105E ... bulky ... slow AF ... superb IQ

[Frank Fremerey]

Botanical Garten 2:

[Frank Fremerey]

Botanical Garden 3:

[Frank Fremerey]

Botanical Garden 4:

[Frank Fremerey]

One piece of magic with this lens is that I can see the picture before I actually see it. I set up the tripod and already know exactly what I will see when I look through the view finder.

On the display the shot then looks three times as good as through the view finder.

Only focussing can be very hard on the D600. I am looking forward to the D8xx successor with all the D500 has but full frame. 54 MP would be very fine with small RAW of 30 MP....

[John Koerner]

Congratulations on your new purchase, Frank. I love my old 105/2.5 AIS too much to be interested in this new lens, but I have wanted a 200-500 since I saw yours back in May, and I have just ordered one.

IMO, the 105 f/2.5 can't match the new 105 f/1.4 in any way, shape, or form.

The 200-500 is also a dud, compared to the 300mm f/2.8 VR II + 2x TC III.

It's better to wait a few months, and get the best, then hit the "buy" button ASAP and suffer mediocrity.

Jack

[Frank Fremerey]

IMO, the 105 f/2.5 can't match the new 105 f/1.4 in any way, shape, or form.
It's better to wait a few months, and get the best, then hit the "buy" button ASAP and suffer mediocrity.
Jack

Jack: I feel it is not fair to compare these. The 2.5/105 is a wonderful piece of glass. Small. Light weight. Sleek. Elegant. With a very special wonderful way of drawing. MF. Ages old.

The 105E is new expensive highly specialized different. I'd like to have both.

A 2.8/300 is also something completely different than the 200-500 zoom. It is not only huge and heavy and very expensive, it is for a special purpose.

When I was buying the 200-500 I wanted "my first birding lens" .... I ended up with the 300PF a 300mm that is only F=4.0 but so small lightweight and unintrusive that I can take shots with it I simply cannot take with a 2.8/300mm .... no way people let me point that chunk of glass at them with flashing light exclation marks stating "professional" or "paparazzi"...

Sometimes a small unitrusive camera is right sometimes the bold appearence. Sometimes a D5 with 2.8/400 another time a X100T.

Dave is a wonderful person with a 50 year career in pro photography. He knows exactly what he is doing. More than most of us and the rest of the NG community is pretty serious when it comes to photography.

[Erik Lund]

Frank I completely agree! Well described 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Apples and oranges are both fruits. They are delicious, yet they taste differently,  They also look differently.

The 105/2.5 is synergetic with the Df,  The 105/1.4 performs best with a camera providing the required heft for counterbalance.

[John Koerner]

Jack: I feel it is not fair to compare these. The 2.5/105 is a wonderful piece of glass. Small. Light weight. Sleek. Elegant. With a very special wonderful way of drawing. MF. Ages old.

Fair enough, Frank.

The 105E is new expensive highly specialized different. I'd like to have both.

Mmm, I think the 105E can do anything the other can do ... and then some ... not so much the other way around.

The 105 f/2.5 is more of a casual lens imo, the 105E when you really want to nail a shot (esp) wide-open.

A 2.8/300 is also something completely different than the 200-500 zoom. It is not only huge and heavy and very expensive, it is for a special purpose.

Huge and heavy, yes. Far superior optically, yes again.

I disagree it's for special purpose. I've got everything from macros 10' away to portraits 100m away.

The 2x TCIII on it will give better results than the 200-500 at 500.

When I was buying the 200-500 I wanted "my first birding lens" .... I ended up with the 300PF a 300mm that is only F=4.0 but so small lightweight and unintrusive that I can take shots with it I simply cannot take with a 2.8/300mm .... no way people let me point that chunk of glass at them with flashing light exclation marks stating "professional" or "paparazzi"...

For people, I'd have to agree, where "softness" is acceptable.

For wildlife, which demands sharpness, I'd much rather have the superior f/2.8. Plus, again, it takes the 2x TC III perfectly ... where the 300 f/4 does not.

Sometimes a small unitrusive camera is right sometimes the bold appearence. Sometimes a D5 with 2.8/400 another time a X100T.

Like anything, I suppose it's based on what you're after. If you want to hike for fun, and capture some shots, with versatility, the 200-500 is lighter and more versatile.

If you want to take the finest image of the wildlife you come across, the 300 f/2.8 is the way to go.

I am saving up for the 600 FL VR as my next investment.

Dave is a wonderful person with a 50 year career in pro photography. He knows exactly what he is doing. More than most of us and the rest of the NG community is pretty serious when it comes to photography.

What does this have to do with anything?

I was comparing the two lenses, not the résumés of people.

Even in the hands of Ansel Adams, the 200-500 would still be optically-inferior to the 300 f/2.8 II ... but definitely more convenient for casual use.

[John Koerner]

Botanical Garden 4:

Beautiful ...

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The assertions of how 200-500 compares to 300/2.8 + TC20 need factual evidence. They go again observations from other users.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I would also think the zoom ought to perform better than the 300/2.8 with 2X. The digital picture com's resolution tests give a clear lead to the 200-500 at 500mm, f/5,6 vs. VR 300/2.8G + TC-20EIII at 600mm, f/5.6.

My experience is that the 200-500 works best at mid to longer distances and I had difficulty making it focus on close range subjects. This may be one factor.

At least two reviewers have stated that they tested multiple copies and some were clearly sharper than others. If you would like, I can look those up but they don't actually show in side by side comparison, how much difference there was between samples. Anyway, this may in part explain why there are apparently conflicting reports.

I tested a borrowed copy of thea VR 300/2.8 II briefly, the 80-400 and 200-500 for a longer time but the lens which I kept and use is the 300/4 PF. It doesn't autofocus well with the 2X but by itself its AF is excellent and acceptable with the TC-14E III. The 300/2.8 can be used better with the TC-20EIII than the PF but it's a compromise. In particular I felt the tripod mount on the VR 300/2.8G II was woefully inadequate for the 600mm setup and wobbled a lot. No sale. Maybe the hopefully upcoming 300/2.8 FL will have a decent tripod mount. However, no matter what one does, a 2X TC is never going to compete for best image quality IMO. Portability and shooting in bright sunlight? Ok results can be had but a native long lens of the correct focal length is going to give better image quality wide open and better AF as well. I was never a fan of TCs because most of the time I need to shoot my tele shots wide open.

[PedroS]

(off topic, can continue on another thread)

As I said before, I'm a no fan of TCs, but can live with the TC14 compromise.

To John,
If you do well with TCs, and for wildlife, consider the 400FL instead of carrying both the 300VR and 600VR/FL
With the 400FL you start at f2.8 and with TCs you get a lot of options with great IQ. Me? No TCs, but either with a D810, or a D500 for more reach... again with or without TC14III

[Frank Fremerey]

The 200-500 is also a dud, compared to the 300mm f/2.8 VR II + 2x TC III.

That is what you wrote and what I feel can be seen as denigrating the ability of a person to choose the right equipment for his purpose.

I feel Dave is perfectly qualified to make the right equipment choice. He used the lens, he saw the results from Chris and me and others and these results have been very convincing for him.

What does this have to do with anything?
I was comparing the two lenses, not the résumés of people.

Two more shots from today:

[Frank Fremerey]

Beautiful ...

Thank you. A friend said: "sad flowers" .... but I think the feel should be seen more as melancholic or poetic, esp. the bamboo shot.