Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 45 posts | 
by KK Hui on Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:42 pm
User avatar
KK Hui
Moderator
Posts: 42664
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong, China
Member #:00536
I shoot mostly BIF with my AF-S 500/4D ED w/ TC14E but now I'm looking for a lighter package to possibly replace it.
Would the AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens be a good alternative? Would I be happy with the image quality? What about adding 1.4x to the zoom? Shooting handhold?

I read so many positive reviews of the lens but would like to hear actual experience/ feedback from people who make the switch in a similar situation like myself.
KK Hui  FRPS
Fellow of The Royal Photographic Society
Personal Website | Portfolio @ Flickr

Lifetime Member NSN 0536
 

by Tim Zurowski on Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:00 am
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
KK Hui wrote:I shoot mostly BIF with my AF-S 500/4D ED w/ TC14E but now I'm looking for a lighter package to possibly replace it.
Would the AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens be a good alternative? Would I be happy with the image quality? What about adding 1.4x to the zoom? Shooting handhold?

I read so many positive reviews of the lens but would like to hear actual experience/ feedback from people who make the switch in a similar situation like myself.
KK, I just made the switch and the 200-500 is the sharpest of all the comparable zoom options that I used. It is also really sharp wide open at f5.6 and with the 1.4x on it. I honestly cannot see any difference between it and my 500 f4 VR with regards to image quality. The lens also offers way more versatility for the kind of setup shooting I do a lot of. I know one person who also switched to it from a 500 f4 VR, another person who switched from a 200-400 and another from a 600 f4 VR, and they all use the 200-500 now and love it. However, that is where it will end for you. Since you are talking about BIF, I am not sure this lens will cut it for that use. The AF speed and acquisition is much slower.  Not a huge issue for perched birds, but for BIF it may be too slow. With the 1.4x, forget about it. The AF slows down so much that it is almost useless for anything other than still subjects. Not saying it would not be possible, but no where near as fast to lock on as the 500 f4 is.
 

by andre paul on Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:38 am
User avatar
andre paul
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1829
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
KK Hui wrote:I shoot mostly BIF with my AF-S 500/4D ED w/ TC14E but now I'm looking for a lighter package to possibly replace it.
Would the AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens be a good alternative? Would I be happy with the image quality? What about adding 1.4x to the zoom? Shooting handhold?

I read so many positive reviews of the lens but would like to hear actual experience/ feedback from people who make the switch in a similar situation like myself.
maybe the excellent 300mm 2.8 could be your route ....
andre reichmann
**sao paulo-brazil**
 

by calvin1calvin on Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:10 am
calvin1calvin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1137
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Beaumont, TX
Member #:00184
I use this lens for hand held flight photography with my d500 and it performs well.  Have not had any problems and the lens auto focuses fast.  I do not use with any converters because it slows the auto focus with my camera.  I had the old version of the Tamron 150-600 and found, for me, the auto focus was slow and when the lens was at 600 the minimum aperture was 6.3 and the Nikon was 5.6 but the lens was lighter than the Nikon.  The Nikon lens is large but not too heavy for me.  I would compare it to the new Tamron 150-600 and the Sigma 150-600 Sport to see which you prefer for your type of photography and if you need the extra 100mm of focal length.  Don't know if weight is a problem for you and BIF.  Hope this helps.      
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:41 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
The AF is nowhere near as fast as your 500, not even in the same category. My recommendation for a lighter 500 with equivalent AF to what you are used to would be the Sigma 500 f/4. You could sell your current 500 f/4 to offset the expense and not need to have two different lenses. For perched birds the 200-500 is fine but compared to what you are used to, the 200-500 would be a big step backwards in AF acquisition and tracking.
 

by DChan on Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:57 am
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
The Sigma 500 if only about 1 lb lighter than the Nikon 500 while the 200-500 is about 3.5 lbs lighter. If weight is a concern seems like the zoom would be a better option.

There's a lighter package available and someone was able to shoot bee-eater in flight with it. Don't think many here would consider it though.
 

by Tim Zurowski on Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:57 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
E.J. Peiker wrote:The AF is nowhere near as fast as your 500, not even in the same category.  For perched birds the 200-500 is fine but compared to what you are used to, the 200-500 would be a big step backwards in AF acquisition and tracking.
This is absolutely true KK. I would say that you really need to try one for your needs before you take the jump. I haven't used mine yet for BIF, but I cannot see how it would work very well for you, knowing the style of BIF you do.
 

by chuckkl on Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:50 pm
chuckkl
Forum Contributor
Posts: 61
Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Tim Zurowski wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:The AF is nowhere near as fast as your 500, not even in the same category.  For perched birds the 200-500 is fine but compared to what you are used to, the 200-500 would be a big step backwards in AF acquisition and tracking.
This is absolutely true KK. I would say that you really need to try one for your needs before you take the jump. I haven't used mine yet for BIF, but I cannot see how it would work very well for you, knowing the style of BIF you do.

Together with my D500 , I have been using my Nikon 300mm F2.8 VR with my 2X teleconverter ( series III )...for about 1-1/2 years....for tough birds like warblers and kinglets....and many birds in flight...even fast ones like the Barrow's Goldeneye I photo'd last month out west.

This combo is not light....but is really fantastic.
For short periods , I've done birds in flight such as Red-tailed Hawks and various egrets, herons and wading birds.

If you can handle the weight........a superb choice, imho.

Chuck Kling

www.pbase.com/hootpix
 

by Gary Irwin on Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:38 pm
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
The 200-500VR is certainly an amazingly sharp performer and desirable lens even without taking in to account the ridiculously low price. But being locked to f5.6 means it needs good light and the AF is definitely not in pro/prime territory. (VR is outstanding though). So as a dedicated birder I would never trade a 500/600 prime for one, but would/am considering it to supplement my 600.
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by KK Hui on Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:44 pm
User avatar
KK Hui
Moderator
Posts: 42664
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong, China
Member #:00536
Thank you Tim, EJ and all the others for the feedback!
Much appreciated.

I own a AF-S 300/2.8 also but the thought of adding a 2x for BIF is not the best approach from my experience.
I think I'd put up with the weight of my AF-S 500/4D ED for now as the 200-500 zoom is too slow for my BIF work as pointed out.
Too bad and what a disappointment!
KK Hui  FRPS
Fellow of The Royal Photographic Society
Personal Website | Portfolio @ Flickr

Lifetime Member NSN 0536
 

by Swissblad on Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:08 am
User avatar
Swissblad
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2434
Joined: 17 Jun 2016
KK - your Flickr gallery is most impressive.
Looking at your work, I don't think you'll be happy with the 200-500mm zoom.
Have you considered the new Nikkor 300mm f4.0 PF with TC14EIII.
It makes for a handy combo with the D500 - and with the new D850.
Steve Perry has some useful tips: https://youtu.be/l1obqCxg52Q
Guess we'll have to wait for a new 500mm f4.0 PF.
 

by Mark Picard on Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:06 am
User avatar
Mark Picard
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2369
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Location: Northern Maine
Swissblad wrote: Guess we'll have to wait for a new 500mm f4.0 PF.

You already have it in the new Sigma 500mm F4. Everything that a new Nikkor will offer, and maybe a bit more! 
Mark Picard
Website:  http://www.markpicard.com
Maine Photography Workshops
 

by Gary Irwin on Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:07 pm
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Swissblad wrote:Guess we'll have to wait for a new 500mm f4.0 PF.
You’ll be waiting for a very, very long time for Nikon to release a 500PF — they haven’t even gotten around to releasing a 300E or 200-400E yet. The good news is that you can buy the best 500mm on the planet right now...it’s called the nikon 500E. ;~)
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by Stuart Clarke on Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:31 pm
Stuart Clarke
Forum Contributor
Posts: 97
Joined: 22 Jan 2014
Location: British Columbia
I am a huge fan of the 200-500mm and use it a lot for in-flights.  I won't try and tell you the af is as good as a prime but in decent light I have had good success, and find it to be quite capable.    Here's a gallery link of some in-flights from the last year using a d7200 body.
http://www.raincoastphoto.com/Recent-Photos/Nikon-200-500mm-In-Flights/
 

by KK Hui on Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:00 pm
User avatar
KK Hui
Moderator
Posts: 42664
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong, China
Member #:00536
Thanks, nice inflight series, Stuart!
I really must see if I can borrow a 200-500 and try it on BIF.
KK Hui  FRPS
Fellow of The Royal Photographic Society
Personal Website | Portfolio @ Flickr

Lifetime Member NSN 0536
 

by Tim Zurowski on Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:57 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
KK, as mentioned I have not tried my 200-500 for BIF yet, but I must admit, I am shocked at what Stu was able to capture with it. Some of those species (i.e. swallows) are incredibly tough to get even with a fast prime. The next sunny day we get here, I will head to the lagoon and give it a try on the ducks in flight, and post back at how it worked for me. If it works okay for me (one of the worst BIF shooters around) then it may work well for you, because I know you are far better at it than I am. :)
 

by KK Hui on Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:31 pm
User avatar
KK Hui
Moderator
Posts: 42664
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong, China
Member #:00536
Thanks, Tim! It'd be great.
I look forward to your experience.
I admire all your avian work too.
KK Hui  FRPS
Fellow of The Royal Photographic Society
Personal Website | Portfolio @ Flickr

Lifetime Member NSN 0536
 

by owlseye on Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:43 pm
User avatar
owlseye
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1212
Joined: 4 Jul 2009
Location: Stillwater, MN
Stuart Clarke wrote:I am a huge fan of the 200-500mm and use it a lot for in-flights.  I won't try and tell you the af is as good as a prime but in decent light I have had good success, and find it to be quite capable.    Here's a gallery link of some in-flights from the last year using a d7200 body.
http://www.raincoastphoto.com/Recent-Photos/Nikon-200-500mm-In-Flights/
Your flight photography is crazy good. I own a 200-500VR, but never thought of it as a flight-photo lens. I will have to spend a bit more time testing it out, as your photos are inspiring!

cheers,
bruce
 

by Sandy R-B on Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:02 pm
User avatar
Sandy R-B
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1197
Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Location: Brookings, OR / Sedona, AZ
KK Hui wrote:I shoot mostly BIF with my AF-S 500/4D ED w/ TC14E but now I'm looking for a lighter package to possibly replace it.
Would the AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens be a good alternative? Would I be happy with the image quality? What about adding 1.4x to the zoom? Shooting handhold?

I read so many positive reviews of the lens but would like to hear actual experience/ feedback from people who make the switch in a similar situation like myself.
Same here. Tired of dragging the 500mm all over the world. I almost always hand-hold it with my D800 and now D850. 

I compared carefully both the Nikon 200-500 and the Sigma 150-600 SPORT , as well as the Tamron. 

I chose the Sigma, 150-600 as it was sharper than the others after being fine-tuned (as many lenses need to be). I am 1000% happy with it, even though it is a bit bigger and heavier than the Nikon. 

Fine-tuning is tedious and a pain, but well worth it. EJ Peiker will do it for you, if you wish. 

See E.J.'s excellent review here: https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=256043

and Brad Hill's review here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3907407?page=2

Plus a personal communication with Brad:

[font="Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif]Sandy, I tested both of these lenses quite extensively (in many head-to-head comparisons). I chose the Sigma. Here’s a few highlights about what I found:[/font]

[font="Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif]1. Very similar optical performance, with the Sigma being very slightly sharper over most overlapping focal lengths but the Nikkor having very slightly better out-of-focus zones (bokeh). Note that the Nikkor is softest at it’s longest focal length (500mm), so at that focal length the difference in sharpness between the two is greatest (with the Sigma noticeably sharper at 500mm).[/font]

[font="Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif]2. AF and VR/OS performance: Extremely close overall. Very slight edge to Sigma 150-600 on tracking moving subjects, but both quite good.[/font]

[font="Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif]3. Build quality: Big edge to Sigma. For me it was quite important that the Sigma was very well sealed (environmentally against both moisture and dust) whereas the Nikkor is not environmentally sealed. I think this is particularly important in lenses with long extensions when zooming (the “vacuum effect”).[/font]

[font="Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif]4. The build quality of the Sigma has a weight consequence - it’s 560 gm (over a pound) heavier.[/font]

[font="Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif]5. Warranty: 7 years for Sigma in Canada, 5 years for Nikkor. Could be important to some. Sorry but don’t know if this difference exists in the US or not.[/font]

Good luck with your decision!
Sandy


Last edited by Sandy R-B on Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 

by KK Hui on Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:42 pm
User avatar
KK Hui
Moderator
Posts: 42664
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong, China
Member #:00536
Weight is one major issue for me in this decision process!

Oh, do you guys shoot BIF with the 200-500 handholding?
KK Hui  FRPS
Fellow of The Royal Photographic Society
Personal Website | Portfolio @ Flickr

Lifetime Member NSN 0536
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
45 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group