200-500 f/5.6 Are you happy?

T

todd7500

Senior Member
Hi,
Now that some of you have had the 200-500 for a while, are you pleased?

Would you buy it again?
Is it sharp enough to have met your expectations?
Did you have to try more than one copy to find a good one?
Did you need to do a lot of AF fine tuning?

Thanks for taking the time, I have read reviews and watched so many videos that I am totally confused so I thought I would get your input as Nikon users

I will shoot a few birds, some sports (Baseball, Rodeo, Auto Racing.
I will be using a D4 and a D810.

Thanks

Todd
 
C

captain birdseye

Senior Member
I have owned the 200-500vr for a little over two years now and couldnt be happier.
In fact since also buying a d500 a couple of months after the lens have the 200-500vr permanently attached to it!
Sharpness is not very far away from the 500f4, bokeh is best in its class (could be better but at this price who cares)?
After previously owning the nikon 300f4 af-s and tc-14e11 plus the sigma 150-600c I simply cannot see me moving to another lens foe birding anytime soon.
 
B

bandit993

Senior Member
Captain Birdseye, how do you find image quality compared to the 150-600mm sigma? I take it you had the contemporary version?
 
X

xMachiavelli

Senior Member
I owned the Nikkor 200mm-500mm at the same time as the Sigma 150mm-600mm C.

I personally preferred the results on the Sigma offering - I felt that the results on the Nikkor offering were a little soft. I only tried that one copy, so I cannot say completely that one is better.

I much preferred the zoom ring on the Nikkor lens however. The Sigma zoom ring is quite stiff.
 
C

captain birdseye

Senior Member
bandit993 said:
Captain Birdseye, how do you find image quality compared to the 150-600mm sigma? I take it you had the contemporary version?
Click to expand...
As soon as I started comparing results from the Nikon against the Sigma I saw that the Nikon was noticeably sharper even wide open and right through its range whereas the Sigma was, at its best slightly softer and when used at its longest focal length even more so.
Colour and contrast from the Nikon were a little nicer and so was its bokeh.
The Nikon, even after 18 months of good use has no lens creep at all, the Sigma always had lens creep which was noticeable when pointing it upwards.
The Nikons AF speed is about the same as the Sigma is (unless tweaked with the USB dock ) but the Nikon is far more accurate and consistently so where the sigma could be a bit hit and miss which required me to take a lot of "insurance" shots of the same subject to ensure I had a sharp image but, even then it was prone to letting me down.
I found that the OS of the Sigma seemed to shift the focal point whereas I do not have this problem with the VR of the Nikon.
All the time I owned the Sigma C I was never blown away by its results unless I was shooting in really good light, close up and with the lens at under 400mm where with the Nikon I was elated at how sharp the images were at any focal length and distance.
 
E

editorial_use_only

Senior Member
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.


todd7500 said:
Hi,
Now that some of you have had the 200-500 for a while, are you pleased?

Would you buy it again?
Is it sharp enough to have met your expectations?
Did you have to try more than one copy to find a good one?
Did you need to do a lot of AF fine tuning?

Thanks for taking the time, I have read reviews and watched so many videos that I am totally confused so I thought I would get your input as Nikon users

I will shoot a few birds, some sports (Baseball, Rodeo, Auto Racing.
I will be using a D4 and a D810.

Thanks

Todd
Click to expand...
 
Top