Nikon 200-500/5.6 VR Lens....... post your photos!
- Thread starter TedG954
- Start date
Fortkentdad
Senior Member
Well I didn't think I'd end up in this club but here I am.
Went to McBains Camera in Edmonton to look at 150-600mm lenses thinking I'd upgrade from my vintage Tamron 200-400 5.6. That lens got me hooked on shooting long - only had it a year and a bit, but I only paid $140 for it. (It is available used at McBains if anyone wants it as I traded it in). But after showing me the Tamron and Sigma long lenses the sale clerk asked if I had considered the 200-500mm Nikkor? I had not. He brings it out to me and I give it a go. And wow. It was very nice.
But it was shorter on both ends 200 vs 150 and 500 vs 600. Hmmm that is a compromise. And while it is a half stop faster on the long end is that really a deal maker? The clerk must have been well schooled by his Nikon suppliers as he pointed out the "e" on the F/ 5.6e. Apparently it is a better 5.6. I can't say I followed the technological explaining all that well but I it sounded good. What really got me was the speed of A.F. on my D610.
BTW - anyone else mounting this beast on a 600/610 body?
To cut to the chase - we left the store, did some internet research over lunch and the consensus of the reviews I reviewed seemed to be saying they are all good, but it seems the edge goes to Nikkor. But they do charge a bit more. I dropped $1600 CDN on it. (About $1230 US$ today). And another $199 for a Nikon 95mm filter. Fortunately I had a hard shell case from my film days that happened to be long enough for the lens - I can even mount it on my camera and put it in loaded and ready to go. With enough spare room to squeeze in my AF-D 50mm just in case I don't want to go long. For that kind of change you think Nikon would give you a descent case for the lens.
Then this week we've had lots of snow. And it's been cold, And I'm a fair weather photographer - so not a lot of shots.
I do have to work on my technique and on my knowledge yet. First time out, unintentionally left VR off. Next time for some odd reason I had switched from RAW to basic JPG - not even fine JPG. I never shoot that way - not sure what happened there. But finally double checking I did get some properly set images. Here is a few samples.
I did see "old Glory" featured earlier in this thread so I thought I best do the Maple Leaf.
I shot some birds in the back alley - not a lot of bright plumage about this time of year in these parts but they are birds.
Both of those are cropped a lot.
And the Canada Geese are back - even though the lake is still frozen.
First impressions - this isn't my old Vintage Tammy 200-400 - and I need to hone my skills - but I love this lens.
Went to McBains Camera in Edmonton to look at 150-600mm lenses thinking I'd upgrade from my vintage Tamron 200-400 5.6. That lens got me hooked on shooting long - only had it a year and a bit, but I only paid $140 for it. (It is available used at McBains if anyone wants it as I traded it in). But after showing me the Tamron and Sigma long lenses the sale clerk asked if I had considered the 200-500mm Nikkor? I had not. He brings it out to me and I give it a go. And wow. It was very nice.
But it was shorter on both ends 200 vs 150 and 500 vs 600. Hmmm that is a compromise. And while it is a half stop faster on the long end is that really a deal maker? The clerk must have been well schooled by his Nikon suppliers as he pointed out the "e" on the F/ 5.6e. Apparently it is a better 5.6. I can't say I followed the technological explaining all that well but I it sounded good. What really got me was the speed of A.F. on my D610.
BTW - anyone else mounting this beast on a 600/610 body?
To cut to the chase - we left the store, did some internet research over lunch and the consensus of the reviews I reviewed seemed to be saying they are all good, but it seems the edge goes to Nikkor. But they do charge a bit more. I dropped $1600 CDN on it. (About $1230 US$ today). And another $199 for a Nikon 95mm filter. Fortunately I had a hard shell case from my film days that happened to be long enough for the lens - I can even mount it on my camera and put it in loaded and ready to go. With enough spare room to squeeze in my AF-D 50mm just in case I don't want to go long. For that kind of change you think Nikon would give you a descent case for the lens.
Then this week we've had lots of snow. And it's been cold, And I'm a fair weather photographer - so not a lot of shots.
I do have to work on my technique and on my knowledge yet. First time out, unintentionally left VR off. Next time for some odd reason I had switched from RAW to basic JPG - not even fine JPG. I never shoot that way - not sure what happened there. But finally double checking I did get some properly set images. Here is a few samples.
I did see "old Glory" featured earlier in this thread so I thought I best do the Maple Leaf.
I shot some birds in the back alley - not a lot of bright plumage about this time of year in these parts but they are birds.
Both of those are cropped a lot.
And the Canada Geese are back - even though the lake is still frozen.
First impressions - this isn't my old Vintage Tammy 200-400 - and I need to hone my skills - but I love this lens.
Last edited:
with tripod or hand held?
Handheld. Tripod just gets in the way for me shooting anything other then still objects, and even then I only use it to shoot long exposures.
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
Gloomy day here today and I had a few minutes to kill, so I tried out my new Wimberley gimbal in the back yard. Yeah, I've got a Bengal tiger guarding my estate. 
Unfortunately, he's scaring off the birds. :hurt:
Unfortunately, he's scaring off the birds. :hurt:Fortkentdad
Senior Member
Really liking this lens
I have yet to mount it onto the monopod for my walk abouts but I think maybe I will after today, good for a quick walk but it is a heavy lens. I was focused on a bird waiting for it to take flight, trying to keep the focus on the bird, ... but even holding it up for a short while was not fun. Will have to try it mounted and see how I like that.
I am amazed by how sharp it is hand held by this old amateur.
Except the last image these are screenshots "sniped" in Corel Aftershot
This is a 1:1 view
This is the size of the cropped area compared to the whole image
And this is the end result.
A rather pedestrian image of a Sparrow, but a nice sparrow.
I am learning to use the BBF Back Button Focus technique and found it useful to isolate the bird from the branches as in this shot.
I have yet to mount it onto the monopod for my walk abouts but I think maybe I will after today, good for a quick walk but it is a heavy lens. I was focused on a bird waiting for it to take flight, trying to keep the focus on the bird, ... but even holding it up for a short while was not fun. Will have to try it mounted and see how I like that.
I am amazed by how sharp it is hand held by this old amateur.
Except the last image these are screenshots "sniped" in Corel Aftershot
This is a 1:1 view
This is the size of the cropped area compared to the whole image
And this is the end result.
A rather pedestrian image of a Sparrow, but a nice sparrow.
I am learning to use the BBF Back Button Focus technique and found it useful to isolate the bird from the branches as in this shot.
Attachments
Last edited:
It is a very sharp lens and the VR is outstanding.
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
I've used mine on a monopod, but the ball head with a huge lens is not optimal. I don't mind hand holding to shoot, but holding the kit when I'm not shooting is a pain. Most of my shooting with this lens is done from specific locations, where I'm not walking around. Here's my BIF setup waiting for some birds to show up in my backyard.
Fortkentdad
Senior Member
Wowa - that's one heavy duty looking contraption - what exactly are we looking at?
I have not tried my 200-500 on either my monopod or tripod. Both have a ball style head on top. Maybe I should be investing in something a little more sturdy?
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
It's a Wimberley WH-200 gimbal. Allows you to perfectly balance camera/lens so it can move in horizontal/vertical axis as if it's suspended/floating in air.
Fortkentdad
Senior Member
So Jim has the Wimberley WH-200 Gimbal head.
What are other's using and how is that working for you?
I'm concerned that my tripod may need an upgrade. The 200-500 is 81 oz or a little over five pounds, and a D610 comes in at 26 oz or 1.6 pounds - so I'm well within the load capacity. Total less than seven pounds.
My tripod is a Benro Transfunctional Travel Angel - it has a load capacity of 17 pounds. The Ballhead is a "B0" by Benro - also rated for 17 pounds.
My Monopod is a Manfrotto 680B which supports up to 22 pounds - I have a Joby "X" Ballhead rated up to 11 pounds.
Technically the camera and lens are way less than the capacity of either, with the Joby X being the weakest link but still good for 50% more than the load I'd be putting on it.
I will have to try these out, but from what I've seen in reviews and youtubes is that other types of heads are recommended over the ballhead.
Wimberley is the top - but I've taken a big bite out of my photo budget with this lens, may have to wait if that's the one I choose to go with. Henrys.com has the Wimberley at $750 CDN.
There are less expensive gimbal's for example by Jobu and Benro. Amazon has several much cheaper one's on offer but I'd be very leary of the cheapest of the cheap to support such an expensive bit of glass.
What are other's using and how is that working for you?
I'm concerned that my tripod may need an upgrade. The 200-500 is 81 oz or a little over five pounds, and a D610 comes in at 26 oz or 1.6 pounds - so I'm well within the load capacity. Total less than seven pounds.
My tripod is a Benro Transfunctional Travel Angel - it has a load capacity of 17 pounds. The Ballhead is a "B0" by Benro - also rated for 17 pounds.
My Monopod is a Manfrotto 680B which supports up to 22 pounds - I have a Joby "X" Ballhead rated up to 11 pounds.
Technically the camera and lens are way less than the capacity of either, with the Joby X being the weakest link but still good for 50% more than the load I'd be putting on it.
I will have to try these out, but from what I've seen in reviews and youtubes is that other types of heads are recommended over the ballhead.
Wimberley is the top - but I've taken a big bite out of my photo budget with this lens, may have to wait if that's the one I choose to go with. Henrys.com has the Wimberley at $750 CDN.
There are less expensive gimbal's for example by Jobu and Benro. Amazon has several much cheaper one's on offer but I'd be very leary of the cheapest of the cheap to support such an expensive bit of glass.