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

[Jan Anne]

Is the sharpness of the 200-500 comparable with the 200-400VR at 400mm?

Does the sharpness deteriorate at longer ranges as it does with the 200-400VR, the latter was noticeably softer beyond 30 meters or so.

When I was with Fanie in South Africa I temporarily switched my 200-400 for the old 80-400VR with somebody we met in the game reserve and tested it on some local wildlife but was hugely disappointed in the IQ. The guy whom I switched lenses with had a very good day though

And I'm not worried about tripod use btw, will mainly use tele lenses handhold or on a monopod.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

If you would like 200-400/4 image quality at near distances but better quality at longer distances, perhaps you should look into a fixed focal length supertele. 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

My test shooting with the 200-500 indicated it did very well at distance. You do get more CA at the longest end (450 mm and up), but nothing that cannot quite easily be removed by any decent RAW conversions software.

[ColSebastianMoran]

Delighted to see all the evidence, impressions, and test shots on the 200-500 f/5.6.

For several years, I have made an annual winter trip to Florida to shoot birds at Wakodahatchee, Grand Cay, Ding Darling, Shark Valley, and the Anhinga Trail. In these locations, the birds are used to people on the walks/boardwalks, and you can be reasonably close (perhaps 50'-100'). I have been using the original 300 f/4 AF and the 2001 300 f/4 AF-S lenses with a D300 on a monopod. I don't use TCs; I shoot loose and crop instead. The results I have found quite pleasing. I prefer this lighter setup; I'm not interested in carrying the 500 f/4 and big tripod typical of the real birding pros.

This year, I wanted to upgrade to 24MPx and a newer lens. I was ready to buy the 300 PF, but a good friend suggested this zoom. I was concerned about sharpness of the zoom vs. the 300 prime, especially on the better sensor. I rented the 200-500 and shot a series of tests vs. the original 300 f/4.

My conclusion is:
 - The zoom is sharp, as sharp as my old lens on a 24MPx sensor. Perhaps the new PF is better, I don't know, but my concerns about using a zoom are relieved.
 - The VR I think will be a big help. I'm astounded to see sharp images at 1/150th and less! This may make some hand-holding practical, but I'll still mostly use the monopod.
 - The flexibility of a zoom will be an advantage in my shooting.

I've bought the 200-500 zoom. In a couple of months, I'll have shots to share.

Thanks for all the helpful info!

[ColSebastianMoran]

Anyone have comparison shots of the 200-500 zoom @ 300mm vs. the 300 f/4 PF?

[Dalek]

I had a chance to use all the new Nikon E lenses at a "Nikon Day at the Zoo," in Miami, Florida. I shot the 400, 600, and 200-500 on my D4s. I hand- held all and was most impressed with the 600. After shooting the 400, which was very fast to focus, I decided that I like my 200-400/4 VRII just as much. I compared the images of the 200-500 with my Sigma sport and decided the extra 100mm really helped when out in the field. Now the 600/4E, WOWWWWWW, I want it and was totally impressed with focusing, it is fast to acquire moving subjects. I think I will sell my 500VRII and pay the difference for the 600E.

Great site as I am new to the reorganization.
Dale

[Ron Scubadiver]

I took this lens to Maui last month.  It is large enough to force me to change how I pack, but I like the solution better than what I was doing previously.  This item isn't light or compact, but I can shoot it hand held.  If anything, when attached to a D800 it has the heft of a shotgun.  The image below is a 9mp crop of a D800 36 mp file, so I guess that is like 1000 mm FOV.  It was shot hand held.  I don't know what those shooting megabuck flourite glass will think, but to me it gets the message across.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

For some subjects, "zoom with your feet" is not applicable

[stenrasmussen]

Ron, a very attractive message this 😊

[Somnath Goswami]

I got one , wide open at 500 mm.



cheers

[ColSebastianMoran]

Having a great time with the 200-500mm f/5.6 with birds in Florida  (DX body, tripod or monopod).

In the past, I've used one of the 300 f/4 lenses. My concern had been whether the zoom would give me the image quality I had been used to.  Here are some comments on my experience with the 200-500:
 - The image quality at 300mm is fine, matches my expectations based on the 300 f/4 prime. (Maybe the 300 f/4 PF would be better?)  I'm shooting mostly wide open, f/5.6. Image quality is quite consistent across the zoom range. Shooting a lot at 500 and f/5.6.
 - The extra reach is much appreciated for bird shooting. So is the flexibility to zoom out to 200mm.
 - Shooting at 500mm, tripod and gimbal head is much better. I used a monopod with the 300mm.
 - AF is fine for perched and wading birds. Did not need AF Fine Tune.
 - Handheld is OK, though a bit heavy. Handheld birds in flight are tough; haven't had much success.
 - What to do when I want even longer reach? In the past, I just accepted the loose shot and cropped later. This time, I added a TC14E iii. First results were poor. Combination had significant mis-focus (in front of the desired target). When I added AF Fine Tune for the combination, results at 1.4x500mm with the TC are better than the lens alone 500mm and crop the image. I settled on +8 for the lens+TC combination. Not sure how much I'll use the TC, but good to know I can get reasonable results. (Zooming with feet would, I'm sure, give better image quality, but sometimes you can't.)

Ding Darling, Great Egret, 200-500 @ 200mm f/5.6, this is the full frame, some adjustments.

[ColSebastianMoran]

Here's another, this time at 500mm f/5.6 with considerable crop.

[BruceLeventhal]

I am an infrequent poster, but long time lurker. I might have something useful to add to the dialog.
I have owned and shot the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR1 since September 2013. In fact, I switched from a ten year tour with Canon that began in 2003 back to Nikon (2013) because of the 200-400VR. I was using a Canon 300mm f/2.8IS-1 when the 200-400VR was locally available used for $3000. Knowing that I could never get the Canon version of this lens ($10,000 used), I jumped ship.

Point #1... so very glad I left Canon. I had been using Nikons between 1990 and 2003 and I missed the ergonomics of Nikon bodies... anyway... my 200-400VR has been all over the place... from Costa Rica to Iceland, and we have had a love-hate-love relationship. In close proximity, the 200-400VR is as good as any prime I have used at any focal length. At distances, the results are inconsistent. It would not matter if I was a using a D300, D800E, D810, D4 or D500... there were times when the focus was perfect and other times when nothing was in focus... not a mis-focus, but a non-focus. I have chalked this up to everything from heat haze to misaligned elements. Regardless of the cause or who "laid-hands" on the lens, the inconsistent distant focus drove me mad. This issue is huge for me, as I prefer to shoot wildlife landscapes over wildlife portraiture.

Enter the 200-500VR... I purchased one for my wife who uses it with a D610 and D7100. We have been shooting otters in CA together, birds in Florida and Puffins in Iceland. I, with my 200-400VR and she with the 200-500VR would often photograph similar subjects. While my portrait work is a hair (or feather) sharper than hers at f/5.6, by f/8 there is no difference. Furthermore, her lens is far superior when shooting distant wildlife or arboreal subjects.

In July (post Iceland) I purchased a 2nd 200-500VR so that I could shoot wildlife from a kayak... )see link: http://btleventhal.com/bruceleventhal/2016/8/5/favorite-places-estuaries ). I was so impressed with the 200-500VR, it's portability and the additional 100mm, I sold the more rugged and faster 200-400VR. Not wanting to be without a bullet-proof fast tele, I used the dollars from my sale to buy the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AFS-II. ...my point... in my opinion, unless you must have the rugged build and faster AF motor in the 200-400VR, the optics 200-500VR will meet your needs... this lens is a rare bargain in a sea of very expensive alternatives.
regards,
bruce

[elsa hoffmann]

Bruce - thank you for your post - I enjoyed reading it - and I concur. I also used the 200-400 (for 6 months only) and it never gave me the results I am getting now. I simply love this lens - I believe I am the proverbial 200-500 evangelist
Should they release a Version II - I will be ordering it before it hits the shelves.

[Andrea B.]

Bruce, thank you for this interesting comparison of the 200-400VR and the 200-500VR. I've been wanting the 200-500VR for a long time. I think your post finally has prompted me to place the order! I only photograph birds and wildlife "for fun" and as a little record-of-sighting so I'm never going to be owning any big heavy tele. I think the 200-500VR will be perfect for my needs.

BTW, let's see some of your and your wife's work, ok?