Just another moon shot...

tirediron · Apr 20, 2016

and admittedly, utterly unspectacular in and of itself. What makes it notable (IMO) is the fact that it was shot with the 200-500, at 500mm, handheld! Have I mentioned I really, really, really like the VR system in this lens?

oldhippy · Apr 20, 2016

Really nice shot

Rick50 · Apr 21, 2016

Definitely came out well for hand held.

weepete · Apr 21, 2016

Sweet!

baturn · Apr 21, 2016

You have the 200 - 500? Nice, by the way.

tirediron · Apr 21, 2016

oldhippy said:
Really nice shot

Thanks, Ed!

Rick50 said:
Definitely came out well for hand held.

I was impressed!

weepete said:
Sweet!

Cheers!

baturn said:
You have the 200 - 500? Nice, by the way.

Thanks Brian; yeah, picked it up a few weeks ago, in an effort to hopefully get back to doing more 'fun' for me stuff!

MaximS · Apr 21, 2016

Nice shot, but nothing unspectacular about the moon.

jl1975 · Apr 21, 2016

Nice shot. I'm curious to know how much you had to crop the image to get that final result. I've tried some moon shots with my 70-200 at 200mm as that is my longest lens, but by the time I crop them my image is rather small. I've thought about getting a teleconverter (the 1.7) or a longer lens, but other than shots of the moon, I don't think I'd get much use out of them. Also, was this on a full frame or crop body? Thanks

tirediron · Apr 21, 2016

MaximS said:
Nice shot, but nothing unspectacular about the moon.

True, but moon shots are a dime a dozen...

jl1975 said:
Nice shot. I'm curious to know how much you had to crop the image to get that final result. I've tried some moon shots with my 70-200 at 200mm as that is my longest lens, but by the time I crop them my image is rather small. I've thought about getting a teleconverter (the 1.7) or a longer lens, but other than shots of the moon, I don't think I'd get much use out of them. Also, was this on a full frame or crop body? Thanks

That represents about 25% of the frame on a D800

Trever1t · Apr 21, 2016

is it the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR Lens?

What do you think of it? You think it would be good for nature watching in Alaska?

tirediron · Apr 21, 2016

Trever1t said:
is it the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR Lens?

What do you think of it? You think it would be good for nature watching in Alaska?

Yep, 'tis. I'm REALLY impressed! Granted it's not 500mm f4 prime, but even at 5.6 it's more than decently sharp across the diameter. The VR is amazing; I can hand-hold at 500mm at 1/125 with NO issues, and if I'm steady, at 1/60. My only hesitation in recommending this as THE lens is the f5.6 max aperture, but as you're going up in the summer, that likely won't be an issue. I'd say it is definitely worth considering!

zombiesniper · Apr 22, 2016

Very nice.

tirediron said:
My only hesitation in recommending this as THE lens is the f5.6 max aperture, but as you're going up in the summer, that likely won't be an issue.

For the casual/enthusiast f5.6 at 500mm is about all most can afford so I think it is a perfect lens to recommend.
I've shot the Sigma 150-600 and though it was a very good lens. I imagine the Nikon would perform better. If so this is a very good lens indeed.

smoke665 · Apr 22, 2016

Great example of the capability of the photographer and the equipment. Due to the nature of the shot, do you think it would perform the same where there was more visible in the frame? Seems like I've read somewhere that it can cause a shift between background and focal point.

tirediron · Apr 22, 2016

zombiesniper said:
Very nice.

tirediron said:

My only hesitation in recommending this as THE lens is the f5.6 max aperture, but as you're going up in the summer, that likely won't be an issue.

Click to expand...

For the casual/enthusiast f5.6 at 500mm is about all most can afford so I think it is a perfect lens to recommend.
I've shot the Sigma 150-600 and though it was a very good lens. I imagine the Nikon would perform better. If so this is a very good lens indeed.

Thanks Alex! You're right, 5.6 really isn't all that bad, I'm just a bit spoiled as the rest of my stable is 2.8 or faster, but this is perfectly adequate for casual work, which is exactly why I bought it.

tirediron · Apr 22, 2016

smoke665 said:
Great example of the capability of the photographer and the equipment. Due to the nature of the shot, do you think it would perform the same where there was more visible in the frame? Seems like I've read somewhere that it can cause a shift between background and focal point.

Thanks - sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow your question. Do you mean, had there been more detail in the background, would the lens have had difficulty focusing?