AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

KK, I know everyone has different experiences and opinions, but I tested the same zoom lenses that Sandy did, and in my tests, the Nikon 200-500 was noticeably sharper than the other zooms. I even fine tuned the Sigma, but only at 600mm, which was the only focal length I shot with it, and the Nikon was not even fine tuned. The Nikon 200-500 it is pretty much impossible to see any difference in sharpness to my 500 f4 VR. It is noticeably lighter and would be welcomed for BIF shooting.

Again, thanks for your input, Tim!
I do think Nikon 200-500 is an excellent deal taken into other competitors in the market.

I use a tripod for most of my shooting but i do handhold for most of my in-flight shooting. The Vr sport on this lens is superb.

Okay, I said I would post back once I had a chance to use this lens out in the field and for BIF. First, I will say that the Lagoon here is one of the easiest places to shoot waterfowl in flight, and you have beautiful low sun at your back. So the conditions are perfect for BIF (when the sun is out). Second, I will say that, for whatever reason, I have never been good a BIF shooting so others may have better results. The 200-500 was great for lying down and shooting low angle shots of the ducks on water, and having the zoom really helps a lot when they swim in too close. Most of these shots were very acceptable with regards to sharpness. I would say about 90% as sharp as my 500 f4 VR was. The 500 f4 VR just pulled in a tad more detail. However, my experience today for BIF was horrible. I had tons of chances at ducks in flight and out of maybe 500 frames, I would be lucky to have 5 to 10 usable images. My BIF keeper rates have never been great, but with my 500 f4 VR, I might have had 50 to 100 keepers. The 200-500 is just way to slow for me at locking on. I was using my D500 and tried both single point and Group. I had Buffleheads right in the focus point following the bird and it would not lock on. Sometimes the AF would not even move! Every single frame of that species is totally OOF! I have no idea how Stuart managed to get that incredible gallery of BIF, especially the swallows, but for me, this lens will be great for non BIF shooting (i.e. setups, perched birds, birds on water, etc.). For BIF, it is just too frustrating for me. For BIF I will probably use my 300 f4 PF with and without the TC. I will use this lens for the coming months before I decide if it will be the complete lens for me. If not, I will save up for the Sigma 500 f4.

Thank you, Tim!
What a disappointment and if you had trouble with D500 think about my D7200 that I have. I suspect it would be even worse for BIF with this lens.
I decided to keep my status quote viz 500/4 w/ 1.4x for BIF and maybe upgrade to a Sigma if I can afford it down the road.

Again, much appreciated for your feedback.

Keep in mind KK that you might have much better success than I did with your BIF skills. I am going to go and try some more, but I can say with certainty that it is no where near as fast and accurate as the 500 f4 VR is. It would be kinda dumb to expect that it would be though.

Tim, my own brief experience with the 200-500VR's proved to me that the lens really struggles going from near/far focus and back again quickly, but I'm wondering if the trick to better success is to track the bird from a ways out and follow it in, or learn to pre-focus? I didn't try that, but I've seen quite a few good BIF shots taken with the 200-500VR so there must be some way of pulling it off. Also, as Steve Perry notes, the D500/D850 needs shutter speeds over (sometimes well over) 1/3000 to get sharp BIF images...which is something that I'm often struggling with in the less-than-bright light around here. Just a thought.

So a few insights and the settings I use for this lens for in-flights.   As Tim has noticed its not a prime and I have noticed it acts different in one main way over my 300mm that requires a bit of a change to my shooting style.   It seems the primes when you first activate AF focus closer where this lens focuses further, which can be really frustrating especially if it misses the subject on the way out and racks all the way back into minimum focus.  To compensate for this I use the back button af and a bit of manual help at times.  So if the lens misses on the way back in, tap the back button af and the lens will go back out to infinity hopefully grabbing the subject on the way,  this technique works quite well for me and much, much better then just holding the af button down.  For subjects against a busy background manually racking the focus inside of the subject followed by a quick tap on the back button af will put the focus on the subject the quickest.   I find single point af (on my D7200) a must along with lock on set to long to get the best tracking.  It also helps I used to live just past the lagoon so for years went shooting in-flights every day after work.   This is a lens imo that almost requires the use of back button focus, it would probably drive me nuts having my shutter af with it.  

OK, trying not to hijack the thread - what is the name of this lagoon you folks are speaking of - so as to practice birds in flight should I get the 200/500! See, tied it back into the main subject. Don't worry, I won't move there, Canada doesn't want old folks from down south. Tempting though.

Thanks.

Richard

Richard B. wrote:OK, trying not to hijack the thread - what is the name of this lagoon you folks are speaking of - so as to practice birds in flight should I get the 200/500! See, tied it back into the main subject. Don't worry, I won't move there, Canada doesn't want old folks from down south. Tempting though.

Thanks.

Richard

Lol,  it's Esquimalt Lagoon,  just west of Victoria B.C.   Its the last stop on the island before birds make the jump over the Juan de Fuca strait to the Olympic Peninsula.  Its not what it used to be, a lot more people and dogs but still gets interesting birds each year and a great winter waterfowl spot.  

Thanks Stuart. I did check maps of the area and thought this might be it. Hope to get to BC soon.

Richard

This is an answer to a question in the birds forum.

Hi KK,
Sorry to get back to you so late. I am very pleased with how this lens performs for BIF. As Tim Z commented on the photography equipment thread, this lens is very sharp. As far as the AF, I didn't have any problems tracking ducks and other shore birds such as Willets, whimbrels, Curlews and the likes. It performed very well with my D3 without a teleconverter but I really needed more reach to be able to crop and still have a fairly decent file size so I got the D500 and have only used it a couple of days with and without Nikon's latest 1.4 TC. The lens is usable for flight shots even with the 1.4. Not so with the D3. As you would expect, the TC slows it down, but not to the point where it is unusable as was the case with the D3 and 1.4. All in all, I'm very happy with this lens. I will have to use it a bit more with the D500 to gauge the capabilities but by what I've seen so far, I'm almost certain it will not disappoint. I will make sure I mention whether I used a converter or not in future image posts to make it easier for others to have a feel if the lens is a good fit for their use.

Thanks for your positive note, Hugh!
Much appreciated.

KK, as always I can only offer my own experiences with this lens. I can see this lens being "okay" for flight shooting in the right hands and with the right lighting. However, I have no idea how these guys make it possible with the 1.4x TC on it. I can't even get usable perched images with the 1.4x on this lens. Maybe, once again, I got a "bad" copy, but I find that hard to believe. I ordered two copies of this lens (one for me and one for a friend). I took them both out and tested them before I picked one, and I picked what I thought was the better copy. Here's an example of an unprocessed photo I took yesterday with the 1.4x on this lens, one full frame and one 100% crop. This is with a carefully fine tuned lens using both FoCal and Lens Align. For me, this is unacceptable. Also, note that these were rapid fired shots at 10fps, the bird was completely motionless and this was the best frame out of about 20. Needless to say I was very disappointed! The AF is crazy slow with the TC on it, so those that are getting good BIF shots with that combo have super-human abilities IMO. I really hope you test one out for yourself and let us know if it works for you. I like the lens for what it is, but will not likely be using it much with a TC on it

Tim Zurowski wrote: ... as always I can only offer my own experiences with this lens. I can see this lens being "okay" for flight shooting in the right hands and with the right lighting ...

Thanks, Tim!
I totally agree with what you said here. Each photographer is different and with varied shooting experience. I really have to find an opportunity to shoot this lens myself for BIF.
On the 1.4x TC, I know you have a very high standard as to what a sharp image is. The full frame example you posted is fine for web presentation, I guess, less so if you're going for big print.
It's never a good idea to add any TC to a super telephoto zoom as it slows down the AF speed significantly.

Tim Zurowski wrote:KK, as always I can only offer my own experiences with this lens. I can see this lens being "okay" for flight shooting in the right hands and with the right lighting. However, I have no idea how these guys make it possible with the 1.4x TC on it. I can't even get usable perched images with the 1.4x on this lens. Maybe, once again, I got a "bad" copy, but I find that hard to believe. I ordered two copies of this lens (one for me and one for a friend). I took them both out and tested them before I picked one, and I picked what I thought was the better copy. Here's an example of an unprocessed photo I took yesterday with the 1.4x on this lens, one full frame and one 100% crop. This is with a carefully fine tuned lens using both FoCal and Lens Align. For me, this is unacceptable. Also, note that these were rapid fired shots at 10fps, the bird was completely motionless and this was the best frame out of about 20. Needless to say I was very disappointed! The AF is crazy slow with the TC on it, so those that are getting good BIF shots with that combo have super-human abilities IMO. I really hope you test one out for yourself and let us know if it works for you. I like the lens for what it is, but will not likely be using it much with a TC on it

Hey Tim,  not sure what's going on there but that in no way reflects what I am getting using all three TC's with this lens.   I got better results then that even with the 2.0tc.

Tim
Did you do the AFFT with the TC attached? The eye does not seem to be in focus as much as the wingtip seems to be. With 10 FPS, frame rate has a lot to do with sharpness due to movement of the mirror. With the bird completely motionless, why shoot at that frame rate? Did you try any with mirror lock up? Also, out of curiosity, what ISO did you use?

Joe

"Did you do the AFFT with the TC attached?"

He did indicate that he used two different methods of focus calibration on the combination.

"The eye does not seem to be in focus as much as the wingtip seems to be. With 10 FPS, frame rate has a lot to do with sharpness due to movement of the mirror."

I was wondering what the rest of the shot looked like at 100% view. After all, there is enough moss in that image that telling if another part of the image is sharper than the head should be easy. I assume he was focusing on the head but I'd also wonder which focusing mode was used and what shutter speed.

As for the frame rate, I tend to shoot most things at maximum frame rate. On my D850, that's 9 fps using the D5 battery packs. I really don't care if the subject is stationary or not. My reasoning is that if the camera can capture a suitably sharp image while my subject is in flight at maximum frame rate, it should be able to be sharp with most of the images when the subject is stationary. And if I need to do special things to get a sharp image of a stationary subject, the equipment will not be up to the task when the subject starts moving.

"what ISO did you use?"

As for the ISO, based on the noise levels of the background, the ISO should not be over 800 I'd think. 

Tim Zurowski wrote: This is with a carefully fine tuned lens using both FoCal and Lens Align.

Anthony
This is what he said. No mention if it was with the TC. That is why I ask. As for the slower frame rate with mirror lock up, it is only to test under best circumstances. I usually shoot at a fairly high frame rate when needed to capture images. When you have a stationary subject and you are testing for sharpness, the most stable conditions are best for testing any setup. The eagle was obviously cooperative. If you blow up the 100% crop, you will see a fringe of color above the beak and head, indicating downward movement of the lens during exposure. A remote release would also help to get a truer result.

Joe

For a lot of reasons I wouldn't use this image. But sharpness is not one of those. Tim, is your converter Nikon's latest? If so, something must be wrong either with your lens or converter. I have a series of shots that are tack sharp at 100%. I wouldn't use them because of background, wing position or pose but I cannot understand how you're not getting better results on a virtually static subject. This image hasn't been sharpened after raw conversion. It was taken with D500, TC14III and 200-500, f8, 1/2000sec @600mm, ISO 720