleased with the results.
Excellent review, thanks. I have the 200-500 with the D500 and have also use it with the D4, with both it´s a great lens.
Nice work, maybe there should be a follow up throwing the 500PF f/5.6 in the mix.
"Let's say my small teddy bear becomes a large real bear, I could zoom out with this lens"
Haha I think I'd rather run the hell away than zoom out to 200mm if there was suddenly a grizzly in my garden :p
Good overview & comparision. The 200-500mm is certainly more versatile and lighter of course! I suppose what photographers have to weigh up is the cost difference versus the quality difference-which seems minimal. The only other issue is with the 200-500mm-has it had some technical problems/bad copies as some people have reported?
Very professional way to compare both of these excellent options. Like your point by point approach and it's truly interesting. Thanks to share
Thank you!
This is a great video. Clear, well-organised delivery and very informative. Thanks!
Really helpful = literally answered my question I have had for so long - imo it just is not $8k+ difference
Hi Jason, I am lookng at your vid @11:52 and I think what you find to be less sharpness on the 200-500 is just a different focus point. Because to me it looks as if the bow of the left bear is way sharper than the bow of the 500mm bear. But besides fro that, I liked your review...
Great review. Very helpful. Bought the Sigma 150-600 sports lens instead of the Nikon 200-500. Very satisfied.
Fantastic review Jason, I like your style of presentation ... Cheers
I just bough this 200-500 Nikon zoom lens to work on my D500 and my D600. Didn't get the lens yet but in few days I'll be an happy guy following your excellent review. Thanks to share
Just the comparison i was looking for. Well done, and informative. Thsnks
Hello Jason
Thanks. Yours comments are v constructive and helpful.
Cheers
Jim
If you look carefully.The first teddy shots@ 2-1 The 200-500 is clearly focusing behind the nose on the left shot .! the dickie bow is sharper left 2 the eyes are a littlr sharper and the hair on the shoulder of teddy left is also sharper at the side ,so it,s down to focus error here .If it were re focused again it would all but level the playing field .CHECK ON FULL SCREEN >Oh and im off now to get me a 200-500 nikkor. Great video though.
The 500 will take 1.4 well with almost no loss in image quality and focusing ability, that is a big plus for me, now I need to find one used.
Great review mate. Surprising performance from the 200-500mm lens. I have the 500mm F4 and once you've had one you can never go back. Yes you make sacrifices but the AF speed, sharpness and contrast and also i must note the excellent colour reproduction of the 500mm F4. Stunning colour reproduction. A lot of people only look at sharpness in a lens but colour is just as important. You will notice in your comparisons the 500 prime has much better colour saturation than the 200-500 which has a flatter colour pallet. Chalk and cheese lenses mate. Not to mention the bokeh. But again if you're not professional it probably doesn't matter so much. For the massive price difference the 200-500mm makes an excellent vacation lens. Easy to transport, wide range of focal length plus if it gets stolen while on vacation you won't go into the fetal position and cry like a baby! LOL. Love your work mate and thanks for sharing! Cheers from Australia.
Excellent video review Jason, it may not matter much but I wonder what happens if you choose F/4 instead of 5.6 on the 500mm. Most lenses improve a bit from wide open; maybe the sharpness advantage of the prime diminishes. Again thanks for this review.
The 500 f/4 is deadly sharp even wide-open, at least in my experience with mine. It doesn't get much better even when stopped down; you mostly gain depth of field.
I'm with you Juan, although the difference was very minor (but noticeable), I think it would have been more fair to compare the two wide open to wide open and then at a common stop down aperture (but not too deep in to the diffraction limit of the sensor), e.g. f8. I like wide open to wide open, because in most cases that's what you buy a lens to do these days. Either way... thanks Jason. I appreciate the effort and time it took to produce a useful comparison.
Detail insert shots on the individual adjustment on the lens itself would have been helpful. However, excellent overall video. Thanks.
Hi Jason, 6 months ago i have bought the 200-500mm, and i found it wonderful in any circumstances , but recently i plan to change to 500mm f/4G, I am so upset because 200-500mm actually got so much of advances compare to prime, especially min focus distance, I understand than 4m and 2.2m actually a very huge different, so i coudn't make my decision where i should give up my 200-500mm or just own both of them, and make 200-500mm as my backup tele lens?
I love the 500/4 any time I know I'm going to be working at a predictable distance or when I need the faster AF. I don't like having to travel with it, though.
i owned both of them, 2 years ago i bought the 200-500 and last month i bought the 500f4G. If possible, i dont want to disposse one of them :(
An honest and useful review. Cheers.
Beautiful Video, thank you for sharing your great tutorial and info.
Depends what you are shooting. Moving subjects it's easier with the 200-500. Image quality doesn't really matter if you are printing, zooming on a pc isn't what photography is about. Now portraits go with the prime, cuz you can back up most of the time.
Will this fit on my D5? No, no just kidding, yeah I own a D5 but not that naive, but I am looking at getting one of these as a more compact option.
Really good, informative presentation, thanks a lot.
Hi Jason, thanks for the review. I received my D500 and 200-500 about a month and a half ago, and have had mixed results so far. Still trying to figure things out. You mentioned that you would not recommend a filter on the 200-500, and would like to know why. I added a UV filter (95mm btw), mostly just for protection of the glass, as I believe I read that it is not coated. Would the filter affect critical focus? I find that the speed of the AF is quite satisfactory for me but find that I am not getting as sharp images as i was expecting. I did a AF Fine Tune and adjusted to -9 and to seems to be a bit better...I will try and get out for some more birds this weekend and compare to what I have already captured.
Nice detailed comparison
Great review, thank you. I take pix of wildlife and could never get the reach with my 300mm, swans,ducks,geese. This lens, (200-500) is amazing, and also at a price I can afford.....Luv this lens. The 500 prime is waayyy out of reach price wise, and actually....not that usable for wildlife, ...you're stuck at a distance.........and yes , I've been in some "sketchy" situations with bears, bison and others.....this lens rocks!! Thanks for this post David
I was wondering if you knew how the Nikon 200-500 Compared to the 80-400 when it comes to image quality and sharpness. I know the 80 400 Cost more around $2,000.
Haha. Take this to a moving subject behind some shrubs, fast track changing subject then only someone can feel the significance the price and weight the 500mm prime poses. But your thoughts are really true when the price is considered. I love my 500mm madly even with a 1.7 TC attached at 850 mm f6.3 it gives immense detail around f 7.1 to 8!
I never suggested that the 500 f/4 doesn't have advantages. It's whether or not those advantages have application and meaning for the subject you are trying to photograph. I have both lenses. In terms of absolute optics and performance, the 500mm f/4 is one of the best lenses Nikon makes. But that doesn't mean that the 200-500mm is a slouch. In fact, the point of this review was to demonstrate that the 200-500mm is actually quite good, especially considering the price... and there are some things that it can do that the prime cannot (like become a 750mm macro lens on a DX body).
+Jason Odell yes I understand the point and appreciate your logic. the 200-500 is never a slow Slough lens at all. Yes it has more practical advantage of minimum focusing distance and maximum versatility and many pro photographers also have that.. But I wonder which animal/bird sit next to you within 4 meter range!! Very occasionally one will get that! No point to disagree with this. but sometimes the 70-200 f2.8 barely and with 1.4 tc becomes the best partner of a 500 mm prime. I appreciate your review and no point of disagreement!!! If you use Fx you will notice the difference more. Many thanks for your reply.
I was thinking that was a good price point for the 200-500 and a ridiculously high price point for the 500 f4...how good could it be! ;-)
I actually hand hold the 200-500, wouldn't have to do that with the prime, looks really big and heavy.
Actually a lot closer than I expected.
Any experience with the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary? Which one would you suggest between the Contemporary and Nikon's 200-500mm? On a D5600.
Jason many thanks for this comprehensive review, I notice you also took a look at the 300mm F4 VR PF, using this (300mm) and 1.4x teleconverter would it give better IQ on my D500 than the 200-500 f5.6?
it will I think. the primes are named to justify their nomenclature. Even my old generation full metal 300 f4 IF ED non VR gives stunning results barely and with 1.4TC. More stunning are the results of 300mm f4 with Fx.
I have both the 300 PF and the 200-500, I generally get very good results with the PF and my D500, but the 200-500 gets superior results on my D810. Beautiful and sharp. I calibrated both lenses on both bodies - and so I’ve been frustrated that I don’t get better results on my D500 (with my 200-500). It’s time I test again, it’s possible technique is my issue.
Great video, thanks from Italy.. I've a question..I've two zoom one for me and one for my wife: Nikon 200-500 and Sigma sport 150-600 Sport. I want to buy a prime.. After seeing this video, I thought that I have to wait a moment.. Sigma 500 sport f4 it's my obsession...What do you think Jason?
Thank you for this excellent review. I just bought a Nikon D500 + 200-500mm in the hope of getting a perfect budget wildlife combo. However, the lens seem to be a lemon...the photos at 500mm at f5,6 are just not acceptably sharp. I´ve had all the Sigmas and Tamrons and the results are about the same with my lens- not very impressive. Now that I know they should be comparable in quality to a 500mm prime I know I have a bad copy or I need to seriously calibrate it to my body :)
I have a DX (D7200) that I use for birding. But the kit 70-300 just isn't cutting it for me. Glad to hear you say this is a good lens for DX. I hope the crop factor doesn't blow out too much of the sharpness since the 500 changes to 750mm.
And how do you think it will perform with larger moving birds. Hawks etc. will morning and mid-late afternoon or slightly overcast light still get a good shot of a hawk etc?
not sure if you already bought the 200-500 for your D7200 but your camera is comparisable with the D500. Both crop and only 24MP and 21 MP resp. I used this lens on my D7100 (also 24MP) and now on my D500... it is amazingly sharp. Examples on FB: cameralex.nl
@@Malinois_Whisper This lens is very sharp for birds in flight on crop sensor cameras.If you care to see examples here is a shot that I took of a short eared owl in lflight with nikon d500 with 200-500mm nikon added.www.flickr.com/photos/81289492@N03/32806310472/in/photolist-RYYV9C-RWTQKF-QUF4a7-RybkDq-SWqbbF-RbScez-RFY5dH-Sk2PWg-Sr7GLs-SsuNrw-J5KPnP-SfyRNK-T3hofA-SUBSzM-SzkuWs-RFXeFn-ShocNw-S9mT8u-RrpnaN-SPb6y8-Spnbdf-T6MhAJ-SztH3w-T6LG2o-ShqN6L-SM9Ur9-SfouGB-Rybmc9-RVtU8P-S8LW5i-QTQA2e-RWVcaz-SZhtdt-S77Rx5-RW5Wxi-QT9vBU-RGvJRU-T1znAs-QrJTNL-RPfTRu-SxcH8M-RuMVfQ-QuvRWB-RMmb3u-RDPrcX-QzmKHx-QzmMsz-Rza4z8-RQTT58-QysKgf/
With Nikon glass you get what you pay for :-) In a good way, I have a D810 and would LOVE a Nikon 400mm 2.8 for concert & wildlife shots. From all I have heard the Nikon 200-500 is good bang for your buck but doesn't hold a candle to the 400 2.8 which is crazy sharp. Still looking for a good clean used 400, they are out of my range brand new. LOL I don't earn a living from photography anymore. Good video.
Hello .. what model tripod is that ? Very stable for the 200-500 mm ?
I use a Gitzo 3-series mountaineer tripod with my telephoto lenses.
I would expect the 500 f4 to be better by far , i use a 180-400f4 that is noticibly better with the tc 1.4 its about on parr
would this lens be good for taking moon pictures?
It would be fine, yes.
Do you think this lens will be good for sports ? like motorsports ?
Great review. But hard to believe a $8,000 lens would be better than a 1,500 lens.
sorry sir is 200-500 good for beginer birding photo?i am a portrait photographer and event photographer but i like birding,but now i confused between buy tele lenses like your nikon 200-500 or tamron 150-600 new g2 or digiscoping with celestron telescope ed series?could u please to help me give some info?nice video and lenses thanks alot
Which cam you used for test shots?
Thank You
Thanks a Million!
yeah, so for wildlife you can get the good shot without moving in to close, and you would have a sharper image that you can Just Crop it closer post
would the 200-500mm be the better lens for aviation photography over the nikon 80- 400mm? any help would be grateful. Thanks
I'd go with the 80-400, as sometimes the wider field of view is helpful when the aircraft do close passes.
I'm sorry but that review is extremely flawed. First, one shot of a teddy's nose does NOT, EVER a scientific, accurate review make, exactly WHERE was the focus? the similar tones on the bear's nose could make for a bad focus, was there enough light and contrast?But most importantly, did he fine tune the focus with that lens on that camera? I have the exact system, and after fine tuning (it actually changes the af distance) I get absolutely INCREDIBLY sharp photos.You CANNOT take a Nikkon 200-500 out of the box, slap it on a D500 and expect sharp photos.
My lens focuses dead-on without the need for AF Fine-tuning.
xman2229 I totally agree xman, I’m a beginner using the 200-500 on the D500 for birding and I’ve never been really happy with the images. A video on setting the lens up would be useful as I’ve not had a lot of luck using the built in fine tune particularly at the long end of the lens.
Mick Hursey you may have a bad copy. There was a lot of variation in the copies and some people had to return their lenses. I rented the 200-500 and was not impressed. I borrowed someone else’s and was. I purchased one and sent it in with my camera for cleaning and calibration. The facility I sent them to said that my new 200-500 was the sharpest one they had tested. I guess I got lucky. But variation is an issue with this lens.
My 200-500 is sharp beyond belief on my D500 without AF fine tuning. Never had to do that.
Interesting review.
I bought the 200-500mm when it was launched last year as I as an amateur can not defend spending $8k on a 500 prime besides, I love the versatility of zooms. I actually brought it with me to work today and was out shooting with it on my D810 an hour ago.
I think it is a stunning lens and the image quality is superb, if you wanna see some of my images, check out my 200-500 gallery on 500px: 500px.com/w00ster/galleries/nikon-200-500mm
I shoot handheld almost exclusively and have never had any issues with it. Along with my Otus 85mm, Nikon 70-200mm, this is my most used lens.
Bravo Wooster!
The Nikon 200-500 mm can be used in sport photography?
Yes. Just don't expect it to acquire focus as quickly as an f/4 or f/2.8 lens.
Hi Jason, can you give me an opinion on another comparison, Nikon 200-500mm vs a manual Niikon 600mm f4 ai or ais version? I might be able to get a 600mm f4 ai for 1300. thanks.
Hi John-
In my opinion, I'd go with the 200-500 for several reasons:
1) It has autofocus
2) It has VR
3) You can hand-hold it easily
4) It has nano-coated glass optimized for digital
Any gain in focal length with the 600mm is going to be lost dealing with manual focus and weight.
thanks for the reply, and thanks for the great video. since I asked you for your opinion I have since purchased a af-s 300mm f.4 nonvr mint, (delivery in route), and I almost purchased a af-s 300mm f2.8 ed ii non-vr (which I tested, loved, wish it had vr, and the seller backed out at the last minute). I will have to go and test out a 200-500, thanks for your great video. lets see how i like the 300 f.4 and if I can buy a 300mm f2.8 af-s vr for under 2k. I will test out the 200-500mm in the meantime. thanks
I've been searching for a comparison of this Nikon 200-500mm lens and the new Tamron 150-600mm 2G lens. Do you plan to, or could you please do a review of these two lenses? I haven't really seen any good comparisons. I currently Have the first generation of the Tamron lens. Thank you. PS: I'm using the Nikon D500 and with the lens, for birds-in-flight.
Hi Monica-
As I generally have to purchase all my own gear, I don't have a copy of the Tamron to test. However, I'll keep it in mind and see what I can do.
Thank you Jason. I've not seen many comparisons of the Tamron 2G and Nikon 200-500. I'm leaning towards up grading to the Nikon lens, but hate to miss the focal lengths on each end. IQ and good contrast is important to me.
Monica Pileggi I can certainly understand where you're coming from. My experience with Sigma/Tamron super zooms is that they autofocus more slowly due to the f/6.3 aperture at the long end. This can be noticeable when trying to photograph fast-moving subjects like birds.
Thanks Jason, that makes sense. I should just buy the Nikon and be done with my "wondering" what to buy! LOL!
Monica Pileggi I'm very happy with mine. Sure, the fast primes are awesome, but for the price you can't beat this zoom IMO.
Regarding image quality, should I stick with my Nikon 300mm F4 + TC 1.4X or 200-500mm F5.6?
The 300 + TC14 might be *slightly* better, but it's a whole different comparison. If you're using the older AFS 300mm lens, it doesn't have VR, so hand-holding requires much faster shutter speeds. On the other hand, it's small and light, and easier to hand-hold than the 200-500 VR.
+Jason Odell Thank you for your answer! It is much appreciated :-)
A friend of mine did a comparison between his 300mm f/4 PF with 1.4 TC and my 200-500mm on his D7200. Honestly the images from the 200-500mm matched or surpassed the 300 in both of our opinions. It wasn't a scientific, thorough review so do take it with a grain of salt but I doubt you'd be disappointed by the 200-500mm. The 300mm PF would be much nicer to take hiking though!
You may want to check out this detailed comparison:
photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr
That's interesting. As you'd expect the 300mm is sharper without a TC at 300mm but add a 1.4 teleconverter and at 400mm f/5.6 the 200-500mm is sharper.
At 500mm there is very little in it but at f5.6 the 200-500mm is sharper than the 300mm + 1.7TC wide open at f6.7.
I think the 300mm only has one big advantage and that is its size. I would love to own both as I know the 300mm is what I would take on my upcoming holiday, instead of having to lug the 200-500mm about.
My big problem is still Nikon 200-500 5.6 VS Sigma 150-600 Sport ...... I really can't decide even after testing them for a few shots :-) the only thing that scares me a bit is the weight of the sigma
If scared by wight get a Tamron G2 or the Sigma contemporary
is the nikon 200-500 f5.6 compatible with canon EOS 1300D ?
No. It's a Nikon.
I see no differance at all pearl.
Buying the filter for the 200-500 will kind of even the price.
There is no valid reason to use a filter on the 200-500mm unless you are working in hazardous environments like blowing sand or salt water spray.
yep I agree.
F4 F5.6, two to one on light.
¿Que diferencia hay entre comprar un lente telefoto de 500 mm, que cuesta como $10.000, es enorme, pesado y hace bastante estorbo a que yo adquiera un Nikon P1000, de unos $1700 dólares, con un zoom equivalente a 800 mm, que no es ni tan voluminoso y estorboso?
Looks like a full Wimberly head and not a 'sidekick'.
It is. If I said Sidekick, I misspoke. However, the 200-500 will work fine on a sidekick.
.... LIKE VIDEO JASON !!!! ++++
95 mm
What kind of comparison is this, a telephoto f5.6 vs a prime f4 fixed lens, a $8K lens vs. a $1.5K lens. The $8K lens will always be better
Yes, the 500/4 is sharper. But that doesn't mean that it always is better. Things like the ability to focus more closely could be the difference between picture and no picture.
And the point is so that viewers can make up their own mind if the image quality is actually $6.5K better :-) I don't think it is. I appreciate that other things like AF speed, f/ make a large part of the price difference but viewers can decide if and how much such things may worth to them as well.
A machine gun vs a canon? What's the point? I don't get it. :-(
the focus test is so layman. so people who buy either of these lenses would go out and shot a street plate ? these lenses are supposed to shot actions/ flying birds, really can understand how a static subject can be used to do a focus test
sorry sir is 200-500 good for beginer birding photo?i am a portrait photographer and event photographer but i like birding,but now i confused between buy tele lenses like your nikon 200-500 or tamron 150-600 new g2 or digiscoping with celestron telescope ed series?could u please to help me give some info?nice video and lenses thanks alot