Jhsteele58
New member
I currently have a D500 and a second generation 300 with 1.4tc. Was planning to upgrade to 300pf but wonder about 200-500. Thoughts?
300pf or 200-500
- Thread starter Jhsteele58
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Capturingtheunseen.com
Well-known member
I'm not familiar with the 300, but the 200-500 is a fantastic lense. If you need the reach (birds) there is no doubt in my mind which one I would choose.
TimmS
New member
Hi there....I too have the D500 and combine it with the 200-500. It is a winning combination for wildlife photography. It's fairly light weight and can be hand held, plus the price versus quality makes it a steal.
Here is what Steve has to say:
I am really happy with the 200-500. It never leaves my D500.
I am really happy with the 200-500. It never leaves my D500.
D500 + 200-500...need I say more?
arbitrage
Well-known member
Many pros and cons between these two. I owned both of these and they were my first two Nikon lenses. The 200-500 eventually got sold in favour of the 500PF but the 300PF is still in my kit (although I rarely use it and will be the next lens I sell off).
Pros for the 300PF:
*Small and lightweight...like really small and lightweight
*f/4 when you can use it
*takes TCs very well...in fact the 300PF is the only Nikon lens I've owned that I was happy with the 2xTC...even my 500 E FL wasn't as good as this little PF
*Sharper and faster AF
*Semi-macro MFD/MM especially when adding TCs
Cons for the 300PF
*You need to mount and unmount TCs to get focal lengths included in the 200-500 with just a turn of the zoom ring
*Costs more and even more if you need TCs for more reach
*VR issues at slower SSs...Nikon did a FW for this but I don't think it was ever fixed fully. The D850 Qc mode fixes things but that is a limiting mode.
Pros for the 200-500:
*Zoom flexibility
*Much lower cost
*500mm without any TCs
*Very good VR
Cons for the 200-500:
*Heavy
*Slower AF (yet still very accurate)
*I found I needed to stop down to f/7.1 to really get a tack sharp image consistently
Pros for the 300PF:
*Small and lightweight...like really small and lightweight
*f/4 when you can use it
*takes TCs very well...in fact the 300PF is the only Nikon lens I've owned that I was happy with the 2xTC...even my 500 E FL wasn't as good as this little PF
*Sharper and faster AF
*Semi-macro MFD/MM especially when adding TCs
Cons for the 300PF
*You need to mount and unmount TCs to get focal lengths included in the 200-500 with just a turn of the zoom ring
*Costs more and even more if you need TCs for more reach
*VR issues at slower SSs...Nikon did a FW for this but I don't think it was ever fixed fully. The D850 Qc mode fixes things but that is a limiting mode.
Pros for the 200-500:
*Zoom flexibility
*Much lower cost
*500mm without any TCs
*Very good VR
Cons for the 200-500:
*Heavy
*Slower AF (yet still very accurate)
*I found I needed to stop down to f/7.1 to really get a tack sharp image consistently
JesseBassPhotography
Well-known member
D500 + 200-500mm . Great combo... Remember Nikon released them together so they were born for one another!! lol
Both images
D500
200-500mm @ f/6.3
ISO 400 @ 1/1000
Both images
D500
200-500mm @ f/6.3
ISO 400 @ 1/1000
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
kenafein
New member
I've been considering the 300 PF with 1.4 TC for my daughter, for the weight. The 200-500 is a boat anchor, but I think it's probably the better choice for a healthy adult. It's cheaper and has better range. I don't have one myself, but I have held it, seen the results and it's very popular on here.
clippy
Well-known member
I have the 300PF but have never held a 200-500. I use the 300PF a lot of the time with and without a TC on both DX and FX bodies. I probably use my 500PF more and my 500 F4 is usually the last long lens that I use. I’m usually a deep woods shooter and the shorter lenses makes things much easier to get through thickets.
kenafein
New member
I have been thinking of getting a 500 PF for myself. I've tried calling local shops, but they haven't been answering. I think it might still be too heavy for her, and I'd end up carying two cameras. I want to keep her interest piqued, so I don't mind spending a fair bit on getting her something a bit better than her current setup(a6000 with 70-210 and 1.7 front converter), so the 300 is intriguing.
The 300mm PF is a very nice lens. Even after buying my 500mm PF I have kept the 300mm as it's really sharp, very light and takes teleconverters very well. All in all it's a very useful lens in the kit and the wider lens I carry for wildlife sessions when shooting with my 600mm f/4. I think she'd be very happy with a 300mm f/4 and when necessary a TC-14 ii or iii teleconverter either of which work very well with this lens.
Many places I shoot wildlife have limited ability to zoom with your feet. The 300 PF is smaller, lighter and a great lens but I really use the zoom and the TC14EIII to get the most from my wildlife work, Yes, it is heavier, but the quality of the images and the flexibility of the zoom cannot be beat for how I shoot.
Last edited:
The 300 2.8 was very fast focus on the D200. No longer have it so can't say how it is on the D500 but I am betting it would be my low light go to lens.
I had the 200-500 for a couple of days and ended up sending it back, because I wasn't happy with the handling of the zoom at all compared with the 500PF and I expected to need the long end most of teh tiem anyway - whoch turned out to be true. But If I have to travel light I was sure to be better of with the 300PF + TC-14E II or III although I can't zoom from 200 to 500mm but have to "switch" between 300 and 420mm by using a TC. Knowing the no review owns the perfect truth I still think that measuring results say something. There are reviews for the 300PF and the 200-500 published by a serious resource of information and if you compare the results for the 300PF with TC-14E III (=420mm f5.6) and the those for the 200-500 @ 500mm (=50mm f5.6) it is obvious that the 300PF with TC gives you better sharpness across all usable apertures and across the entire frame.
On the other hand @Steve pointed out in ne of his reviews that combining the 300PF with a TC causes CA, but I don't how this would look like for the 200-500.
So it is really up to what is needed. If you can live with the weight and need full flexibility a zoom is usually hard to beat. If you can live with two focal lengths and want better IQ the 300PF + TC might be a better choice. But you have to keep in mind that there is something else:
The resolution a camera can "see" basically depends on its pixel size, i.e. format and the number of MPixel of the sensor makes a difference. It may well be that the differences you measure with a high resolution beast like a D850 would not make much of a difference for somebody working with a lower resolution sensor or another format, because if the pixels of your camera are bigger, it will be blind for details a D850 would still be able to see.
I think in the it is up to you testing it for yourself. Ergnonics is a very individual thing as is the requirements each of us may have.
On the other hand @Steve pointed out in ne of his reviews that combining the 300PF with a TC causes CA, but I don't how this would look like for the 200-500.
So it is really up to what is needed. If you can live with the weight and need full flexibility a zoom is usually hard to beat. If you can live with two focal lengths and want better IQ the 300PF + TC might be a better choice. But you have to keep in mind that there is something else:
The resolution a camera can "see" basically depends on its pixel size, i.e. format and the number of MPixel of the sensor makes a difference. It may well be that the differences you measure with a high resolution beast like a D850 would not make much of a difference for somebody working with a lower resolution sensor or another format, because if the pixels of your camera are bigger, it will be blind for details a D850 would still be able to see.
I think in the it is up to you testing it for yourself. Ergnonics is a very individual thing as is the requirements each of us may have.
Davej
Member
I used a 200-500 with a D5 and loved it including with 1.4TC.
I now have Z7 and a 300pf (sometimes with the TC) and it is a very good combination, if like me you want to go light and easy. I think the pf is a great lens and with the Z7 a bit of cropping makes little difference to cover the longer range.
I now have Z7 and a 300pf (sometimes with the TC) and it is a very good combination, if like me you want to go light and easy. I think the pf is a great lens and with the Z7 a bit of cropping makes little difference to cover the longer range.
I have both, and the 300PF w/ 1.4 TC gets used 90% of the time. Only when I can set up a tripod will I bring the 200-500. If I am walking around and feel I will need zoom, I use a Tamron 100-400. IQ on both is superb. When/if I get the 500PF, i will probably sell the 200-500.
Kernow
New member
I have the D500 and the 200-500. It must be the best value Nikkor by some margin.
I loved the plumage rendering of the 300PF but as a BIF shooter found it too short on the D500 even with a 1.4 TC.
Dustydewey
New member
Had the 200-500 . Sold it . Was never happy with it !
most times was zoomed out at 500 anyways!
Presently have 300PF coupled with 1.4x. Gives close to 435 mm Way lighter , faster AF less bulk , sharper
most times was zoomed out at 500 anyways!
Presently have 300PF coupled with 1.4x. Gives close to 435 mm Way lighter , faster AF less bulk , sharper
Michael Audette
New member
Faced the same shooting challenge as most on the issue. Went from 300 f/4 -- love the lens, but not enough reach for me shooting birds. Added the tc 1.4, pretty good results. Purchased the 200 - 500 and not real pleased with overall performance and weight. All shot on the D500. This past year purchased the D850 and 500 pf lens and never been happier with results -- quality, lightness of lens, use and flexibility and keeper rate, outstanding.
Dustydewey
New member
I too have also d850 and would like to purchase the 500 mm Seeing lots of great results and comments
Michael Audette
New member
You will not regret it. Trust me. I'm a happy camper with this combo.
I bought both the D500 & the 200-500 after watching Steve’s video.
I don’t own one but I understand the 300 is a fantastic lens, but for flexibility & reach you gotta go for the 200-500.
I don’t own one but I understand the 300 is a fantastic lens, but for flexibility & reach you gotta go for the 200-500.
Ado Wolf
Well-known member
I have the D7500 and the 200-500 mm. I'm lucky my copy is good / sharp (apparently not everyone can say the same).
I love the flexibility of zooming, since I can photograph deer / fox that unexpectedly jump only a couple of meters in front of me (happens quite often). Additional it has great VR and lacks the 1/125 s shutter speed flaw of the pf lenses.
However, I do plan to buy the 300 pf for the portability as well as the f4 capability, and eventually upgrade / replace my 200-500 with the better 500 pf. I have a feeling the 300 and 500 pf compliment each other well and cover all of my scenarios:
- dark moments -> 300 pf
- macro shots -> 300 pf
- long hikes -> 300 pf
- far objects -> 500 pf
- short hikes -> 300+500 pf combo
The weight of both pf lenses ( 0.7 + 1.4 kg) matches the weight of the 200-500 zoom (2.2 kg).. and you win Prime glass IQ (but you lose zoom flexibility). To me.. worth it. Now I only have to focus on savings for this big investment.
I love the flexibility of zooming, since I can photograph deer / fox that unexpectedly jump only a couple of meters in front of me (happens quite often). Additional it has great VR and lacks the 1/125 s shutter speed flaw of the pf lenses.
However, I do plan to buy the 300 pf for the portability as well as the f4 capability, and eventually upgrade / replace my 200-500 with the better 500 pf. I have a feeling the 300 and 500 pf compliment each other well and cover all of my scenarios:
- dark moments -> 300 pf
- macro shots -> 300 pf
- long hikes -> 300 pf
- far objects -> 500 pf
- short hikes -> 300+500 pf combo
The weight of both pf lenses ( 0.7 + 1.4 kg) matches the weight of the 200-500 zoom (2.2 kg).. and you win Prime glass IQ (but you lose zoom flexibility). To me.. worth it. Now I only have to focus on savings for this big investment.
Last edited:
I have the D500 and the 200-500 and could not be more pleased.
I like to take closeups of things. But at 500mm it can be really hard to find them! I've learned to take the lens back from 500mm on full wrist turn so I can find the target and then zoom in slowly while re-focusing. Can't do that with the 300! (but maybe you can find the target better than me!).
I have some bug pictures that I HAD to start at a lower zoom and then crawl (pun intended) up to the 500 mm to keep the focus.
I find the 200 -500 very versatile and I get great results...when I do it right!
I like to take closeups of things. But at 500mm it can be really hard to find them! I've learned to take the lens back from 500mm on full wrist turn so I can find the target and then zoom in slowly while re-focusing. Can't do that with the 300! (but maybe you can find the target better than me!).
I have some bug pictures that I HAD to start at a lower zoom and then crawl (pun intended) up to the 500 mm to keep the focus.
I find the 200 -500 very versatile and I get great results...when I do it right!