200-500 f/5.6

[Ron Scubadiver]

Over at Nikonrumors there are links to reviews of this new modestly priced zoom.

[Somnath Goswami]

getting one for myself 

[PedroS]

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!

[PedroS]

Next weekend I'll make the coverage of a junior Futsal match with my new 400FL.
I think I'm spoiled with this one...

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[bobfriedman]

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.

[PedroS]

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.

[FredCrowBear]

<< 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

[bobfriedman]

check the 500 and 600 prices

[Somnath Goswami]

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

[Jan Anne]

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?

[Somnath Goswami]

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
 

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[elsa hoffmann]

who else has bought one? looks good - especially price wise

[Tersn]

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