Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lokatz" data-source="post: 650789" data-attributes="member: 43924">I own the 200-500 and the 300 PF, and compared those two with a number of similar lenses in my search for the best solution: Tamron 100-400 (the brand-new one) and 150-600 G2, as well as Sigma 100-400.&nbsp; (Sigma's 150-600 Sports version may be the most serious contender here, but at around six pounds, it is too heavy for me.)&nbsp; Tested all of them with the same setup and target to get repeatable results, each on my D500 and at the long end of the lens. Based on my testing experience, which admittedly focused solely on wildlife shooting conditions (handheld &amp; wide open), the 200-500 is head and shoulders above the rest.&nbsp; One of Nikon's best bargains ever.&nbsp; If it were a pound or two lighter, it would be perfect.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="lokatz, post: 650789, member: 43924"] I own the 200-500 and the 300 PF, and compared those two with a number of similar lenses in my search for the best solution: Tamron 100-400 (the brand-new one) and 150-600 G2, as well as Sigma 100-400. (Sigma's 150-600 Sports version may be the most serious contender here, but at around six pounds, it is too heavy for me.) Tested all of them with the same setup and target to get repeatable results, each on my D500 and at the long end of the lens. Based on my testing experience, which admittedly focused solely on wildlife shooting conditions (handheld & wide open), the 200-500 is head and shoulders above the rest. One of Nikon's best bargains ever. If it were a pound or two lighter, it would be perfect. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification