Nikkor 200-500

[Derrel]

yep, looks like a excellent lens from the hand full of photos i have seen posted with it. great shot, looks like a egrit to me

Do the feathers on the bird have details, or can you see only whole feathers?

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?

well there is 3 thousand some photos in that group and you are referring to one photo.. some of those photos are excellent and some are not. you got to remember everyone gets subpar shots at times, even the really good photographers but it could have been a bird they have never saw before so they kept the photo or who knows what., also not all people are great at photography or they are just getting started at bird photography and not getting the best photos yet. you could spend 20k lens and still get bad photos if you do not now what you are doing, and even if you do know what you are doing i doubt ever photo you take is going to be perfect. or the bird could have been really far away and they had to crop the photo allot which can kill the image quality.. everyone on here posting photos with that lens seems to be getting some nice photos with it

bottom line is this, if you want to really know how good the lens is, read reviews, lots of them. looks at as many photos taken with the lens as you can. maybe rent one if you are interested but not sure how you will like it. or by it from a place that has a no questions asked return policy and if your not happy with it send it back..

What about this one Harfang des Neiges / Snowy Owl / Bubo scandiacus / Ookpik I am tough, this is true, a bird should not have wings, it should have feathers, that are composed of individual hairs arranged in a pattern. A well composed photo is not necessarily a sharp photo, I need sharper than this to make the lens viable for me to buy. Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet Also take this duck in flight shot that looks great on one hand, but on a sharper hand the feathers are one piece each, they do not have any parts they have complete smoothness. The color and composure it perfect as is the focus, but there is just absolutely no details Flying Duck

You seem to be unaware of the many basics of digital photography...you're pointing us to TWO, individual, web-sized JPEGs, and one of them has had a sh*+ ton of noise reduction and smoothing done to it. Those are rudimentary factors. I noticed that you just joined TPF today, to pose questions and to run down a lens you apparently cannot afford.

The owl photo you linked to? A smallish screen-size JPEG reduction, yet even down-sized hugely, it still shown a lot of evidence of TONS of detail, down to the individual fibers that make up the small feathers covering the birds lower legs...but apparently, you cannot see the impact of the size reduction on the image.

"I need sharper than this to make the lens viable for me to buy."

We've SEEN what the lens can do in the hands of a capable shooter...for the price, it's obviously a stellar performer. Oh, and by the way--that drake mallard takes up about 12 percent of the total, entire frame area...annnnd it was at ISO 1,250....aaaaand it's pretty apparent that it has had every single bit of digital noise smoothed out of the file...aaaaand the file is tiny on my 30 inch Cinema Display. Seriously: you can NOT judge the quality of a lens by random peoples' web-reduced images with noise reduction and MASSIVELY size-reduced images processed in God only knows what manner...

I got a worm in an apple once...but you know what, that doesn't mean the whole tote of apples was bad...

 

[tirediron]

...I got a worm in an apple once...but you know what, that doesn't mean the whole tote of apples was bad...

Better'n half a worm!

 

[jcdeboever]

yep, looks like a excellent lens from the hand full of photos i have seen posted with it. great shot, looks like a egrit to me

Do the feathers on the bird have details, or can you see only whole feathers?

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

 

[dannylightning]

yep, looks like a excellent lens from the hand full of photos i have seen posted with it. great shot, looks like a egrit to me

Do the feathers on the bird have details, or can you see only whole feathers?

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?

well there is 3 thousand some photos in that group and you are referring to one photo.. some of those photos are excellent and some are not. you got to remember everyone gets subpar shots at times, even the really good photographers but it could have been a bird they have never saw before so they kept the photo or who knows what., also not all people are great at photography or they are just getting started at bird photography and not getting the best photos yet. you could spend 20k lens and still get bad photos if you do not now what you are doing, and even if you do know what you are doing i doubt ever photo you take is going to be perfect. or the bird could have been really far away and they had to crop the photo allot which can kill the image quality.. everyone on here posting photos with that lens seems to be getting some nice photos with it

bottom line is this, if you want to really know how good the lens is, read reviews, lots of them. looks at as many photos taken with the lens as you can. maybe rent one if you are interested but not sure how you will like it. or by it from a place that has a no questions asked return policy and if your not happy with it send it back..

What about this one Harfang des Neiges / Snowy Owl / Bubo scandiacus / Ookpik I am tough, this is true, a bird should not have wings, it should have feathers, that are composed of individual hairs arranged in a pattern. A well composed photo is not necessarily a sharp photo, I need sharper than this to make the lens viable for me to buy. Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet Also take this duck in flight shot that looks great on one hand, but on a sharper hand the feathers are one piece each, they do not have any parts they have complete smoothness. The color and composure it perfect as is the focus, but there is just absolutely no details Flying Duck

You seem to be unaware of the many basics of digital photography...you're pointing us to TWO, individual, web-sized JPEGs, and one of them has had a sh*+ ton of noise reduction and smoothing done to it. Those are rudimentary factors. I noticed that you just joined TPF today, to pose questions and to run down a lens you apparently cannot afford.

The owl photo you linked to? A smallish screen-size JPEG reduction, yet even down-sized hugely, it still shown a lot of evidence of TONS of detail, down to the individual fibers that make up the small feathers covering the birds lower legs...but apparently, you cannot see the impact of the size reduction on the image.

"I need sharper than this to make the lens viable for me to buy."

We've SEEN what the lens can do in the hands of a capable shooter...for the price, it's obviously a stellar performer. Oh, and by the way--that drake mallard takes up about 12 percent of the total, entire frame area...annnnd it was at ISO 1,250....aaaaand it's pretty apparent that it has had every single bit of digital noise smoothed out of the file...aaaaand the file is tiny on my 30 inch Cinema Display. Seriously: you can NOT judge the quality of a lens by random peoples' web-reduced images with noise reduction and MASSIVELY size-reduced images processed in God only knows what manner...

I got a worm in an apple once...but you know what, that doesn't mean the whole tote of apples was bad...

...I got a worm in an apple once...but you know what, that doesn't mean the whole tote of apples was bad...

Better'n half a worm!

like i told him there are over 3k photos in that group that i posted the link too., there are allot of excellent photos in there and some not so excellent ones too. seems he picked out what he wanted to see and ignored the rest, it also seems he is looking to get extremely pristine images that are perfect in every way from a budget lens.


if you want perfection and a good amount of zoom you are going to have to dish out the big bucks. a 300mm prime is probably going to be a great lens with some nice image quality but its not really ideal for wild life, unless you add a TC to it. start cropping the crap out of your photos and your photos will start to look lousy.. i mean i have a 600mm lens and i am using a crop sensor body which gives me a additional 1.5x of zoom. at times i really wish i have a teleconverter so i could get closer to stuff so i wold not have to crop the crap out of my photos.. all that zoom i have is just not enough at times. other times i am really glad i can set the lens to 150mm when i get up right next to a great blue heron or something like that. if i had a prime lens i would have had to try and get far enough away from those birds to get the photos, you just never know how far or how close something may be to you so a telephoto is nice to have.

i mean you got a few photos like this American Coot on the first page of the group and i guess he decided not to pay attention to those.

 

[PondJamesPond]

yep, looks like a excellent lens from the hand full of photos i have seen posted with it. great shot, looks like a egrit to me

Do the feathers on the bird have details, or can you see only whole feathers?

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?

well there is 3 thousand some photos in that group and you are referring to one photo.. some of those photos are excellent and some are not. you got to remember everyone gets subpar shots at times, even the really good photographers but it could have been a bird they have never saw before so they kept the photo or who knows what., also not all people are great at photography or they are just getting started at bird photography and not getting the best photos yet. you could spend 20k lens and still get bad photos if you do not now what you are doing, and even if you do know what you are doing i doubt ever photo you take is going to be perfect. or the bird could have been really far away and they had to crop the photo allot which can kill the image quality.. everyone on here posting photos with that lens seems to be getting some nice photos with it

bottom line is this, if you want to really know how good the lens is, read reviews, lots of them. looks at as many photos taken with the lens as you can. maybe rent one if you are interested but not sure how you will like it. or by it from a place that has a no questions asked return policy and if your not happy with it send it back..

What about this one Harfang des Neiges / Snowy Owl / Bubo scandiacus / Ookpik I am tough, this is true, a bird should not have wings, it should have feathers, that are composed of individual hairs arranged in a pattern. A well composed photo is not necessarily a sharp photo, I need sharper than this to make the lens viable for me to buy. Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet Also take this duck in flight shot that looks great on one hand, but on a sharper hand the feathers are one piece each, they do not have any parts they have complete smoothness. The color and composure it perfect as is the focus, but there is just absolutely no details Flying Duck

You seem to be unaware of the many basics of digital photography...you're pointing us to TWO, individual, web-sized JPEGs, and one of them has had a sh*+ ton of noise reduction and smoothing done to it. Those are rudimentary factors. I noticed that you just joined TPF today, to pose questions and to run down a lens you apparently cannot afford.

The owl photo you linked to? A smallish screen-size JPEG reduction, yet even down-sized hugely, it still shown a lot of evidence of TONS of detail, down to the individual fibers that make up the small feathers covering the birds lower legs...but apparently, you cannot see the impact of the size reduction on the image.

"I need sharper than this to make the lens viable for me to buy."

We've SEEN what the lens can do in the hands of a capable shooter...for the price, it's obviously a stellar performer. Oh, and by the way--that drake mallard takes up about 12 percent of the total, entire frame area...annnnd it was at ISO 1,250....aaaaand it's pretty apparent that it has had every single bit of digital noise smoothed out of the file...aaaaand the file is tiny on my 30 inch Cinema Display. Seriously: you can NOT judge the quality of a lens by random peoples' web-reduced images with noise reduction and MASSIVELY size-reduced images processed in God only knows what manner...

I got a worm in an apple once...but you know what, that doesn't mean the whole tote of apples was bad...

Again all of the photos at the link provided are soft, or outright blurry. Then you just like the previous poster try to blame the poor photo quality of other people taking photos with the Nikon 200-500 on my understanding of digital photography. What you are proposing is impossible, because I had no hand in the digital production of those images. Blaming me for the poor clarity of images produced by this lens is just not possible, the Nikon 200-500 is a low cost high aperture less than clear lens that I will never bother to own. Where is the detail on this sitting hawk, note that it is not even in motion Red-tailed Hawk I have a similar photo taken with my 200 that is much more detailed. Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet So why would I possibly downgrade to a 200-500. Since you can not change the images you can not change my opinion. Nikon should recall all of these lenses and start over.

 

[PondJamesPond]

Do the feathers on the bird have details, or can you see only whole feathers?

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?

well there is 3 thousand some photos in that group and you are referring to one photo.. some of those photos are excellent and some are not. you got to remember everyone gets subpar shots at times, even the really good photographers but it could have been a bird they have never saw before so they kept the photo or who knows what., also not all people are great at photography or they are just getting started at bird photography and not getting the best photos yet. you could spend 20k lens and still get bad photos if you do not now what you are doing, and even if you do know what you are doing i doubt ever photo you take is going to be perfect. or the bird could have been really far away and they had to crop the photo allot which can kill the image quality.. everyone on here posting photos with that lens seems to be getting some nice photos with it

bottom line is this, if you want to really know how good the lens is, read reviews, lots of them. looks at as many photos taken with the lens as you can. maybe rent one if you are interested but not sure how you will like it. or by it from a place that has a no questions asked return policy and if your not happy with it send it back..

What about this one Harfang des Neiges / Snowy Owl / Bubo scandiacus / Ookpik I am tough, this is true, a bird should not have wings, it should have feathers, that are composed of individual hairs arranged in a pattern. A well composed photo is not necessarily a sharp photo, I need sharper than this to make the lens viable for me to buy. Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet Also take this duck in flight shot that looks great on one hand, but on a sharper hand the feathers are one piece each, they do not have any parts they have complete smoothness. The color and composure it perfect as is the focus, but there is just absolutely no details Flying Duck

You seem to be unaware of the many basics of digital photography...you're pointing us to TWO, individual, web-sized JPEGs, and one of them has had a sh*+ ton of noise reduction and smoothing done to it. Those are rudimentary factors. I noticed that you just joined TPF today, to pose questions and to run down a lens you apparently cannot afford.

The owl photo you linked to? A smallish screen-size JPEG reduction, yet even down-sized hugely, it still shown a lot of evidence of TONS of detail, down to the individual fibers that make up the small feathers covering the birds lower legs...but apparently, you cannot see the impact of the size reduction on the image.

"I need sharper than this to make the lens viable for me to buy."

We've SEEN what the lens can do in the hands of a capable shooter...for the price, it's obviously a stellar performer. Oh, and by the way--that drake mallard takes up about 12 percent of the total, entire frame area...annnnd it was at ISO 1,250....aaaaand it's pretty apparent that it has had every single bit of digital noise smoothed out of the file...aaaaand the file is tiny on my 30 inch Cinema Display. Seriously: you can NOT judge the quality of a lens by random peoples' web-reduced images with noise reduction and MASSIVELY size-reduced images processed in God only knows what manner...

I got a worm in an apple once...but you know what, that doesn't mean the whole tote of apples was bad...

...I got a worm in an apple once...but you know what, that doesn't mean the whole tote of apples was bad...

Better'n half a worm!

like i told him there are over 3k photos in that group that i posted the link too., there are allot of excellent photos in there and some not so excellent ones too. seems he picked out what he wanted to see and ignored the rest, it also seems he is looking to get extremely pristine images that are perfect in every way from a budget lens.


if you want perfection and a good amount of zoom you are going to have to dish out the big bucks. a 300mm prime is probably going to be a great lens with some nice image quality but its not really ideal for wild life, unless you add a TC to it. start cropping the crap out of your photos and your photos will start to look lousy.. i mean i have a 600mm lens and i am using a crop sensor body which gives me a additional 1.5x of zoom. at times i really wish i have a teleconverter so i could get closer to stuff so i wold not have to crop the crap out of my photos.. all that zoom i have is just not enough at times. other times i am really glad i can set the lens to 150mm when i get up right next to a great blue heron or something like that. if i had a prime lens i would have had to try and get far enough away from those birds to get the photos, you just never know how far or how close something may be to you so a telephoto is nice to have.

i mean you got a few photos like this American Coot on the first page of the group and i guess he decided not to pay attention to those.

The older 300mm Nikon Zoom will destroy this lens at all zooms as the 200-500 is just not clear or sharp at 500mm if there is any movement of the target at all. Which is why 95 percent of the photos seem to be sitting birds. Looking at this lens one might forget that birds actually fly. However this shot has a lot of detail, or it is a joke Away.

 

[PondJamesPond]

yep, looks like a excellent lens from the hand full of photos i have seen posted with it. great shot, looks like a egrit to me

Do the feathers on the bird have details, or can you see only whole feathers?

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?

Why are you so offended by this lens? If you don't like this lens, don't buy it. Spend 12x the price and get a 600mm f4 with a 1.7TC. As mentioned, this is a budget-friendly long-reach lens. It has a LOT of limitations, BUT, I think it's very good value for the money.

Again the older Nikon 300mm has better clarity than the 200-500 and cost only a hundred dollars more, and it has a higher aperture as well. Why would someone buy a recalled lens in the first place?

 

[PondJamesPond]

yep, looks like a excellent lens from the hand full of photos i have seen posted with it. great shot, looks like a egrit to me

Do the feathers on the bird have details, or can you see only whole feathers?

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.

 

[dannylightning]

Do the feathers on the bird have details, or can you see only whole feathers?

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.

Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk

 

[dannylightning]

Do the feathers on the bird have details, or can you see only whole feathers?

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?]

 

[Braineack]

user error.

I as well can make the best lens in the world look crummy as hell. I'm pretty good at that.

 

[dannylightning]

now to be honest here, that 300mm prime lens is going to have better overall image quality. but i am going to give you a example as to why you may not be happy with a 300mm lens.

the first photo i am going to post is a photo taken with my lens at 600mm, and the second photo is the cropped version. these little guys never come close enough to the shore to get a nice photo of them, i have to crop the crap out of the photo or the bird looks very small in the frame. if i would have shot this photo with a 300mm lens i would have only had half as much zoom and i could have never cropped the image enough to get a usable shot where the bird was a descent size in the frame.. your cropped photo of this shot with at 300mm lens would look more like my 1st image that is uncropped. this is the only really issue with only having 300mm worth of zoom. with 300mm you need to get very close to these birds to get a good shot of them.. even this cropped shot is starting to fall apart since i have cropped it so much.. if i would have had more zoom this cropped image would have looked much better, this is why i am saying even 500 or 600mm is just never enough allot of the time..

 

[Derrel]

I have a similar photo taken with my 200 that is much more detailed. Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet So why would I possibly downgrade to a 200-500. Since you can not change the images you can not change my opinion. Nikon should recall all of these lenses and start over.

PondJamesPond...you opened an account here yesterday, specifically to inquire about the Nikkor 200-500mm zoom lens, and then to run it down, repeatedly.

Your behavior and your comments, in combination with one another, make me ask myself, "Is PondJamesPond perhaps a paid shill for another camera or lens company?" I mean that, and therefore I cannot consider a single word you write here as being legitimate. Nothing you've said jibes with the facts as the general photographic community understands them.

Are you working for Tamron? Or are you payed by Sigma? The bad press you're spewing here seems to be at odds with the photographic evidence I've seen. For a $1,500 200 to 500mm, constant maximum aperture, camera-maker zoom lens, the price to performance ratio of the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 AF-S is, in a word, impressive.

Spare yourself the effort of responding to me.

 

[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?]

A fast (large aperture smaller numbers are larger 2.8 is faster and larger than 5.6) enables the camera to use that fast shutter speed. You seem to not understand this. Seriously if that is your photo, in the avatar I was taking high speed photos before you were born.
This photo is from your link, and any real photographer would neither own this lens, nor post a photo as awful as this. Surf's Up So trust me, I know how cameras and lenses work, and I build and program computers as well.

 

[Derrel]

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!