The new Nikon 200-500 f5.6

[Jim Walczak]

This is just my own $.02 worth, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, personally I buy my lenses based on need. Granted, compared with many people I do tend to be terribly pragmatic, if not frugal..in short, I really hate being wasteful. The truth is that it's REAL easy to walk into a store and go "Oooohhh...shiny!" however if it's not something I'm actually going to use...to me at least, it just seems to be a waste. I'd rather spend my money wisely and buy lenses based on a specific need, rather than blow a wad and try and find a use after the fact. As I also happen to be a musician, whether we're talking a $2000 lens or a $200 lens, if I don't actually need it, then there are usually other ways I can spend that money. There are people out there who will drop money on something like camera gear as little more than a fashion statement...simply their way of showing how much money they have to spend. Personally I look at something like a camera lens (or body or flash, etc) as a tool...and if it's a tool I'm simply not going to use, then for myself at least, there's simply no point in having it.

Again, just my own personal opinion...please use it for what it's worth.

 

[jsecordphoto]

This is just my own $.02 worth, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, personally I buy my lenses based on need. Granted, compared with many people I do tend to be terribly pragmatic, if not frugal..in short, I really hate being wasteful. The truth is that it's REAL easy to walk into a store and go "Oooohhh...shiny!" however if it's not something I'm actually going to use...to me at least, it just seems to be a waste. I'd rather spend my money wisely and buy lenses based on a specific need, rather than blow a wad and try and find a use after the fact. As I also happen to be a musician, whether we're talking a $2000 lens or a $200 lens, if I don't actually need it, then there are usually other ways I can spend that money. There are people out there who will drop money on something like camera gear as little more than a fashion statement...simply their way of showing how much money they have to spend. Personally I look at something like a camera lens (or body or flash, etc) as a tool...and if it's a tool I'm simply not going to use, then for myself at least, there's simply no point in having it.

Again, just my own personal opinion...please use it for what it's worth.

Just not sure what that has to do with anything here. If you don't need this lens, that's great-don't buy it, but why are you mentioning it

 

[Vtec44]

I don't need this lens but I"m going to buy it anyway, so I can show it off to my friends and have them worship me like I'm the greatest photographer of all time. Deep down inside, I want to get the 400 f2.8 as a fashion statement but it's a bit heavy to wear and walk around with it.

 

[Solarflare]

And the 12k$ price point of the current 400mm f2.8 is of course no issue for you, I guess.

 

[Vtec44]

And the 12k$ price point of the current 400mm f2.8 is of course no issue for you, I guess.

I have two kidneys. I don't need the extra one.

 

[Jim Walczak]

This is just my own $.02 worth, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, personally I buy my lenses based on need. Granted, compared with many people I do tend to be terribly pragmatic, if not frugal..in short, I really hate being wasteful. The truth is that it's REAL easy to walk into a store and go "Oooohhh...shiny!" however if it's not something I'm actually going to use...to me at least, it just seems to be a waste. I'd rather spend my money wisely and buy lenses based on a specific need, rather than blow a wad and try and find a use after the fact. As I also happen to be a musician, whether we're talking a $2000 lens or a $200 lens, if I don't actually need it, then there are usually other ways I can spend that money. There are people out there who will drop money on something like camera gear as little more than a fashion statement...simply their way of showing how much money they have to spend. Personally I look at something like a camera lens (or body or flash, etc) as a tool...and if it's a tool I'm simply not going to use, then for myself at least, there's simply no point in having it.

Again, just my own personal opinion...please use it for what it's worth.

Just not sure what that has to do with anything here. If you don't need this lens, that's great-don't buy it, but why are you mentioning it

My response was aimed at the OP who said "I'm so tempted to get it even though I will rarely use it in my line of work". I'm not sure I see the point of spending money on a lens that you'll rarely use...doesn't make much sense to me. As I stated originally though, it's also my own opinion.

 

[Solarflare]

So Ken Rockwell has his review out. He rather likes it.

This inexpensive Nikon 200-500 has excellent optics and superb vibration reduction (VR). It's the best buy in Nikon ultratelephotos ever.

Reading carefully through what he put down, it appears to be a major bargain for its optical performance, and has no issues with autofocus precision or effectivity of optical stabilization (Rockwell claims he often manages 1/15 sec on 500mm with a D810, that is about 5 stops), but suffers from autofocus speed shortcomings. As always with Rockwell, he doesnt really care about the later.


A user review on dpreview sounds very positive, too. Doesnt mention the slower AF though.

Another review basically also agrees with Rockwell.

And a short photozone user review that really 100% agrees with Rockwell, including the slow AF.


All in all - its very tempting to get this one.

 

[Lightsped]

I am very seriously considering buying this lens. I would use the lens mostly for wildlife (birds), and maybe an occasional airshow. My question is, is this lens so heavy that it would be difficult to pan correctly when dealing with fast movers such as birds or aircraft? Bodies are D800, D7000, and D3100.

 

[dannylightning]

I am very seriously considering buying this lens. I would use the lens mostly for wildlife (birds), and maybe an occasional airshow. My question is, is this lens so heavy that it would be difficult to pan correctly when dealing with fast movers such as birds or aircraft? Bodies are D800, D7000, and D3100.

well have about 9lbs of camera, lens and monopod, i really just use the monopod to rest the camera on the ground when i am standing around or sling it over my shoulder when i walk around, when i shoot i pick it up and hand hold it when i shoot birds. its a little rough on the arms if you have to hold it up for a period of time but but i have no problem getting the shots i want with the lens.

my old birding lens was comparable in weight to the nikon 200-500, the weight did not seem that bad at all.