Nikkor 200-500

[PaulWog]

Swinging by to give my $0.02 in response to the other thread + comments in this thread... (by the way, I'm right):

The Nikon 200-500 f5.6 is a good lens. It is well worth $1500 compared to what is on the market. There really are four lenses that are worth looking at in this category (for a Nikon shooter):
Nikon 200-500 f5.6
Sigma 150-600 Sport
Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
Tamron 150-600

The Tamron and the Sigma Contemporary are more or less equals.
The Sigma Sport and Nikon 200-500 are also very comparable.

Most people would agree that the Nikon 200-500 sits at, or just under, the Sigma 150-600 Sport's quality. There are some differences that make up for that price difference (weight, weather sealing, etc, etc). I'd rather have the Sigma 150-600 Sport over the Nikon 200-500... but my next choice would be the 200-500. I own the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. That is, if money weren't a thing.

Here is the deal about sharpness:

99% of the images you see on Flickr are taken by people who do not know how to operate their camera correctly. People are afraid to shoot at higher ISO, and then they have to paint on a higher exposure around their bird. People think they can get away with 1/100 of a second, or 1/400 of a second, or whatever it might be, when that is absolutely not the right shutter speed. People think they can keep their focus tracking on a bird, or whatever it might be, when they have a focus calibration issue, or they don't know how to use their focus modes, or whatever (if focus is off slightly, the bird is going to be blurry). And people often shake really badly when they hold a lens. So, add together a little bit of exposure issues with a little bit of shake and a slight off focus and you may have an image that looks like it was from a bad lens... when in reality it was with a good lens and those issues made the image look bad.

The four lenses I have mentioned are budget lenses. You will see really bad images taken with them because hobbyists pick them up. The reason why a Nikon 600mm f4e has good images posted on the internet is because whoever buys that lens is (usually) going to be a professional who knows what he is doing.

Give me a Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 and I can get you tack sharp images no problem.

 

[wezza13]

Don't keep feeding the troll, Danny lol!

As soon as I read this PondJamesPond's posts I knew/suspected straightaway it's someone on a wind-up, or that Auslese guy from a month or so ago.

Any new member on a forum, I find, in my experience, that they are overly polite and willing to bow down to others that possess much greater knowledge and are overly thankful.

The tone of posts that this guy and Auslese used, shows to me that they are one and the same

 

[AKUK]

Ohhhhh, I get it now!!! PondJamesPond is the guy who was banned a few weeks ago....the hunting-dog-and-birds guy who wanted to shoot 4,000 images per weekend and make them all B&W in 3 seconds,etc.etc.etc!! making sense to me now! You are TheDigital Effect on Flickr, but you were TPF member Auslese, at least from October 27 until November 5, 2015!

D7100 Question, can I have this camera shoot every photo in color and BW | Page 7 | Photography Forum

NO WONDER you've come back with such a chip on ye olde shoulder!

I just read the old postings and I completely agree with you. @PondJamesPond is the banned @Auslese. Glaring similarities in the writing style between the two.

 

[PondJamesPond]

Ohhhhh, I get it now!!! PondJamesPond is the guy who was banned a few weeks ago....the hunting-dog-and-birds guy who wanted to shoot 4,000 images per weekend and make them all B&W in 3 seconds,etc.etc.etc!! making sense to me now! You are TheDigital Effect on Flickr, but you were TPF member Auslese, at least from October 27 until November 5, 2015!

D7100 Question, can I have this camera shoot every photo in color and BW | Page 7 | Photography Forum

NO WONDER you've come back with such a chip on ye olde shoulder!

I just read the old postings and I completely agree with you. @PondJamesPond is the banned @Auslese. Glaring similarities in the writing style between the two.

Danny is sending his blurry rattling lens back from where it came. As he should, the concept that people here are even hinting that he should keep a blurry rattling and clearly broken lens is beyond the scope of rational. That said Dan is rational and knows better. Good luck Dan.

 

[PondJamesPond]

Swinging by to give my $0.02 in response to the other thread + comments in this thread... (by the way, I'm right):

The Nikon 200-500 f5.6 is a good lens. It is well worth $1500 compared to what is on the market. There really are four lenses that are worth looking at in this category (for a Nikon shooter):
Nikon 200-500 f5.6
Sigma 150-600 Sport
Sigma 150-600 Contemporary
Tamron 150-600

The Tamron and the Sigma Contemporary are more or less equals.
The Sigma Sport and Nikon 200-500 are also very comparable.

Most people would agree that the Nikon 200-500 sits at, or just under, the Sigma 150-600 Sport's quality. There are some differences that make up for that price difference (weight, weather sealing, etc, etc). I'd rather have the Sigma 150-600 Sport over the Nikon 200-500... but my next choice would be the 200-500. I own the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. That is, if money weren't a thing.

Here is the deal about sharpness:

99% of the images you see on Flickr are taken by people who do not know how to operate their camera correctly. People are afraid to shoot at higher ISO, and then they have to paint on a higher exposure around their bird. People think they can get away with 1/100 of a second, or 1/400 of a second, or whatever it might be, when that is absolutely not the right shutter speed. People think they can keep their focus tracking on a bird, or whatever it might be, when they have a focus calibration issue, or they don't know how to use their focus modes, or whatever (if focus is off slightly, the bird is going to be blurry). And people often shake really badly when they hold a lens. So, add together a little bit of exposure issues with a little bit of shake and a slight off focus and you may have an image that looks like it was from a bad lens... when in reality it was with a good lens and those issues made the image look bad.

The four lenses I have mentioned are budget lenses. You will see really bad images taken with them because hobbyists pick them up. The reason why a Nikon 600mm f4e has good images posted on the internet is because whoever buys that lens is (usually) going to be a professional who knows what he is doing.

Give me a Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 and I can get you tack sharp images no problem.

Paul, none of those lenses can produce a quality shot that is stellar clear. Why buy a less than clear lens that has already been recalled for poor craftsmanship like the 200-500 was already. I will tell you why, because you can not afford a better lens, so you settled for less (less quality of photos) which makes photography a sad hobby.

 

[PondJamesPond]

check out these links, lots of photos taken with the nikon 200-500mm lens. you can check them out and see what you think.

Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Thanks, those are all well composed photos, but there is not one crystal clear photo in the bunch Such as this one, it's soft to the point of blurry when you enlarge it. Long Tailed Tit at Marquenterre Is that really a $1500.00 photo?

Slow internet connection and not letting the image cache can make them look that way. On my internet at home, it can take some time to completely render a lot of those images in the link. I thought the same thing and then one rendered completely right in front of me and BLAM, I was hooked.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Amazing, you are actually blaming the poor quality of this lens on my internet connection. Something of which you do not know anything about. The lens was recalled already, was it recalled because of my internet connection?

I am actually professional, certified, and degreed in computer technology. I was merely pointing out a potential issue that may represent what you described in one of the early posts. I run across this frequently at home due to my internet speed. I have been saving up to buy that particular lens because of that exact link Danny provided.

Ok, you may not have that issue but I was trying to help you is all. My intention was good. You don't like the lens but you won't find one better, for that price, in that zoom range.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I understand the slow connection at Flickr sometimes, Yahoo is not doing right with the Flickr servers because they malfunction far too often. That said the problem is not either of us but Yahoo.

i am not 100% sure you do understand how some of this stuff works, i know in one of your post here you mentioned something about that..

first off there is depth of field, shooting a lens at some apertures will create a more shallow depth of field, that photo of the owl that did not have the detail in the wings but had detail on the body, i am going to say that was all depth of field, the body was in focus but since the wing was on a different plane it was out of focus due to the aperture the shot was taken at. that is completely normal.

you mention that the nikon lens is not able to stop motion, a lens does not stop motion. a fast shutter speed stops motion. if those photos were taken with a shutter speed of 1/1600 or higher and you probably would not be seeing blur.

it seems like you are just finding the worst photos to post links to just so you can gripe about the lens and you are ignoring the good ones. i can do the same thing with the 300mm f/4 lens.

where is all the detail on this shot. Great White Egret ..

it seems the lens was not able to stop the motion in this shot Bandit... ..

this shot is not very clear. Long-tailed ..

in this shot its lacking detail and the lens did not stop the motion.. Pied wheater ..

this lens is horrible...no detail in the wings and the shot is blury, what a junk lens Você vai tirar essa droga de foto ou não? [Well, are ya goin' to take the damn photo or not?]

Dan I only clicked on bandit, the animals eyes are closed and the entire photo is a blur, is that what you are actually using as a photo to sell this lens. Glad that you are proud of that photo because I have taken photos like that, but no one will ever see them. Yet they are the best that a rattle can produce. This is so sad that it is almost comical.

 

[Peeb]

1. Navigate to left side of troll posts
2. Click user-name below avatar
3. Select 'ignore'
4. Profit

 

[PondJamesPond]

1. Navigate to left side of troll posts
2. Click user-name below avatar
3. Select 'ignore'
4. Profit

Sorry Peeb, that will not make this photo taken with the 200-500 any better. The sad thing is that the man who took this picture believes that it is great enough to attach his name to Seagull_3498 It's sad. Was your lens included in the recall? have you checked your serial number?

 

[dannylightning]

1. Navigate to left side of troll posts
2. Click user-name below avatar
3. Select 'ignore'
4. Profit

1. Navigate to left side of troll posts
2. Click user-name below avatar
3. Select 'ignore'
4. Profit

Sorry Peeb, that will not make this photo taken with the 200-500 any better. The sad thing is that the man who took this picture believes that it is great enough to attach his name to Seagull_3498 It's sad. Was your lens included in the recall? have you checked your serial number?

what do you think of this photo MR Pond...

 

[SCraig]

1. Navigate to left side of troll posts
2. Click user-name below avatar
3. Select 'ignore'
4. Profit

Done. Enough of this one.

 

[Lightsped]

I am about ready to pull the trigger on the 200-500mm f5.6. Besides Adorama and B&H are there any better (not scams) deals out there?

 

[bulldurham]

Maybe this shot will clear up the clarity factor but it has to be taken into account these are 72 dpi
files and what looks great in Photoshop may look like it's lost some detail on the web. This was shot in mostly cloudy skies at 500mm

 

[gckless]

Getting past the BS in this thread, I just picked up a copy of the 200-500. Haven't shot through it, but I'll be at the track this weekend so I'll be able to put a few shots through it. Need a monopod now, and dreading buying that 95mm filter (just a clear/UV for protection, race cars can throw some nasty stuff.)

 

[goooner]

I guess you can get a little further away using a 500mm lens though

 

[goooner]

Maybe this shot will clear up the clarity factor but it has to be taken into account these are 72 dpi
files and what looks great in Photoshop may look like it's lost some detail on the web. This was shot in mostly cloudy skies at 500mm

Very nice. It will definitely be a tough decision for me when I pull the trigger.