NikonGear'23
Images => Nature, Flora, Fauna & Landscapes => Topic started by: Mongo on December 18, 2015, 08:02:16
-
Some quick sample images @500mm. Mostly at f6.3 to f8 and mostly on D800E
PLUS
2 comparative images of 200-500mm and 400mm f2.8FL with 1.4 EIII (550mm). Please note that all settings and processing was identical for the purpose of this 2 image comparison(except that the former was cropped at 55% and the later at 50% to try and keep some parity of perspective). D4s, f8, 1/125, ISO 1600, no noise reduction in post processing. Also it is very important to note that the 400 FL had been calibrated and the 200-500mm was not and was later found to be out by between 13 and 15 points of fine tune of front focus (almost a full 30 microns). Mongo hopes to redo this test comparison now that the 200-500mm has been calibrated.
Due to 10 image limit, the 2 comparison images are in the second post below
-
comparison images:
First is 200-500mm
second is 400f2.8FL with 1.4EIII
the 400 with converter looks slightly better but some allowance needs to be made for the drastic front focus on the 200-500mm- just how much allowance .......????? anyone's guess.
-
Interesting comparisons and nice pictures. Please continue.
-
Beautiful images.
Very small IQ difference considering the 10 times price difference.
-
Strange to see birds very similar to those we have here but with such flashing colors.
Nice pics and the 200-500 looks really good.
Were the first pictures also cropped at 50% ?
-
..........Were the first pictures also cropped at 50% ?
thank you all for looking in and for your comments.
7 were at 33% and 3 at about 50%.
This one is at 100%
-
Sometime back under "Show Birds" thread Frank asked "where is Mongo?".. That was before you joined this real NG.. Now I understand why he asked that question! 8)
Beautiful shots and very informative lens comparison. Keep them coming!
-
Thanks for these Mongo.
Just to add to the praise, I would have been very pleased to have taken any of these images. The feather detail in the first set is pretty good. The colours also sing out.
One thing I couldn't see: were these all taken hand-held? If not, what did you use?
What was your lowest shutter speed? Maybe on a later post you can comment on VR, when you've had more time with it.
As for Chris's comment on whether the high spec lens justifies the price difference I guess there are plenty of other performance aspects that it may do better (quicker A/F & better tracking on a moving subject for example?). Plus one starts at f2.8. But now I've checked the price of the 200-500 in the UK I am very tempted :)
-
thanks Anirban and Collin.
To answer Collin’s initial questions, lowest shutter on these was 1/125th, (ISO between 800 and 1600), Mongo uses this lens almost excessively on a monopod and no hesitation to use it handheld if circumstances warrant.
The 400mm FL is a whole different creature and has its own virtues. Mongo only included this specific comparison because he happen to be with a friend and decided to swap lenses for a while so each could try the others lens. However, it does make for an interesting “snap shot” of the new cheap long lens against the newish expensive long lens. A more meaningful comparison would be with the 200-400mm f4 which Mongo used to own.
Mongo had written a review on the 200-500mm and posted elsewhere in early/mid October and since then , has revised that review as further information came to hand. It has not been posted here as it seems much has already been said (but not all) about this lens already by others include Bjorn’s review. Mongo agrees with most of what has been said about it.
The VR is a topic on its own. However, very briefly, it is a very effective VR (in most cases) but a little tricky to use until you really understand how best to use it. Also, the AF is a little slow to acquire the subject in motion in Mongo’s opinion but very good for static subjects.
Hope this has been useful.
-
Mongo, these are too good and pretty as "sample" images. Thanks for sharing!
-
thanks Akira - very kind of you and glad you like them.
-
Very compelling images Mongo, the 200-500 is getting harder and harder to ignore as my "something long" for 2016.
-
the 400 with converter looks slightly better but some allowance needs to be made for the drastic front focus on the 200-500mm- just how much allowance .......????? anyone's guess.
Very interesting comparison.
I think i'll have to reconsider my judgment about zoom's image quality !
The difference is not so obvious regarding the fact that the the the 400mm's version is a little bigger.
Absolutely nice series. The first birds are sharp with nice bokeh (although different on images #5 and #7, different stops ?)
Top sharpness and color rendition, two main criteria that any bird photographer would demand. and nice bokeh as well.
This my guess. ;)
-
Very compelling images Mongo, the 200-500 is getting harder and harder to ignore as my "something long" for 2016.
It would definitely have to be one of the main contenders for the “something long” category. In Mongo’s review he goes through the tale of misery he had with this lens from purchase until recently. It had been back to Nikon twice and Mongo started to seriously dislike it and Nikon. Mongo has not tried it properly since its last return but can tell from just some quick shots that it is noticeably better and should now be fine (ie give slightly better results than those posted here).
Have tried the Tamron 150-600mm and found it to be quite reasonably good. However, Mongo would now choose the Nikon 200-500mm (provided you get a good copy).
Bought new 200-400mm f4 VR I and had it for 3 years. Had it back to Nikon 4 times. Poor with converters and poor over distance. Never happy with it and sold it. Tried a friend’s copy of the 200-400mm f4 and found it much better and what Mongo would have expected the lens to perform like. His works better with converters than Mongo’s copy of the 200-400mm f4. However, still doubtful about distance shots. It is about 1 kilogram heavier than the 200-500mm, a little larger and about 4 to 5 times the price.
The 200-500mm on the other hand, seems to handle distance shots better and works with converters. Works with 1.4 EII on D800E and D4s. Will AF with 1.7EII on D4s but not D800E. However, for practical reasons, it may be too slow at stops beyond f8 for other than virtually stationary subjects.
Mongo now only uses the 600 f4 in specific and convenient circumstances.
Knowing what Mongo knows now, he would pick a good copy 200-500 over a 200-400 taking most things into consideration.
...... The first birds are sharp with nice bokeh (although different on images #5 and #7, different stops ?)
Mongo checked the data on 5 and 7 Rosko and it is identical to most of the others. However, the distance to subject is different as is the distance from subject to its background. Mongo was quite close and even small differences at that range may exaggerate differences in the end product. These are probably the variables giving rise to the differences you have noticed.
-
Bought new 200-400mm f4 VR I and had it for 3 years. Had it back to Nikon 4 times. Poor with converters and poor over distance. Never happy with it and sold it.
The 200-500mm on the other hand, seems to handle distance shots better and works with converters.
I had the same beef with my copy, really liked it up close but at distance shots it was less impressive and with TC's just terrible.
So good to know that the 200-500 is doing better in this regard, good to have Mongo on board here at NG ;D
-
Yes indeed, thanks for sharing.
Nevertheless, I still consider, if budget is not an issue, the best compromisse for "all" focal distances/wieght/IQ/focus speed the 400mm f2.8 FL + TCs
-
Very nice shots and if I should ever get "something long", this lens would be it.
-
Nevertheless, I still consider, if budget is not an issue, the best compromisse for "all" focal distances/wieght/IQ/focus speed the 400mm f2.8 FL + TCs
Hi Pedro, I respect your experience with the longer lenses. However I wonder if the factors include both
- Budget
- Need for flexibilty
Like you I tend towards primes. However Jan and a couple of other people have mentioned on this thread and others the value of being ale to respond quickly to an opportunity. So I guess there are some times when adding/removing a TC to allow for the subject being nearer/farther away could miss you the shot. Plus the weight/size consideration if on planes, walking over rough ground etc
Then thinking about it more, if you then take two bodies, one with your optically ideal 400mm and the other with the 200-500mm, maybe it does all comes back to budget (plus the strength to carry & use it all!)
-
As Mongo mentioned initially, the use of both lenses was purely becuase of opportunity AND to show the relative IQ of both end of the lens spectrum. The two lenses are really in different categories altogether even though there may be some “cross-over” areas of use.
Mongo thinks that everything is relative - there are no absolutes. So, in the real world, you would have to choose by making comparisons of available gear and choosing the best for your circumstances including , of course, intended use. One of the variables making up your circumstances would probably be, amongst other things, cost (unless you are a pro and can write everything off on tax). Then there is size, weight, convenience etc.
However, let’s imagine for a moment taking cost out altogether as a consideration and, bearing in mind how and where you intend to use the equipment AND you could only buy one of these lenses. What would you do ?? Mongo thinks you would have to seriously think about your choice - it is not necessarily an automatic reaction to get the 400 f2.8. Cost is only a factor when buying a lens. After that, it is almost completely irrelevant. The factors that matter are those affecting the actually use of the lens such as weight, size, transportability, converters, speed etc etc.
Food for thought ??
-
Mongo, thank you for these excellent sample images and for the comparison shot. Before buying, I did my own comparisons of this lens at 300mm vs. my trusted 300 f/4 AF (1988, 82mm front ring). I think the new zoom at 300mm is just about as sharp as the older lens.
I too use a monopod. I quickly found your October review (Google Mongo 200-500 review) and appreciate your suggestions on VR which I will repeat here:
- Normal mode for handholding and stationary objects
- Otherwise Sport ("apparently Normal mode reduces AF speed")
I'll give these a try. Again thanks.
-
Hi Pedro, I respect your experience with the longer lenses. However I wonder if the factors include both
- Budget
- Need for flexibilty
Like you I tend towards primes. However Jan and a couple of other people have mentioned on this thread and others the value of being ale to respond quickly to an opportunity. So I guess there are some times when adding/removing a TC to allow for the subject being nearer/farther away could miss you the shot. Plus the weight/size consideration if on planes, walking over rough ground etc
Then thinking about it more, if you then take two bodies, one with your optically ideal 400mm and the other with the 200-500mm, maybe it does all comes back to budget (plus the strength to carry & use it all!)
Hi Colin, if those factors were in the equation, my choice would be, hands down, the 200-500...
Problem is when you got used to the IQ of those primes... and I must admit, I'm spoiled.
-
However, let’s imagine for a moment taking cost out altogether as a consideration and, bearing in mind how and where you intend to use the equipment AND you could only buy one of these lenses. What would you do ?? Mongo thinks you would have to seriously think about your choice - it is not necessarily an automatic reaction to get the 400 f2.8. Cost is only a factor when buying a lens. After that, it is almost completely irrelevant. The factors that matter are those affecting the actually use of the lens such as weight, size, transportability, converters, speed etc etc.
Food for thought ??
Yes, these are the factors that I struggle the most, transportability being the worst and weight a very closed one.
Speed, converters, not so much, as I always use two bodies, one with the 400, and the other with a zoom (80-400, not any more) or the new 300PF
But, I'll try the 200-500 sooner than later, and maybe it will come to my second body...
-
Mongo, thank you for these excellent sample images and for the comparison shot. Before buying, I did my own comparisons of this lens at 300mm vs. my trusted 300 f/4 AF (1988, 82mm front ring). I think the new zoom at 300mm is just about as sharp as the older lens.
I too use a monopod. I quickly found your October review (Google Mongo 200-500 review) and appreciate your suggestions on VR which I will repeat here:
- Normal mode for handholding and stationary objects
- Otherwise Sport ("apparently Normal mode reduces AF speed")
I'll give these a try. Again thanks.
Thanks for looking in and for your very interesting comments. Mongo loves his 300 f4 AFS model but has not used it since getting the 200-500mm. Not sure why that is other than he is trying to give the new 200-500mm a really full-on test period. Also, he must say, that the IQ at 300mm seems so close that it has not troubled him at all. So, overall, the 200-500mm is a serious substitute and contender generally provided you get a good copy and have it calibrated by Nikon from the start whether you think it needs it or not. Good luck and would love to know what your experience is with it in due course.
Yes, these are the factors that I struggle the most, transportability being the worst and weight a very closed one.
Speed, converters, not so much, as I always use two bodies, one with the 400, and the other with a zoom (80-400, not any more) or the new 300PF
But, I'll try the 200-500 sooner than later, and maybe it will come to my second body...
Thanks for your comments Pedro. First, in relation to your comments immediately before the one Mongo has quoted above, Mongo completely agrees with you in relation to being spoiled by excellent image quality. Mongo still prefers to use his 600 f4 where he does not have to carry it and can set up virtually a short distance from his car e.g surfing photos at the beach etc. He would not consider lugging it through the bush (or "forest" where you guys come from). However, how do you get them back to the farm after they have seen Paris..???? No one would consciously want to go backward. However, is it really backward ?? and if so, if it is only a very small amount but you gain so much more in transportability and other factors without losing to much IQ....is it worth it then ??? If the exercise was you could only take one lens and one camera. there has to be a point at which the competing lines cross over. Of course, Mongo's comments are not necessarily about the 400 f2.8 v 200-500mm - they apply generally and in many possibly comparable scenarios.
For instance, you mention that you overcome some of the issues by taking 2 bodies and 2 lenses. That , in itself, is very telling and certainly would be much heavier, more space consuming and far less transportable/convenient (and if cost was an issue, much costlier). So, we all have to consider a theoretical cross over point where all these factors are thrown into the one equation to hopefully give the most ideal answer for any particular scenario(s). The beauty is to enjoy the physical ability to carry as much equipment as you would like while you can (and can afford it) before other factors of life make us have to consider that equation Mongo mentioned above.
-
I too use a monopod. I quickly found your October review (Google Mongo 200-500 review) and appreciate your suggestions on VR which I will repeat here:
- Normal mode for handholding and stationary objects
- Otherwise Sport ("apparently Normal mode reduces AF speed")
For what it's worth, I have been shooting birds with the 200-500mm lens.
I think Mongo is probably correct. The AF speed is just fine with VR on "Normal", except for birds in flight, a challenging situation, where my AF results are insufficient in "Normal" mode. Not enough examples yet in "Sport" mode to tell if I can see a difference.
-
Thank you for the shots, I missed this thread completely till now. I fancy a D500 plus a 200-500/5.6 as an ultimate Tele combination.
Although I never really liked tele shooting in the past, being a "24 to 85 prime guy" I start to "see" distant compositions the older I get the more.
So I think that with the 200-500 on DX I can cover a wide range of "tele" and try it out. If I do not like it (tele shooting not the machine part which I will sure like), I can easily sell it again without losing much money.
-
whether you think it needs it or not. Good luck and would love to know what your experience is with it in due course.
Thanks for your comments Pedro. First, in relation to your comments immediately before the one Mongo has quoted above, Mongo completely agrees with you in relation to being spoiled by excellent image quality. Mongo still prefers to use his 600 f4 where he does not have to carry it and can set up virtually a short distance from his car e.g surfing photos at the beach etc. He would not consider lugging it through the bush (or "forest" where you guys come from). However, how do you get them back to the farm after they have seen Paris..???? No one would consciously want to go backward. However, is it really backward ?? and if so, if it is only a very small amount but you gain so much more in transportability and other factors without losing to much IQ....is it worth it then ??? If the exercise was you could only take one lens and one camera. there has to be a point at which the competing lines cross over. Of course, Mongo's comments are not necessarily about the 400 f2.8 v 200-500mm - they apply generally and in many possibly comparable scenarios.
For instance, you mention that you overcome some of the issues by taking 2 bodies and 2 lenses. That , in itself, is very telling and certainly would be much heavier, more space consuming and far less transportable/convenient (and if cost was an issue, much costlier). So, we all have to consider a theoretical cross over point where all these factors are thrown into the one equation to hopefully give the most ideal answer for any particular scenario(s). The beauty is to enjoy the physical ability to carry as much equipment as you would like while you can (and can afford it) before other factors of life make us have to consider that equation Mongo mentioned above.
Indeed Mongo, once in Paris, not anymore in bush... yep, another form of being spoiled...
I must admit I'm not keen to tele-zooms, being "burned" using the 200-400 f4. Never liked it, sold it and never regret it. Again usage dictates the likes and dislikes...
Two bodies, two lenses, weight, cost and the else...
Once, I have done the shortcut using one body and one tele-zoom. Spent countless hours in the bush, thousands of photos, many days out there. Returns? Fun for being in the nature, out of boring work for sure, but too few good photos for my taste (again tastes can/are different). So never more... if you know what I mean.
But as you can never say anymore... let's see what 200-500 can deliver for me.
-
Col, in relation to the VR , what you have said is indeed Mongo’s experience of it. To try to cover all fast contingencies, Mongo mainly now leaves the lens in VR “sport” mode. This covers the bulk of situations. Since initially posting this thread, Mongo has found others’ comments and experiences on the net that pretty much confirm Mongo’s findings about the characteristics of the VR on this lens. It would be nice to see what your findings are after you have had an opportunity to fully try out this lens’ VR modes. Please keep us in the loop.
Frank, it is hard to image someone who is used to the 24 - 85 focal length range jumping to the extremes of this lens; particularly on a DX body. Even if it sounds a very good lens, can Mongo suggest that you see if you can find an opportunity to try the lens out first BEFORE you buy it. This is not always possible but if it is, you should take that opportunity. If that is not possible, any long lens you can get access to (e.g 300mm) would probably be sufficient to give you an idea of whether or not you would use the longer focal lengths. Mongo mentions this as it may save you an unnecessary purchase and sale.
Pedro, Mongo completely understands where you are coming from. Two things: first, from your avatar you look to be a reasonably fit person of modest years. There would be little to no problem for you to carry the bigger better equipment in most situations. This is why Mongo encourages you to use the equipment you get most enjoyment from while you can physically do that happily. As you already have excellent equipment, It would be counter productive to suggest that you abandon that for this alternative equipment at this time. On the contrary, enjoy it as long as you can ! Mongo, on the other hand, has a more well used odometer and has some real physical considerations/limitations. Mongo’s comments are primarily directed to those who do not have a long lens and are looking for a reasonable one AND for those who could buy the bigger better equipment but could not manage to carry/transport it easily.
Secondly, in relation the bad taste in the mouth that a bad lens can leave, Mongo also understands that and has told you of his very negative and off putting experience he had with his new 200-400mm f4 (which is was sold and not at all missed). However, Mongo puts that down to a bad lens issue and remains open to the possibility that other zoom lenses may be perfectly fine. Mongo was willing to try the 200-500mm mainly because of the reasonable quality images being produced by Tamron and Sigma in that approximate focal length range. This encouraged Mongo to see if the new Nikon equivalent could do better and worth trying. It was definitely worth the try and the results worth considering by those who are looking for a lighter, cheaper reasonably performing long zoom lens.
-
Thanks for sharing, Mongo. Your images confirm that the new 200-500mm is a good choice. I do not regret my purchase of this lens.
-
Frank, it is hard to image someone who is used to the 24 - 85 focal length range jumping to the extremes of this lens; particularly on a DX body. Even if it sounds a very good lens, can Mongo suggest that you see if you can find an opportunity to try the lens out first BEFORE you buy it. This is not always possible but if it is, you should take that opportunity. If that is not possible, any long lens you can get access to (e.g 300mm) would probably be sufficient to give you an idea of whether or not you would use the longer focal lengths. Mongo mentions this as it may save you an unnecessary purchase and sale.
I have had a 100-300mm lens on my F100 in film days and started to get interested in Birding. In the summer I will be in a birder's paradise on an island that is half "bird protection area".
The ~300-750 in crop more should get the birrd in the full of the DX Frame...
Plus if current monetary transactions work as planned I hope to be teleshooting in Killin too...
-
I think I want one..
Thanks for sharing your findings and images.
-
Very clear crisp and bright! Lovely ;)
-
thanks Peter and Erik for your comments/ feedback.
Frank, based on what you have said your intentions are, then, Mongo would say that he 200-500mm with or without a crop sensor body will be ideal for you.
BTW, Mongo no longer has a dedicated DX body but often uses his FX bodies with this lens in semi crop mode of 20 X 30 (which is about a 20% crop). This also gives good results.