A week ago I had an exchange with Blacktop on how his Nikon 200-500 F5.6 compares to my Nikon 300 F4 PF (the Phase Fresnel version of the 300mm F4) for wildlife and birding. That was over in the “Post Your D500 Shots” thread. I am opening a new one here so others can comment independently. Wanting to find out myself, I borrowed a 200-500 to compare the two.
Testing
Two respective lens configurations were pitted against each other, the 200-500 @ 300mm against the 300 PF, and the 200-500 @ 500mm against the 300 PF with a Nikon TC-20E III for a resulting 600mm. All tests were done on a D500. (Yes, these are FX lenses, but for wildlife and birding, the D500, with its fast auto-focus, low-light capability, and 1.5x DX crop factor, IMHO is the king of the hill these days.)
I first AF fine-tuned each lens to minimize front-/back-focus issues. Next, I determined the lowest usable handheld shutter speed, with VR set to Sports, which Nikon recommends for the above mentioned subjects. The test was comprised of shooting at different shutter speeds and identifying the one where I was getting at least 11 sharp shots out of a series of 20. This turned out to be at 1/60 seconds for the 200-500 @ 300mm and 300 PF without TC, and 1/90s for the 200-500 @ 500mm and 300 PF + TC-20. The latter would have to be expected to need 1/125s because of the longer length, but it still inched in with 11 good shots at 1/90s.
(Note: Please refrain from telling me that you can shoot faster hand-held. I am in decent physical shape and have a bit of experience with slow-speed shooting. Keep in mind that the amount of available light, which was intentionally fairly low in my tests, and other factors influence this. You may have gotten sharp shots at much slower speeds – I have, too, but that’s not the point here.)
I then conducted two IQ tests: Test 1 determined IQ when shooting handheld at similar light conditions but at 2 stops faster than the lowest usable handheld shutter speed. In other words, I shot at 1/250s for 300mm respectively 1/350s for the longer lens variants. The target, a sticker on a rather messy letterbox, is about 20m / 65ft away. The below enlargements (about 3.2% of the original image area) show the best shots out of series of 10 each. Note that I only compared center sharpness.
Test 2 used the same target, but camera and lens were on a tripod this time, with VR turned off and mirror-up shooting to get the optimum IQ.
My conclusions
As a proud owner of the 300mm F4 PF, I would have loved to claim that it fared better than the cheaper 200-500. It did not.
For starters, the heavy 200-500 (2,300g / 81oz) supports about the same shutter speeds when handheld as the much lighter 300 PF (755g / 26.5oz, or 1,085g / 38oz with TC). My guess is that the heft of the 200-500 serves as sort of a stabilizer against hand tremble.
As far as IQ goes, the differences are small at 300mm (and a bit hard to see in the low-res images here). Both lenses fare about the same when hand-held, though the 200-500 does marginally better than the 300 PF when both are mounted on a tripod.
At the 500mm end, the 200-500 really shines. The IQ is impressive and beats the 300 PF with TC-20 by more than I would have expected. [Note: I previously had the TC-14 and compared the two TCs, so please trust me here: 300 PF + TC14 versus 200-500 at 420mm would have yielded the same result.]
So, am I ready to switch? Hell, no. My D500 together with the 300 PF and the TC combined still weigh less than the 200-500 alone, and I often take my gear along on long hikes in remote areas. The 300 PF is 7.5 inches long, versus the 200-500’s 17.2, so it also fits into a normal photo backpack where the big gun won't. It is an amazing accomplishment by Nikon to create such as small tele lens with good optical performance. As my tests show, though, you cannot beat the laws of physics: bigger glass is better.
- Caveat 1: This is a LONG post as I want to share the results of extensive testing. Hope you’re willing to put up with that.
- Caveat 2: I focus solely on the primary use of a long tele for wildlife, birding and BIF shooting. This is not a comprehensive comparison. You may have other uses, with different criteria.
Testing
Two respective lens configurations were pitted against each other, the 200-500 @ 300mm against the 300 PF, and the 200-500 @ 500mm against the 300 PF with a Nikon TC-20E III for a resulting 600mm. All tests were done on a D500. (Yes, these are FX lenses, but for wildlife and birding, the D500, with its fast auto-focus, low-light capability, and 1.5x DX crop factor, IMHO is the king of the hill these days.)
I first AF fine-tuned each lens to minimize front-/back-focus issues. Next, I determined the lowest usable handheld shutter speed, with VR set to Sports, which Nikon recommends for the above mentioned subjects. The test was comprised of shooting at different shutter speeds and identifying the one where I was getting at least 11 sharp shots out of a series of 20. This turned out to be at 1/60 seconds for the 200-500 @ 300mm and 300 PF without TC, and 1/90s for the 200-500 @ 500mm and 300 PF + TC-20. The latter would have to be expected to need 1/125s because of the longer length, but it still inched in with 11 good shots at 1/90s.
(Note: Please refrain from telling me that you can shoot faster hand-held. I am in decent physical shape and have a bit of experience with slow-speed shooting. Keep in mind that the amount of available light, which was intentionally fairly low in my tests, and other factors influence this. You may have gotten sharp shots at much slower speeds – I have, too, but that’s not the point here.)
I then conducted two IQ tests: Test 1 determined IQ when shooting handheld at similar light conditions but at 2 stops faster than the lowest usable handheld shutter speed. In other words, I shot at 1/250s for 300mm respectively 1/350s for the longer lens variants. The target, a sticker on a rather messy letterbox, is about 20m / 65ft away. The below enlargements (about 3.2% of the original image area) show the best shots out of series of 10 each. Note that I only compared center sharpness.
Test 2 used the same target, but camera and lens were on a tripod this time, with VR turned off and mirror-up shooting to get the optimum IQ.
My conclusions
As a proud owner of the 300mm F4 PF, I would have loved to claim that it fared better than the cheaper 200-500. It did not.
For starters, the heavy 200-500 (2,300g / 81oz) supports about the same shutter speeds when handheld as the much lighter 300 PF (755g / 26.5oz, or 1,085g / 38oz with TC). My guess is that the heft of the 200-500 serves as sort of a stabilizer against hand tremble.
As far as IQ goes, the differences are small at 300mm (and a bit hard to see in the low-res images here). Both lenses fare about the same when hand-held, though the 200-500 does marginally better than the 300 PF when both are mounted on a tripod.
At the 500mm end, the 200-500 really shines. The IQ is impressive and beats the 300 PF with TC-20 by more than I would have expected. [Note: I previously had the TC-14 and compared the two TCs, so please trust me here: 300 PF + TC14 versus 200-500 at 420mm would have yielded the same result.]
So, am I ready to switch? Hell, no. My D500 together with the 300 PF and the TC combined still weigh less than the 200-500 alone, and I often take my gear along on long hikes in remote areas. The 300 PF is 7.5 inches long, versus the 200-500’s 17.2, so it also fits into a normal photo backpack where the big gun won't. It is an amazing accomplishment by Nikon to create such as small tele lens with good optical performance. As my tests show, though, you cannot beat the laws of physics: bigger glass is better.