200-500mm sample images

[Mongo]

Some quick sample images @500mm. Mostly at f6.3 to  f8 and mostly on D800E

PLUS

2 comparative images of 200-500mm and 400mm f2.8FL with 1.4 EIII (550mm). Please note that all settings and processing was identical for the purpose of this 2 image comparison(except that the former was cropped at 55% and the later at 50% to try and keep some parity of perspective). D4s, f8, 1/125, ISO 1600, no noise reduction in post processing. Also it is very important to note that the 400 FL had been calibrated and the 200-500mm was not and was later found to be out by between 13 and 15 points of fine tune of front focus (almost a full 30 microns). Mongo hopes to redo this test comparison now that the 200-500mm has been calibrated.


Due to 10 image limit, the 2 comparison images are in the second post below

[Mongo]

comparison images:

First is 200-500mm

second is 400f2.8FL with 1.4EIII

the 400 with converter looks slightly better but some allowance needs to be made for the drastic front focus on the 200-500mm- just how much allowance .......?? anyone's guess.

[Tersn]

Interesting comparisons and nice pictures. Please continue.

[chris dees]

Beautiful images.
Very small IQ difference considering the 10 times price difference.

[Bruno Schroder]

Strange to see birds very similar to those we have here but with such flashing colors.

Nice pics and the 200-500 looks really good.

Were the first pictures also cropped at 50% ?

[Mongo]

..........Were the first pictures also cropped at 50% ?

thank you all for looking in and for your comments.

7 were at 33% and 3 at about 50%.

This one is at 100%

[Anirban Halder]

Sometime back under "Show Birds" thread Frank asked "where is Mongo?".. That was before you joined this real NG.. Now I understand why he asked that question! 
Beautiful shots and very informative lens comparison. Keep them coming!

[ColinM]

Thanks for these Mongo.

Just to add to the praise, I would have been very pleased to have taken any of these images. The feather detail in the first set is pretty good. The colours also sing out.

One thing I couldn't see: were these all taken hand-held? If not, what did you use?
What was your lowest shutter speed? Maybe on a later post you can comment on VR, when you've had more time with it.

As for Chris's comment on whether the high spec lens justifies the price difference I guess there are plenty of other performance aspects that it may do better (quicker A/F & better tracking on a moving subject for example?). Plus one starts at f2.8. But now I've checked the price of the 200-500 in the UK I am very tempted

[Mongo]

thanks Anirban and Collin.

To answer Collin’s initial questions, lowest shutter on these was 1/125th, (ISO between 800 and 1600), Mongo uses this lens almost excessively on a monopod and no hesitation to use it handheld if circumstances warrant.

The 400mm FL is a whole different creature and has its own virtues. Mongo only included this specific comparison because he happen to be with a friend and decided to swap lenses for a while so each could try the others lens. However, it does make for an interesting “snap shot” of the new cheap long lens against the newish expensive long lens. A more meaningful comparison would be with the 200-400mm f4 which Mongo used to own.

Mongo had written a review on the 200-500mm and posted elsewhere in early/mid October and since then , has revised that review as further information came to hand. It has not been posted here as it seems much has already been said (but not all) about this lens already by others include Bjorn’s review. Mongo agrees with most of what has been said about it.

The VR is a topic on its own. However, very briefly, it is a very effective VR (in most cases) but a little tricky to use until you really understand how best to use it. Also, the AF is a little slow to acquire the subject in motion in Mongo’s opinion but very good for static subjects.

Hope this has been useful.

[Akira]

Mongo, these are too good and pretty as "sample" images.  Thanks for sharing!

[Mongo]

thanks Akira - very kind of you and glad you like them.

[Jan Anne]

Very compelling images Mongo, the 200-500 is getting harder and harder to ignore as my "something long" for 2016.

[rosko]

the 400 with converter looks slightly better but some allowance needs to be made for the drastic front focus on the 200-500mm- just how much allowance .......?? anyone's guess.

Very interesting comparison.

I think i'll have to reconsider my judgment about zoom's image quality !

The difference is not so obvious regarding the fact that the  the the 400mm's version is a little bigger.

Absolutely nice series. The first birds are sharp with nice bokeh (although different on images #5 and #7, different stops ?)

Top sharpness and color rendition, two main criteria that any bird photographer would demand. and nice bokeh as well.

This my guess.

[Mongo]

Very compelling images Mongo, the 200-500 is getting harder and harder to ignore as my "something long" for 2016.

It would definitely have to be one of the main contenders for the “something long” category. In Mongo’s review he goes through the tale of misery he had with this lens from purchase until recently. It had been back to Nikon twice and Mongo started to seriously dislike it and Nikon. Mongo has not tried it properly since its last return but can tell from just some quick shots that it is noticeably better  and should now be fine (ie give slightly better results than those posted here).

Have tried the Tamron 150-600mm and found it to be quite reasonably good. However, Mongo would now choose the Nikon 200-500mm (provided you get a good copy).

Bought new 200-400mm f4 VR I and had it for 3 years. Had it back to Nikon 4 times. Poor with converters and poor over distance. Never happy with it and sold it. Tried a friend’s copy of the 200-400mm f4 and found it much better and what Mongo would have expected the lens to perform like. His works better with converters than Mongo’s copy of the 200-400mm f4. However, still doubtful about distance shots. It is about 1 kilogram heavier than the 200-500mm, a little larger and about 4 to 5 times the price.

The 200-500mm on the other hand, seems to handle distance shots better and works with converters. Works with 1.4 EII on D800E and D4s. Will AF with 1.7EII on D4s but not D800E. However, for practical reasons, it may be too slow at stops beyond f8 for other than virtually stationary subjects. 

Mongo now only uses the 600 f4 in specific and convenient circumstances.

Knowing what Mongo knows now, he would pick a good copy 200-500 over a 200-400 taking most things into consideration.

...... The first birds are sharp with nice bokeh (although different on images #5 and #7, different stops ?)

Mongo checked the data on 5 and 7 Rosko and it is identical to most of the others. However, the distance to subject is different as is the distance from subject to its background. Mongo was quite close and even small differences at that range may exaggerate differences in the end product. These are probably the variables giving rise to the differences you have noticed.

[Jan Anne]

Bought new 200-400mm f4 VR I and had it for 3 years. Had it back to Nikon 4 times. Poor with converters and poor over distance. Never happy with it and sold it.

The 200-500mm on the other hand, seems to handle distance shots better and works with converters.

I had the same beef with my copy, really liked it up close but at distance shots it was less impressive and with TC's just terrible.

So good to know that the 200-500 is doing better in this regard, good to have Mongo on board here at NG