200-500 owners read this

M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Blacktop said:
Interesting comparison shooting signs and garbage cans. For once I would like to see some real comparison shooting things that these lenses are most used for....Flying birds would be nice.:indecisiveness: Perhaps a sporting event maybe.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly,unless he has seen our post your sign thread:D
 
F

Fat Fingers

Banned
Well for me the 200-500 on my monitor is better than the 500...looking at small lettering on the blue can ...so I don't understand why the guy says the IQ of the 500 is better...??? Tell me.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
The lack of real information here is amazing, as is the utter lack of scientific method. Did he shoot on a tripod? What about AF fine tuning? I'm guessing not since he does the VR test. That alone disqualifies this as any sort of test for anything other than VR test, which can be explained away in seconds when you consider that the 500mm is 2 pounds heavier and significantly longer than the 200-500mm. This is among the worst side by side tests I've ever seen. It's embarrassing. He's like a senator with a snowball trying to win you to his side. Garbage.
 
B

bandit993

Senior Member
I agree with Fat Fingers. At the end of the day on my monitor anyway(and his too I guess) the 200-500mm looks like better image quality than the 500mm. Wish I had bought the 200-500mm instead of the sigma 150-600mm C..
 
4

480sparky

Senior Member
Blacktop said:
Interesting comparison shooting signs and garbage cans. For once I would like to see some real comparison shooting things that these lenses are most used for....Flying birds would be nice.:indecisiveness: Perhaps a sporting event maybe.
Click to expand...


That really wouldn't be much of a 'fair' comparison as it's impossible to shoot the same flying bird at the same time with two different camera/lens combos.
 
E

Elliot87

Senior Member
Here's a more recent video comparing the 200-500mm with the 500mm f/4 VR. It is a little long winded perhaps but generally a thorough run down of the pros and cons of each with some image comparisons.

 
E

Elliot87

Senior Member
I've just been looking at this review of the 300mm f/4 PF and specifically it compared to the 200-500mm.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr/3

In these lab tests (for what they're worth) the 300mm only really outperforms the 200-500mm in terms of sharpness at 300mm where you would expect it to. As soon as you start adding TC's they become a lot more even with the 200-500mm being sharper where you want it to be, wide open.
Having also taken side by side shots with both of these lenses, at 420mm, the 200-500mm produce more contrasty shots with better colour saturation. I haven't used the 300mm PF "naked" and I imagine its contrast etc. would be better without a TC.
 
S

salukfan111

Senior Member
BackdoorHippie said:
The lack of real information here is amazing, as is the utter lack of scientific method. Did he shoot on a tripod? What about AF fine tuning? I'm guessing not since he does the VR test. That alone disqualifies this as any sort of test for anything other than VR test, which can be explained away in seconds when you consider that the 500mm is 2 pounds heavier and significantly longer than the 200-500mm. This is among the worst side by side tests I've ever seen. It's embarrassing. He's like a senator with a snowball trying to win you to his side. Garbage.
Click to expand...
I basically agree with you but wonder if your thoughts extend to DXO ratings which are very subjective (and secret non scientific methods used)? The 500 and 600 f/4 and 180 f/2.8 do very poorly under DXO but all three do fantastic on actual standardized testing (MTF).
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
salukfan111 said:
I basically agree with you but wonder if your thoughts extend to DXO ratings which are very subjective (and secret non scientific methods used)? The 500 and 600 f/4 and 180 f/2.8 do very poorly under DXO but all three do fantastic on actual standardized testing (MTF).
Click to expand...

DxOMark ratings aren't subjective, they are just the opposite - scores calculated on a specific set of test under specific conditions for specific reasons. It is very scientific in its methodology. And like much science it is theoretical in its application to/correlation with reality. I find their scores for bodies (i.e. sensors) much more telling than those for lenses, which can vary greatly from body to body, but I still find them both more interesting than useful. "Low" does not equal "Bad", except in the mind of many people on the interweb, and it prejudices opinion whether meaningly or unmeaningly.

DxOMark scores are useless to me, but I do find the graphical results useful as it's truly the only way to understand the score. Does it measure "fair" across the board, or is it more than fine for most of its useful range and absolute garbage at the extremes (where you'd almost never use it)? I've happily used DxOMark failures for years and saved myself a boatload of money.
 
Top