Nikon 200-500/5.6 VR Lens....... post your photos!
- Thread starter TedG954
- Start date
Don Kondra
Senior Member
Christmas Day Chickadee...
Cheers, Don
Cheers, Don
Don Kondra
Senior Member
Some low light fun...
Cheers, Don
Cheers, Don
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
shot through a picture window
Don Kondra
Senior Member
Snowy faced Magpie...
Cheers, Don
Cheers, Don
I've finally had a chance to try out a 200-500 and now I have to make a decision: Will I be happier with this lens than my 150-600mm Tamron?
Disadvantages: Higher cost. (Not crazy, though.) Doesn't go to 600mm and I do admit I like having a lot of zoom range to work with. When you photograph space launches from a distance, you need all the zoom you can get!
Advantages: Even when NOT in sports mode, autofocus is fast, at least as fast as the Tamron. It doesn't get lost in autofocus as easily as the Tamron.
Sharpness: I don't know if can tell the difference.
Given my overall financial picture, I wouldn't be able to keep the Tamron if I bought the Nikon glass. It's one or the other.
Give me reasons to push me in the direction of the 200-500.
Disadvantages: Higher cost. (Not crazy, though.) Doesn't go to 600mm and I do admit I like having a lot of zoom range to work with. When you photograph space launches from a distance, you need all the zoom you can get!
Advantages: Even when NOT in sports mode, autofocus is fast, at least as fast as the Tamron. It doesn't get lost in autofocus as easily as the Tamron.
Sharpness: I don't know if can tell the difference.
Given my overall financial picture, I wouldn't be able to keep the Tamron if I bought the Nikon glass. It's one or the other.
Give me reasons to push me in the direction of the 200-500.
Don Kondra
Senior Member
Quality and resale value !
Cheers, Don
Cheers, Don
Resale value is not a concern to me because I never sell anything that I didn't pick up specifically to flip for a profit. My film camera was bought by my dad in 1968, I think. (Canon FT QL, pretty much in perfect condition, with 50mm F/1.2 lens...very sweet.)
As for quality, I honestly don't see much difference in build quality between the two. They're both very well made lenses, considering that they're both mostly plastic. (I suspect that these would be seriously heavy lenses if made with aluminum and steel components where you find plastic.)
As for quality, I honestly don't see much difference in build quality between the two. They're both very well made lenses, considering that they're both mostly plastic. (I suspect that these would be seriously heavy lenses if made with aluminum and steel components where you find plastic.)
I'm getting my 200-500mm this coming week. Looking forward to it! FYI, if anybody's looking for one at a bargain price, there's one on ebay now for 1199, barely used. I thought about buying it but I have decided instead to give my local shop some business even though it'll cost me a little more. They've been helpful enough to me that they've earned my business.
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
Not much luck during a brief shoot yesterday. Had to get out though, 'cause the sky was clear and the temp was moderate.
Ha ha, just found an FT QL with a 50 1.4 Canon lens and a few other bits in the closet the other day....been in there at least 40 years I bet....
That was a great camera had an almost 3D effect to the images that lens camera combo produced....very Minolta like actually as I recall.
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
My grandsons start baseball soon, so I look forward to using it then. My 70-200/70-300 hadn't been cutting it.
It slays um pretty good flying as well. It slays them a lot better on my D750 then on the D7100.