NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Ron Scubadiver on September 28, 2015, 01:54:29
-
Over at Nikonrumors there are links to reviews of this new modestly priced zoom.
-
getting one for myself :D
-
I think I'll try one also...
Too good to be true, at first sight, but let's keep the mind open, and hope for the best!
-
Next weekend I'll make the coverage of a junior Futsal match with my new 400FL.
I think I'm spoiled with this one... :)
-
I don't think the 200-500 is intended quite for the same audience who can afford the 400/2.8. For sports in particular, a 400/2.8 'pops' the subject in a way that an f/5.6 lens can not in a full body shot of the athlete. However, most birds are small and for such shots you usually don't want f/2.8 depth of field. Most of the marketing material of the 200-500 targets it at bird photography. Some aviation and other wildlife also. I think for a lot of sports photography, a wider aperture is greatly beneficial for shots of individuals with audience and advertisement clutter blown out. I would imagine that for shots of interaction between athletes, an f/5.6 could work but it requires high ISO in indoor venues so a part of the quality is sacrificed there.
-
i would say affordable bird photography for entry level... as one that does a lot of this type of photography i wouldn't want anything other than 500 or 600 primes.
-
I don't think the 200-500 is intended quite for the same audience who can afford the 400/2.8. For sports in particular, a 400/2.8 'pops' the subject in a way that an f/5.6 lens can not in a full body shot of the athlete. However, most birds are small and for such shots you usually don't want f/2.8 depth of field. Most of the marketing material of the 200-500 targets it at bird photography. Some aviation and other wildlife also. I think for a lot of sports photography, a wider aperture is greatly beneficial for shots of individuals with audience and advertisement clutter blown out. I would imagine that for shots of interaction between athletes, an f/5.6 could work but it requires high ISO in indoor venues so a part of the quality is sacrificed there.
Sure, but it still seems too good to be true.
Only after testing it I can realize if it deserves such hype, or if it just stands among the others big zooms.
Maybe I'm wrong but from what I've seen it delivers overall the same IQ as the 70-200 on V1 series.
But for lots of people, as you say, it could be the answer they are waiting for.
-
<< Updated to reflect Bob Friedman's comment below >>
200-500mm f/5.6E -- US$ 1,400
200-400mm f/4G -- US$ 7,000
400mm f/2.8E FL -- US$ 12,000
500mm f/4G (not FL) -- US$ 7,600
500mm f/4E FL -- US$ 10,300
600mm f/4G (not FL) -- US$ 9,500
600mm f/4E FL -- US$ 12,300
(NYC prices for US warranty lens)
Even if it is only 'good', it is a lot of lens for those who cannot afford US$ 7,000 to US$ 12,300
-
check the 500 and 600 prices
-
Got my copy !!! I have no experience in birding , was playing around. I should not talk much but seems like a lot of bang for the buck . All handheld JPEGs from D810. about 10% cropped. TIPS please for this novice birder :-D
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5797/21929783422_eec54102fc_b.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/589/21934870386_f06552d931_b.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5752/21970792661_3308d5bd57_b.jpg)
-
Congrats Somnath on getting your new toy and thanks for sharing these images, can you tell something about the focus speed, performance wide-open at 500mm, etc?
-
Congrats Somnath on getting your new toy and thanks for sharing these images, can you tell something about the focus speed, performance wide-open at 500mm, etc?
I am using a long lens for the first time. On D810 focus speed is very good. VR is excellent. Learning the nuances bit by bit.
Thanks
:)
-
Cameralabs.com compared the Nikon 200-500 with Sigma and Tamron 150-600's in their just published 200-500mm review. The Nikon did very well for itself in that comparison. Astonishingly well considering that it is not more expensive than it is.
Also it seemed that with the TC-14E III attached, very good image quality is obtained at f/11. I wouldn't have expected that, either.
-
who else has bought one? looks good - especially price wise :)
-
I wish it had some weather protection, or at least some dust protection. Otherwise it seems quite usable. However, no one has been able to persuade me into getting one yet :)
-
I hope to pick up a review sample of this and other new Nikkors by the end of this week.
-
I am looking forward to that review
-
So am i
-
It will be interesting to see whether it is as sharp as the AF-S 300/4 with 1.4x converter.
-
Picking up the review sample of the 200-500 later today. My Nikon contact added the new 600/4 as well ....
-
OK, now have in my possession the 200-500/5.6, newest 600/4, and the TC14.3E. I plan to start separate threads for each lens, but am open to questions and suggestions from now on.
-
Really looking forward to your reviews Bjorn! :)
-
I probably do this like the Df, posting day by day observations. I have the lenses at my disposal for 3-4 weeks at least.
Done the first "get-acquainted" series with the 200-500 and was surprised over the findings. Unfortunately (?) a political meeting is on my agenda this afternoon, so might not be able to start the new thread(s) before late this evening. Stay tuned. I have plenty of impressions already, but these need to be cross-referenced and checked before posting.
-
It would be interesting to see a comparison of the two for a subject in strong backlight.
-
And now I wonder how the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 performs..
-
not sure if this has been posted :
To users of the AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens
Thank you for choosing Nikon for your photographic needs.
Nikon will implement a service for updating AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens firmware. Details regarding implementation of this firmware service are as follows.
Firmware update details
We have confirmed that with autofocus shooting using the AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens, autofocus may sometimes become disabled and focus operation switches to manual focus* when the zoom ring on the lens is rotated while the camera's shutter-release button is pressed halfway, or the camera's AF-ON button is held down.
*Autofocus operation can be restored by pressing the camera's shutter-release button halfway again, or pressing the camera's AF-ON button again.
To address the occurrence of this, we will implement a service for updating AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens firmware.
Updating lens firmware
Those who would like to have their AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR firmware updated may take or send their lens to a Nikon authorised service center, where the firmware will be updated free of charge.
Identifying lenses with which the firmware has already been updated
Firmware in lenses with a serial number of 2008365 or higher have already been updated.
-
I was warned that this issue exists with my review sample. Probably drop by the Nikon repair centre and have it fixed over the weekend.
-
What a pisser, shame that option isn't available to us mere mortals who spend their money on Nikon beta products.
I'm sure we'd all love to drop our buggy products off and have them fixed up over the weekend.
Instead we wait weeks and weeks for warranty service.
-
I'm mortal too ....
Just was spared by my Nikon contact to discover this buggy behaviour for myself.
I agree that field testing ought to have caught this flaw, but these days we are being accustomed to major makers rushing out their latest products with warts and all. Adobe, Apple, Nikon, Microsoft, Samsung, ..., the list goes on ad nauseam. Perhaps we, as customers, should look into the mirror and ask ourselves if we also play a part of this game in the eager of having the latest and greatest toys to play with? People spend too much time on rumour sites and stoke up the pressure on the makers even further.
-
I reckon you have a good point about rumour sites putting pressure on manufacturers to get things out quickly.
Even competitor rumours would have that sort of effect, 'Sony has one coming, we'd better have one too'.
It does look like the 200-500 is an excellent response to the value priced 150-600 zooms from Sigma and Tamron.
-
The dramatic lens flare issue was mostly new to me. However, some flare was noticed by Roy Mangersnes in his real life review from Svalbard. Some nice ice bear photos in that review by the way:
https://roymangersnes.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/field-test-nikkor-200-500mm-f56e-ed/ (https://roymangersnes.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/field-test-nikkor-200-500mm-f56e-ed/)
-
Some nice ice bear photos in that review by the way:
The polar bear photos are nice but the image of the three walruses on the ice would make my day for sure, simply breathtaking.
Thanks for the link btw, slowly warming up for this lens :)
-
It will not work on your Sony Jan Anne, until someone out there makes a Nikon E to Sony E adapter ...
I'm familiar with the works of Roy Mangersnes, and know him personally too. I don't shoot wildlife of course, so my testing of the 200-500 tries instead to provide insights into the optical and mechanical workings of the lens.
His review adds two points of interest: are the blur circles less constrained at distance, and why were his images not equally deteriorated by excessive lens flare? True, he does mentions the propensity for flare in backlit conditions, but still managed to get acceptable picture quality.
The first issue, of the shape of blur circles being a function of focused distance is testable and I'll look into that. The second question, that of lens flare, being detrimental in some situations and only mildly annoying in others, might be less easy to solve by testing. The Arctic autumn sun is much less intense of course, so that might have changed the outcome. Here in my part of mainland Norway, there is no way I could avoid intense flare if sun rays struck the front element of the lens.
-
Most people are likely to use such lenses under non arctic light conditions, so it is useful to know about the flares before a possible purchase of the lens.
-
Our local store received 3 copies of the 200-500, but all 3 are with the serial numbers which needs updating.
-
This morning B&H had these in stock, so I ordered one.
-
The firmware update takes < 10 minutes, Elsa. You have a Nikon repair facility nearby, so don't let that minor issue hold you back :D and a lovely opportunity to drop in to Orm's and sample their delicious coffee ...
-
Bjørn - apparently the software or whatever they use is only arriving in SA end of the month - so I might as well wait.
Dont ask me WHY that is.... like it makes NO sense whatsoever!
-
It's just a small cream white box with electronics inside ... Shouldn't be difficult to mass produce and distribute to all national Nikon repair facilities.
-
My 200-500 was of the early serial numbers but the store had nicely enough sent it for the firmware upgrade before putting it on sale. In the repair sheet it says (translated from Finnish) "Firmware verson 1.01.2" and "105 circuit adj." the latter suggests to me that they did some kind of hardware adjustment as well, though I can't be sure from the few words.
-
This one is taken with the right serial number :) Still working to get used to the lens. It might be front focusing a bit at 5-6 meters.
D3s + 200-500/5.6 E @ 400mm, 1/2000, f/5.6, iso 6400, -0.7eV, no flash, handheld (as usual).
-
Brad Hill has compared the new Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 with the Sigma 150-600mm Sport (and the Nikon 80-400) with respect to hand-holdability:
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html (http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html)
-
Size comparison of different Telezooms
from left to right, 70-300VR, 80-400 VR, 200-500 VR, 200-400 VR
weight 745g, 1.570g, 2300g, 3360g
Maybe some of you will find it useful
For me the question was and ist whether there is a lens that is significantly lighter and more compact than the 200-400 but better and with more range than the 70-300
The 200-500 appears to be a good lens - but due to its size and weight not the right one for THAT purpose
-
Thanks for sharing the comparison image Wolfgang, really helpful.
-
The 200-400 is biased because the lens hood is on .... Better to use the actual weights.
By the way, with its hood mounted and fully extended to 500 mm, the 200-500 is a pretty impressive and big piece of gear.
-
Somnanth, the first image you posted is really nice. I typicay find bird shots boring and dime-a-dozen, but I really like the geometry with this image. I wish the beak didn't run into the silhouette as much, but minor irk.
-
Thanks for sharing the comparison image Wolfgang, really helpful.
Thank you "Amigo"
-
The 200-400 is biased because the lens hood is on .... Better to use the actual weights.
By the way, with its hood mounted and fully extended to 500 mm, the 200-500 is a pretty impressive and big piece of gear.
Yes correct, i was too lazy to remove it, so did i with the 70-300. It is sufficient for me, and as I tookit I had not redetectet the new Nikongear. With this board in mind I would have done it with removed lens hoods, and also with the other tripod collars shown aside. Cant repeat it because only the right and left lens is mine, not the two in the middle.
(The dealer did not hand me the Lens hoods btw)
Nevertheless the 70-300 and the 200-400 have the hoods reverse mounted so the length comparison should work ;-)
The thickness can be imagined without the hood
The 200-500 is indeed increasing the length dramatically when zoomed to 500 mm, the 200-400 remains the same. So if you place yourself in a hide this should be part of considerations
-
Here is a high ISO shot with the 200-500mm and a D810 (420mm, f/8, 1/2500 sec, -0.33 eV, ISO 12800, handheld). This lens may not be stellar as the 500 f/4 and the 400 f/2.8, but is in my opinion still good.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tsnd09/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tsnd09/)
-
Details in the tree trunk are well defined. The bird is moving out of the zone of sharpness.
I didn't imagine the D810 would do this passable at 12800 ISO by the way. The D800 certainly wouldn't.
-
Yes, of course, but this almost is like catching i light sparkle while passing by in a high speed train :)
Besides, I still believe the lens need some more Focus tuning.
-
The review sample I used was spot on at all focal lengths. Not cherry-picked as I retrieved it from a factory-sealed box.
-
Fine for you, but I know that several people did need some AF fine tuning for the lens. Besides, did you test it on high speed objects?
-
Only cars zooming past. Given the speed limits of this country, maybe not the toughest of challenges?
-
I seriously doubt that. A Norwegian care is more like a snail compared to a blue tit in flight :)
It shall really be interesting to see how the new D5 and D500 will do at such high speeds and high ISOs.
-
Shooting sideways, not head on. But cars are not birds even they do move fast when you are close. I guess this is about speed relative to the angular magnification of the moving subject.
As to fine-tuning, some users may need this, many don't. There hasn't been any need for me to have fine-tuning on any AF lens or camera used over the last 15 years.
-
In addition, the motion of a car is highly predictable, the motion of a titmouse is usually highly unpredictable. Hence a lot of patience and some luck is needed for such birds.
-
You know the birds (of that kind) better than me .... Still have shot birds (your kind) with manual long lenses on occasion. Guess one can have a lucky day once in a while :D
-
It would be interesting to see some of those manual focus shots.
-
Not with the 200-500 so not relevant here in this thread. Besides, is there really a question that people managed to shot birds and other moving objects before the arrival of AF ??
-
It must have been pure luck :) I have used the 200-500 mm extensivly the last week and I am pretty impressed with the performance. The AF seem spot on with the D4s, but I have had my problems with other camera/lens combinations before so I would'nt rule out that someone might need AF-finetuning. The only thing I've noticed with the lens is that it might have hard time aquiering focus on low contrast subjects in the shade. Especially near the close focus limit. Otherwise I am very pleased with my copy. I havent had it upgraded yet, with the newest firmware, and this makes the AF freeze at times. The fix is switching the camera on and off or get the upgrade ;)
-
Different cameras need different AF fine tuning and so do different distances to the object. Also, the D4s (or even the D3s) is much faster and better suited for action shots than the D810. My results with the D3s are much better than the ones with the D810 regarding small fast birds in flight.
-
Don't doubt that, but at present my "action" cameras (D3s etc.) are loaned to friends. So testing has to be done with what I have at my disposal.
As to fine-tuning, my general impression is that this theme is overrated as far as its importance goes. Better AF handling on the user side can do more than fine-tuning the lens. I have spoken and discussed this many times with the Nikon techs by the way.
However, let the thread return to its subject, viz. the 200-500 itself, please.
-
Not with the 200-500 so not relevant here in this thread. Besides, is there really a question that people managed to shot birds and other moving objects before the arrival of AF ??
No question about that, but yet it would be interesting to see some shots like that (not usually seen today), in some thread.
-
"As to fine-tuning, my general impression is that this theme is overrated as far as its importance goes. Better AF handling on the user side can do more than fine-tuning the lens"
Most people would agree about that.
To return to the 200-500:
Here is a still shot with the same high ISO (12800) and the D810. No noise reduction applied to the bird or the background, just some sharpening. Judge by yourself whether or not this bird is in focus.
-
Not in focus... Not sharp...
-
Not in focus... Not sharp...
Well, according to the CNX-D, the focus point is spot on the bird. I have many similar shots, so it should not just be a coincident. No AF-tuning was applied here.
-
Well, the head and plumage of the bird is sharper than the tree trunk. So the focus might not be that much off. But critical sharpness apparently is not present. Is there a hint of movement in the frame?
In a case such as this, there are many interrelated factors to influence the final outcome. Not necessarily even the lens being the main culprit.
-
No hint of any movement. Moreover, it was shot at 1/2500 sec while my body was firmly supported against a wall.
-
1/2500 sec is no guarantee - was VR engaged?
-
My question would then be is this an image that would bring in money; How much money are you asking / did you get paid for the image?
We have a whole thread about images 'out of focus' and some of them for sure bring in money... But this one I don't think so IMHO
-
This is one of many similar shots done to try out the 200-500mm lens and, of course, to figure out if any AF fine tuning would be necessary. (By the way, I had similar issues with the 300/2.8 on my D3s some years ago, and fine tuning about -8 made a large improvement.) Honestly, I don't see that money has anything to to do with this.
-
Well... for me this photo won't bring supper to the table.
I have not yet tried this lens, praise by so many people, but my afraid is these kind of photos will appear more often than expected...
Do no if AF-tuning will cure them...
-
I always ask myself if you can expect much better in this kind of situation, regardless of the lens:
The scene contrast is really low, plus the total number of photons is also low (ISO12800 is pretty low exposure). The resolution seems decent, as you can see individual plumes sticking out, but the contrast is not sufficient to show the structure of the plumage on the breast for instance. In-camera noise reduction was probably playing its part and further smoothed out the little detail that was left, detail which is of high frequency and therefore hard to distinguish from noise.
The fact that the tree bark has much higher contrast at small spacial frequencies and therefore does not interfere as much with the noise subjectively adds to the soft impression of the bird.
It is hard to see whether the AF is mis-tuned using this kind of test. On the other hand, we cannot be sure that AF tests and adjustments done in high-contrast light extend to low-contrast situations. We hope they do, but low contrast combined with non-flat targets tend to fool the AF quite a bit.
I think for optimal operation of the AF, you need a little bit more contrast (a bit of directional light) and this will also make the image pop more. It is hard to make a pleasing image in this adverse light unless you somehow manage to turn it to your advantage.
-
Very interesting considerations Simone. Moreover, it might have helped to reduce the shutter speed and the aperture setting. Of course one might also consider using a flash in such situations.
-
This is the D750 and 500mm f4. 1/2000, f8, ISO12800.
The lens and camera are calibrated together and have many sharp photos to their credit. I believe it's the high ISO that is robbing the detail here.
To me it looks quite similar in detail to the image under discussion?
-
As to fine-tuning, my general impression is that this theme is overrated as far as its importance goes. Better AF handling on the user side can do more than fine-tuning the lens.
I would love an explanation of this (probably ideally in a separate thread?).
-
1/2500 sec is no guarantee - was VR engaged?
No VR engaged. I have close to hundred similar shots taken within half an hour and with the same settings. You can't have motions in all of them!
-
This is the D750 and 500mm f4. 1/2000, f8, ISO12800.
The lens and camera are calibrated together and have many sharp photos to their credit. I believe it's the high ISO that is robbing the detail here.
To me it looks quite similar in detail to the image under discussion?
The image appears to be missing.
-
To return to the 200-500:
Here is a still shot with the same high ISO (12800) and the D810. No noise reduction applied to the bird or the background, just some sharpening. Judge by yourself whether or not this bird is in focus.
Focus appears to be sharper on the bird's legs and wing feathers, the front of the body and head are slightly in front of the focus plane so are a bit out of focus. The smallish aperture means there is enough DOF to capture some details over the whole bird, but it looks sort-of in focus, not really sharp.
-
Sorry Tersn, don't know what happened.
-
Terje, I shot quite a few frames of black capped chickadees here in Fairbanks recently with my 300PF on D7100. These are probably just as fast as yours, and were filling about the same part of the frame. Usually VR was on at 1/640 - 1/1000 second (although it is recommended to turn it off in that shutter speed range), ISO 1600-3200. The "keeper" rate was surprisingly high as long as I managed to get the focus point near the eye in that fraction of a second that was available. Most non-keepers had the bird out of the frame when it took off, or the bird had its back turned toward me so there wasn't enough to focus on to get the eye sharp. (Some also had too slow shutter speed.) Light levels were pretty poor, often at dusk. No AF tuning applied.
Is it possible that the 200-500 just does not focus fast enough for these small birds? Did you have AF-C configured with shutter priority (and AF-on) which is pretty standard for these kind of applications. Then the shutter will of course fire even if the lens has not finished focusing. However this should be possible to detect as it would lead to either back focus or front focus depending of the direction the bird moves.
-
Øivind: Yes, it could be that the 200-500 is focusing a bit slow for such birds. However, it could be that the camera D810 has something to do with it too; my results have usually been much better with the D3s and the 200-500. I was using AF-C with manual priority (AF-On) and release option. This should imply that the camera fires even with the bird out of focus. I might try to use the focus option, but then most of the birds will probably vanish out of frame before the shot has been fired. Usually there is time for no more than one shot, even with shutter speed around 1/2000 sec (this still applies to the faster D3s). Oh, and the VR is off.
-
The old work horse the D3 is 12 MP completely other animal to compare to a D810 IMHO...
Setting up a camera for optimum AF is something that takes time to master, for these little fast ones I would try 3D-Focus Tracking since it is predictive in the calculation of where the subject is going to be when the shutter actually fires... But there a so many AF sub settings... ;)
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/article/ftlzi4lx/3d-focus-tracking.html
-
Terje, I agree that focus priority instead of release is not an option in these situations. I used dynamic 9-point for the chickadee images, as I have seen comments that 3D tracking is not fast enough to follow in many situations, at least on the D7100 body.
-
Setting up a camera for optimum AF is something that takes time to master, for these little fast ones I would try 3D-Focus Tracking since it is predictive in the calculation of where the subject is going to be when the shutter actually fires... But there a so many AF sub settings... ;)
Terje, I agree that focus priority instead of release is not an option in these situations. I used dynamic 9-point for the chickadee images, as I have seen comments that 3D tracking is not fast enough to follow in many situations, at least on the D7100 body.
That 3D-tracking is too slow for such fast birds, is something I too have experienced a long time ago. Unless I learn that Nikon recently made significant improvements to that function, I will not retry it. I have noticed that Nikon recommends dynamic 51-points for fast birds, so that is why I have used it on my D810. Now I can se that for my D3s I have (after a long time of testing) been using 9-points instead. Therefore, I will try 9-p on the D810 too, as soon as the weather improves a bit. Nobody said it is going to be easy :). Accordingly, it is quite useful to be able to discuss such issues in detail with other photographers (as we have presently been doing in this thread) :) :)
-
Exactly! My understanding is that they did improve 3D-Focus Tracking... I might be completely wrong - These little ones are erratic!- I don't do BIF except a few times with 500mm Ai-P on a safari for fun ;)
-
You mean on the D500? That would be very likely with the separate processor for the AF system.
BTW, while VR is not supposed to be on at these high shutter speeds, the more stable viewfinder image does help the autofocus system and the user to place the focus point more accurately.
-
This is the D750 and 500mm f4. 1/2000, f8, ISO12800.
The lens and camera are calibrated together and have many sharp photos to their credit. I believe it's the high ISO that is robbing the detail here.
To me it looks quite similar in detail to the image under discussion?
I hope it is mostly caused by the high ISO. Time should tell. Interesting that other people have had similar experiences.
-
BTW, while VR is not supposed to be on at these high shutter speeds, the more stable viewfinder image does help the autofocus system and the user to place the focus point more accurately.
On several long Nikkors I have tested, leaving VR 'On' at high shutter speeds caused visible artefacts and local degradation of the image.
VR is a blade cutting two ways and might be a blessing and a course. Don't engage the feature unless you feel it is unavoidable is my general advice.
-
"On several long Nikkors I have tested, leaving VR 'On' at high shutter speeds caused visible artefacts and local degradation of the image.
VR is a blade cutting two ways and might be a blessing and a course. Don't engage the feature unless you feel it is unavoidable is my general advice."
Yes I know, but so far my 300PF has behaved up to 1/1000 second or so (have not gone much further).There is of course no guarantee that artifacts will not show up at some point. Under more controlled conditions and further distance I tend to turn it off if I know I will get above 1/500 sec.
-
The issues mostly will either not manifest themselves or go undetected under the radar. Occasionally they can ruin a picture but in all fairness the chance of seeing such ill effects is slim. However, I think it is pertinent to point out that VR can introduce side effects. It is not a panacea to end all one's worries.
-
Nikon continue to enhance the VR technology of course so later incarnations might behave better, on this subject I noted that Nikon recommend to have VR turned on as default for the 24-70mm 2.8 E VR...
-
I recently got my review sample of the 24-70 and will keep an eye on this aspect of its behaviour for sure.
-
Soon I will be testing this as well ;)
-
I have VR on by default on my Coolpix P300
So far VR is off by default on my Nikkor Teles equipped with this feature
-
Some quick first shots this afternoon with a nice spot of winter sun on Gloucester Cathedral. Taken from approx. 2 miles/3.5km away.
The first two are full-frame and crop with a TC-14, manual focus, tripod - the 3rd one hand-held with VR on, autofocus, no converter.
The lens seems to work quite well, esp. impressed with the VR.
John
-
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/02/13/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f5-6e-ed-vr-lens-review.aspx/#more-102065
rgds,
Andy
-
Thank you Andy, very interesting link!
-
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/02/13/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f5-6e-ed-vr-lens-review.aspx/#more-102065
rgds,
Andy
Nice, a review based on practical experience with comparison to another lens. But also explanation what can go wrong in the field.
-
I am using this lens with D810. Using mainly handheld. Can anyone suggest an ideal support system for this combo? Do I need a gimbal head? my budget is around 500 USD.
thanks in advance
-
Huge & Heavier than I thought. But once I catch fire in Bird Shots I will have to bare that
-
I am using this lens with D810. Using mainly handheld. Can anyone suggest an ideal support system for this combo? Do I need a gimbal head? my budget is around 500 USD.
thanks in advance
A friend of mine has one. He uses it on a Wimberley "Sidekick" and says it and his D810 balance nicely on the Sidekick. I believe that a new Sidekick is about $250 USD.
Also, I was shooting Swans with my friend last week. He had this new zoom set to the 500mm setting all of the time. Are not most telephoto zooms the weakest at their highest magnification?
-
Shot earlier today. No post processing. Just resized.
I am quite pleased with the result, as there was a fresh mountain breeze and I only had my little travel tripod with me. Had to "cover" the lens with my body to minimize the impact of wind vibrations.
D800E, 4s, f5.6, 200mm, Distance = approx 1km
rgds,
Andy
-
D800E, 4s, f5.6, 200mm, Distance = approx 1km
I love you IT knowledge, you gear knowledge & in this new NG incarnation I learn you are a great photographic talent too!
*impressed*
-
An amazing 'night' shot, Andy.
-
Thank you Frank and John.
Very much appreciated.
rgds, Andy