I rented the 200 to 500 a couple of times, carried it and shot with it on my Nikon D610 for a couple of hours, never got tired, never felt too heavy. My guns are more like derringers; I'm 70 years old. I love that lens and would buy it if I could afford it.
@@Jimmy_Cavallo Wow. That's an old comment. Lots of things of changed for me since then. I'm 75 years old now and the last time I rented the 200 to 500 lens I found it to be too cumbersome to handle. I guess my earlier experiences were different. Also, I no longer use my D610. Bought the Nikon Z8 when it came out, along with a 100-400 mm S lens. I love that combination. It's far superior to my D610. I've used the 500 prime you mentioned and I think it's a great lens, just too limited because of the prime nature of it. Of course, now that I am in a Z system set up, I will at least try out the new 600 mm that just came out. Don't think I'll buy it, but I will certainly rent it next spring.
Nice to hear from you and I know, that was an old comment. I was wondering where you’ve gone with nature photography since you posted that comment. Imagine if money was no object. There definitely is a place for the 500 PF with it being so short and light. I’d love to own that and a 600 f4 using the 500 walking through trails and the 600 out in the open over rivers and fields but I can’t afford all that especially the 600. I have the Nikon 80-400 which is really sharp but lacks reach which is leading me to want the 500 PF. The 500 f4 is even better but it’s heavy If only we were millionaires. Our troubles would be gone.
@@Jimmy_Cavallo I never owned the 80-400 but I have rented both versions of it, the latter one being much better than the first. If money were no object, I would probably buy the 500 PF for the F mount, even if I owned the 600 PF for the Z mount. There is something about that 500 PF that makes it special.
I have had the 200-500 5.6 paired with the D500 for a year now, and I couldn't be any happier. If you turn the camera one way and the lense the other way you can zoom quickly. If anyone is considering what to buy for their first telephoto I would strongly suggest the 200-500. Its heavy yes but it makes you really focus on posture and how to adapt to take good photos. Sports, animals, people, nature, it can do it all.
💥Hey man, 4 years later. Do you still own it and how do you feel about its image quality.? I guess you can’t compare it to the 500mm prime in this video.
@@Jimmy_Cavallo I figure if he is busy I would like to share my take... I do photography with Sony cameras but have my older camera from my late twin. Nikon D5300 and just got one 200mm to 500mm nikon used lens for $261!! Yeah looked very hard for that bargain for sure...catching crystal clear hummingbird pics in flight....all kinds of birds and boats so far out in the distance...its still quite relevant and if you check on ebay they ask alot of cash for these...that is no accident! My daughter is in the top ten photographers on the big island of Hawaii and is very impressed with the photos I sent her...says its a great lens and she has way more expensive gear then me! My sony has prime lenses and she gave me my four lenses as I just had to buy the camera body.... So if they were not relevant...they would not have such high resale value!! Nikon put them on sale last month for $1,059 with free shipping! Meanwhile out on Ebay they were selling the older ones for nearly that much!! As for the weight of the lens? Paired with the Nikon D5300 which is 1 lb 6 ounces and that is around 5 lbs...I can carry it and take free hand shots just fine... 60 years old, 115 lbs petite lady. When using this lens with a crop sensor you get 750mm reach! Full crop you get the 500mm max. The images are so clear it hardly matters for the pixel difference. I find zooming in also half way or so? I don't crop the image and that helps too.
I definitely agree with you on it being a bargain for the price. I used it at an airshow last year and I was totally impressed with it....and took some amazing shots of the Thunderbirds!
@@froknowsphoto sadly i have to use a monopod..... :( no guns as such. But it will give me about 750mm reach !!! That will be awesome ( though light will decrease )
The 200-500mm is just a crazy good gift to the masses from nikon for going nikon. I just wish it wasn't such a dust pump. They could have sold it for more. That pf lens is for retiree birders without house payments and the f4 is for pros (who produce the images that sell nikon to the masses and retiree birders).
I have no issues with dust, when I'm done shooting for the day I make sure and wipe the part of the lens barrel off that recesses into the main barrel..mine has just a few dust particles after 3 years of hard use..
@@885wc hey man, i am considering the lens, it's been 4 months, how has the lens held up? also, if you don't mind, can I know which body you're using ut with?
So many people that do reviews on the Nikon 200-500mm lens and others like the Sigma 150-600"s talk about not being able to zoom in one turning motion, well that's not true. As long as it isn't on a tripod it can be done by turning the lens in one direction and the camera in the opposite direction. One twist is all it takes me to go from 200 to 500 when hand holding.
I bought the 200-500 shortly after it came out and loved it. I had an older 500 f4 (no vr) and thought maybe it would give me better pix so I sold the 200-500. Well after not too long I seriously regretted selling the 200-500 and found myself not shooting as many pix because the f4 was so heavy. Sooooo I bought another one (used) and loved it and then the 500 f5.6 was announced and I immediately ordered it (Aug 2018) and a few months later with impending delivery (assumed) so near I sold my 200-500 again. Well - the new 500 f5.6 didn't arrive and so in late Jan 2019 I bought another 200-500 (used). Turns out my new 500 f5.6 arrived on the same day as my 3rd 200-500 in Feb 2019. I now almost exclusively use the 500 f5.6. It's welded onto my d850 and I use other focal lengths on other boides. This time however, I've decided to hold onto the 200-500 as well. For users who have guns like yours, the 200-500 is the way to go - it's a great lens for little money (comparatively).
Great video comparing the 2 lenses. I love nature shots so I bought the 200-500mm to capture birds in flight. The weight is a factor causing shaking in focusing but the lens focuses on the objects anyway. Love it!
I got the 200-500mm for almost a year and I really like it. The bang for the buck is just great and it's sharp... The weight...well, saves you that gym membership
Another great video mr olympia.I just can't see why anybody would choose the prime over the zoom unless as you say it is a weight consideration.I've looked at many images taken with the prime and comparing them to images i have taken with the zoom,there is no way the prime is worth the extra outlay as far as sharpness is concerned. There may be a slight difference if you are shooting resolution charts but in the real world,if you can live with the extra weight,the zoom is far more useful.
I can't speak to the 500mm f5.6 but I've used the 200-500 since 2016 with the D 7200, D500 and D 850. Versatile, light, sharp, economical. I've probably shot 150k images with it and I'm very pleased with the results. It's hard to think of a better spend for a wildlife photographer. I sent it back to Nikon in 2018, it had a mechanical issue that prevented it from zooming back in once it was zoomed out. Nikon fixed it and got it back in my hands in very short order.
I have both lenses. While the 200-500mm is capable of fabulous shots, I do believe it to adversely induce dust on the sensor. I had it welded to my D500 for months - never took it off. The sensor spots became extreme. Not a deal breaker - just needed cleaning. I have now welded my 500mm PF to my D850. Just fabulous for walking around. I was almost always on the long end anyways. Another potential happy medium to consider is the 500mm prime with a full frame body such as the D850. I feel like most folks use the 200-500mm with a D500 or other crop sensor body, so we are really talking about 300mm vs 500mm with the PF on a FF body. The PF handles TCs, and the zoom lens just doesn’t that well. With the D850, if I can’t get close, I crop in post and the pixel count puts me at the D500 level or better. If I fill up more than 1/2 the frame with my subject I’m in the money with the D850. Traveling with the 500mm PF is a dream. Fits in the backpack attached to the body with the hood on effortlessly. Ready to shoot instantly. So much lighter while carried on a BR Sport sling while hiking too. Both are super, but the 200-500mm will definitely collect dust now.
@@omarsaletovicprins9632 Also an excellent choice, but if 420mm still leaves you short (it does in my case), the 500PF is the better choice, if more costly.
I have to say I agree. I own the 200-500 lens and I have used it with a D300s and D700 SLRs. It is a super lens! Sharp as a tack. The zoom is very good as sometimes you want to zoom out if you are too close. I shot with the 500 prime and its a fine lens, but I will stick with the zoom. Everyone has different needs and feelings, so the choice is up to the shooter.
I’m really pleased with my 200-500 - the VR is so good (much superior to the Sigma 150-600 which I was also looking at). Great that you did hand-held shots Fro. Sharper than I get - maybe I need to go to the gym more!
Own the 200-500 and have a backordered 500pf coming (sometime). I like others will shoot at 500mm focal distance, the vast majority of the time with my 200-500, so I look forward to 2 lbs. less weight to deal with, especially on my D850 with the battery grip. That combo gets heavy in a hurry. Nice review.
Great shots Jared and couldn’t agree more I’d have the versatility of the 200-500 and save a stack of money. Added bonus of a good workout each time you use it 🏋️♂️🏋️♀️
I use the 200-500 adapted on my z6 for sports and it's very good. I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 Sports as well, and while sharper and generally producing more contrasty and pleasing photos, the 200-500 is still always in my bag for sports.
Interesting comparison. I love the 200-500mm that I have. I've been able to hand hold it down to 1/30th at 500mm which is pretty nuts. I haven't found the weight too much of an issue even though I'm a pretty skinny guy and I was able to handhold it for a day at the zoo.
I first had the Tamron 150-600 and I now have the Nikon 200-500. The latter produces much sharper images. The quality is simply great. Compared to the fixed focus 500 mm the versatility of the zoom is simply a must if you go for nature shots. I do a lot of bird photography and a fixed focus would limit my choices too much. And the weight never bothered me.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned (which is a common complaint with 200-500 users) is focus acquisition and holding for birds-in-flight; it's never going to be as good as a prime. But the 200-500 is a great offering from Nikon, and now with the 500PF and the new 200-600 and 600 f/4 lenses from Sony, these are interesting times! I think if Nikon came out with a 600PF I would sell my 500 f/4E.
I've have the 200-500mm paired to the D500 (and Z7). Autofocus can be very iffy or it simply gives up. I have the 500 on order (two months now! gah!) so I'm hoping for a much better auto focus performance. Some reviews give the 500 a small up tick in image quality too - not that I'm unhappy with the 200-500 in that department. So this review missed the boat in testing these two lenses - auto focus in low light. Bright light it can be damn quick.
@@Jimmy_Cavallo Don't have the prime, just the 200-500 f mount zoom. For my use case the 100-400 just gets used more - optically, in the real world I don't see a big difference.
Your information is spot on! Yes, the 200-500mm lens is a bit heavier but the upside is that it provides beautiful shots that include depth and color. I had the option between choosing the 200-500 or the 500mm and I went with the 200-500 because of its versatility. Well worth the expense, just keep those arms in shape!
Jared, I really like your reviews. I am also very impressed by your ability to handle big glass with speed and precision. I am equally impressed by both your youth and your bulging biceps. Since one of your more important good qualities is to bluntly tell it like you see it, I will try to be equally open and blunt. For the kind of wildlife photography you do, you should absolutely use the zoom. In midday, "zoom" around in a mechanical contraption so loud you have to wear ear protection. Find some animals just trying to eat and raise some replacement animals and head straight for them. You will need to quickly zoom through the focal range as the victims first freeze, then panic and finally flee in terror. Humans +15, animals -2. Score!! Seriously, most wildlife photographers spend much more time getting close to their "prey" than actually photographing them. They virtually never find themselves in danger of overfilling a frame. They also know approximately how close they can get well in advance to whatever species and situation they have chosen to photograph. They are trying to show natural behavior, not fight-or-flight response. If they find themselves over-lensed, they will stay further back so as to disturb the animals even less. When trying to move quietly for long distances through natural terrain, weight and bulk are your enemies. Check out the videos of Morten Hilmer, a fellow RU-vidr and professional wildlife photographer. He has big biceps too. He was a member of the Danish Special Forces, Arctic Division. He hauls around big heavy primes when he has to, but he complains a lot about having to do it. Also, in our capitalist human world we tottering retired geezers carry weighty wallets. You buy your zooms and we'll buy lightweight primes. We went through the "zooms are just as good as primes" phase decades ago. Let the games begin!
A common theme of any time he talks about wildlife photography he shoes that he is entirely ignorant of how it's actually done--which is fine, no one is an expert in everything, but it is funny when he starts making incorrect assumptions on gear when it's actually fieldcraft that's the problem.
Well said, Stuart. Great Blue Herons and Cormorants are typically easy targets. You have to get pretty close before they will flush and there are a lot of them. When you have to hike in for your bird, knowing that he's gone if you get too close, that's when a light-weight prime comes in handy. My Nikon 500mm F5.6 PF arrives Thursday. I can't wait.
I have both. The 200-500 is an excellent lens, but since I bought the 500PF, it's been sitting on my shelf. Almost all my 200-500 shots were at 500mm anyway, so I don't miss the lack of zoom. The 500PF seems a bit sharper, AF is faster and it's much more comfortable to carry while hiking. The only thing I can really complain about is the VR. These PF lenses have VR issues (at least on DSLRs, not sure about the Z bodies). Other than that, it's an excellent lens. It's my go-to lens for wildlife with my D850. Also, another thing to consider is the 300PF with 1.4TC. Sharpness is still very good, and size/weight is amazing.
How bad the vr issue actually is? I have long been using the 300mm f4 (non VR)+1.4 tc . Now I am a bit confused whether to go for the 200-500or the 500mm pf. Thanks
4 years afterwards I don't know if my contribution has any value, but the 300 pf f/4 really does have VR issues on my D850. (if you zoom in you see that the image is blurred). Now I'm expecting the 200-500 in order to possibly replace the tamron 150-600 g2. I would like to thank Jared for the nice review and all the people who have contributed their experiences, so that everyone can have more information on the subject.
@@syrosbirding I've found that the 300 PF and 500 PF do have VR problems at slower speeds (around the 1/100 range) on the D850 (and probably other models). Luckily, the "fix" is to shoot in Qc mode and make sure electronic front curtain shutter is enabled. Works great in that mode, but unfortunately, then you can only shoot at a slow framerate. I like to be able to shoot these lenses at slow shutter speeds sometimes, so that's the only trick I've found that works.
Great video Jared. I’ve traveled to Africa multiple times with the 200-500. It’s a bit heavy but having the zoom range especially when you go off road and can get close is a necessity. I’m usually in a truck or on the ground outside the truck so the weight is not an issue and changing lenses in dusty environments is risky.
I am so glad you did this video as I have both and truthfully I use the 200-500 more I doubt I’ve used the 500 maybe once as I would rather be able to alter the focal length. By the way you did some incredible shots I really like the birds in the fog. That would make a great book cover.
I've used both and I have to say that optically the 200-500 is amazing, especially in the center. The only thing that I didnt like about it was definitely the long zoom throw. The 500pf is optically more perfect, but you should expect that at 3x the price.
@@Jimmy_Cavallo the weight and size of the pf is a game changer. You can just bring it anywhere. On foot it's almost never a problem. When you're in a vehicle or boat and there are mamals or whales coming up to you, that's when you regret not having the ability to go wide.
Up north in Ohio where I live, a great blue heron will take off when you get about 250- 400 ft away if on land. If in a boat about 150 - 250ft. In Florida, it is like a being in a zoo, you can almost hand feed them. I have shot extensively, 1000's of photos, at 600mm and almost never needed to zoom in. So it depends where you live and what you are shooting.
Interesting comparison, though it would have been good to see a head-to-head in similar lighting. I've just moved from the 200-500mm to a 500mm PF and have to say I'm blown away by it. Could be that my 200-500mm is a little tired but to me the image quality of the 500PF is way better, the focus (adapted on a Z7) is noticably faster, and the VR is better allowing some ridiculously low shutter speeds handheld. Also, I tend to do photography hikes and the weight difference is very welcome - guess I just don't have the Fro-guns for the heavier lens ;)
@@Jimmy_Cavallo yes, I'm still happy with the prime option, though it's now a Z-mount lens in place of the 500mm PF.. I do miss the option to zoom sometimes but it is outweighed by the increased image quality and lens speed.
i own the 200-500 and use it on the D750 and it is perfect in quality also the price is a massive point against the 180-400mm or the other prime lenses (300mm 400mm 500mm 600mm) so the 200-500 is the best option for a super tele lens
If I were still using Nikon gear I would have sold my 300mm f4 PF ED VR and Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6 for the Nikkor 500mm f5.6 PF ED VR. I agree that the 200 - 500mm is a fantastic lens, but I am out walking for 7 hours a day, 5 days a week and it really is a heavy lens. I always carry two cameras and got to a stage where I had to move to lighter systems. Pity.
If I would have to select then all the time the prime - usually my targets in Wildlife are not coming close, so I don't need the flexibility of a zoom. And the prime simply offers greater sharpness usually and faster Autofocus. In the case of the new 500mm 5.6, the weight is also an extremely important factor. After a day of walking around in an area for Wildlife, you know what you did. Every kg saving counts a lot.
I own the 200-500 f5.6 for all of the positive reasons you mentioned. Quite frankly, at the time of purchase, I didn't consider the 500 mm prime simply because of cost. While weight was a factor, the cost differential and zoom capability won the day. I used the lens for Men's Member Guest Golf tourney at my club in 2019 was quite pleased with the shots.
I've got both and while I agree, you can't go wrong with the 200-500, once you carry the 500pf on a trail you'll be hooked. Cost and availability are the only downsides to the 500pf but it's a great lens and I am extremely happy I was able to get one.
Thanks for this comparison Jared! I recently purchased the 200-500mm (paired on d850), I was blown away by the quality of images it produces throughout the entire focal length. Having to twist the zoom ring 720 degrees is its weak(est) point...weight is also a factor, so I stabilize it when possible, but the VR helps a *ton* ;) Jared, 16-35 or 14-24, nature/landscape mainly.. Or should I go 24-70mm, already have a Nikon 35 f1.8 and a 20 f1.8, Much appreciated!! :)
@@topg2820 Thanks, I have been leaning that way too. + I want to dip into astro this summer...if it ever arrives here in Newfoundland, Canada.. people don't come here for the weather ;) lol
Great video Jared! You may have saved me a bit of $$$ at the moment. I was on the fence about the 500mm and may just keep my 150-600 Tamron g2 for now.
I have the 200-500 and agree that it is heavy. I am on in years and mostly retired so I have gone to a Nikkor 300mm f/4 VR with a 1.4 teleconverter on my Z7. That combo is quite light and gives you 420mm at f/5.6 and is inexpensive. It should work as well on a D850. Worth trying, Mr. Polin.
Another fantastic and very informative video mate. Your knowledge and advice has helped me seriously improve both my skills and contents of my camera bag. Bravo Jared! 😁
Easy choice, for wildlife you are usually at the long end of a 200-500 so I wouldn't miss the zoom especially as you need to turn the zoom ring forever to get from the short to the long end. Low weight and small size will make the prime more frequently used. The 500/5.6 makes an excellent complement to say a 600/4 when you need to move fast or when going through difficult terrain where a giant lens and tripod would get in the way. It could also sit on the passenger's seat beside you in your car where a 600 with mounted lens hood feels a bit long and also a bit unwieldy to easily stick out the car window
my guns said 500mm pf, but my wallet said 200-500mm. Fro needs to placed the VIP waist band on his guns like Macho Man Randy Savage (that due had a fro too).
I live in Florida and rented the 200-500 to shoot motor sports (the roar before the 24 aka the 24 hours of Daytona test session) and some wildlife in the Lake Apopka wild drive. The 200-500 is a great lens however the weight is truly unruly. A monopod is an absolute must. The images were great. The best way to use this lens is to rent it unless you do wildlife photography or you are one of those photographers that shoot motorsports trackside (the dangerous way to do it), then shelling out the money will be worth it to you.
I agree with most of what Jared says. I decided on the 500mm f5.6 pf because it is lighter and weather proof. I use my lens most in rain forests in Central America. The lighter weight is so much easier to shoot with when you stop hiking and go straight to shooting. About 85% of my shots I took before with my sigma sport were at 600mm anyways, so I'm always at the long end of my lens. I have a 28-300mm as my second lens if needed. I've never used a nikon 200-500 before, but my images are so much sharper with the 500mm f5.6 pf than my sigma 150-600mm,
I have the 200-500 on a D500. Very sharp lens with lots of contrast, reach and versatility on my DX camera. This combo rarely misses a shot. There are times that the 500 is too much reach and I use the zoom. Can’t go wrong with it. Outstanding VR on this lens. The Zoom’s versatility is a game changer. I haven’t tried the prime 500 but i will deal with the added weight in exchange for the versatility. Hoping for a new D500 with more megapixels so I can blow up the images to much larger sizes on metal. Jared, another great video. Keep them coming.
jmwlaw2000 i have both and for me the 500 PF is the one i like most because the weight. And most of the time i want to go as close i can go to an bird. The 500 PF is my absolute favorite in comination with the d500
Soooo, a bicep isn't the muscle that has anything to do with holding a heavy lens. It's more dependent on targeted neck/shoulder and back muscles. The other issue about hand holding a heavy lens is strain on the wrist joints which accelerates "photographers wrists" (if you shoot long enough, you'll know what I mean).
I own 80-400 and use it on my D850. I would like an extra 100 mm...I would like 1000 with a 2x teleconvertor...but that’s ok...In any case I need zoom, so I wouldn’t go to 500 mm prime.
This is something I have been looking at for at least 2 or more years wanting to know weather to get a fixed 500mm Nikon lens or a 200-500mm lens. I have been thinking about it and was not sure where to spend my money. The other question was if I should get the Sigma lens that goes from 200-600mm because it is lighter than the Nikon lens and more affordable being $900.00
It makes sense if you're constantly at 500mm like most bird photographers are. I have the 200-500 and I've held the 500of and the difference is massive. When I'm out shooting for 3-4 hours in the morning I could see that weight difference being worth the money. I'm not a pro, so my wife doesn't see the difference being worth the money, so I'm still using the 200-500 :)
Terrific comparison. I would want to go with the 200-500mm for price and versatility. My problem is I don't have near the guns you have and have great consideration if I can lift this monstrosity without a tripod. I really prefer hand held. I main interest right now is birding and wildlife. Thanks Jared.
I own 300mm, f/4, PF; the 500mm, 5.6, PF and the 200-500mm, 5.6. The latter seldom sees the light of day as the two PFs are ultra-light, ultra-sharp and ultra reliable and are always in my bag. Shooting with a D850 and the 300mm PF provides excellent crop obtained coverage from 300mm to 450mm. Since Jared doesn't crop, he uses the vastly inferior zoom option. On the present subject, viewers would be much better served by watching videos produced by nature photographers and Jared would better serve his viewers by posting such links. Also, Jared my consider next time stopping the boat outside a 500mm limit, a comparative form of using your feet.
I have used the 200-500mm lens shooting the Reno Air races. Was perfect for this setting, until the lens malfunctioned. I rented it to try it. So 1/2 way thru the event, I had to use my 200-400mm setup. A great lens while it worked.
It took 8 months for us to get 2 500 mil PF lens, my wife had us on so many lists but we finally got them 4 days ago and they are so light and just awesome! Hey Jared, neither my hair or guns are as big as yours......
Been shooting 50-200 2.8 with 2 x teleconverter for years now, seem to give me the focal length I find myself zooming in and out and 140-400/5.6 for less than 1k € is damn great still today.
What's interesting now is the 200-500 has INCREASED in price from $1245 to $1396 on this date! I had it on my Amazon wishlist because it was CHEAPER than the Tamron. I was surprised when I saw the increase!
Oh come on Fro, you take all kinds of beautiful image opportunities with the 200-500 but only ONE, drap, white and gray-brown shit image for the 500 PF??? Hardly fair. Do you honestly think Nikon would make the cheap 200-500 better than the more expensive 500 PF? Here's the truth. The 500 PF takes better images and focuses better. Period. The 200-500 is cheap and versatile while still giving excellent results. The question you have to ask yourself is where you'll be using the lens. If you're going be at "touristy" locations where wildlife is used to humans, then the sacrifice in image quality and focusing is worth it to be able to zoom and get close up shots of wildlife, so the 200-500 is the winner. If you're truly going out in the wild then you need all the reach you can get because animals just don't get close, ever, and of course you want the best quality, so the 500 PF is the winner here. I've rented the 200-500 and the lens stayed at 500mm the whole time (and i wished I had more) because where I went, if a blue heron catches sight of you within 300 yards, it's gone.
I Love the video. Fixed primes are nice. Because of the versatility, I’d take the 200-500. Or 300-750 on a crop sensor. The versatility of this lens will help with wildlife and sports like soccer, football and baseball in a stadium. Usually when I look for a lens, I think of what I don’t have or what focal lengths I do have. I only have three now. An 18-55 kit, 50mm f:/1.8G and 70-300 DX AF-P f:/4.5-6.3 ED VR. So I’m covered 18-55 , 50mm. (75 with 1.5x) and 70-300. So I’d go low to a fisheye or extend my 300 focal length with the 200-500. I do find the 200-500 more affordable. With these videos we all get to see photographs from these lenses in the conditions you are working in. Having a video like this does help tremendously on what these lenses can do. If I went to full frame... the 200-500 is FX and so is my 50. And for new bodies in the Z series I’d take the Z6 over the Z7. The fog shots are very good. Lots of detail in the feathers and the foliage. Tamron has a 100-400mm how does that compare to the 200-500? How about the new Tamron 16-300?
I own the 200-500mm and the weight is a consideration. I am traveling stateside later this year and my thoughts are do I carry the 2-5 or go with 24-70 and 70-200?
Bottom line is you will miss a ton of shots with the 500 prime. Just got back from Rocky mtn national park and even shooting with the 200-500 I missed shots. My daughter actually got more shots with her 70-300. As far as weight, If you are a wildlife photographer you just have to deal with a heavy lens. I used a black rapid all week with the 200-500 and it is ideal setup cause this is one of the few straps you can use with a backpack on hikes. I also use the 7200 which will offset the weight of a full frame body with a grip.. The money you save on the 200-500 you will need to buy good boots, rain gear, jackets etc. Image quality will be more on the photographer than comparing these two lens. Again my daughter got just as good if not better photos cause she was in the right spot at the right time with a 70-300.
Excellent video. Right now I am using a 300 mm f/2.8 with 1.4X TC. I intend to go for a 500 mm PF for bird photography despite Nikon is on a limited production as far as this lens is concerned. What do u suggest?
My guns are getting old but I just bought a new (refurbished ) 200-500 for $999.00 from Nikon and wow, I was blown away by the sharpness and vibration control of this lens. Handheld 200mm at 1/60 @5.6 with an iso of 25600 on the D850. I wonder if the extra weight will help bring up my guns? Or, does it help stabilize the lens?
Sharpness on 200-500 is good for the price but the pf is considerably sharper. When Jarrod says the only real difference is weight I dont agree. I already have the zoom and will have both when the struggling Nikon manage to make me a pf.
I am primarily a birder, but almost always carry my camera with me just in case. I own a Nikon D500 and both the 300 f.4 PF and the 200-500 f.5.6. Lets face it, in 99% of cases you are not close enough to the bird. When I have my 200-500 its almost always at 500mm (and still not close enough). The 500mm PF looks nice (but still unavaillable here). Due to weight and size it looks to be easier to carry with me, easier to handhold shooting BIF and apparently sharper at 500mm.
