New kid on the block: AFS 200-500 mm f/5.6 Nikkor E

[Ilkka Nissilä]

In my second test shot series I used 1/15s, 1/50s, 1/100s with and without EFCS on a distant building facade (about 150m distance) and I could not perceive any difference between EFCS on and off at any of the speeds (pairwise comparison). However, the 1/50s shots appeared to be ever so slightly less sharp than the ones at 1/15s, and the 1/100s were slightly worse than the 1/50s.  I will not post these as there is really not enough to see. I'm not sure why the difference between EFCS ON and OFF vanished, perhaps atmospheric fluctiations had greater impact at this longer distance. The tree shots  posted above had an approximately 40m distance between camera and the tree.

Edit: I figured out the likely explanation why my 150m facade shot doesn't show the effect of shutter vibration but the 40m tree shot does. The 150m facade shot was a horizontal image and the 40m tree shot is a vertical! The movement of the shutter sidewise in the left-right direction (in the vertical shot) is not as well dampened by the tripod as the top down shutter movement in a horizontal orientation shot. Also it is easy to see in the tree shot that most of the blur in the EFCS off shots is in the left-right direction in the image. Also, my indoor images shot yesterday were horizontals and they showed only a small difference between EFCS ON and OFF.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A very typical sign of inadequate tripod support is a difference in stability between landscape and portrait mode captures.  Such a difference exists for the 200-500 lens. Your observations in that regard echo mine.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Hand held at 500mm, f/5.6, 1/160s, ISO 2000, VR normal.

[Tersn]

Handheld w. D3s @ 1/160, f/5.6, 200mm, iso 3200, VR on.

[Tersn]

One more:
Handheld w. D3s @ 1/160, f/5.6, 500mm, iso 4000, VR on.

(Both shot straight out of the box on the way home from the photo store.)

[elsa hoffmann]

(Both shot straight out of the box on the way home from the photo store.)

thats what I call enthusiasm

I am still waiting for mine - as I ordered one with a later serial number

[Tersn]

thats what I call enthusiasm

I am still waiting for mine - as I ordered one with a later serial number

I hope the enthusiasm will remain after a few weeks of shooting. As far as I could tell this lens was the only copy available in town yesterday, so I hurried down to grab it. The serial number was good. Tried the lens this morning on small fast birds in flight. However, light was poor.

[Valeria Lages]

Tried the lens this morning on small fast birds in flight. However, light was poor.

Hi, Tersn, could you please give your opinion about how this lens performs with birds in fly and moving animals under poor light if by so you mean low light? Being a f/5.6 zoom lens, I'd like to know how is its autofocus speed, accuracy and so on in such situation. I'm wondering how good would it be for shooting right before the sunrise/right after the sunset, also using it in forests where one doesn't always see blue sky due to the high amount of trees and shadows.

I'd appreciate if you can write a little bit about your feeling of shooting handheld with it aswell. At first it seems to me it's too heavy for this (I'm female), but besides the weight we know there are other things which can add to the handheld experience, like lens balance, diameter of barrel, smoothness of zoom and focus rings etc. 

Thanks in advance!

Valeria

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The bokeh is surprisingly good in this lens. The attached shot was made at 500mm, f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 1600; I was mainly testing how the lens can autofocus on an approaching subject; quite well is the answer, at least at these distances and light level during an overcast day. I imagine this lens will work quite well for summertime outdoor concert photography as well as some sports.  Unfortunately current weather conditions limit applications in the next few months. On the 22th of November there is the opening of the christmas street in Helsinki which is accompanied by outdoor music on the steps of the Helsinki Catherdral, and the steps are quite far away, leading to potential use of this lens, if weather co-operates. There will also be the National Ballet with Snow Queen. Anyway, I find this lens shows more promise than the 80-400 which required stopping down to f/8 for good image quality at 400mm. The drawbacks are in handling and the greater effort required in zooming.

I ordered the Kirk NC-200-500 and LS-2 for use with a tripod, and they should arrive next week so I will be able to compare stability and handling with that setup and the standard Nikon collar.

[elsa hoffmann]

thanks for the feedback!

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Nicely even sharpness across most of the frame in architectural shots. I think the outermost 5-10% of the image circle is slightly softer at 500mm than the central area, but this is only seen in the edges at far sides of the long axis of the image. This is at 420mm, f/11, 1/100s, ISO 800, monopod.

[simsurace]

The bokeh is surprisingly good in this lens.

Indeed, very nice!

At this point, it seems pretty difficult to justify the 50% premium of the 80-400; Nanocrystal coating and perhaps a slight edge in AF speed seem to be the only real benefits aside from the different range of course. Or am I missing something?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The two-thirds stop difference perhaps?

[Ilkka Nissilä]

At this point, it seems pretty difficult to justify the 50% premium of the 80-400; Nanocrystal coating and perhaps a slight edge in AF speed seem to be the only real benefits aside from the different range of course. Or am I missing something?

Zooming is much faster on the 80-400, with the 200-500 it's quite a slow process. This is quite significant in action scenarios, e.g., an airshow where you'd want to frame to compose the plane(s) and the clouds as things happen; with the 200-500, zooming takes a while and it's just not something you do on the fly.  It takes me 6 seconds to zoom from 500mm to 200mm, and 8 seconds to go from 200mm back to 500mm (using the left hand to zoom with the lens in shooting position). With the 70-200/4, either way just takes 1 second.   I think for formations I would use a 70-200mm,  and regard the 200-500mm as an adjustable prime lens pre-set to 400mm or 500mm for those long shots.

The 80-400 offers a more convenient (and available!) 77mm filter size (vs. 95mm), nano coating,  AF that works also at close distances (the 200-500 often needs manual help at close distances), a 5x focal range, and is more portable and hand-holdable. The 200-500 is sharper at f/5.6 and offers the 500mm focal length, and perhaps is a bit better constructed (but this comes with the tradeoff of glacial zooming).

I guess for landscape photography the zooming is not at all a problem, but I thought I would be able to maintain approximately constant framing on an approaching subject in some sports scenarios and this is just not possible with the 200-500mm. For me this is the main limitation of the 200-500. However, not having a sharp f/5.6 is a more severe limitation for me, so my choice between the 80-400 and 200-500 sides with the latter (the fact that I already have the 70-200mm range covered with a fast, high-quality zoom contributes to it). For someone who is ok with stopping down a bit, and needs quick access to a 5x zoom range, the 80-400 likely is the better choice.

[simsurace]

The two-thirds stop difference perhaps?

Small detail, thanks!