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

[Tersn]

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

Hi Valeria, I will need some time before I can say much about the performance. So far I'm just getting used to the lens and am dialling it in. Moreover, I will be busy the coming weeks with some projects, so have to move slowly with the 200-500. So far I have only been shooting it handheld. At 2.3 kg it is a little lighter than the 300/2.8 that I am also using handheld (about 0.5kg lighter). However, after handholding the lens for some time, most people will feel its weight. Still I expect to be shooting it with no pod most of the time. The zoom  can be a little cumbersome (at least in the beginning).

The attached sample shot was done at iso 6400 with a D3s and an SB910 flash. No wonder it looks a bit soft. Besides, I have done no focus fine-tuning yet.
@ 400mm, 1/2000 s, f/5.6, -1.3 eV, handheld.

Terje

[Anthony]

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?

I am thinking about this issue at the moment.

I have the 80-400 VRII and have been thinking about the 200-500.

Apart from the money saving aspect of not buying the new lens, the advantages of the 80-400 are weight and versatility.  For my immediate needs, which will involve a degree of hiking around and other awkward manoeuvring pursuing various forms of wildlife, the advantage of having one lens rather than the 70-200 and the 200-500 to carry around is considerable, particularly if each lens has its own body attached.  I know that the 80-400 has the AF speed to shoot BIFs, and it is light enough to make this practical in the field without tripod and Wimberley.  I also know that I can get good shots with it at low shutter speeds handheld.

On a safari in a Land Rover the analysis might be very different.

So for the moment I shall probably save my money and use what I have.

[simsurace]

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.

Thanks for the nice summary.

[Valeria Lages]

Hi Valeria, I will need some time before I can say much about the performance. So far I'm just getting used to the lens and am dialling it in. Moreover, I will be busy the coming weeks with some projects, so have to move slowly with the 200-500. So far I have only been shooting it handheld. At 2.3 kg it is a little lighter than the 300/2.8 that I am also using handheld (about 0.5kg lighter). However, after handholding the lens for some time, most people will feel its weight. Still I expect to be shooting it with no pod most of the time. The zoom  can be a little cumbersome (at least in the beginning).

Thanks for your feedback, Terje! Enjoy your new lens and please let us posted about your new findings!

[Valeria Lages]

   Hi folks,

   I'm wondering about Nikon telelenses but it's being difficult to make my mind. Since the good reviews about the 200-500 started to show up I'm thinking about this to pair to a 70-200 4 that I'd buy too to replace my current 70-200 2.8 VRI which isn't good for full-frame. The f/4 version is my option over the 2.8 VRII due to its lighter weight and good AF performance with no focus breathing.

 Then I realized that the 200-500 is probably heavier than I'd like to handheld for a long time so would need often a mono/tripod with gimbal. Also I'd have to pack and be able to transport much more gear than I wish because my work is mainly traveling. Hence it seemed to be more practical to choose instead only the 80-400, which is almost the same price as the 70-200 4 + the 200-500. But I'm not totally convinced yet and still wondering about.

 It's worth say I own the 300mm f/4 PF + TCs 14EIII and 20EIII as well and although my primary interest is wildlife, I have no budget to go deeper into more serious top first line Nikkor lenses. So I can't see other options than the ones I'm dealing with…

  Any thoughts and comments will be much appreciated! 

  Valeria

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The 70-200/4 is excellent and would travel with the 300/4 PF nicely taking a moderate amount of bag space. I think this pair is a better quality option than the 80-400 AF-S. If you need additional focal length, then the 80-400 gives 400mm and 200-500 gives 500mm which is more substantially different from the 300mm you already have. Yes, it is a larger and heavier lens than the others. I would think that you need to test it in person to see whether you find its handling and portability acceptable. You can always choose to travel with the 70-200/4 and 300/4 PF if you need to go light. I think the best way to handle the accumulation of weight in your kit is to simply leave something at home and focus on one or two lenses on a trip, depending on what subjects you expect to encounter.

[PedroS]

Ilkka just made a good point.
Being a wildlifer for long, thought, I never relly on TCs on other lenses other than the 2.8... That said 300 is "always" short.

One thing that I don't see much people refer is the need of wide lenses on a wildlifer kit. Wildlife is not always just portraits, showing the subject on its habitat is very important, and you can make dramatic photos as well.

My option, if weight and budget constraints are present, would be 24-120 and 200-500, and don't forget a speedlight!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Being forced to leave gear at home is a blade that cuts both ways. In order to have this work smoothly, forget the urge to bring more of the lenses you already have, concentrate on what you would likely need for the planned trip instead. Otherwise you will pine for the item you didn't bring along and that'll never do any good for your photography. Learn to maximise the potential of the gear you have at your disposal instead.

Both 80-400 or 200-500 are pretty big lenses and you really need good support for them in order to eke out the maximum performance of each optic. Many people claim they can easily hand-hold them, which is true as neither weighs 5+ kg, and think they can get super sharp images with a lens operated in this manner thanks to VR and similar miracle features, the latter claim usually never being corroborated by careful A/B comparison of the same lens used hand-held or being tripod-mounted. The universal truth is that tripod support always increase the chance of getting a sharper shot and frequently also one with a better composition.

Excuse this long preamble as an introduction to why I think a 70-200 (f/4 or f/2.8 Mk.2) might be the better choice of your alternatives, given you already own the 300/4 PF and TC14E.3.

[chris dees]

The 70-200/4 is excellent and would travel with the 300/4 PF nicely taking a moderate amount of bag space. I think this pair is a better quality option than the 80-400 AF-S. If you need additional focal length, then the 80-400 gives 400mm and 200-500 gives 500mm which is more substantially different from the 300mm you already have. Yes, it is a larger and heavier lens than the others. I would think that you need to test it in person to see whether you find its handling and portability acceptable. You can always choose to travel with the 70-200/4 and 300/4 PF if you need to go light. I think the best way to handle the accumulation of weight in your kit is to simply leave something at home and focus on one or two lenses on a trip, depending on what subjects you expect to encounter.

That's in my "light" travel set as well. Put a TC 1.4x III in the bag for the time you want/need more reach and the IQ loss is minimal.
Together with the 18-35G and 24-120/4.0G it gives a nice set and not too much weight.

[elsa hoffmann]

ja well - I have NO clue where I am going to pack mine - I always liked that everything fitted in my bag. Now we have a problem ...

[PedroS]

Elsa, look at the Gura Gear line of shooting bags.
They are extremely well made, very light and carry everything you might need.

[elsa hoffmann]

I looked
I do have a biggish bag already  - but any bag with wheels is compromised in the packing department. I cant go bigger as my bag then wont be allowed for carry-on luggage when flying.
it's the 200-500 thats not going to fit...

I think someone needs to come up with a custom name for that thing -  the lens I mean

[Jan Anne]

Elsa, the big Gura Gear bag (now Tamrac btw) fits a 200-400/4VR with body so the much smaller 200-500 should fit easily.

Btw GG doesn't have models with wheels, thats Think Tank 

[elsa hoffmann]

JA - yes that's why I have a Think Tank

Thing is - my bag can fit a 200-400 too - but what about my other lenses?

[tommiejeep]

Elsa, I normally travel with my wife and son so we get three hand carry bags but , all three of use vests when travelling.  We have quite a collection , everything from the Domkes (for serious gear) to fashion vests .  I went to Kashmir with the D700 (with out lens), 24-70 2.8 and 70-200vr 2.8 II all in the vest.  Janette always travels to and from the UK with a vest.

So far so good , never had anyone weigh a vest and makes it dead easy when you get to security.  Just take the vest off and put it in a tray  .   Probably would not work on very small aircraft where weight is very closely monitored, ala a Safari or Alaskan seaplane.   Janette had her EM1 system in her vest and my new a7II , four lenses, in her hand carry on her more recent return from the UK .
Just a thought , works for us.

Cheers,
Tom