Have nature and wildlife photography questions? Check out the BCG Forums! Ask and answer gear and technique questions questions, post photos and more. Check it out and sign up today! bcgforums.com/index.php Bonus - I also post exclusive tips, tricks, and techniques to the forum you can't get anywhere else! Check it out!
Excellent video. This is my first time watching one of your video's and I'm hooked. The reason is that you offer extremely valuable information - very useful - AND you do it quickly, concisely. No long stories about your trip to this forest or that lake. No long stretches telling us the obvious. You cut to the chase and you bottom line it. Awesome! This is not so common on RUclips and it makes you a keeper!!!
Another great video, Steve is a superb wildlife photographer and his opinions are supported by real world images. Honest and comprehensive review, one of the best reviewers on the web.
This is a fantastic piece of work you put together. Thanks a lot. You are becoming (you already are actually) one of the most reliable source of information for wildlife photographers.
I have the 200-500mm and love it. A zoom of that range shouldn't even be close to the prime telephotos and the fact that it is, is remarkable. I don't regret my choice, although when I'm packing my camera bag for a trip or at the end of a long hike, I do start wishing I had the 300mm PF as a compact lightweight option.
Forget the reviews. Steve, your wildlife and bird photos are beautiful and very inspiring, and after I get my first dslr, I will try my best to get pictures like u.
3 years on and this video is still relevant. I'm looking at switching from Canon to Nikon and I have the D500 and 200-500mm lens on my radar. As I'm in Australia, the heat distortion test was of great value. Cheers Steve ... subscribed.
I’ve tried the 300 f/4 VR on my new Z7 and had problems focusing. A few days later, I tried shutting the lens VR off and got much better focusing because the camera VR was not interfering with the lens VR on. The combination of a light lens and light mirrorless has made my DSLRs rest in back of my equipment closet. Hey, it’s a bit easier on my body since I am now 78 years old. Coff coff coff. By the way, your video was very well done and I have subscribed.
Very well done, Steve...THANKS! I use the 300 PF on my Fujifilm X-H1 with a Fringer adapter with stunning results and I can use the Fuji 1.4 TC between the adapter and body! I compared using the 300 PF on a D7200 and while the focus acquisition and tracking is a little better, the IQ on the Fuji body is remarkably better. I had to do the test twice to confirm what I was seeing and without any post processing, cropping or pixel peeping, the clarity and sharpness difference just jumps out.
Hi Steve, Thank you for your video. I have been using the 200-500mm for 2 years. I learned something new about it from your video. I think it's the best zoom lens at this price. I'll keep using it until I get a new mirrorless camera.
I've been using my 200-500 since it was launched and as an amateur, I'm more than satisfied. If I had been making my living off shooting, I would probably have ended up with the 200 f/2, 400 f/2.8 and the 600 f/4 primes but for my needs, the 200-500 is perfect. Great review, Steve - absolutely love your videos. No, shouting, no gimmicks, just informative and pleasant videos. Keep up the good work!
Fantastic review & comparison of these lenses Steve. I'm lucky enough to have both & tend to use the 200-500 on my D500 for the additional reach, and the 300 PF on my D5, often with the TC1.4 iii. As you mentioned, the D500 / 300 PF combo is a great walk around option. I also have the Sigma 150-600 sport lens, which is considerably heavier than the 200-500, although I find it sharper at the long end. That said, I tend to grab the 200-500 in preference to the Sigma because of the weight saving and its constant f5.6. I've had one or two issues with the 209-500 lens hood falling off. I love the sigmas push/pull zoom option as opposed to the lengthy zoom process of the Nikon. Keep up the great work.
Thanks for this - I chose the 300 PF a year ago and added a 1.4 TC (based on your review, I maybe should take the TC off a little more often). It was a no brainer for me, all of the big lenses were simply too heavy for me and too big for my hands to operate, but you have made me feel even better about my choice. I take it out (literally) every single day shooting wildlife handheld - I can't remember ever putting it on a tripod. I've been incredibly happy with it. I'm hoping one day they make a PF 200-500 or 150-600. :) I've never seen any of the halo problems you mentioned. I have no problem handholding the 300 PF with the 1.4 TC at 1/60 on either my original D3300 or my new D500. I do shoot between 1/250 and 1/1000 most of the time because birds are moving, but I haven't had problems between 1/60 and 1/250 when a bird decides to sit still. Thanks for the reviews. I just found your channel. I shoot wildlife on Nikon and I am finding all kinds of great information on your site!
Thanks for a great vid Steve. I'm a pro shooter and educator wanting to shoot more wildlife for personal goals. Up till a few weeks ago I owned the 300 f4 ED-IF AF-S with TC 14 E ii combo. An unfortunate River trip left my Nikon gear fairly soaked (everyone lived). I was torn between upping to the 300 PF, repurchasing the ED-IF I had...or making the leap to this beast. After chatting with a former photojay colleague and getting to handle this lens I did it. So far I'm blown away by this lens. I'm definitely using lens correction in Lightroom and any lack of "microcontrast" is handled with a dash of dehaze. Definitely enjoying your channel as I explore a new area and finding you to be a solid reference for my private and college photo students.
It's in this months Magazine, I'm in the UK not sure if it's available worldwide.. it's only a small part on page 12 with your picture and a a link to this channel. The Magazine is : www.outdoorphotographymagazine.co.uk/magazine/2016/08/op209-the-highlights/
Awesome - I'll have to see if I can find a copy here in the states (some of my local bookstores have a selection of UK mags). Thanks again for letting me know - that's really cool :)
Late to the comments section, but, I have to totally agree with everything related to the Nikon 200-500 stated in this video. After using the 200-500 for around two years now, the first thing that immediately comes to mind is the huge difference between 500mm image sharpness at distance and at close range on a warm day. At full aperture down, the short range performance (i.e small bird in a branch at say.. 6m) is outstanding! (razor sharp with wonderful bokeh!), but at distance (50+m) images are often dissapointing; not always mind, but it is a definite trend. The VR on the 200-500 is outstandingly good! My other gripe is the relatively slow focus, which I could have offset a bit by using manual focus, had Nikon not put the focus ring so close to the lens mount..... sigh! I have also used this lens for close up work at around f8 (flying insects etc.), where it truly excels, with wonderfully, completely defocussed backgrounds. But yes, a good copy of this lens will offer great value for money, and is marginally better than the simmilarly priced 3rd party opposition.
MrCorelex I have used both and I would personally go for the 200-500mm. Having used the 200-500 then returning it for the 200-400, I went back to the 200-500 as it’s just as sharp if not more so, a lot easier to carry around making it more adaptable to environments etc and the colours etc from it are gorgeous, not that the 200-400mm arnt but for the money and weight, it Defo wasn’t worth the small pros for me
I rented a 200-500 and D750 earlier in the year and was really impressed with the images of birds in flight and on the strength of this purchased a D500 and 200-500. I can see from your excellent review and images that this lens is very capable when connected to a D500. I used to shoot Canon and sold it all some years ago, but I had pro gear including capability with extenders to 600mm f/5.6, so I have experience with wildlife and birds in flight. My experience with Nikon is one of disappointment. With good light and supported on stationary objects, it's pretty good. For birds in flight it's simply horrible. I haven't yet achieve a single useable shot having tried VR variations on and off, varying shutter speeds and aperture settings and all are soft. Even on slow moving birds. I'm on my second 200-500 and about to return that, but I'm thinking returning it all for a refund to reconsider options. For those having bad 200-500, was this across the range or specific to a certain focal length or scenario?
Martin Aves: Keep the D500 and get a 300mm f4 PF VR + Nikon 1.4 TC 111, you will be amazed as to how incredible this combination is for birds and dragonflies in flight. I had a Canon 7D mark 11 + Canon 100 - 400mm IS mark 11 prior to my Nikon system and for me, the D500 + 300mm is far superior. I have been considering the Nikon 200 - 500mm f5.6 but Tamron have just released the 150 - 600mm f5/6.3 G2.
Cheers Pete, that's exactly what I did and am delighted with the results. The 300mm f4 PF is a great little lens and results are really sharp. I've not tried the 1.4TC III extensively yet, but some initial quick shots look promising.
I loved this so much I saved my money to buy one and it is as sharp as everyone says and well worth the money. I had a 150-500 Sigma 5.6-6.3 and it cannot hold a candle to this nikki 200-500 5.6. I do appreciate all your hard work!
I have to say Steve, you speak loud and clear. You approach your review in a very mithodical and organized manner. This is very appreciated as I go through the review and think about my questions of my newly received, "pre-owned", Nikkor 200 - 500 lens. All my best and thanks you very much. 👍😎📸🤩
Well Steve, 7 months on from my last post and I bought a new Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6. It is brilliant: and despite the weight I have been using it instead of my 300mm f4 PF VR since buying it a fortnight ago. I find it really easy to aquire a subject (far easier than my Olympus EM1 mark II + Oly 300mm f4) and it works really well for birds in flight.
Congrats :) As an owner of both lenses, I find myself going back and forth between them all the time - can't go wrong either way and I'm glad you're enjoying to 200-500. I personally think they pair up well.
Seriously, thank you so much. What a wonderful video, and person. So rare to see reviews not influenced by manufacturers or bias. Well done Steve you've got a fan for life 8). Im gonna go with 300f4 + 1.4x TC simply for backpacking weight. Really these two seem so close it's just size vs reach at the end of the day.
Great video! I'm getting ready to purchase the 200-500 and was curious to see if you could recommend a good way to test the lense for sharpness when it arrives?
Steve, glad to see you found a good copy of the 200-500. I appreciated your comments about the benefits of shooting at f/4 vs. f/5.6. My experience shooting with the 200-500 has sold me on the advantage of f/5.6 vs. f/6.3. Photographing BIF in anything less than great light, the ISO starts to climb pretty quickly. I'm usually always wide open at f/5.6 and am typically at 1/2000 to freeze action so, opening the aperture or slowing shutter speed are not options...at least, not preferred options. Even a 1/3-stop lower ISO can make the difference between acceptable and unacceptable noise. Regardless of how good the 150-600's may be, I have no desire to give up another 1/3-stop of light. As someone who's never shot with a 500 f/4, shooting with the 200-500 had given me an appreciation of the idea of having such a lens. If your looking for suggestions on topics to cover in future videos, I'd be interested in a discussion of the wildlife/bird scenarios where each - 500 f/4 and 200-500 f5.6 - shows its value. Which scenarios are tailor made for the exotic and which for the zoom?
@@1stRealty one subject I'll recommend is a 1st quarter Moon. Of course, the weather needs to cooperate but assuming it's clear, the Moon is detailed, conveniently positioned, and can be used to test things like autofocus acuity, image quality at different focal lengths and f-stops, and vibration reduction (VR) at different shutter speeds.
Very nuanced and practical discussion of the pros and cons of both lenses. Found this intriguing enough to watch till the end. I am saying this as a generalist-approach Pentax shooter, who would feel more confident now to make an informed pick between offerings even in the competing system, given that the selection criteria are pretty universal. Did I mention that your wildlife photography rocks big time, Steve?
Steve, great review. I can confirm what you say here and thank you for presenting your judgements in context (wildlife). Notably for me, the PF's 'keeper rate' is higher than the 300/2.8 (& far better than the old 300/4 -- there is no bargain there) simply because it handles like a big 85mm. You just grab and shoot. (The first thought picking up the 2.8 and old f4 is, "crap, where did I leave the 88mm gun carriage?"). I love the 300 PF. Of course, Nikon found a way to put a bug in the ointment - I experience the low-mid-speed VR issue. But, It's sharpness is 'down low', so it's nearly always shot wide open so speeds are usually high. You do need to mind aperture priority because of it. 1/60 and below, VR is great. The goodness of the lens far outweighs this defect (But, why does VR work fine on all other Nikons?). I've been considering a jump to Canon and in comparison of each line's glass, the PF is the only lens I see between the two that is a unique advantage for Nikon.
I had them both, tested them extensively, and kept the 200-500VR. The VR on the 300 pf is a big problem, and all the lenses are the same, the fix did nothing (I've tested 3 of them all with serials after the supposed fix) the shutter speed drifts into the problem areas (80th to 200th of a second 1/125th is the worse) all the time in low light...so until they fix this..I wouldn't have another one. The different variations on tests results is due to pixel density differences on full frame and croppers, eg, its gonna look worse on the D7200, than it will on D4 or a DF with a mere 16mp spread accross a FF, Even a D800 only has something like a 15mp DX crop...where as the d7200 has 24mp...but those extra pixels are great for cropping, and you need every pixel you can get in wildlife..:) www.flickr.com/photos/130542709@N06/22329214568/
Great review and based on your findings, I have just ordered the 300 PF and a TC 1.4. I also love your style of presentation and have just subscribed. Thank you 😁
Couldnt agree more with several comments already made about how very well made and reliable your reviews are; one more excellent video. I have to come to watch your videos the moment I get a notification..and thanks for posting these... One request I have is to hear your views on the Nikon 80-400 Lens and how it compares with the 300 and 200-500 both. Thanks in advance!
Thanks! I don't have any current comparisons, but I did do one a while back with the 300 AF-S and the 80-400: www.backcountrygallery.com/photography_tips/nikon-under-3k-tele-comparison/
Beautifully explained to the beginners. I use 500mm f4 VR II and 1.4 & 1.7 TC on D610. Surprisingly the 1.7 TC on this Fx gives better and sharper results in 850 mm than 1.4TC on 700 mm. I also use 300 mm non VR full metal old scale lens but it does not track moving objects easily with 1.4 and 1.7 TC II. Did you test the 1.7 TC on 300 f4 VR? If yes how was the AF and sharpness on FX? Need your practical experience of this small prime for the purchase of D850/D760 in near future.
Love your videos Steve - the 300 PF + tc 1.4 + D500 is perfect for me - I have the Tamron 150-600 as it came out before the 200-500 - but still always go for the 300 as its so easy to hand hold and walk around with
Thanks for another down to earth, honest and to the point review! Always a pleasure watching your videos with fast, honest real world advise and insights.
As usual Steve your videos are superb. I bought the 200-500 vr a couple of months ago. I have practice with it around the house, etc. Now next week since high school sports (Maxpreps) is starting I will really put it through it's paces. Everybody at Ugly Hedgehog likes your videos too. Keep up the good work, you have made me a better photographer.
Steve, Great review, thanks. I have experienced the same VR issues you mentioned but also generally shoot at 1/250 or higher so it's not a problem. Generally the VR works well even in the 1/60 to 1/200 range but not always and I only use it with one camera (D7100). That said, I LOVE my 300mm f4 PF. However, I also almost always stop it down 2/3rds of a stop whether I'm using a TC (I use the Kenko Pro 300 1.4 and am very happy with it) or not. It makes a BIG difference in sharpness. Thanks again.
Hi! First of all thanks for all your great videos. So useful ! I am really interested in buying the 200-500 mm. You said that the first 2 that you bought were not sharp. I would like to know how can i chek if the one I will buy is actually sharp. I'm a beginner and i have only use a 300mm f4 afs lenses for the past year so I d'ont have many reference to compare the sharpeness. Is there a way I can test my lense to see if its as sharp as it should be ? thanks a lot and sorry for my english, i'm from quebec!
Steve, I have a Sigma 150-600 mm (not the Sports model). It is pretty heavy and I use it mainly on a tripod. I also use it handheld for photographing foxes in my backyard on my D500. I have got some great fox photos, but when trying to follow very fast moving foxes, the weight seems to get to me. I am not planning on selling this long zoom, but I have been thinking about the Nikkor 300mm for my D500. because of the weight. I am 67 years old, and the long zoom seems to be getting heavier and heavier. Does my thinking make sense to you. Money is not really the object, so you can eliminate that from your thoughts. Thanks for your response in advance, and a great video as always.
thanx for the great videos and info. my wife just bought me the 200-500 and i bought the D500 earlier this year. love the combo and have good success so far. thanx for all the info you give on everything nikon!!
A few wardrobe changes (A,B,C,A), a haircut trim, bucket loads of information, no expletives, no non sequiturs, no hesitations, no waffle, some humour and a gallery of superb images. I need a lie down.
It just blows my mind that we are talking about $1-2k lenses and you still need to return two copies before you get a good one... Shouldn't it be Nikon's job to test the lenses before they are launched? :S Great video, as always, thanks!
LOL - i blew my mind too! I figured one bad lens, sure it happens, but when the second copy didn't preform as expected, I was really thinking that maybe the lens just wasn't everything people said it was. Glad I was wrong.
Me too. When you pay so much for a lens it really should work perfectly and consistantly. Same with camera bodies; the D750 (and other Nikon's) have had several recalls!
I’ve heard amazing things about the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6, but to be honest I’ve also heard quite a few negatives. I shoot wildlife (or at least try!) & have delayed purchasing a 200-500 because of the negatives. I agree & think if your paying £1260 for a lens you should be able to expect it to perform. Mark.
Great review as always Steve. I agree with all of you points. I have both plus the big glass f4's. I love them all. But the big glass costs thousands for a reason.
Thanks for another fantastic video. Now as someone who never questioned my lenses (in the sense I never thought there were bad copies!) I'd be interested to know how you test your new lenses to figure that out!
In this case, it was easy because I was comparing the 200-500 to my 300 PF. Everything's on a tripod, carefully focused in Live View, mirror up, EFC, cable release, etc. The first two copies were so far off it was obvious something wasn't right. I also saw it in the field - I'm used to shooting long glass and for the life of me I couldn't get a sharp image with the first copy and only marginally sharp images with the second. The third has been fantastic and I like to think that most of the lenses are like my third copy. :)
The one thing I have to say about the 200-500 tripod collar is that it's nice for carrying the lens. I've had the canon 400mm 5.6L and the sigma 150-600c and there wasn't a comfortable way to grip it for a suitcase carry type of position which makes carrying that large lens a lot more convenient when hiking around.
Steve love the videos AND really love your book. Torn between the 2 lenses still...I shoot a Nikon d810 and am considering the 300mm over the 200-500 zoom and at times when shooting outdoors ( mainly sports ) I will put my camera in DX mode to give me extra reach when using my 70-200 f/2.8. I realize i reduce my pixel density to 16Mp but the images still work well for me. Any thoughts on using this technique instead of paying an additional $500 for a 1.4x teleconvertor ? And would you recommend this technique ? Your video on cropping full frame vs crop sensors was excellent also !
It sounds like you're using a D800/ 810. Using a TC should get you more detail than cropping down to 16MP, so it may be worth it to you. Of course, if 16MP is all you need, then I wouldn't bother. As for the two lenses, for sports I'd probably lean towards the 300 F4 with its faster AF and larger aperture (although I'm not a sports shooter, so that's just a guess).
Thanks Steve, yes I do use a Nikon d810 and have been torn between the 2 lenses for quite some time. Looks like I'm going with the 300mm F4 and a 1.4x TC. If I begin to start shooting more wildlife I will consider the 200-500. Keep up the great work ! Your videos, book and photos are fantastic and I love the channel.
I'd love to see that one in there too... I noticed the 200-500 to have much slower AF than my 80-400 and could swear it seemed to have even more trouble focusing in bright light though I DID change it to dynamic AF before noticing that little quirk???
Haha... watched another of Steve's awesome videos and now I'm wondering if I weren't caught up in situation where I was being subjected to "Long Lens Heat Distortion" :)
Excellent and helpful review. I've used both of these lenses and couldn't see any cases where I'd disagree with your assessment. Happy to be the 100th like with zero dislikes. Well deserved.
Steve, Great review and best video I've found so far on RUclips, but...... You've forgot to mention the main aspect of using Crop sensor cameras. Nikon D500 should definitely have 1.5 times cropped numbers on those FF lenses. 300/4 would be 450/6 and 200-500 would be 300-750/8.4 in 35mm equivalent. I think it should be written as disclaimer at least because this is the fact that not everyone do pay attention to it. Cheers!
The "effective F/stop" is only for DOF if you shot a full frame equivalent lens from the same distance. Note that it DOES NOT affect exposure as many people fear.
Hi Steve, the "Exchange and Return" policy part of this vedio made me to think, it is difficult for hobbyists to check the perfection of the Lense. Please share vedio if you have about checking of New lense.
Great comparison Steve! I have a question regarding the 200-500: Can I mount the lenses on a tripod directly out of the box? I don't see an arca swiss compatible plate, so I assume I have to buy one? Thanks!
Thanks Steve. I am new to your channel. I was wondering if you have any experience with the Tamron 150-600 as an alternative to the 200-500. I have none and wondered if you had any insight. Thanks.
Hi Steve, I have a question. I'm using D7500 with Nikkor 200-500mm for wildlife. I need this lens for its long focal end, but I must admit I'm a bit bothered by the weight (I like to hike and photograph at the same time). Would it make sense in my case to use Nikkor 300mm f/4 PF with TC-14E III attached most of the time?
Steve love your approach to reviews , I have recently acquired a D500, and find I am carrying around my 70-300Afp DX 5.6/6.3 most of the time, I usually use it at 300mm, I have tucked away the sigma 150-600 C, so don’t really need another big zoom, would the 300pf be a good replacement for the 70-300 cheers
I have the Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 C and the Nikon 300mm f4E. I agree that heat distortion appears to affect the zoom more than the prime. On the Sigma, 300mm is it's sharpest focal length and compared to the prime it's almost a wash other than the one stop difference in DOF. On the other hand with the sport version of the 150-600, 300mm is reportedly not very good but the optics are better on its long end than the contemporary model. The minimum focusing distance is much better on the prime also. The only times I notice the Phase Fresnel flare issue is when shooting into the sun or at night shooting into bright lights. I prefer to use the 300mm PF on my D7200 and the 150-600mm on my D750. 600mm appears soft on the DX body but acceptable at f/11 on the FX.
Thank you, Steve, for an informative video. You definitely had my attention for the entire review. Interesting information about the heat distortion. Never thought you would see differences among lenses at equal circumstances.
Hey great video! Iv just bought a D500 and will get round to getting the 300mm f/4 and 200-500mm. Until then i have the 50mm 1.8g and Id like to get an all rounder. Which would you recommended from Nikon 70-300, Nikon 18-140mm or Nikon 18-200mm?
Hi Steve, If both lemses were hipothetically the same price which one would you go for ? I've found a second hand 300pf (in almost unused condition) for the same price as a new 200-500 5.6. After watching the video and taking everything you said into consideration im still cannot make up my mind though. I'm aware every photographer is a different world altogether but if you were in my situation which one would you go for ? Glad to see that you're better !
Hi Steve, I am looking to purchase the 200-500mm, but you mention you had to return 2 copies before getting a sharp one. In this regard, could you give any insight on the merchant you got it from? For it should be a merchant with which we can easily return and exchange, and if possible, without having to pay for return shipping, if it's a bad lens. Thank you...
I am stuck in this choice, i shoot events in arena, but recently been outside of 70-200 range, thus i am here. 300PF i have decided to save and purchase. I think its the right decision, arena lighting can be so bad and i cant go anymore with 70-200 cropping, i did consider going 70-200 in DX mode to get further but i want FF output after all that's why i bought the FF body. So decided based off my need for AF Speed, more light, smaller size, keeper rate. Thanks for the detailed video.
Hello Steve. Really enjoyed the video. I’m just starting out I have a d500 and wanted your opinion on getting Nikon 200-500 with a 1.4 converter or sigma 150-600. Wanting to start photographing birds. Thank you.
im actually having a hard time deciding on a shorter prime to replace my 200-500mm. i recently just got a 600mm f4 fmount and it really put things into perspective. if you have any suggestions to a shorter lens that matches the 600mm in quality id appreciate it. a cheaper suggestion and expensive options would also be nice to include
Dear Steve, I have been watching all your videos and I have learned very much, many thanks. I want your suggestion. I have sold my Nikon 500 f4 as I am now 62 years of age. I can’t handle it. I have already 300 f4 pf lens, for wild life photography should I buy 1.4 tc or 500 f5.6 lens. Thanks
Top drawer video this Steve thank you for uploading. I've got an xt3 a great camera but one that is hamstrung by its lens choice and its AF performance isn't at the level of the DSLRs in my opinion. I'll change to the 200-500/d500 combination but will tread warily as 200-500 sample variation has been a factor here in the uk just like you saw as well. Thanks again. Matt PS A quick question - would you take a nikon 200-500 over a Sigma 150-600 Sport? I'd be really interested to hear your expert opinion! !
Hi Steve, Thank you for your review and videos overall. I just can see the huge difference between USA and Europe, at least middle Europe where wildlife shooters tend to have problem to get close enough to animals because of hunters. You shoot in national parks, where animals got used to be with people but here they are afraid of us because of hunters who shoot them, I mean by gun not camera unfortunately. I am looking forward to next year to try do wildlife in USA national parks for couple weeks.
Another great tube Steve. As always the most informativeI Photo tube around. I have the old 300 AFS F4, & was wondering which way to go. Thanks for all your hard work.
Hi steve this a very informative video but which one would you recommend if i am just a wildlife photographer who only takes pictures on holiday or when on safari i like the 300PF but which one would you recommend
Living in the UK I guess there's not too much concern about heat distortion as much as rain distortion, especially at the moment. A great video and review of each lens. My decision is between the older 300mm AF-S + 1.4TC 2 and the 200-500mm. I kinda wanna go for both, but I don't think that will be an option.
Can I ask where do you live? I live in Czech and the wildlife here is extremely shy. There is no way I would be able to get so close to the deer. I have to wait for the deer like five hours and I have to be totally silent. I am kinda jealous :D. It has been like three months since I was at least close enough to take a adequate photo of any deer. And it is same with birds and everything here.
Great videos Steve! I'm wondering if you've put anything together on how to calibrate a long telephoto lens - you mention your use of the LensAlign tool in this video. I'm also wondering if you've done anything on how to know if you've gotten a bad copy of a lens. I recently switched to Nikon and I'm using a D500 with the 200-500 5.6 and the new 600 4.0 lens. I've been less than excited with my results from both of these lenses (soft images) and suspect I need to be micro adjustments to both combos. I'm a little intimated about the process based on what I've seen so far on the internet. It would be great if you could break down the process in easy to understand steps. Thanks.
Hi Thomas - I don't have any videos on it yet, but I do outline AF Fine tune in my Nikon AF Book: backcountrygallery.com/secrets-nikon-autofocus-system/ Just FYI - my 200-500 and 600E are incredibly sharp. Test your lenses using Live View and to eliminate PDAF focus error. If they aren't sharp in Live View, there's a problem with the lenses. Here's my test procedure: backcountrygallery.com/lens-sharpness-testing/
Love your videos, Steve! I have a 200-500mm question: Which do you think gives the best image quality (regardless of crop factor): the 200-500mm on a D750, on a D500, or on a Z 7II w/FTZII?
I liked your approach to this review. Question re: the 300 PF have you shot any images where a bright light, similar to a car headlight, was shinning toward the camera? I really want to know how the PF handles this as I shoot a lot of subjects with lights and the PF element is an unknown to me.
Great video presentation, Steve; thanks a lot. I have the 300 f4 PF VR + 1.4 TC 111 fitted to my D500. I hardly ever take the TC off the lens and find the focusing speed is still incredibly fast and accurate. It was the IQ and lightweight of the lens that caused me to buy mine, as I wanted to match the weight of my Olympus EM 1 system. The only problem I sometimes encounter, is that the reach of the 300 + 1.4 TC is sometimes inadequate at one of the locations I regulary visit. I have been considering the 200 - 500 f5.6 to compliment my 300mm f4. and planning on attaching my 1.4 TC to it; but watching your presentation has made me question that idea. You have assessed the IQ and focusing speed of the 300mm + 1.4 TC against the 200 - 500mm but what I would like to know is this: did you discern any real advantage in reach when using the 200 - 500mm without the TC against the 300mm + 1.4 TC when fitted to a D500?
The difference in reach isn't huge, but it is noticeable and could easily be the difference between "close enough" and "not quit there" IMO. However, I also got rid of a 500mm F4 for a much heavier 600mm F4 because I wanted the little bit of extra reach - in my mind, every bit counts.
Thanks for the prompt response, Steve. I will take your experience on board and buy a 200 - 500mm f5.6 - probably a second hand one as it will not be a lens I use every day but will come in very handy.
You do a great job on your videos. I am researching for a camera and lens for wildlife photography. I just ordered your e-book. Looks like it will be a big help for my upcoming Alaska trip.
Excellent review Steve. I agree with all your findings having had this lens myself since April. Sorry to hear you had two bad copies to start with. I must have been lucky first time then I guess. I use mine with a D7200, and for me, I get great results with it. As you say, focusing not the fastest, but you work with what you've got and for the money it's certainly well worth it. It's down to me now to become a better photographer! ;-)
Hi Steve, I recently discovered your channel and find your videos very interesting and educational. Thanks for sharing your insights! One question about the 200-500: I don't know if you've ever had or know the AF-S NIKKOR 200-400 MM 1:4G ED VR I personally. I would be interested in your opinion in comparison to the 200-500 in terms of AF speed and image quality. Thank you very much in advance and best regards from Austria!
Have nature and wildlife photography questions? Check out the BCG Forums! Ask and answer gear and technique questions questions, post photos and more. Check it out and sign up today!
bcgforums.com/index.php
Bonus - I also post exclusive tips, tricks, and techniques to the forum you can't get anywhere else! Check it out!
Excellent video. This is my first time watching one of your video's and I'm hooked. The reason is that you offer extremely valuable information - very useful - AND you do it quickly, concisely. No long stories about your trip to this forest or that lake. No long stretches telling us the obvious. You cut to the chase and you bottom line it. Awesome! This is not so common on RUclips and it makes you a keeper!!!
Thanks :)
Definitely agreed. Top notch review.
Could not possibly agree more!
This is the best lens review I have seen on youtube. You talk fast and don't waste anytime and get to the point. Consider me a subscriber.
yes! he talks fast, but, delivers smoothly.
@@patricksmith2553 My 200-500 f5.6 bought yesterday has Normal and Sport VR modes!
@@antonoat Yeah your correct lol, I don't know what I was thinking when I said that haha.
What gimbal is recommended for the 200-500?
@Matt you can adjust the speed of vids under settings. As fast or sow as you want, Mate.
Another great video, Steve is a superb wildlife photographer and his opinions are supported by real world images. Honest and comprehensive review, one of the best reviewers on the web.
This is a fantastic piece of work you put together. Thanks a lot. You are becoming (you already are actually) one of the most reliable source of information for wildlife photographers.
Well said!
Fro disagrees!
Steve gets A+ for mentioning PRIME LENS superior rendering and "pop" (meaning microcontrast)
I have the 200-500mm and love it. A zoom of that range shouldn't even be close to the prime telephotos and the fact that it is, is remarkable. I don't regret my choice, although when I'm packing my camera bag for a trip or at the end of a long hike, I do start wishing I had the 300mm PF as a compact lightweight option.
Forget the reviews. Steve, your wildlife and bird photos are beautiful and very inspiring, and after I get my first dslr, I will try my best to get pictures like u.
3 years on and this video is still relevant. I'm looking at switching from Canon to Nikon and I have the D500 and 200-500mm lens on my radar. As I'm in Australia, the heat distortion test was of great value. Cheers Steve ... subscribed.
Amazing video Steve. What about the older 300mm F4 without VR? They are dirt cheap at the moment and wondering if it wouldn't be worth giving it a go?
I’ve tried the 300 f/4 VR on my new Z7 and had problems focusing. A few days later, I tried shutting the lens VR off and got much better focusing because the camera VR was not interfering with the lens VR on. The combination of a light lens and light mirrorless has made my DSLRs rest in back of my equipment closet. Hey, it’s a bit easier on my body since I am now 78 years old. Coff coff coff.
By the way, your video was very well done and I have subscribed.
Were the images still sharp handheld with just the ibis on and vr off?
I have the 200-500mm i'm very, very satisfied with it...
Very well done, Steve...THANKS! I use the 300 PF on my Fujifilm X-H1 with a Fringer adapter with stunning results and I can use the Fuji 1.4 TC between the adapter and body! I compared using the 300 PF on a D7200 and while the focus acquisition and tracking is a little better, the IQ on the Fuji body is remarkably better. I had to do the test twice to confirm what I was seeing and without any post processing, cropping or pixel peeping, the clarity and sharpness difference just jumps out.
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your video. I have been using the 200-500mm for 2 years. I learned something new about it from your video. I think it's the best zoom lens at this price. I'll keep using it until I get a new mirrorless camera.
I've been using my 200-500 since it was launched and as an amateur, I'm more than satisfied. If I had been making my living off shooting, I would probably have ended up with the 200 f/2, 400 f/2.8 and the 600 f/4 primes but for my needs, the 200-500 is perfect.
Great review, Steve - absolutely love your videos. No, shouting, no gimmicks, just informative and pleasant videos. Keep up the good work!
Fantastic review & comparison of these lenses Steve. I'm lucky enough to have both & tend to use the 200-500 on my D500 for the additional reach, and the 300 PF on my D5, often with the TC1.4 iii. As you mentioned, the D500 / 300 PF combo is a great walk around option. I also have the Sigma 150-600 sport lens, which is considerably heavier than the 200-500, although I find it sharper at the long end. That said, I tend to grab the 200-500 in preference to the Sigma because of the weight saving and its constant f5.6. I've had one or two issues with the 209-500 lens hood falling off. I love the sigmas push/pull zoom option as opposed to the lengthy zoom process of the Nikon. Keep up the great work.
Thanks for this - I chose the 300 PF a year ago and added a 1.4 TC (based on your review, I maybe should take the TC off a little more often). It was a no brainer for me, all of the big lenses were simply too heavy for me and too big for my hands to operate, but you have made me feel even better about my choice. I take it out (literally) every single day shooting wildlife handheld - I can't remember ever putting it on a tripod. I've been incredibly happy with it. I'm hoping one day they make a PF 200-500 or 150-600. :)
I've never seen any of the halo problems you mentioned. I have no problem handholding the 300 PF with the 1.4 TC at 1/60 on either my original D3300 or my new D500. I do shoot between 1/250 and 1/1000 most of the time because birds are moving, but I haven't had problems between 1/60 and 1/250 when a bird decides to sit still.
Thanks for the reviews. I just found your channel. I shoot wildlife on Nikon and I am finding all kinds of great information on your site!
Thanks for a great vid Steve. I'm a pro shooter and educator wanting to shoot more wildlife for personal goals. Up till a few weeks ago I owned the 300 f4 ED-IF AF-S with TC 14 E ii combo. An unfortunate River trip left my Nikon gear fairly soaked (everyone lived). I was torn between upping to the 300 PF, repurchasing the ED-IF I had...or making the leap to this beast. After chatting with a former photojay colleague and getting to handle this lens I did it.
So far I'm blown away by this lens. I'm definitely using lens correction in Lightroom and any lack of "microcontrast" is handled with a dash of dehaze.
Definitely enjoying your channel as I explore a new area and finding you to be a solid reference for my private and college photo students.
Thank you so much - and enjoy the lens, it's one of my all-time favorites!
Would love to have both but the 200-500 is it for me. Maybe I'll rent the prime...my arms would love it. Great review.
Did you know you got a "youtube channels that inspire" in Outdoor Photography? couldn't agree more :)
Nope, didn't know that - that's really cool!! Do you have the link? THANKS!!!!
It's in this months Magazine, I'm in the UK not sure if it's available worldwide.. it's only a small part on page 12 with your picture and a a link to this channel.
The Magazine is : www.outdoorphotographymagazine.co.uk/magazine/2016/08/op209-the-highlights/
Awesome - I'll have to see if I can find a copy here in the states (some of my local bookstores have a selection of UK mags). Thanks again for letting me know - that's really cool :)
JaseEvoX aaa
Late to the comments section, but, I have to totally agree with everything related to the Nikon 200-500 stated in this video.
After using the 200-500 for around two years now, the first thing that immediately comes to mind is the huge difference between 500mm image sharpness at distance and at close range on a warm day. At full aperture down, the short range performance (i.e small bird in a branch at say.. 6m) is outstanding! (razor sharp with wonderful bokeh!), but at distance (50+m) images are often dissapointing; not always mind, but it is a definite trend.
The VR on the 200-500 is outstandingly good!
My other gripe is the relatively slow focus, which I could have offset a bit by using manual focus, had Nikon not put the focus ring so close to the lens mount..... sigh!
I have also used this lens for close up work at around f8 (flying insects etc.), where it truly excels, with wonderfully, completely defocussed backgrounds.
But yes, a good copy of this lens will offer great value for money, and is marginally better than the simmilarly priced 3rd party opposition.
Steve ... You should compare 200-400mm/4 with 200-500mm/5.6
MrCorelex I have used both and I would personally go for the 200-500mm. Having used the 200-500 then returning it for the 200-400, I went back to the 200-500 as it’s just as sharp if not more so, a lot easier to carry around making it more adaptable to environments etc and the colours etc from it are gorgeous, not that the 200-400mm arnt but for the money and weight, it Defo wasn’t worth the small pros for me
I rented a 200-500 and D750 earlier in the year and was really impressed with the images of birds in flight and on the strength of this purchased a D500 and 200-500. I can see from your excellent review and images that this lens is very capable when connected to a D500. I used to shoot Canon and sold it all some years ago, but I had pro gear including capability with extenders to 600mm f/5.6, so I have experience with wildlife and birds in flight. My experience with Nikon is one of disappointment. With good light and supported on stationary objects, it's pretty good. For birds in flight it's simply horrible. I haven't yet achieve a single useable shot having tried VR variations on and off, varying shutter speeds and aperture settings and all are soft. Even on slow moving birds. I'm on my second 200-500 and about to return that, but I'm thinking returning it all for a refund to reconsider options. For those having bad 200-500, was this across the range or specific to a certain focal length or scenario?
Martin Aves: Keep the D500 and get a 300mm f4 PF VR + Nikon 1.4 TC 111, you will be amazed as to how incredible this combination is for birds and dragonflies in flight. I had a Canon 7D mark 11 + Canon 100 - 400mm IS mark 11 prior to my Nikon system and for me, the D500 + 300mm is far superior. I have been considering the Nikon 200 - 500mm f5.6 but Tamron have just released the 150 - 600mm f5/6.3 G2.
Cheers Pete, that's exactly what I did and am delighted with the results. The 300mm f4 PF is a great little lens and results are really sharp. I've not tried the 1.4TC III extensively yet, but some initial quick shots look promising.
I loved this so much I saved my money to buy one and it is as sharp as everyone says and well worth the money. I had a 150-500 Sigma 5.6-6.3 and it cannot hold a candle to this nikki 200-500 5.6. I do appreciate all your hard work!
I have to say Steve, you speak loud and clear. You approach your review in a very mithodical and organized manner. This is very appreciated as I go through the review and think about my questions of my newly received, "pre-owned", Nikkor 200 - 500 lens. All my best and thanks you very much. 👍😎📸🤩
Nikon needs a 400mm f/5.6 with the same tech as the 300 PF.... something between the 400mm f/2.8 and the 300 ! Quick AF, light, sharp as a prime...
Smart Cat Collar Project similar to canons
I'm hoping for a 400mm f4.5 or 500mm f5.6 PF... I think I'm a bit deluded though.
Nikon should start making it at a reasonable price and then buy the fixed telephoto lens immediately.
There's a 500 f5.6 PF coming.. Its been Confirmed.
Well Steve, 7 months on from my last post and I bought a new Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6. It is brilliant: and despite the weight I have been using it instead of my 300mm f4 PF VR since buying it a fortnight ago. I find it really easy to aquire a subject (far easier than my Olympus EM1 mark II + Oly 300mm f4) and it works really well for birds in flight.
Congrats :) As an owner of both lenses, I find myself going back and forth between them all the time - can't go wrong either way and I'm glad you're enjoying to 200-500. I personally think they pair up well.
Seriously, thank you so much. What a wonderful video, and person. So rare to see reviews not influenced by manufacturers or bias. Well done Steve you've got a fan for life 8). Im gonna go with 300f4 + 1.4x TC simply for backpacking weight. Really these two seem so close it's just size vs reach at the end of the day.
Great video! I'm getting ready to purchase the 200-500 and was curious to see if you could recommend a good way to test the lense for sharpness when it arrives?
You review better than Better Photography or Nikon Does.
Thanks, It gave me a thought & recommendation for my next lense that is 200-500 @ $1180
Steve, glad to see you found a good copy of the 200-500.
I appreciated your comments about the benefits of shooting at f/4 vs. f/5.6. My experience shooting with the 200-500 has sold me on the advantage of f/5.6 vs. f/6.3. Photographing BIF in anything less than great light, the ISO starts to climb pretty quickly. I'm usually always wide open at f/5.6 and am typically at 1/2000 to freeze action so, opening the aperture or slowing shutter speed are not options...at least, not preferred options. Even a 1/3-stop lower ISO can make the difference between acceptable and unacceptable noise. Regardless of how good the 150-600's may be, I have no desire to give up another 1/3-stop of light.
As someone who's never shot with a 500 f/4, shooting with the 200-500 had given me an appreciation of the idea of having such a lens. If your looking for suggestions on topics to cover in future videos, I'd be interested in a discussion of the wildlife/bird scenarios where each - 500 f/4 and 200-500 f5.6 - shows its value. Which scenarios are tailor made for the exotic and which for the zoom?
I just ordered the 200-500 used from Adorama. How can check the sharpness to see if it a “keeper”?
Great video!
@@1stRealty one subject I'll recommend is a 1st quarter Moon. Of course, the weather needs to cooperate but assuming it's clear, the Moon is detailed, conveniently positioned, and can be used to test things like autofocus acuity, image quality at different focal lengths and f-stops, and vibration reduction (VR) at different shutter speeds.
Very nuanced and practical discussion of the pros and cons of both lenses. Found this intriguing enough to watch till the end. I am saying this as a generalist-approach Pentax shooter, who would feel more confident now to make an informed pick between offerings even in the competing system, given that the selection criteria are pretty universal. Did I mention that your wildlife photography rocks big time, Steve?
Steve, great review. I can confirm what you say here and thank you for presenting your judgements in context (wildlife).
Notably for me, the PF's 'keeper rate' is higher than the 300/2.8 (& far better than the old 300/4 -- there is no bargain there) simply because it handles like a big 85mm. You just grab and shoot. (The first thought picking up the 2.8 and old f4 is, "crap, where did I leave the 88mm gun carriage?"). I love the 300 PF.
Of course, Nikon found a way to put a bug in the ointment - I experience the low-mid-speed VR issue. But, It's sharpness is 'down low', so it's nearly always shot wide open so speeds are usually high. You do need to mind aperture priority because of it. 1/60 and below, VR is great. The goodness of the lens far outweighs this defect (But, why does VR work fine on all other Nikons?).
I've been considering a jump to Canon and in comparison of each line's glass, the PF is the only lens I see between the two that is a unique advantage for Nikon.
You've become my favourite source of photography information on RUclips. You're just too good. Looking forward to more videos.
Excellent comparison. The way you differentiate the topics is very very well.
Thanks, it helps me a lot!
The 200-500 can be very sharp at times, but it's so frustrating to use on overcast / low light days.
like all 5.6 zooms
I had them both, tested them extensively, and kept the 200-500VR. The VR on the 300 pf is a big problem, and all the lenses are the same, the fix did nothing (I've tested 3 of them all with serials after the supposed fix) the shutter speed drifts into the problem areas (80th to 200th of a second 1/125th is the worse) all the time in low light...so until they fix this..I wouldn't have another one. The different variations on tests results is due to pixel density differences on full frame and croppers, eg, its gonna look worse on the D7200, than it will on D4 or a DF with a mere 16mp spread accross a FF, Even a D800 only has something like a 15mp DX crop...where as the d7200 has 24mp...but those extra pixels are great for cropping, and you need every pixel you can get in wildlife..:)
www.flickr.com/photos/130542709@N06/22329214568/
Great review and based on your findings, I have just ordered the 300 PF and a TC 1.4. I also love your style of presentation and have just subscribed. Thank you 😁
Couldnt agree more with several comments already made about how very well made and reliable your reviews are; one more excellent video. I have to come to watch your videos the moment I get a notification..and thanks for posting these...
One request I have is to hear your views on the Nikon 80-400 Lens and how it compares with the 300 and 200-500 both. Thanks in advance!
Thanks!
I don't have any current comparisons, but I did do one a while back with the 300 AF-S and the 80-400:
www.backcountrygallery.com/photography_tips/nikon-under-3k-tele-comparison/
This page is no longer available Steve. Do you have another link?
Beautifully explained to the beginners. I use 500mm f4 VR II and 1.4 & 1.7 TC on D610. Surprisingly the 1.7 TC on this Fx gives better and sharper results in 850 mm than 1.4TC on 700 mm. I also use 300 mm non VR full metal old scale lens but it does not track moving objects easily with 1.4 and 1.7 TC II. Did you test the 1.7 TC on 300 f4 VR? If yes how was the AF and sharpness on FX? Need your practical experience of this small prime for the purchase of D850/D760 in near future.
Incredibly well presented and laid out video. Thanks so much for covering topics I didn't even think of!
About the VR sport mode, I've also heard it is used for when you and the camera are moving, like in a vehicle, etc.
Love your videos Steve - the 300 PF + tc 1.4 + D500 is perfect for me - I have the Tamron 150-600 as it came out before the 200-500 - but still always go for the 300 as its so easy to hand hold and walk around with
Thanks for another down to earth, honest and to the point review! Always a pleasure watching your videos with fast, honest real world advise and insights.
As usual Steve your videos are superb. I bought the 200-500 vr a couple of months ago. I have practice with it around the house, etc. Now next week since high school sports (Maxpreps) is starting I will really put it through it's paces. Everybody at Ugly Hedgehog likes your videos too. Keep up the good work, you have made me a better photographer.
Steve, Great review, thanks. I have experienced the same VR issues you mentioned but also generally shoot at 1/250 or higher so it's not a problem. Generally the VR works well even in the 1/60 to 1/200 range but not always and I only use it with one camera (D7100). That said, I LOVE my 300mm f4 PF. However, I also almost always stop it down 2/3rds of a stop whether I'm using a TC (I use the Kenko Pro 300 1.4 and am very happy with it) or not. It makes a BIG difference in sharpness. Thanks again.
Hi!
First of all thanks for all your great videos. So useful ! I am really interested in buying the 200-500 mm. You said that the first 2 that you bought were not sharp. I would like to know how can i chek if the one I will buy is actually sharp. I'm a beginner and i have only use a 300mm f4 afs lenses for the past year so I d'ont have many reference to compare the sharpeness. Is there a way I can test my lense to see if its as sharp as it should be ? thanks a lot and sorry for my english, i'm from quebec!
Steve,
I have a Sigma 150-600 mm (not the Sports model). It is pretty heavy and I use it mainly on a tripod. I also use it handheld for photographing foxes in my backyard on my D500. I have got some great fox photos, but when trying to follow very fast moving foxes, the weight seems to get to me. I am not planning on selling this long zoom, but I have been thinking about the Nikkor 300mm for my D500. because of the weight. I am 67 years old, and the long zoom seems to be getting heavier and heavier. Does my thinking make sense to you. Money is not really the object, so you can eliminate that from your thoughts. Thanks for your response in advance, and a great video as always.
thanx for the great videos and info. my wife just bought me the 200-500 and i bought the D500 earlier this year. love the combo and have good success so far. thanx for all the info you give on everything nikon!!
A few wardrobe changes (A,B,C,A), a haircut trim, bucket loads of information, no expletives, no non sequiturs, no hesitations, no waffle, some humour and a gallery of superb images. I need a lie down.
It just blows my mind that we are talking about $1-2k lenses and you still need to return two copies before you get a good one... Shouldn't it be Nikon's job to test the lenses before they are launched? :S
Great video, as always, thanks!
LOL - i blew my mind too! I figured one bad lens, sure it happens, but when the second copy didn't preform as expected, I was really thinking that maybe the lens just wasn't everything people said it was. Glad I was wrong.
Me too. When you pay so much for a lens it really should work perfectly and consistantly. Same with camera bodies; the D750 (and other Nikon's) have had several recalls!
As far I can understand "returning" means taking the lens to a nikon service center. Not a bid deal. I have done these things before.
I’ve heard amazing things about the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6, but to be honest I’ve also heard quite a few negatives. I shoot wildlife (or at least try!) & have delayed purchasing a 200-500 because of the negatives. I agree & think if your paying £1260 for a lens you should be able to expect it to perform. Mark.
I bought my 200-500 online and it is tack sharp from the go. Just need to get out more and take pictures. ☺️
Great review as always Steve. I agree with all of you points. I have both plus the big glass f4's. I love them all. But the big glass costs thousands for a reason.
Thanks for another fantastic video. Now as someone who never questioned my lenses (in the sense I never thought there were bad copies!) I'd be interested to know how you test your new lenses to figure that out!
In this case, it was easy because I was comparing the 200-500 to my 300 PF. Everything's on a tripod, carefully focused in Live View, mirror up, EFC, cable release, etc. The first two copies were so far off it was obvious something wasn't right. I also saw it in the field - I'm used to shooting long glass and for the life of me I couldn't get a sharp image with the first copy and only marginally sharp images with the second. The third has been fantastic and I like to think that most of the lenses are like my third copy. :)
It was a great review, thanks to you.
But can you help me to choose between: 200-500mm vs 200-400mm f/4 vr II.
thank you.
The one thing I have to say about the 200-500 tripod collar is that it's nice for carrying the lens. I've had the canon 400mm 5.6L and the sigma 150-600c and there wasn't a comfortable way to grip it for a suitcase carry type of position which makes carrying that large lens a lot more convenient when hiking around.
GREAT Steve. UGH. I bought the 200-500, now you're telling me I need the 300F4PF too??
Fine, you've twisted my arm.
LOL
You are awesome. Humble yet outspoken.
Steve love the videos AND really love your book. Torn between the 2 lenses still...I shoot a Nikon d810 and am considering the 300mm over the 200-500 zoom and at times when shooting outdoors ( mainly sports ) I will put my camera in DX mode to give me extra reach when using my 70-200 f/2.8. I realize i reduce my pixel density to 16Mp but the images still work well for me. Any thoughts on using this technique instead of paying an additional $500 for a 1.4x teleconvertor ? And would you recommend this technique ? Your video on cropping full frame vs crop sensors was excellent also !
It sounds like you're using a D800/ 810. Using a TC should get you more detail than cropping down to 16MP, so it may be worth it to you. Of course, if 16MP is all you need, then I wouldn't bother. As for the two lenses, for sports I'd probably lean towards the 300 F4 with its faster AF and larger aperture (although I'm not a sports shooter, so that's just a guess).
Thanks Steve, yes I do use a Nikon d810 and have been torn between the 2 lenses for quite some time. Looks like I'm going with the 300mm F4 and a 1.4x TC. If I begin to start shooting more wildlife I will consider the 200-500. Keep up the great work ! Your videos, book and photos are fantastic and I love the channel.
Excellent review, though Steve talks a bit too fast for me. I also think that 80-400 needs to be in this conversation.
I'd love to see that one in there too... I noticed the 200-500 to have much slower AF than my 80-400 and could swear it seemed to have even more trouble focusing in bright light though I DID change it to dynamic AF before noticing that little quirk???
Haha... watched another of Steve's awesome videos and now I'm wondering if I weren't caught up in situation where I was being subjected to "Long Lens Heat Distortion" :)
Excellent and helpful review. I've used both of these lenses and couldn't see any cases where I'd disagree with your assessment. Happy to be the 100th like with zero dislikes. Well deserved.
Thanks!!
... but that dislike is coming, it always does LOL :)
Haha... That's the internet, but to get to 100 without someone jumping in is pretty impressive. Thank you for all the great content.
Steve, Great review and best video I've found so far on RUclips, but......
You've forgot to mention the main aspect of using Crop sensor cameras. Nikon D500 should definitely have 1.5 times cropped numbers on those FF lenses. 300/4 would be 450/6 and 200-500 would be 300-750/8.4 in 35mm equivalent. I think it should be written as disclaimer at least because this is the fact that not everyone do pay attention to it.
Cheers!
The "effective F/stop" is only for DOF if you shot a full frame equivalent lens from the same distance. Note that it DOES NOT affect exposure as many people fear.
Hi Steve, the "Exchange and Return" policy part of this vedio made me to think, it is difficult for hobbyists to check the perfection of the Lense.
Please share vedio if you have about checking of New lense.
Great comparison Steve!
I have a question regarding the 200-500: Can I mount the lenses on a tripod directly out of the box? I don't see an arca swiss compatible plate, so I assume I have to buy one?
Thanks!
Thanks Steve. I am new to your channel. I was wondering if you have any experience with the Tamron 150-600 as an alternative to the 200-500. I have none and wondered if you had any insight. Thanks.
Oh, got your ebook, and it was greatly informative, with some fantastic shots!!
Thanks :)
Hi Steve, I have a question.
I'm using D7500 with Nikkor 200-500mm for wildlife. I need this lens for its long focal end, but I must admit I'm a bit bothered by the weight (I like to hike and photograph at the same time).
Would it make sense in my case to use Nikkor 300mm f/4 PF with TC-14E III attached most of the time?
Steve love your approach to reviews , I have recently acquired a D500, and find I am carrying around my 70-300Afp DX 5.6/6.3 most of the time, I usually use it at 300mm, I have tucked away the sigma 150-600 C, so don’t really need another big zoom, would the 300pf be a good replacement for the 70-300 cheers
I have the Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 C and the Nikon 300mm f4E. I agree that heat distortion appears to affect the zoom more than the prime. On the Sigma, 300mm is it's sharpest focal length and compared to the prime it's almost a wash other than the one stop difference in DOF. On the other hand with the sport version of the 150-600, 300mm is reportedly not very good but the optics are better on its long end than the contemporary model. The minimum focusing distance is much better on the prime also. The only times I notice the Phase Fresnel flare issue is when shooting into the sun or at night shooting into bright lights. I prefer to use the 300mm PF on my D7200 and the 150-600mm on my D750. 600mm appears soft on the DX body but acceptable at f/11 on the FX.
Thank you, Steve, for an informative video. You definitely had my attention for the entire review. Interesting information about the heat distortion. Never thought you would see differences among lenses at equal circumstances.
Hey great video! Iv just bought a D500 and will get round to getting the 300mm f/4 and 200-500mm. Until then i have the 50mm 1.8g and Id like to get an all rounder. Which would you recommended from Nikon 70-300, Nikon 18-140mm or Nikon 18-200mm?
Hi Steve,
If both lemses were hipothetically the same price which one would you go for ?
I've found a second hand 300pf (in almost unused condition) for the same price as a new 200-500 5.6. After watching the video and taking everything you said into consideration im still cannot make up my mind though. I'm aware every photographer is a different world altogether but if you were in my situation which one would you go for ?
Glad to see that you're better !
Excellent Video! Great Job!
So hard to decide the best lens for my D7200 (DX body) but the versatility of the 200-500mm is a big plus!
Hi Steve, I am looking to purchase the 200-500mm, but you mention you had to return 2 copies before getting a sharp one. In this regard, could you give any insight on the merchant you got it from? For it should be a merchant with which we can easily return and exchange, and if possible, without having to pay for return shipping, if it's a bad lens. Thank you...
nails it . time and again. Steve is simply the best for wildlife shooters. Keep it up!
I am stuck in this choice, i shoot events in arena, but recently been outside of 70-200 range, thus i am here. 300PF i have decided to save and purchase. I think its the right decision, arena lighting can be so bad and i cant go anymore with 70-200 cropping, i did consider going 70-200 in DX mode to get further but i want FF output after all that's why i bought the FF body. So decided based off my need for AF Speed, more light, smaller size, keeper rate. Thanks for the detailed video.
Hello Steve. Really enjoyed the video. I’m just starting out I have a d500 and wanted your opinion on getting Nikon 200-500 with a 1.4 converter or sigma 150-600. Wanting to start photographing birds. Thank you.
im actually having a hard time deciding on a shorter prime to replace my 200-500mm. i recently just got a 600mm f4 fmount and it really put things into perspective. if you have any suggestions to a shorter lens that matches the 600mm in quality id appreciate it. a cheaper suggestion and expensive options would also be nice to include
Dear Steve, I have been watching all your videos and I have learned very much, many thanks. I want your suggestion. I have sold my Nikon 500 f4 as I am now 62 years of age. I can’t handle it. I have already 300 f4 pf lens, for wild life photography should I buy 1.4 tc or 500 f5.6 lens. Thanks
Top drawer video this Steve thank you for uploading. I've got an xt3 a great camera but one that is hamstrung by its lens choice and its AF performance isn't at the level of the DSLRs in my opinion. I'll change to the 200-500/d500 combination but will tread warily as 200-500 sample variation has been a factor here in the uk just like you saw as well. Thanks again. Matt
PS A quick question - would you take a nikon 200-500 over a Sigma 150-600 Sport? I'd be really interested to hear your expert opinion! !
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your review and videos overall. I just can see the huge difference between USA and Europe, at least middle Europe where wildlife shooters tend to have problem to get close enough to animals because of hunters. You shoot in national parks, where animals got used to be with people but here they are afraid of us because of hunters who shoot them, I mean by gun not camera unfortunately. I am looking forward to next year to try do wildlife in USA national parks for couple weeks.
Good review, have the 200 - 500 we do commercial construction / demolition work with it but we are about to get the 300PF, horses for courses.
Another great tube Steve. As always the most informativeI Photo tube around. I have the old 300 AFS F4, & was wondering which way to go. Thanks for all your hard work.
Full of great information I have the 200-500 lens , I’ve always wondered about the 300 pf but currently have a tamron 210 f4 which is great.
Found this extremely helpful thank you for spending so much time sharing!
Hi steve this a very informative video but which one would you recommend if i am just a wildlife photographer who only takes pictures on holiday or when on safari i like the 300PF but which one would you recommend
Love the way you review things...You're doing an excellent job and have the kindness to share. Thanks, you are a fantastic reference.
Living in the UK I guess there's not too much concern about heat distortion as much as rain distortion, especially at the moment. A great video and review of each lens. My decision is between the older 300mm AF-S + 1.4TC 2 and the 200-500mm. I kinda wanna go for both, but I don't think that will be an option.
Can I ask where do you live? I live in Czech and the wildlife here is extremely shy. There is no way I would be able to get so close to the deer. I have to wait for the deer like five hours and I have to be totally silent. I am kinda jealous :D. It has been like three months since I was at least close enough to take a adequate photo of any deer. And it is same with birds and everything here.
Can you elaborate on how you tested your first 2 copies of the Nikon 200-500 lens before you obtained a "good" copy ?
Steve, the Nikon 200-500 arrives Friday. Going to take it out Saturday for a test with the D500.
I'm totally sold! Just had to buy your e-book after this. Thank you for publishing it and your channel!
Great videos Steve! I'm wondering if you've put anything together on how to calibrate a long telephoto lens - you mention your use of the LensAlign tool in this video. I'm also wondering if you've done anything on how to know if you've gotten a bad copy of a lens. I recently switched to Nikon and I'm using a D500 with the 200-500 5.6 and the new 600 4.0 lens. I've been less than excited with my results from both of these lenses (soft images) and suspect I need to be micro adjustments to both combos. I'm a little intimated about the process based on what I've seen so far on the internet. It would be great if you could break down the process in easy to understand steps. Thanks.
Hi Thomas -
I don't have any videos on it yet, but I do outline AF Fine tune in my Nikon AF Book:
backcountrygallery.com/secrets-nikon-autofocus-system/
Just FYI - my 200-500 and 600E are incredibly sharp. Test your lenses using Live View and to eliminate PDAF focus error. If they aren't sharp in Live View, there's a problem with the lenses. Here's my test procedure:
backcountrygallery.com/lens-sharpness-testing/
Hi steve , please come up with a head to head comparision for nikkor 300mm pf (with tc) vs 500mm pf which is better for wildlife photography
Love your videos, Steve! I have a 200-500mm question: Which do you think gives the best image quality (regardless of crop factor): the 200-500mm on a D750, on a D500, or on a Z 7II w/FTZII?
very helpful, i now know the 200-500 is much more suited to my needs.
I liked your approach to this review. Question re: the 300 PF have you shot any images where a bright light, similar to a car headlight, was shinning toward the camera? I really want to know how the PF handles this as I shoot a lot of subjects with lights and the PF element is an unknown to me.
Great video presentation, Steve; thanks a lot. I have the 300 f4 PF VR + 1.4 TC 111 fitted to my D500. I hardly ever take the TC off the lens and find the focusing speed is still incredibly fast and accurate. It was the IQ and lightweight of the lens that caused me to buy mine, as I wanted to match the weight of my Olympus EM 1 system. The only problem I sometimes encounter, is that the reach of the 300 + 1.4 TC is sometimes inadequate at one of the locations I regulary visit. I have been considering the 200 - 500 f5.6 to compliment my 300mm f4. and planning on attaching my 1.4 TC to it; but watching your presentation has made me question that idea. You have assessed the IQ and focusing speed of the 300mm + 1.4 TC against the 200 - 500mm but what I would like to know is this: did you discern any real advantage in reach when using the 200 - 500mm without the TC against the 300mm + 1.4 TC when fitted to a D500?
The difference in reach isn't huge, but it is noticeable and could easily be the difference between "close enough" and "not quit there" IMO. However, I also got rid of a 500mm F4 for a much heavier 600mm F4 because I wanted the little bit of extra reach - in my mind, every bit counts.
Thanks for the prompt response, Steve. I will take your experience on board and buy a 200 - 500mm f5.6 - probably a second hand one as it will not be a lens I use every day but will come in very handy.
You do a great job on your videos. I am researching for a camera and lens for wildlife photography. I just ordered your e-book. Looks like it will be a big help for my upcoming Alaska trip.
Excellent review Steve. I agree with all your findings having had this lens myself since April. Sorry to hear you had two bad copies to start with. I must have been lucky first time then I guess. I use mine with a D7200, and for me, I get great results with it. As you say, focusing not the fastest, but you work with what you've got and for the money it's certainly well worth it. It's down to me now to become a better photographer! ;-)
Hi Steve, I recently discovered your channel and find your videos very interesting and educational. Thanks for sharing your insights!
One question about the 200-500: I don't know if you've ever had or know the AF-S NIKKOR 200-400 MM 1:4G ED VR I personally. I would be interested in your opinion in comparison to the 200-500 in terms of AF speed and image quality.
Thank you very much in advance and best regards from Austria!