Possibly a new Nikon 200-500

C

cbay

Senior Member
The optimistic side of me thinks they would buy copies of the competitors lenses and test their resolution, etc., before designing, entering their market and competing head to head with great lenses. Maybe that's why they stopped at 500mm?
The price kinda has me scratchin my head though. I mean this is Nikon right?
 
V

Vincent

Senior Member
Woodyg3 said:
Okay, this just seems too good to be true. Manufacturers MTF charts are hardly an objective review of a lens, and we'll have to see once this lens gets into people's hands. I remain skeptical that this new lens is going to be sharp at the long end, and at this point I have no plans to put any of my current gear up for sale. That said, I will be VERY interested in hands on reviews when real live people put this lens to use.
Click to expand...

I have been reading comments on other forums in other languages.

1) Why cheap: It misses the number of expensive glass elements which are in the 80-400 and 200-400. 200-500 = 3ED elements, no Nano coating. 80-400: 1super ED, 4ED +Nano, 200-400:5ED + Nano
2) MTF analysis: it promises an exceptional sharpness in the middle at 500mm. Compared to the 200-400 it loses that sharpness fast from the center. The main weakness will be the bokeh, which probably will be close to the Tamron and Sigma but not the more expensive Nikons
3) Indeed tests will have to show what this delivers in practice, but many agree that a lot of people that buy exclusively Nikkor and are on a more limited budget will certainly go for this if they are looking for long telephoto capability.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
A lot of users will buy it for wildlife,center resolution is the most important for this and if it takes the 1.4 with little loss that could be a benefit,my money is on its being designed to give the 15-600s a challenge,dont think Nikon are daft enough to hurt the sales of the top Nikon zooms.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
The 200-400mm costs 6k which isn't really the sort of lens one can compare it to. Corner sharpness for a tele is about as relevant as the college degree of a prostitute.

What concerns me most is reliability. When I push the AF button, I want it to focus and not waste 10-20 seconds trying to activate it again.
 
F

Felisek

Senior Member
Another thing to consider when comparing this lens to Sigma/Tamron 150-600 is weight. I often use my Sigma handheld, but it feels like it is at the limits of what I can handle for longer time. Any more and I would struggle.

Sigma/Tamron weighs 1930/1951 g, while the new Nikon is 2300 g. This is quite a difference.

The length is similar, S/T/N = 260/258/268 mm.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
I'm curious what she'll do with my TC2.0. Quality will go down but 1000mm will also give the option to seriously downsample a shot. Especially when coupled to my D7200.

It won't work for anything that moves but stills, on a pod, manually focused it might just be worth it.
 
S

SteveH

Senior Member
I have been tempted recently by the Sigma 150-600C (Red Kites have moved in near our house!), but I may hold off and see how this Nikon compares. The bonus being that the 200-500 will auto-focus on my step son's D5500 given it's f5.6.
 
C

captain birdseye

Senior Member
jay_dean said:
Maybe its just me, but i cant see this lens blowing away a good copy Tamron or Sigma 150-600 at 500mm
Click to expand...
i can only guess at it equalling them through their shared focal lengths, i dont really think it would outdo them by much, if at all.
plus, if its made in china i would think twice.
 
R

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
captain birdseye said:
i can only guess at it equalling them through their shared focal lengths, i dont really think it would outdo them by much, if at all.
plus, if its made in china i would think twice.
Click to expand...

At 500mm it (the Nikon) probably has the aperture advantage, so at same apertures maybe it won't be as soft as a Sigma/Tamron at the same length and f-stop. Guess we'll see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Blacktop said:
How hard would it have been for Nikon to push it up to 600mm? Would an extra 100mm be that much more expensive?
Click to expand...

Not sure but i think the extra 100mm and maintaining a F5.6 would have made it a lot bigger lens,i did read that was why Tamron and Sigma opted for F6.3
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
I cancelled. I've been shooting all day in low light yesterday and in this situation, don't particularly enjoy AF-C at anything smaller than f/4.

I guess I'll stick with the 300 and will do the required leg work.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
One of my biggest interests would be if it worked with my V2 but at the moment Nikon UK dont know,i got this reply

Currently I have no information to see if the 200-500mm lens will be compatible with the FT1 mount. This will most likely be updated in the future.

Will hold off any way until i see details of the new bridge camera,who knows they may have put a 1 series sensor in it,its going to have a magnesium alloy chassis and weigh 1.5 kg so it could be a new direction.
 
Top