Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="editorial_use_only" data-source="post: 667152" data-attributes="member: 40895">The value, the price for its performance, is excellent.&nbsp; I had the 200-400 previously, but I found it was just too heavy and cumbersome.&nbsp; The 200-500 fits in all of my backpacks, and even mounted to my D3s will fit in my medium pack.&nbsp; It's so much nicer to carry the lens inside a bag on my back instead of slung across my shoulder on a monopod.&nbsp; I have my hands free, the weight is better balanced.First copy from B&amp;H was great.&nbsp; Sharpness and contrast wide open is great.&nbsp; No complaints.&nbsp; I don't think I have ever shot this lens in the field at another aperture than 5.6.&nbsp; Auto-focus speed is not a strong point.&nbsp; For me, shooting motorsports, the lens is a liability compared to the 200-400 or 70-200.&nbsp; Focus sometimes hunts and the lens is so slow to focus sometimes that I miss shots.&nbsp; In particular, for me, I find the lens won't reliably track cars moving away.&nbsp; I keep meaning to try 3D but I typically use D9 with my thumb on the AF button and my AF results are not great.&nbsp; I stopped trying to get that shot with the 200-500 to be honest.&nbsp; AF speed is minimally satisfactory is what I would call it.&nbsp; If you can prefocus then okay.I think the lens collar is junk.&nbsp; I have tightened mine as much as possible and when it's on my monopod/ball head, the lens will still rotate in its collar when I pan.&nbsp; BEYOND ANNOYING.Would I buy it again?&nbsp; I'm on the fence.&nbsp; I'm on the fence about selling my copy.&nbsp; In its AF speed and lens collar, it's got some negatives, but it's also relatively light and a great value and wide open it's got great sharpness and contrast.&nbsp; Compared to a prime like the 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 with a TC, I love that I can just rack the zoom and get what I want.&nbsp; No lens changes in the field.&nbsp; Great.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="editorial_use_only, post: 667152, member: 40895"] The value, the price for its performance, is excellent. I had the 200-400 previously, but I found it was just too heavy and cumbersome. The 200-500 fits in all of my backpacks, and even mounted to my D3s will fit in my medium pack. It's so much nicer to carry the lens inside a bag on my back instead of slung across my shoulder on a monopod. I have my hands free, the weight is better balanced. First copy from B&H was great. Sharpness and contrast wide open is great. No complaints. I don't think I have ever shot this lens in the field at another aperture than 5.6. Auto-focus speed is not a strong point. For me, shooting motorsports, the lens is a liability compared to the 200-400 or 70-200. Focus sometimes hunts and the lens is so slow to focus sometimes that I miss shots. In particular, for me, I find the lens won't reliably track cars moving away. I keep meaning to try 3D but I typically use D9 with my thumb on the AF button and my AF results are not great. I stopped trying to get that shot with the 200-500 to be honest. AF speed is minimally satisfactory is what I would call it. If you can prefocus then okay. I think the lens collar is junk. I have tightened mine as much as possible and when it's on my monopod/ball head, the lens will still rotate in its collar when I pan. BEYOND ANNOYING. Would I buy it again? I'm on the fence. I'm on the fence about selling my copy. In its AF speed and lens collar, it's got some negatives, but it's also relatively light and a great value and wide open it's got great sharpness and contrast. Compared to a prime like the 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 with a TC, I love that I can just rack the zoom and get what I want. No lens changes in the field. Great. [/QUOTE]

Verification