About the Nikon 200-500 AF-S vs expensive primes & your test
Posted: Tue 13 Oct 2015 07:29
Stany,
For what it's worth - I agree with you. Personally, I have a 500f4VR and 300f2.8VRII - and now the 200-500. They all have difference strengths and weaknesses, depending on the situation - I'm certainly not upset that my copy of 200-500 seems to achieve sharper images at mid-to-longer distances than my (nearly $9k) 500f4 But just as certainly - there are those that get upset at any claim that a lens costing 8x as much could be matched by the 200-500 (under certain specific circumstances-and almost certainly for web posting uses).
Meanwhile, my 500f4 and Wimberley and legs all sit at home - I may eventually put them up for sale. I firmly believe that the 200-500 is a game-changer in that - for the first time in Nikon history - it puts very high quality 'reach' within the means of a lot more people at a relatively affordable price - the once-exclusive super exotic club is about to be overrun by a horde! Horrors!
Those of us who have been birding for a while understand that we'll need to work even harder at the craft (photography, technical and artistic, and especially post-processing) in order to produce images that stand out from the crowd! I'm not sure whether Nikon realized what a sharp lens it produced - there's something almost magical about the way the 200-500 manages to pull really sharp, detailed images of subjects that are very far away - and just as surprising that it's really good at very close range, too. I think the VR works really well - and that Nikon was smart not to skimp on VR, since most people will be shooting at 500mm handheld because the smaller size and reduced weight is built for mobile applications.
I wish Nikon would capitalize on this lens' success, and build a "sport" version with faster AF - but that would really eat into super exotics sales.
Roy
For what it's worth - I agree with you. Personally, I have a 500f4VR and 300f2.8VRII - and now the 200-500. They all have difference strengths and weaknesses, depending on the situation - I'm certainly not upset that my copy of 200-500 seems to achieve sharper images at mid-to-longer distances than my (nearly $9k) 500f4 But just as certainly - there are those that get upset at any claim that a lens costing 8x as much could be matched by the 200-500 (under certain specific circumstances-and almost certainly for web posting uses).
Meanwhile, my 500f4 and Wimberley and legs all sit at home - I may eventually put them up for sale. I firmly believe that the 200-500 is a game-changer in that - for the first time in Nikon history - it puts very high quality 'reach' within the means of a lot more people at a relatively affordable price - the once-exclusive super exotic club is about to be overrun by a horde! Horrors!
Those of us who have been birding for a while understand that we'll need to work even harder at the craft (photography, technical and artistic, and especially post-processing) in order to produce images that stand out from the crowd! I'm not sure whether Nikon realized what a sharp lens it produced - there's something almost magical about the way the 200-500 manages to pull really sharp, detailed images of subjects that are very far away - and just as surprising that it's really good at very close range, too. I think the VR works really well - and that Nikon was smart not to skimp on VR, since most people will be shooting at 500mm handheld because the smaller size and reduced weight is built for mobile applications.
I wish Nikon would capitalize on this lens' success, and build a "sport" version with faster AF - but that would really eat into super exotics sales.
Roy