200-500 f/5.6

[BW]

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

[Tersn]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Tersn]

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.

[Tersn]

"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.

[Erik Lund]

Not in focus... Not sharp...

[Tersn]

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.

[Birna Rørslett]

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.

[Tersn]

No hint of any movement. Moreover, it was shot at 1/2500 sec while my body was firmly supported against a wall.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

1/2500 sec is no guarantee - was VR engaged?

[Erik Lund]

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

[Tersn]

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.

[PedroS]

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...

[simsurace]

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.

[Tersn]

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.