Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E VR
Reader Interactions
Reader Comments
Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.
A very well done, professionally written review, my compliments for the effort and the time spent on this.
I saw this site getting better and better over time and I am absolutely delighted of the service you guys give to the photography community.
Thank you for your feedback Marco!
Thanks for your great work.
A deep comparison in the behaviour of the 300 PF and 300 AF-S vs the megazooms at 300 and with teleconverters would be great. I am interested in the old and very sharp 300 AF-S I just cannot make my mind about how sharp it is wide open.
In particular:
photographylife.com/revie…pf-ed-vr/3
and
photographylife.com/revie…00mm-f4d/4
there seems to be an inconsistency in the lens behaviour wide open at F/4 (the 300mm AF-S, I mean). Due to sample variation ?
Marco, I have not updated all the Imatest numbers on older reviews. The numbers on the 300mm f/4E PF VR review are more current and correct. I will update the 300mm f/4 AF-S review with the proper numbers once I do the full TC tests using the TC-14E II / III and TC-17E II.
Great news, thanks a lot.
By the way, the review has been updated to include my images. Just finished uploading them.
Great stuff
Nasim, was surprised to see the new Imatest numbers on your 80-400G higher than the old numbers. Can’t wait to see the new numbers on Sigma’s other Sport lens.
BTW, sample variation isn’t just a big Nikon problem as I found out in a good way. I recently sold my 150-600 Sport that was half way in sharpness between my 80-400 and 400mm VR2 because I got a freakishly sharp easier to handle 150-600 Cont. that was actually a little sharper than the Sport. I’d say you got a bad copy of the Sigma Cont.
Thank you for the good work.
Have a look at the Brad Hill, Natural Art Blog, he has done many field trials on the 300mm + TC’s as well as Tamron, Sigma, Nikon Tele Zooms. He gives good insights to their value as wildlife lenses.
I am a wildlife enthusiast – much of my shooting is from a kayak in SW Florida. So VR very important, usually there is plenty natural light. Currently shooting Nikon 7200, N 70-200 VR II, and N 1.7 Tele, or a poor man’s “510 mm”.
I have found after several years with this set up, I need typically another 100-200 mm to avoid severe crops; zoom can be helpful as with water/wind conditions on kayak – zoom provides flexibility for when I get tight on a bird.
I am upgrading sometime in next year, considering/likely D500 body. So regarding lens, considering N300mm PF for size/weight/quality considerations (likely adding N 1.4 Tele) or go with N 200-500.
Lots of pros & cons – any suggestions/comments on my direction?
Gary,
I just switched from a Nikon D7100 to D500. I use a Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary lens for birding and wild life. I love the results with this combination. The only issue I have had is the odd time the auto focus was way off then I discovered that it was my fault. The Sigma lens controls have a tendency to move in to different positions when hanging on a strap that rubs against clothing. So the odd time the vib control was off or something like that. Once I realized this problem and adjusted my strap set up the issue was solved. The D500 is an amazing camera, my results are noticeably better. I don’t think there is a better camera out there for birding except maybe the D5 but the price for that is way higher and it is basically the same camera as the D500 just made a little sturdier. I have tried the Nikon 200-500 with the D500 and I can’t see any better results in the field that the Sigma. Plus that extra 100mm on the Sigma is very significant for wild life shots.
Cheers Robert
Great review Nasim! For someone trying to get into nature and wildlife photography on a DX camera (D5200), which of the following would you recommend?
1. Nikon AF-S 300 f/4 ED (old, non VR)
2. Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR
I can get a mint-condition 300mm f/4 at almost half the price of the 200-500. Image quality and AF speed would be my biggest concerns. If I use a TC1.4 on the 300mm f/4, can I get the same image quality as on the 200-500 f/5.6?
Thanks a lot.
Any word on how it performs with a 1.4X extender? I missed it in your review.
My objective is to get the longest, sharpest focal length possible, in that price range.
Also, there is the new monkey wrench of the new Tamron 150-600 G2.
Thanks.
Nazim,
Great article! Lots of useful info. I think my conclusion is that these lenses are all great and the differences so small that the skill of the user is the most important factor. I use a Nikon D500 and Sigma 150-600 C for birds and sports. The equipment is capable of producing world class shots, the user not so much:) Another quick point I am surprised about is the amount concern that small changes in weight causes your readers. If the lens feels too heavy to lug around you need to take a hard look at your strap or harness set up. Or simply get yourself in better shape. I am over 65 and walk miles every weekend carrying a D600 with a 28-300 and a D500 with a 150-600 and I love the exercise as well as the shooting! Thanks for your great work. Regards Robert
VERY WELL DONE…..I think it’s the best lens for money thinking a prime at 500 2.8 is $10.000, but what do you shoot?
Is it I’m a mediocre shooter getting the best image at my “Angle” ..that’s the key.
WORK what you have because the BEST $10.000 lens will SUCK if the ANGLE isn’t right.
The best a protein shake( Lens )on your composition of a animal or any subject, is how YOU compose it..hmmmm.
A very detailed and nice review. I had a sigma 150-500 earlier. sold it and now have a 200-500 Nikon lense. Indeed it is very good and am quite happy with the results. The sharpness is amazing compared to my earlier pics with sigma. I will post some pics on your fb /instagram page
Thanks once again for the detailed and lovely review
Thanks for a very interesting review. If possible, would like to see a comparison with the Nikkor 300/4 AFS and the Nikkor 300/4 AFS VR PF lenses. When I look at your tests of these lenses, it seems that they can outperform the 200-500 up to 400 mm, but maybe not at 500mm.
The 300/4 AFS is my present walk around long lens. It performs quite well with the TC-14E-II. My questions is whether the 200-500/5.6 would be substantially better? Or maybe I should just wait for Nikon to come out with a 400/5.6 AFS VR PF lens.
A 400mm f/5.6 lens seems rather unlikely at the moment don’t you think ?
Your 300 + 1.4TC makes an excellent 420mm f/5.6 combo, I’m really not sure what you’d like to see in a 400 f/5.6 that isn’t already there ?
If it were a 400 f/4 then now we could talk, but f/5.6 for a prime of that size isn’t all that appealing.
The reason I suggested a 400/5.6 is only because of weight. Even in a PF design I suppose a 400/4 would be rather heavy and bulky. The old 400/5.6 ED-IF manual lens only weighs 1200 g.
Hmm, yes, but, the 300mm f/4 + 1.4TC combo is available right now, and is under 950g.
If the Canon lens is any indication, a 400 f/4 would indeed be closer to 2kg. But still, the combo above is at 420mm f/5.6, and weights ~945g.
Pierre, I would personally welcome a true 400mm f/5.6 VR prime. Please keep in mind that a lens with a built-in teleconverter (as lens elements) will typically perform better than a lens with an attachable teleconverter, because the lens elements can be optimized on the former. For this reason, Nikon sells the 800mm f/5.6 lens together with a 1.2x TC, which is specifically made for it. You cannot buy that teleconverter and you cannot interchange it between different 800mm lenses. This means that a 400mm f/5.6 VR would provide better results than the 300mm f/4 + 1.4x TC. Attach a 1.4x on that lens and you get a 560mm f/8 lens, which will obliterate the 200-500mm optically…
A 400 f/5.6 would obviously be better in sharpness, and faster in AF operation than a 300mm with TC.. but in the meantime, the current combo is pretty damn good on both counts. Would marginal gains in performance be enough to warrant the R&D and production of a dedicated lens while the 300 f/4+TC combo can also be used as a 300 f/4 ? It may be a tad weaker as a 400-ish f/5.6, but in the meantime it’s also a superb 300 f/4.
I very well may be wrong, but it looks unlikely that the Nikkor line-up really *needs* such a lens at the moment, certainly not so soon after the recent release of the 300 f/4 refresh.
Also, I wonder if an upgraded TC1.7 could pair significantly better with the 300 f/4, giving a 510 f/6.7 !
Hi Nasim. I currently.own the new nikon d500 and also have the sigma 150-600 contemporary version and it is working quiet well but am wondering should I swap it for the nikon 200-500, have you done the Review on this combo yet,
Kim, as soon as I am done reviewing the current batch of lenses, I will put in a request for the 300mm f/4E PF VR. Earlier the lens was nowhere to be found, but it looks like it is regularly stocked at B&H now. I will need to get 2-3 samples for a proper test. I will put the lens through 1.4x and 1.7x TC to see how it performs at equivalent focal lengths. For 300mm and 420mm, the 300mm f/4 lenses are unmatched – they would do better than the 200-500mm optically. However, 1.7x is a gamble on the 300mm f/4, so the 200-500mm would do better there from what I can tell, especially when it comes to AF accuracy.
If you don’t need to get close, the 300mm f/4 is the way to go. But if reach is your concern, then the 200-500mm would be a better overall option.
Nasim, thanks for your reply. As I understand from your answer to Marco above (1.1.1.1), I cannot directly compare the values in your review of the 300/4 AFS with the values in your present review of the 200-500/5.6 AFS VR. However, as you state above, both 300/4 lenses should be sharper than the 200-500/5.6 up to 420 mm. Also, I notice from your review that the 200-500/5.6 might be sharp in the center but falls off quite quickly towards the corners. The 300/4 lenses seem to perform better in this respect, even with TC-14E II/III attached.
thaks alot . good article .
I have a question , is it work fine with D800 and Teleconverter 1.4 TC II
??
Ali, yes, it will work on the D800, since the camera can focus lenses with a maximum aperture of f/8 in the center. I have also used my TC-14E II and it does work quite well, although I tested it on the Nikon D750 and D810.
Dear Nasim,
As always a great and thought provoking review and the timing couldn’t have been better for me. Currently I shoot with Nikon D7100 + Af-s 300mm F4 (NOT PF) lens and have been ton apart in selecting my next lens. In my wish list Sigma Sport was at the top and closely followed by Nikon 200-500mm.
I have once handled the Sigma Sport at a shop and it was one of the best looking and one of the best build lens that I have ever seen and each switch of it just exudes ‘Made in Japan’ quality and after reading almost all reviews and hundreds of sample images, I am almost decided to go with the ‘beast’.
But I have also seen some great images captured with the Nikon and most previous reviews states that the Nikon has better bokeh, which is to me as much important as the resolving power as ‘bokeh’ is the image quality characteristic that gives that aesthetic appearance, specially to wildlife images, where subject isolation is the intention of the photographer.
Although after reading your superb review, I am now even more confident regarding the ability of Sigma Sport, I still have few questions and I think following questions may be relevant for most photographers who are still undecided between Nikon 200-500mm vs Sigma Sport 150-600. Ok, here are my questions.
1). In your opinion, which lens has more smoother out of focus areas?
2). How is the subject isolation capability of both lenses, when compares to top of the line 500mm or 600mm F4 prime lenses?
3). Have you noticed a noticeable image quality difference of both lenses when mounted on high density FX (D800E, D810) and high density DX (D7100, D7200). Most reviewers and samples images show that, image quality of these ultra telephoto zoom lenses is much better with full frame cameras and when mounted on high density APS-C cameras, image quality takes a noticeable hit. In my opinion, most photographers buying these lenses still shoot with DX cameras and do you think they will get a significant image quality boost if they switched to FX cameras using these lenses, at the expenses of SHORTER REACH ?
4). Will either of these lenses provide equal or similar image quality to 300mm F4 + 1.4 TC combination, not just is image resolution, but also in micro contrast, smooth OOF areas and saturated and pleasing colors?
Awaiting all your thoughts and answers.
Thanks
Manoj Pathiravasam
from Sri Lanka
Manoj,
1) It is important to highlight the true meaning of “bokeh”. If you are referring to out of focus areas, they are not bokeh – most lenses can beautifully isolate subjects and the smoothness of the background is dependent on a number of factors, including camera to subject distance, background to subject distance, focal length and aperture. Both Nikon 200-500mm and Sigma 150-600mm Sport are equally capable of isolating subjects and making the background look smooth, so there is not much difference there (aside from f/5.6 max aperture vs f/6.3 on the long end). Bokeh refers to the quality of out of focus highlights. If you are worried about those, then the Nikkor 200-500mm is going to be a slightly better candidate, because it has a simpler optical design and no aspherical lens elements (they are the ones that usually add shapes into highlights). This is based on what I have seen so far from images.
2) There is no comparison between a high-end prime and a zoom super telephoto in terms of subject isolation capability and bokeh. You are dealing with f/2.8 or f/4 vs f/5.6-6.3 – that one to two stop difference is going to isolate subjects significantly better at the same distance. In short, if subject isolation and bokeh are your top priorities (and noticeably better AF), then you should be seriously looking into super telephoto primes.
3) All the lab tests were conducted on the Nikon D810. Anything beyond that pixel size is definitely going to have an impact on sharpness, because the lens is the limiting factor, not the sensor. This won’t be as noticeable at 200-300mm range, because the lens is optically very good there, but anything above 400mm definitely will. Full frame always provides a 1+ stop difference in image quality, so moving up to FX will definitely improve overall image quality. However, this is different than the question you are truly asking, which is in regards to higher pixel density of DX sensors and what kind of toll they have on lenses. My answer is, lenses like the 200-500mm don’t do particularly well at the long end of the zoom range optically, so using a camera with smaller pixels won’t give anymore details. Smaller pixels are only advantageous when the lens is capable of providing enough resolving power.
4) A prime almost always yields better overall sharpness and micro-contrast than a zoom, so if you are looking at the same focal lengths, the 300mm f/4 will come out on top. With a 1.4x teleconverter, the 300mm f/4 still looks amazingly good, so I expect it to edge out the 200-500mm f/5.6 @ 400mm (haven’t done TC tests yet, will do that as soon as I can). However, the 1.7x does not couple well with many lenses, including 300mm f/4, so the 200-500mm would be better for reach and AF speed/accuracy at 500mm. The 200-500mm looks pretty nice in terms of colors and contrast, but it won’t be able to compete with nano-coated and better glass on high-end primes.
Dear Nasim,
Thank you for your prompt and very insightful reply and I am sure lot of other photographylife.com subscribers will find your reply helpful.
In regards to your statement on high density DX taking toll on image quality, I think Nikon D500 with its 20mp (lower than 24mp) sensor with larger photosites and improved processing technologies will provide noticeably better image quality out of these lenses in comparison to very demanding sensors in D7100 and D7200.
Also, I have a feeling that ‘ultra telephoto zoom lens’ war is not over and that we may see at-least a lens of similar characteristics. But I wish that lens to be a ‘Sigma Sport 250-600mm f5.6’ lens with outstanding image quality (95% quality of pro prime lenses) and at relatively affordable price under $3,000. Since sales of current Sigma 150-600mm probably be decreasing due to the introduction of cheaper and OEM nikon 200-500mm, I am hoping that, Sigma to come up with such lens.
Thank you Nasim for your great content on this superb website, which in my humble opinion is one of the BEST and I trust your words.
Regards
Manoj
Thanks for that review!
Even as I work in pentax environment it is both pleasure to see your images and read tech part of review.
I have question do you consider to test pentax 150-450 lens? especially when K1 will come? you have lot of exp. with long lenses so your review will be very helpful.
For now I choose to work with fixed focal lenses. Bought Tamron 300 2.8 60B Adaptall-2 lens. and Pentax AF 1.7 Adaptor. I mostly shots concert so light is main issue (300mm f/2.8 for 700$ is a bargain). Tammy is great @ 2.8 and with pentax adaptor give me 510 4.5 with some AF. I could say that with K5 SR I can shoot 1/160 hand held for 300 and about 1/250 for 510mm.
And It work well: www.krochmal.eu/Journ…m/WAJDA90/
small edit: Wajda concerd reportage was shot with monopod support :)
Piotr, thank you for your feedback. I have not used the Pentax 150-450mm lens yet, but I can’t wait to try it out sometime in the future, especially on the upcoming K-1 DSLR. The main issue I personally see with the K-1 is AF speed and accuracy for action photography. Historically, Pentax has not had the best AF system out there, so I really hope to see improvements on the K-1, specifically in regards to subject tracking.
Yeap, you’re right. AF in K5 is. Hope next AF systems will work better.
An other amazing review I was waiting the review of this lens. I have a question, or better if you can give me a suggestion. I own a Nikon 300 2.8 VR1 model and I would like to take one zoom lens sometimes it’s better and comfortable than prime lens. What do you suggest from these 4 lens: 150-600 tamron, Sigma Sport Or Contemporary or the Nikon? Thanks and continue with your amazing website!
Paolo from Italy!
Thanks for this superb review of the 200-500 f/5.6E, it got me enthusiastic about this lens. Specially for my upcoming South Africa photo safari!
Now I’ve got the D7200 with Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII and TC2.0 III. I was wondering if this combo matches the center sharpness of this 200-500 @400mm, or not?
‘To buy, or not to buy. That’s the question’
Greetings,
Dick
First, thanks for this review. Second I agree with the Summary.
In addition I’d like to mention that I did some similar test in November 2015 when purchased this lens and also tested other Teleconvertors TC20E-III and TC17E-II. Together with the test I compared results to the Tamron 150-600 VC and Nikkor 200-400 VR2.
I was very surprised how good the result is at 850mm focal length and AF capability. TC20E-III already doesn’t work. For nitpickers: You can’t compare fixed focal Nik 800/5.6 FL with this combo, but still, the result is not bad! I tested on my D810. Full res JPG are available on my web page, but in my native language. You have to use Google Translator in case of interest ;-)
www.2msoft.net/2Mfot…fault.html
I always sit and wait for your next review as they are objective and professional. I have owned the 300 f2.8 VR2 for the past 5 yrs and have taken 90% of my wildlife images with this lens using from the D300 to the D4 and D800/D810. My current bodies are the D4 and D810. This lens with the D810 and TC 1.4 and my copy of the Tc 1.7 provides a dream combination. I often use the D810 in 1.2 crop mode, to reduce file size and gain extra 20% ito “reach”. However, I have been searching for a quality option for 600mm and more flexibility. I don”t want to sell my 300 f2.8 as I know what this lens is capable of and the smaller size is great for travelling. So I bought the 200-500 f5.6 but soon became disappointed as I am use to the 300 f2.8. I do realise it is not a fair comparison. and at 500mm it was not as good as the 300 with TC 1.7. So I ten tested the Sigma 150-600 Sport. As your results indicate, I was actually shocked how good this lens is at 600mm. Some people might think the 300 f2.3 and Sigma 150-600 on 2 bodies is an odd combination. For me the attraction is the 600mm for longer reach, birds etc and the keep the 300 f2.8 + TC 1.4 as my prefered combination and focal length that has served me very well. Thanks again for you great website and reviews
Did u find in your test that sigma sports is equal if not better at 600mm as compare to 300 f2.8 +tc2x in terms of sharpness and AF speed and accuracy?
Hi Nasim,
I really want to say kudos for your sample pictures. There is so many review sites out here with “snap shots“ samples that doesn’t really show what you can do with the lens. It`s almost difficult to trust what they are saying and someone as to wonder if they really tested it or even worst, are they really photographers…
I believe you have something unique with this site and hopefully will keep it up. I have been debating for quite some time what lens I should buy to replace my 70-300 VR. I keep going back and forth between reach or agility (weight), and this article is definitely helping me putting everything into perspective.
Thanks !
Simon
Nice review. the sample points make me think about buying online as opposed to buying at a local store, to get the time to play with it before purchase.
However, my question is, does this lens perform the same with the TC1.4 II as it does with the III?
Thanks Dennis
Loved your test and comparison . I’ve been waiting for this for awhile . Many thanks
Love the images in this one.
I always read your gear reviews because you post really good *images* in your gear reviews instead of only test charts and random snaps like most other sites.
Keep up the good work!
P.S. if you have the gear or previous tests available, it would be really interesting to do a big “600mm mega-comparison” article – there are just so many ways to get there, at vastly different price points. It would be cool to see a simple chart of the lens combo, what mounts it works with, the aperture at 600mm, and price for the setup. Or just a page like that with links to your previous reviews of each item.
Some of the many options I can think of…
* a 600mm prime
* a 500mm prime + 1.4 tc
* a 400mm prime + 1.7 or 2.0 tc
* a 300mm f/2.8 + 2.0 tc
* a 300mm f/4 + 2.0 tc
* the sigma 120-300 f/2.8 + 2.0tc
* the two sigma 150-600’s
* the tamron 150-600
* the nikon 200-500 + a tc
* a 200-400 f/4 + tc (nikon and canon variants)
* an 80-400 or 100-400 + a tc
etc.
Sorry for the off topic, but when will the winners to the Keepsnap contest be announced?
Thank you for the review. I was wondering whether to go for Nikon 200-500mm vs Sigma 150-600mm Sport. I guess weight of the Sigma lens is too much. Also I already have 1.4x teleconverter which I use for 300mm f/4 non vr lens.
After reading your review did I make a mistake of getting this lens instead of Sigma Sport. One part of me stays Image quality should be the one which should be considered not the weight, Another part says whats the point of having a sharpest lens if you cannot use it..
I can still return is as I just got this lens. I am thinking of returning it and getting Sigma lens.
Please advice….
Do you usually print?
Not yet. But I want to start printing out my shots, Atleast the good one..
I personally think that you should prefer the Nikon. First because it’s lighter and second because probably it will keep a higher resell value, in case you decide to switch to a super-sharp prime.
Sure thank you for the suggestion. I will go out and test this out to see the if I am getting good shots.
I do have one question is sharpness comparable with the that of primes ? If yes then its much better option.
I might try to get used Nikon 300mm f/2.8 eventually and use teleconvertors with that.
Thanks
Krishna
Nasim
The big question is which would be better to have? to shoot at 600 mm ? The sigma sports 150-600 or 300f2.8 VR II + 2TC III ? Obviously if not comparing at 300 mm and 420mm even at 510mm.
Hi Chandan
I have not tested jet the Sigma sport but I have the possibility to do that in the near future, my best friend bought it and ask me several time if I want to test it but I have not found jet the right time, but I have the 300F2.8 VRII and all the TC (1,4xIII, 1,7xII end 2xIII) and the last one give very poor result on all my lenses. On near subject the quality is acceptable but on the long distance, where the TC can have more sense, is very poor and you need to stop down a lot. So I suppose that the Sigma sport is the best option.
Here an example of poor quality shot: simoalba.smugmug.com/Holid…-Qh64pSf/A
Here an example with acceptable quality: simoalba.smugmug.com/Holid…-KhR8VZQ/A
On my previous comments there are other example with big prime shot handheld.
I think that the difference is embarrassing but also the difference of price is a lot.
Regards, Marco
“So out of the 5 total samples, two turned out to be duds from the start, which is not a particularly encouraging statistic.”
It makes me wonder what if you had only four samples and two were duds? That’s a 50% defect rate!
Since I’ve owned my D610 for the last two years I’ve been reading all kinds of reviews of Nikon products like this one and it seems that Nikon doesn’t care much about quality control and its customers. I just recently read in an older article that is the primary reason why Roger Cicala chose Canon over Nikon. I wish I knew that before I bought my D610…
By the way, your reviews are the best Nasim—the most honest and in-depth with truly inspiring images.
Nasim,
Thank you for your review, I found it really thorough and informative.
There is one question I have though. How easy did you find it to hand-hold the Nikon 200-500mm lens, compared to the 150-600mm lenses and the 80-400mm, please?
Thanks again,
Christopher
Hi Christopher,
I have shot all these lenses – 80-400, all three 150-600s and the 200-500. Simply put, the lighter the lens, the longer you will be able to hold it before your shaking exceeds the VR capabilities. So it actually comes down to what your subjects are and how long you need to hold it still to get your shot. If your subject makes you wait and wait and wait (say a leopard that might jump out of a tree) then the lightest lens will give you the best chance to get the shot. But if you’re shooting something on a shorter time frame (say a down of football – yeah, I mean American football – go Broncos!), then you’ll probably be able to hold the heavier lens still enough to get your shot.
Verm
Christopher,
I echo Verm’s comments. I’ve shot them all handheld, and in fact, the Nikons I have never placed on a tripod.
I also agree with Nasim’s assessment, the Sigma sport is the sharpest, but it is heavy and the difference in weight is not small.
Thorough review and beautiful pictures. Thank you for that. How does it compare to 300 mm f/4+ 1.4 TC II in AF speed & accuracy? ( which was your comparison bench mark previously.)
Nasim,
Thank you for providing a well written and useful review!
I own a 80-400 and was wondering, based on your review, if I should consider “upgrading” to the 200-500? I am looking for the best optical performance at the longest range.
Appreciate your thoughts.
Joe
Hi Joe,
If it’s optical performance at the longest range you’re after, then forget the zooms and buy a prime. But consider how much being able to zoom means to you, how much handling (AF performance, VR performance, etc) means to you before you drop 8-18 grand on a prime. Or if you can’t afford a new prime, consider a used prime as these are pro lenses and built to last several lifetimes of everyday use. These consumer zooms are not built to the same standards.
Verm
Verm
Thanks, appreciate your thoughts.
Hi Joe,
I was in a somewhat similar situation and went for the 200-500.
Meanwhile I shot ~2000 pictures with it (mostly wildlife) and also measured at some point the MTF curves at different focal lengths.
IMHO the 200-500 is really a good performer in the range of 200-400 mm, with a strong focus on the 200-300mm range, where it really excels. However, between 400mm to 500mm the sharpness falls off noticably (on a D800 and a D7200).
I had it purchased as a more flexible and lightweight alternative to the 300mm 2.8 + TCs. While flexibility and weight are indeed in comparison really nice, the 300 2.8 with TC17 beats the 200-500 hands-down @500mm.
So if your emphasis is free-hand operation and flexibility, go for it. If you want a really good performance at 500mm, I would rather go for a long prime.
Excellent review, many queries fully answered.
It would seem that the sharpness is a issue to many and the idea of having a alternative method of having a very sharp 300mm Prime, that will function as a contender to 500mm when using a 1.4 TC has become a common idea.
It is hard to detach from a 300mm as a every day lens, so I am with this line of thinking.
The Sigma Sport at 500 – 600mm has been very thought provoking, bringing about the question.
How does it perform when attached to a Sigma 1.4 TC at 840mm.
I rather use it with an APS-C camera and take advantage of the “internal” teleconverter aka crop factor.
Wonderful images, stunning “portraits”!
Great Job Nasim!
The most thorough and practical review I have seen, particularly we have for the first time a true head-to-head of all five Nikon telephoto options and even with TC combinations.
But as usual you have the best photography of any reviewer on the internet. For me that is the true test of your credibility. BTW I have been using the Sigma Sport along with the Sigma 1.4x TC which autofocuses OK on my D600. I’m in Boulder and would be willing to lend you the combo if you would like for your Sigma Sport review.
Hi Nasim,
Great review as always. I have a quick question regarding your 80-400 + 1.4TC data. I’d imagine you were using the III and not the II but would like to confirm. If for some reason you were using the II, do you think it will fare better with the III? Reason I ask is because my local stores are doing a sale on the 80-400 and the price is reasonably attractive. I like to avoid carrying 2.3kg around when I can carry 1.6kg and get results that are reasonably close. Thanks!
Hi Matt,
Sorry to chime in here, but I own this combination. Unfortunately, the 80 -400 does not do well with the 1.4 TCIII.
That said, I really like the lens in terms of weight, handling, and VR. I had a 500 prime for many years and this lens obviously doesn’t come close in terms of image quality, but due to being able to handholdfor long periods, I get a lot more opportunities.
As always, it’s about tradeoffs.
Hi sceptical1,
Thank you for the feedback and yes I appreciate the tradeoff element. Image quality aside can you comment on the AF ability / speed of the 80-400 with the TC14III in optimal light and lower light environments? I don’t plan to shoot a cobra capturing its prey in the jungle but just want to see if it is even passable for big birds BIF in dimmer light situations.
Thanks. -Matt
Matt, if I may also chime in here….
For birding and especially BIF in dim light you’ll need every millisecond of AF advantage and as bright as possible a lens for both AF and high SS at acceptable ISO. Finally you’ll nearly always be shooting at full stretch for this scenario, where your zoom is least comfortable.
Rather get a fast prime. It will be less expensive than working your way through several superzooms that offer only incremental improvements over one another. I bought a used 500 f4 VR that I use with D810 and for BIF even this lens is very frustrating with a TC attached (f5.6) – AF slows considerably and the narrow field of view makes target acquisition difficult. The extra stop of light without TC makes a huge difference.
If you are shooting a crop body then your 80-400 is already ‘longer’ than my 500 on FX. If that is not long enough then getting closer will give a bigger improvement to your images than even more reach. If you are on FX then 400 should be adequate for large bird BIF.
Hi James,
Thanks for chiming in . IMO, your advice is spot on. To answer Matt’s question, this combination does not perform well enough to be used for BIF even in perfect conditions.
To amplify what you said you are absolutely better off working to get closer. It is a big factor in getting good images.
Excellent, thank you Nasim – I really appreciate that you run multiple copies of the 200-500 and you mention the issues with sample variation. I don’t recall, did you run multiple copies of the Tamron and Sigmas siblings too? The +1.4 TC work is particularly useful – I shoot a D7100 so I don’t think I’d use one, but it’s fun to see how the TCs affect performance.
Only issue for me – I bought the Tamron new for $700 only 4 months ago and the wife gives me the grumpy face every time I mention that I’d like to upgrade to the Nikon! But if I can rent the Nikon and show her that it’s better than the Tamron… you know, that probably still won’t help.
Fantastic and very thorough review! Thank you. I’ve read every review I can find on these lenses and wound up being confused because of inconsistent conclusions. It sounds like bad copies of the lenses explain most of the inconsistencies in other reviews.
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for the review.
I do have one question, is sharpness of Sigma 160-600mm comparable to Nikon Primes ?
Thanks
krishna
After having read many reviews on the Budget Long Telephoto Lenses, from all the manufacturers, it would seem that a similar sharpness is achievable if comparing the Zoom lens to a Prime that has a TC attached . This outcome depends on subject distance, and available light. For the money these Zoom lenses are a great entry into Long Telephoto Photography
and for many these models or newer versions will be their only requirement.
Hi, Nassim and the team.
Thanks for your reviews. After read this so good review I would like to suggest you, to update the Sigma 120-300 2.8 Sports review with the new TC-1401, and the TC-2001 to compare MTF charts to the Sigma 150-600 f5-6.3 Sport. I think will be very interesting to compare and will help many of us to decide which one to buy.
Thank you again.
Best regards.
Raynext Bcn-CAT.
Hi Nasim,
As usual your reviews rock and this one is one of the best and would be the most popular one.
I have been waiting for your review on this lens for a long time and finally you delivered the best review.
I own a Canon 7D and in a dilemma whether to take a plunge in Nikon world just to enjoy this lens or rather focus on deciding btw Tamron vs Sigma 150-600 (this would help me save money on buying a Nikon DX body). Am i really missing something by not owning this lens vs Sigma vs Tamron lens ?
Any suggestions or advice would really help me alot.
Canon makes two different 100-400, the first version shoul cost the same as the nikon, if bought used.
Funny that. I’m mulling over switching from Nikon (D7100) to Canon (7D, probably 2nd hand – the Mark II does more than I need and the 600D is too trendy) simply to get my hands on their 70-300L. IMHO, the 70-300 is a great lens on a DX body for walkaround (coupled with something like the 10-22 and a 50/f1.8). Any longer lens would then be a ‘destination’ lens (stick it in the backpack and only get it out when you get to where you’re going) rather than a ‘walkaround’ (fits into a shoulder bag for immediate use – the 80-400 fits that bill pretty well, but it’s bigger and dearer than the 70-300L). I still have my Sigma 70-300 non-OS (current retail about £80) and I can’t think of a better value lens, but I’d rather hope the Canon would be a distinct improvement.
Hi Nasim,
Thanks again for the review. I think you are spot on. This is a good Lens but lens quality variation is the main issue. I ordered 2 copies so far ( refunded first one ). First copy has lots of lens dust visible from the view finder and even on some shots as well. Second copy is really soft at 500mm.
I found a weird issue in both copies. When we are shooting at object at 500mm and focusing on infinity then the images are completely soft. In all other cases images seems to be ok. Also this seems to happen only at 500mm. If we say zoom to 400mm and focus at infinity then it not the case.
Did you find the same issue or am I doing something wrong. I will return this copy to B&H as well. Now I am thinking should I got to Sigma 160-600mm.
Do we see the same lens quality variations in Sigma sports ?
Thanks
Krishna
Hi Krishna,
my copy of this lens has the same issue, it is VERY soft at infinity and 500 mm.
Istvan
Hi Istvan,
I checked with my friend who has the same lens. He was having some softness at 500mm but much better than my copy. I am going to return this and will be going for Sigma 150-600mm Sport. Hope I don’t these lense variations with Sigma.
Thanks
Krishna
Dear Nasim,
I have found your site just some weeks ago and since then, I am here on daily basis – for me clearly one of the best, if not the best photography site, thank you for the great work, and keep it up.
I have the lens since three weeks or so, and I am (not so) slightly disappointed. As a bird shooter my priority is sharpness and that is the point where I miss a lot. I have switched from Canon (after about 30 years – I began as a child :) ) to Nikon this year and have some great stuff, including the D810.
I have made hundreds of pictures with this lens and there were not much keeper… Your great review comes for me a little too late, but I can give back my lens – and I will do it and will go for the Sigma S.
Best regards
Istvan
PS: sorry for my english, I am from Hungary and living in Austria
Így lassan két évvel később mi a vélemény a Sigma 150-600 S-ről? Én is éppen gondolkozok egy D810+ Sigma 150-600 S kombón, de a Nikon 200-500 elgondolkoztatott tekintve, hogy általában kézből szoktam fotózni és nem szoktam tripodot használni.
Kommentedből ítélve viszont abszolút nem éri meg az objektív és ugyanazért az összegért inkább venne az ember Sigmat.
Thanks for the review. So far I’ve found the Nikon 200-500 mm to be quite sharp. The thing that knocks me over is the contrast which is excellent, even in marginal light. The contrast enhances the perceived sharpness of the lens. I haven’t tracked much yet so can’t give a definitive assessment of focus. Like may others, I will be very keen to see how it performs with the D500. It looks likely to be a great combination.
Dear Nasim
Hi
couple pf weeks ago i asked a question about Nikon TC-20EIII.
I have a Nikon D750 and here are my lenses : 1.Nikon 20 1.8G 2.Nikon 16-35 f4 3. Nikon 50mm 1.8g 4.Nikon 85mm 1.8g and i will buy this creation Nikon 200-500. now this is my question:
with these lenses which one of teleconvertors do you suggest?
Thanks in advance
Sajjaad, teleconverters only work with select few lenses and the TC-20E III specifically will only properly work with fast professional f/2.8 prime and zoom lenses. None of the lenses you referred will work with that, except for the Nikon 200-500mm. Even then, I would never recommend that combination due to heavy loss of sharpness and contrast.
Thanks a lot Dear Nasim.
And thank you because of your wonderful website and your justice for brands.
all the best
On a tripod in some situations the TC-20E III can work well with the Nikon 200-500mm.
This shot of the moon was taken with this combination @ 1000mm (500 x 2):
www.mundy.ca/Space…2016-04-18
Dear Nasim,
Excellent, accurate, and very informative review of the new Nikon 200-500. I am particularly concerned about sample variation, which makes the purchase of this otherwise very good lens a sort of gamble. You mentioned in your review that “My recommendation would be to test the lens for sharpness as soon as you receive it, so that you could exchange it for another copy, which will hopefully be better. We have written a number of articles and guides at Photography Life on how to properly test lenses, so I would recommend to give those articles a thorough read, so that you don’t end up getting frustrated”. However, I did not find these articles. Could you provide the links ? Also, if I go to a physical store (B&H, Adorama), and am able to test the 200-500, which tests could be done in the store ? I believe this information would be very helpful for a lot of people, and for the purchase of other lenses as well.
Thanks a lot.
Dear Nasim,
Wonderful article as usual on the Nikon 200-500.
I am a retired computer science professor, so funds are limited.
I love bird photography — I have been considering this lens to use with my Nikon D7200.
But, here is the conundrum:
Have Nikon 300d f/4 — as well as the Nikon TC17.
Would I get better IQ with this combination or with the 200-500?
Or, perhaps trade in my 300 for the new 300 VR and use the TC17 with it?
Keep up the most informative photo website on the web.
Thank you,
Prof. G.
I have the same dilemma. I too have a 300 f/4 AF-S and the TC-17 EII and am wondering if the 200-500 will be much sharper that this combo. The light loss at max aperture will be similar for both so the 200-500 needs to be much sharper, much contrastier and with much better AF to consider making the shift for me. Of course the convenience of the zoom and the VR is very attractive.
Perhaps the Sigma Sports is the answer as I don’t handhold at that weight and focal length (beanbag or monopod usually, tripod sometimes).
Thanks for a great review, have been waiting for it! Keep going ;)
Ok, now the question is Nikkor 200-500 or Sigma 150-600 Sport. Decisions, Decisions… To get more reach and sharpness with sigma (as a result get more heavier and more expensive lens) or cheaper, smaller, but less sharp with little less reach?! Hehe, the question which bothers most photographers I suppose. And unfortunately there is no easy answer – everyone need to decide what works for him best.
I got the 200-500 and use it on a D3200, which is, of course, not the optimal platform, but it seems good, though of course nearly every bird in New England has run off and hidden since I got it! I’ve had at a couple of hawks in flight, and it’s promising, but the sample is small. It’s never at hand when the eagles fly by. As for infinity focus at 500, I have not noticed a problem. I took a casual handheld shot at the moon not too long ago, and it was hard to distinguish from a tripod shot with the old 500/4 AIP. I was pretty pleased.
Oooh, care to share that shot? I’ve been trying to get a good shot of the moon for a cople of months now, also with a D3200, but the kit lens is obviously not cut out for this task. It would be interesting to see what you were able to achieve if it’s posted somewhere :)
So, for $1,400 I may or may not get a well made lens…? :S
Great review.
It is limited to discussion about, primarily, bird and wildlife photography out of doors.
Has anyone had experience shooting indoors with this lens?
Looking for something which will work with my D700 in a large conference hall – well lit. Not sports. No fast moving athletes.
Great review guys. Thoroughly enjoyable reading, confirming my decision to spend the $$ in the first place.
In reply to Terry.
Hi Terry. I am very pleased to say I purchased this lens along with the TC-14a III teleconverter. Although I have only managed a couple of short outdoor sessions so far, a wildlife sanctuary and the beach, both using the x1.4 teleconverter. I have found the lens an absolute joy to use. I am delighted to report that while ‘playing’ out in the garden I was able to zoom in from across the garden, in through an open window into the darkened interior, and read the subject line on emails on a computer screen some 40 yards away (shutter 1/125, ISO 2000, at F8, 700mm zoomed in on live view). This lens picks up light very well with shots of shaded areas showing their colour. Based so far on what I have seen of it, I think it would work extremely well sitting on a tripod in a conference hall taking what must look like closeup shots but from a distance. The amount of light it grabs should aid indoor work. Combine it with the amazing lowlight performance of the new D5 or D500 it should be superb. I imagine it would be equally as high performing in indoor action shots, such as basketball or volleyball.
I found tracking birds in flight limited only by my own skill, not the lens. I found trying to shoot in continuous high mode and swinging the camera and lens combo around problematic. On the few occasions I found the lens ‘hunting’ for focus it was usually after I had inadvertently tried focusing on something in the very near distance by mistake.
I have not done any meaningful post processing work yet so can not comment on the quality of images.
I did try using manual focus for a few clutches, then decided autofocus was much easier so left it there.
I haven’t tried out the ‘Sports’ setting yet so can’t make a comment.
I took a few quick photos on the day I took delivery of the lens and looking at those briefly in Photoshop. The image quality appears excellent. More than good enough for my purposes. I found it very hard to take a bad picture. I struggled quite a bit with the weight of this lens handheld at full zoom. It operated much better with VR turned off and attached to a tripod and gimbal. Where necessary I operated it via wifi through my iPhone.
My gear: I was shooting on a Nikon D5200 with WU-1a wifi dongle, TU-14a III 1.4x teleconverter, AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f:5.6E ED, Manfrotto MK190XPRO4-BHQ-2 and MA393 gimbal. The lens also has a Lock 200 switch for transporting. All I need now is some kind of an alarm to go off in the lens every time I try going anywhere without first locking it up. Very handy for people like me.
Richard
Going by your charts the Tamron is sharper at 600mm than at 500mm, is that right?
Chris, not wide open – only stopped down to f/8…
Great review, and great photos …. as usual.
I am still getting to know my Nikon 200-500 but so far I love it.
My “go to” lens has always been my 300mm/2.8. I love the speed and the flexibility with TCs.
I have the VR version now, but before that I owned the AF version that did not have VR. This was by far the best lens for the investment I have ever purchased. I paid $1,400 for a mint used version in a hard case. I shot with it for 2 years and then sold it for hundreds more than I paid for it, when I got the new VR version ($5k).
Those who cannot justify dropping thousands on a prime, I would recommend getting an older AF non-VR version of the Nikon 300/2.8.
I would have no problem going back to that lens again. The shots were just as sharp as the VR version I use today.
And my lens is now $7k so I am sure I will get more than I paid for it when I am done with it.
The pro lenses are an investment. If you care for them, they will cost you very little, if anything at all.
I am trying to fill a focal range of 200 to 400mm. Just can not decide between the 200 to 500 or the new 80 to 400.
I am usually shooting wildlife and landscape using a nikon d810 or D5. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I am trying to fill a focal range of 200 to 400. I can not decide between the nikon 200 to 500 or 80 to 400.
I am usually shooting wildlife or landscape with a nikon d810 or d5.
Any help would be appreciated.
Hello , will you do review with the D5 and D500 together ?
I have used a Nikon 3000 f2.8 vr2 for the past 5 yrs with the TC 1.4ii, 1.7ii and 2.0iii as my main wildlife lens. As we all know this is an impressive lens and I use it with the TC 1.4 for more than 90% of my shooting. I have had mixed results with the TC 1.7 and 2.0. With the D800/D810 the TC 2.0 really produce inconsistent results especially over distance. at close range up to about 50 meters it is fine. I started to search for a longer lens but was not prepared to pay the money for a 600f4 plus the size is unpractical as I do most of my wildlife and birding from my vehicle on self drive safari’s with my wife. I had the 500 f4 non vr and this was already a problem. I tested the Sigma sport against my lens at 600mm and the results of the sigma was very good, sharpness and color, clarity was all very very good. It is the same weight and size of the 300f2.8 when not zoomed out. But I was not prepared to sell my 300 f2.8 I sit with the dilemma that the Sigma would cover the range but I decided to buy the Sigma as my 500-600 lens and the Nikon vor 420mm and keep it for low light. The Nikon was launched before I bought the sigma so I decided to test the Nikon, as a loyal Nikon shooter, I bought the lens, was lucky to get a very sharp copy, problem was when I went on my first trip with it in the very dusty Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and Etosha in Namibia, the lens started to suck dust. End result, it is not build for dust, and weather sealing is a problem. Now the Sigma is doing very well. build like a tank, very sharp. Great lens.
Your review seems to focus on the use of these lenses with a full frame format camera with excellent autofocus capabilities. I have a crop factor camera (D5500), and while it supports f/8 autofocus, I would be afraid that it would be a frustrating experience with the 200-500 and a teleconverter. Do you think the Tamron or Sigma would be better paired with a crop-factor body? After all, sharpness and contrast doesn’t matter if you can’t ever get focus!
Matt, did you ever find an answer about using the 200-500 with the D5500? I have that model as well.
I read this article as soon as it was released and I am jumping around this lens since it was announced from Nikon. So I am curious, how this lens performs in comparison to the other brand competitors and since I got hands on it in a local shop, I wanted to go with it, because of its “lightweight” design in comparison to the Sigma S.
I own the 2,8/70-200 VRII coupled with the TC 20 III since several years and wanted a comparison of that combo with 200-500 in respect of IQ. I love the 70-200, but was not much satisfied with the IQ in combination with the TC 20III. The 200-500 is really heavy, but I could live with the “reach” of 400mm of my combo (70-200 + TC 20 III), when I am able to reduce the weight of my backpack.
So, back at home (without any purchase, just for sleeping about it), I made some I-Net recherche and found something interesting:
Actually, I found an article of Nasim (photographylife.com/image…converters) about Teleconverters and the Imatest results aren’t looking really good for the 200-500. i don’t know, if the results are comparable, because the Imatest chart isn’ t really comprehensive, but it seems, that the combo of 70-200 + TC 20III yields better sharpness than the 200-500. If this is the case (and I doubt it a little), then I stay with my combo rather than purchasing a fat new lens. As said above: for my daily needs, 400mm reach is enough.
Greetings,
Peuqui
P.S.: I am looking forward to see a prime lens like 4/400 PF like the incredible 4/300 PF…-> fast, lightweight, razorsharp…
Hi Naseem!
Did you experience any focus breathing with this lens?
Your review is flawed when you say that the 150-600mm lenses cannot use teleconverters. I use a Sigma TC1401 converter with my Sigma 150-600mm Sport lens, and it is pin sharp at 850mm.
He means there wont be focus as it goes past f8 when zoomed all the way. The contemporary sigma can’t take the tc (thats what he was comparing with the Nikon) only the sport which is much more than the 200-500mm
I plan to upgrade from a D200 to a D500. I have a Nikon AF 35-70 f/2.8D, a Nikon ED AF 70-300 f/5.6D and a Tamron SP 200-500 f/2.5 AF Di LD. Questions: 1. I’m thinking of replacing my 35-70 with Nikon’s DX 16-80 f/2.8-4 ED VR. It’s advertised as a “kit” lens with the D500. I assume that means if you buy them together you get a better price than buying them separately. Comments? 2. As to telephotos, I’ve reviewed the Sigma 150-600, the Tamron 150-600, the Nikon 80-400 and the Nikon 200-500. I’m leaning towards the Nikon 200-500. I’d say I’m a serious amateur shooting mainly landscapes and wildlife. The main reason for upgrading is to gain distance and increased detail/accuracy. Birds in flight aren’t a big concern. Comments? 3. If I get the Nikon 200-500, I’m also considering getting the Nikon 1.4 teleconverter which I believe Nikon says is compatible with the D500. Comments?
From Past experiance I know you don’t get a response on a post a few months after the “hype” is over. I always value your reviews as they are well constructed from alab point of view and from time to time the real life review offer great insight. The images you post are great and give perspective. One aspect in this and some other reviews is that to compare the 200-500 to the 80-400 in my view are two lenses aimed at similar markets but in my view different users. The 200-500 falls in the super zoom category as tested, The 80-400 fal in the same category as the Canon 100-400 and is at a more professional level. Looking at the test results the 80-400 is not clearly weaker than the 200-500. Optically the 200-500 might be slightly sharper but the focus speed and accuracy, handling, and in my view some build quality issues are better than the 200-500. But again in my view made for different applications. The 80-400 is my backup and 2nd lens for wildlife and nature photography and never intended as a top class birding lens. This is a master lens for photography from a safari vehicle and hiking. The 200-500 is a great lens for birding and small wildlife, On a DX body like the D500 it is a fantastic birding and wildlife lens at a great price. I bought both and both play a specific role. Taking the D500 and the 200-500 f5.6 on a birding trip to the local bird hides and botanical gardens is a pleasure, light fast enough and in good light a joy to use. Going to Botswana and Namibia and Other African conservation areas specifically for with big cats, wildlife and wider animal scapes, nothing beats the 80-400 on 1 body and a prime lens on the other. After 1 trip to Etosha national park with the 200-500 in dusty conditions, showed the lens suffered. My 80-400 has made a number of trips and never affected by dust.
Great Review.
Thank’s.
Hi Nasim,
I’m curious as to why there is such wide variation on lens performance tests by different reviewers. I understand that performance variations for a given lens are common but I find it hard to believe that Nikon quality control standards are so lax. Example: this review from ePhotozine [https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f-5-6e-ed-vr-review-28326] indicates that f11 is pretty much optimum for the 200-500mm across the board where as your testing indicated a scattered set of optimum values with 300mm @ f5.6 being the best overall sharpness. Yet both tests iI believe used the same D750 and imatest software.
I was thinking about buying a refurbished 200-500mm from Nikon but then I saw the comments about variations in sharpness and began to wonder if Nikon checks such things in the refurbishing process and whether they would replace one that wasn’t up to par in that regard if I do buy one. I currently have a 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR, which is a great lens but I tend to do most of my wildlife shooting hand-held and I also would appreciate the zoom. I have the original version of the 80-400mm lens but the focus is just too slow. Appreciate your article.
I was the one, who waited for a some time before getting this lens. Now I own this lens for almost five months and was quit happy with it. But suddenly it just stopped working!?! My old D7000 stopped to recognize it like a CPU lens – always showing F0. I borrowed friends D7200 to try – same issue. Cleaned, checked contacts – not broken, so the issue must be inside the lens. Hopefully Nikon service will fix it and it will be covered by warranty. Be careful with yours 200-500 :)
“Overall, the 200-500mm VR is a noticeably better lens than the 80-400mm”.
I would say that this statement should be qualified. ‘It depends …’.
Are you a ‘destination’ photographer or a ‘walk-around’? If you travel, lens in backpack, to your favourite corner of the racetrack, or your favourite hide, then ‘yes’ (but then would you get the Sigma 150-600 Sport?). But if you walk around the nature reserve looking for opportunities, then the 80-400 is better, simply because it’s smaller, lighter and has the greater range. If you want the 200-500 and the range, the you’d need a 70-200 f4 too – which adds to the cost and the weight and missed shots by having the wrong lens on.
I think that the real question about the 80-400 is not ‘is the better than any other lens for comparable cost at any given focal length?’ Clearly it isn’t. It is whether it’s ‘good enough’ at any given focal length for the particular photographer and his/her purpose. The old 80-400 wasn’t, but I’d say that this one is – especially on a DX body (mine is a D7100).
As a pro nightscape photographer, whose talk I attended recently, said, the 200-500 ‘is a bit of a beast’. If you are happy to walk around with a beast, then it may be the lens for you. But as a ‘walk-arounder’, I’ll stick to my 16-85 and 80-400.
Many thanks for all the reviews and articles – much appreciated.
Hi Nasim,
First of all congratulations on running a very insightful website. I have learnt a lot here over the years.
I have a fundamental question:
I am well aware that you are a big proponent of primes as compared to zooms and I fully agree with your views having used one. I do a lot of birding and use Nikon D7200 with 300mm f/4 AF-S (older version) plus 1.4TC. I have had great results (tack sharp pictures, decent autofocus and superb colors et al) except when I get into a low light situation. Would 200-500 f/5.6 with its VR capability help me in low light while preserving all the goodies of my 300mm? What will I miss from the 300mm that I should think about if I do the switch?
Thanks,
Kamlesh
As with many, I am very interested in whether Tamron’s recent 150-600mm “G2” version is sharper at its long end than the Nikon 200-500mm is at its long end. I would love to have the extra 100mm if it is sharper than the Nikon, with the bonus that it weighs less than the Nikon. The Sigma Sport 150-600mm is just too heavy for my aged body. I agree with Nasim’s assessment as to the comparison between the three lower priced zooms, when it was the old version of the Tamron. It the Tamron’s long end is not optically better than the earlier version, then I am not so interested, acknowledging that the new version is likely better build, more weather resistent, and might have improved auto focus acquistion. In the end, for me, sharpness rules.
So, Nasim, will there be any testing of the new Tamron G2 to allow us to become more informed purchasers?
Thanks.
So – I am about to purchase the 200-500mm and I am a bit concerned about the 2 of 5 that had major issues – what’s the best way for the average Joe to test the lens they receive to make sure it does not have sharpness issues?
I had this lens for one day and sent it back to B&H for a refund. On a Nikon D4s, shooting multi-colored bricks around a fireplace with plenty of contrast and interior lighting, it was continually hunting for focus from 200 to 500. I’ve taken shots of the same area with an 80-400 4.5-5.6, zoomed out to 400 5.6, and had no issues. From others that I have spoken with, this lens is great when there is plenty of light, but I would not recommend it for less than ideal or low-light. There is a reason that this lens is $1399 and a 200-400 f/4.0 VR II is $7000.
Thanks for the great article. I’ve decided to purchase this lens and just have a quick question. Since there is the possibility of receiving a copy of this lens that may need to be returned for another copy, would it be best to buy directly from Nikon? Normally I use Amazon, but the price is about the same.
Thanks!
Dave
Hi, thanks for the good work that you put into this awesome site. I rely on your reviews very much whenever looking up a lens.
I know i’m not comparing apples with apples, but could you (or anyone) comment on the performance of the 300mm f4 AF-S (non VR) + TC14 ii/iii, and the 200-500mm? i currently have the zoom but my main gripe is having to stop down to f8. for my region/climate f8 is often not bright enough (i’m on the D7200). zoom flexibility is almost a non-issue because i shoot at 500 99% of the time.
Hi, thanks for the good work that you put into this awesome site. I rely on your reviews very much whenever looking up a lens.
I know i’m not comparing apples with apples, but could you (or anyone) comment on the performance of the 300mm f4 AF-S (non VR) + TC14 ii/iii, and the 200-500mm? i currently have the zoom but my main gripe is having to stop down to f8. for my region/climate f8 is often not bright enough (i’m on the D7200). zoom flexibility is almost a non-issue because i shoot at 500 99% of the time.
Thanks for the help!
Nasim,
I buy nothing without reviewing your reviews. Bought the 200-500mm f/5.6 Nikon last week. Made 250 shots of ducks in a brook yesterday. Photographed a red pidgeon sitting on top of a defunct 300 ft smokestack. Used the 1.4 teleconverter. My line of sight distance from the bird was about 600 ft. You should see the image, taken with a D810. Yes, you have sharpness degradation with a converter. But, the results are very acceptable.
I am submitting one duck photo in a competition. As others have written, if you can’t hold the lens because of weight, then why buy it. Here, the camera+lens combination weight about 7 lbs. You hold this like a light-weight rifle and squeeze the shutter. I have zero problems with the lens.
Thank you for this comprehensive report. This is why I refer to your website.
peter
Your review on this Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 lens played a major part in buying this lens. In my opinion your review is accurate.
I use a Nikon D800e with a setting in Shutter mode at 1/650, ISO auto to 1600. My results to date providing I manage to make eye contact with the target are truly amazing. If possible I use a monopod.
Thank you for the review and, Good Luck
I too would really like to see a comparison with the Tamron G2.
I currently shoot with a 300 f/d +tc 1.4 – IQ is great, but I’d really like more reach.
Hi all,
I can hardly beleive those pics are results of 200-500 …
fo my taste the pics looks to sharper for 1300$ lens …. or else why would anyone buy a 10k$ lens like 500 F4 ? :).
I currently have a Nikon D3200 and am thinking of upgrading to the FX range ( either D750 or D800E)… until then, i want to use this lens on my d3200 camera. Is this lens compatible with this camera..? I mainly use it for wildlife photography. please let me know..
Hi Rajesh,
I recently had the pleasure of trying out this lens while birding with my D3100 (I know, I know). It focused reasonably quickly in good light. Of course, we lowly D3xxx shooters don’t have focus motors built into the body, thereby limiting focusing speed. Couple that with the less then outstanding focusing modules and you get acceptable focus speed. Not snap-on like with better bodies like the D7500 or D500, but good enough. (Keep in mind that I’m comparing this to my 55-300mm f4.5 kit lens.)
As for the sharpness, the copy that I used was superb. At 500mm at around 10 feet, you could see little bits of seed in the birds bill. Simply stunning with good light. Didn’t really try it out with low light (but even though I have a lowly body, I have high standards. I don’t shoot in less than acceptable lighting unless I there’s a rare bird (or I really have to.))
Overall, pretty happy with it. Definitely compatible. If you can afford it, highly recommend picking one up.
P.S: I just turned 14 and I didn’t have a bad time hand-holding it. It was challenging to aim it up at warblers in the trees for extended periods, but I think that with some practice (and maybe a wee bit of lifting) I’ll get the hang of it.
Thank you for this great review and the wonderful pictures
This is by far one of the best reviews I had come across. The articulation, details, illustrations are spectacular. Not to forget the time you had put reflects your passion about photography and propencity to help the community. Great job !!!
Hi, I think there is something wrong at the score of Tamron 150-600mm at 500mm.
Isn’t possible at 600mm gives bigger score at f8 than the 500mm f8.
I have the lens and at 500mm it’s much more sharp than 600mm. Some times special when light is less and I can’t go f8/600mm , I prefer to shoot at f6.3/500mm – more crop but sharper. Maybe your copy.
I met your group while walking around yellowstone last summer, we chatted about the 200-500 I had just purchased for the trip. Sadly on return I can confirm the point about sample variation . After carrying this lens on a lot of walks all the images were disappointing. I returned the lens to nikon uk and they rebuilt it and calibrated everything. The lens is totally changed from what it was, shame it was not like that from new.
HI, a great review as always. I find your site to be one, if not the, most reliable and sincere.
Being late to the game when it comes to this review my question is if your planning on updating it further with comparisons to D500 and Tamrons G2-version of it´s 150-600 including it´s teleconverters. I currently shoot with D750 and Tammy G2 and find it much better than the G1 that I had before. Likewise much better than my D7100 with the same lens, even when cropping to the same field of view in post (I´ve done quite some testing under as controlled circumstances I can produce). My guess is that this is thanks to the higher resolving power of the FF-sensor and the D750´s better low-light performance/less noice, and maybe the D750 is less effected by camera shake as well. Still I would like that extra reach a DX-sensor gives, if the end results are better and therefore a comparison including D500 and the G2-lens would be really great.
Thanks for this marvelous Review!
Hello,
Great review. We are especially interested in bird and wildlife photography. In the near future we are planning a graduation gift for my son to Easter Island (this has been in his head for quite a while, don”t really know why) and a promise made is not to be taken lightly.
Here is my concern. I thought I read somewhere that the Nikon D90 would not be compatible with this Nikon 200 – 500mm lens. Is this the case or was it just that the D90 is just not considered anymore because of the age of the model? My wife uses a D3300 if that is preferable but I have always liked the heft and feel of my D90.
That is not true. This lens is absolutely compatible with the D90. There is no mechanical aperture ring on this lens, the aperture is electronically controlled . With the D90, you lose the electronic control over aperture and so the aperture will always stay at F/5.6. In short, you can use this lens with the D90 with the aperture always being F/5.6
Hi, is there any evidence from field usage that the maximum aperture of f/5.6 means that this lens beats f/6.3 alternatives for AF accuracy or speed on the latest model DSLR cameras? Because I was just reading about how the new D850 Nikon uses 153 AF spots on f/5.6 lenses, but only 15 AF points if the lens is slower, and all of them are close to the centre of frame.
That is a dramatic numerical difference , but has anyone noticed in the field much better AF with the Nikon 200-500 compared to the 150-600 Sigma and Tamron?
Because, in principle, that looks like a decisive advantage to the Nikon lens.
Ive used both (sigma for a few moments) , get the Sigma for sports . I rented the Nikon 200-500 for the weekend. The Nikon AF is slow and hunts way too much , especially at 500mm and forget about zooming in and out rapidly. The zoom ring is like the titanic and takes and age to wrench it between 200 and 500mm. Its probably great for still subjects but no way will use it again for equestrian cross country or any other sports where the subject is fast and changes direction.
The Sigma is definitely better. Or get a 300mm F4 and fix a tele to it.
Hi
I rented this lens out for a 2 day equestrian eventing tournament just last weekend. For slow moving horses and riders for dressage it was ok. For fast moving horses and riders for cross country and showjumping , not a chance. AF is too slow and the zoom ring is unwieldy. The AF system hunts too much at long distances at 500mm and takes an age to focus. This lens seems to be good for slow moving or still subjects. I thought about the Nikon 80-400mm VR II but Ive read many reviews were the AF is too slow for sports as well. The sigma sports 150-600mm OS may save me. I tried out a mates for a few minutes this weekend and the AF seemed extremely snappy with little hunting. Its either that or finding a second hand copy of the Nikon 200-400 VR which Ive also used.
Also like to say the sharpness at 500mm is very disappointing as well for the Nikon just like the article says.
Bertram W.
Very good article, very helpful for me. Do you shoot all these beautiful images per handhold?
Great review Nasim.
As you mentioned it in the introduction, it would be great to hear your thoughts on the use of the 200-500 with a D500, especially since there are clearly vignetting and edge softness issues on FX bodies. It would be very interesting to see the sharpness compared to that on FX with 1.4tc. Since the D500 uses f5.6 sensitive AF points to the edge of the frame, the AF performance should be better than the older FX bodies as well.
I compared the Nikon 200-500 against a Sigma 150-600 C and the Tamron 150-600.
In a word: the Nikkor is in the focal range 200mm-500 sharper and with more contrast.
And this at all apertures from f/5.6 till f/11 (I don’t shoot beyond f/11)
The extreme corners are only a tad softer than the center.
Tested on my D750 and D810.
Thanks for the review.
In the article it’s mentioned –
Full zoom from one end to the other requires almost 180 degrees of rotation on the zoom ring. That is too far to go without stopping and resetting your
grip … The best technique then is to grip the front of the lens barrel and use it as a push-pull zoom.
Is it safe (on the lens mechanism) to zoom in this manner ?
Hello, concverned about the varying quality level of individual lenses I wonder how to check out the best copy at a dealer … can anyone give me a hint which test I could perform with it on site to check it out and find the best one?
Does anyone know the type of AF motor in these ? It seems a bit slow for a large direct drive ring type USM but not noisy enough for a micro USM with gear train…
Nasim, thanks very much for your review.
Now I would like to buy 200-500, but
“The biggest issue with lenses like the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E VR is sample variation.”
disturbs me !
I have agreed with the internet seller
to compare NEF 3 different samples to choose the best of them.
I ask your help –
how to formulate correctly and fully a task for carrying out tests of lenses?
Thanks!
Nasim, thank you for this review. I am glad I came across this website. The amount of time you must spend on this – WOW!
The past days/weeks – until I have read this aritcle including the comments today – I was pretty sure I would buy the Nikon 200-500 while in Tokyo on business next week. I use a D7200 and now reading this comment ” IMHO the 200-500 is really a good performer in the range of 200-400 mm, with a strong focus on the 200-300mm range, where it really excels. However, between 400mm to 500mm the sharpness falls off noticably (on a D800 and a D7200) ” posted by Mario. I got my D7200 approx. 1.5 years ago and use a AF-S Nikkor 18-300mm F/3.5-6.3G ED. For a “starter kit” not bad at all. Given, that I mostly shoot wildlife in general and birds in particlar, I wanted a lens offering me more reach while maintaining good speed, quality and sharpness. I guess I need to do some further reading concerning the Sigma 150-600mm sport version.
Thanks again for this great article!
Anyone out there using a D7200 and the Sigma 150-600mm F 5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport as a combo for bird photography?
Would appreciate any field experience. Thx in advance.
Thank you for a great review of this lens. As a newcomer to photography, I find it very helpful to learn from others and hopefully not make some of the mistakes that may be preventable.
Hi,
Thanks for a comprehensive and informative review
Section 4. Quality… Typo: you write ‘Tamrono’ at the last sentence
…and how it compares to the experience our team had with the Tamrono and Sigma counterparts.
Thanks
Great, informative article on this lens. I’ve been searching for info on the sharpest focal length and aperture to use for some time now, and found everything I was looking for in this write up. Thanks!
It would have been nice in the lens comparisons to see a range in the zooms compared instead of just the far end. Sharpness at 500mm drops off alot, while 500mm might be the sharpest point for the other lenses, like 400mm is for the nikon. I use it to shoot field sports so use the whole zoom range.
Hi All,
I am looking for a wildlife lens. I already have Tamron 70-300mmDi VC. Please suggest me between Nikon 80-400mm and 200-500mm. My budget is within 2K USD. Please suggest me if any other lens are available if there performance is better than above mentioned.
Thanks,
Tanumoy
Will the “Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E VR lens”, which you have reviewed here, as an FX lens attach directly to my DX Nikon D5100 body?
Am I correct that the auto focus within the lens does feature a Silent Wave Motor auto focus that’s required for the D5100 body?
And if these two questions are answered as “YES”, then I believe that I’d be getting a lens of DX power 300-750mm!?
Please let me know if any of this is wrong/incorrect! I’m extremely interested in the “Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E VR lens”, if it will work on the D5100 body.
Thanks for a very comprehensive review on the Nikon 200-400. It’s good that Sigma andand Tamron forced Nikon to put out an affordable professionally sharp telephoto lens, as not everyone can afford the big two’s mega expensive glass. I have the Sigma 150-600 Sport, which I use for birding in Florida. It is very heavy, very tough, and I get acceptably sharp images when pairing it with full frame Canon cameras. It is not as sharp at 600mm at long distances, as it is at 500mm. It is extremely sharp at 600mm at less than 100 feet. Looking at your sample shots with the Nikon 200-500 it seems very sharp on a crop sensor body, which could keep the overall cost of a birding setup down, now that megapixels have been boosted in lower cost cameras. Nice to finally have a choice and option to go with either Canon or Nikon and not have to pay the price of a car to get decent results when good bird photo opportunities happen.