200-500 f/5.6

[Tristin]

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.

[MILLIREHM]

Thanks for sharing the comparison image Wolfgang, really helpful.

Thank you "Amigo"

[MILLIREHM]

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

[Tersn]

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/

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Tersn]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The review sample I used was spot on at all focal lengths. Not cherry-picked as I retrieved it from a factory-sealed box.

[Tersn]

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?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Only cars zooming past. Given the speed limits of this country, maybe not the toughest of challenges?

[Tersn]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Tersn]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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

[Tersn]

It would be interesting to see some of those manual focus shots.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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 ??