Help or Question with the Nikon 200 - 500

[Steve]

Yes it does. I've had Steve Perry, Nikon and E.J. Piker of Naturescapes.net all confirm to me that it does work. I've seen it work with jpg and raw. I shoot totally raw all the time. Nikon told me the camera's software will apply all your settings to each and every shot. jpg or raw.

This would have no effect on a RAW file though.

Actually, your both right

If you use Nikon software or shoot Jpegs, the extra sharpening will be applied. However, third party software usually won't apply it.

Here's a quick shot I just did of my target to demonstrate. The first is the Jpeg and the second is the RAW shot in Lightroom. (sorry about the white balance.)

The Lightroom shot clearly isn't applying the sharpening. However, if I were to put the RAW into Capture NX, it would apply it and the RAW would look like the Jpeg.

 

[Pistnbroke]

Larry you are 100% right .If you shoot JPEG its the only way to go (+9) . It will give you a sharper rear screen too whatever you shoot.

 

[Larry Shuman]

Two years ago I was at Magee shooting the parking lot eagle nest when the eagle jumped off the nest and flew right toward me. I shot a burst with the D810 and when I saw just how sharp the shot was I said wow. When I got home I got that image on the screen and I saw the same sharpness that I saw on the camera back. That's when I called Nikon and they confirmed what I was thinking. It also works really well with RAW shooting

 

[VStammer]

This would have no effect on a RAW file though.

Does this mean any/all menu settings changed as part of picture control would not effect a RAW file? (like when I set to VIVID vs Standard processing) - or is it just the "sharpening" setting that would not effect the RAW file?

 

[Steve]

Does this mean any/all menu settings changed as part of picture control would not effect a RAW file? (like when I set to VIVID vs Standard processing) - or is it just the "sharpening" setting that would not effect the RAW file?

If you use Nikon software, you'll see every setting. If you're using third party RAW processing software, most of the time you won't (I know you won't in Lightroom, but there may be RAW processing software that does apply the settings that I'm not aware of).

Keep in mind your RAW file is simply a set of numbers - it's not an actual photo file in the traditional sense. So, camera settings aren't baked into it at all. Even Nikon software applies the settings to the RAW file and you can still alter them after the fact.

 

[VStammer]

So is it better to process a "flat/un-altered" RAW file from scratch in Lightroom or take it using camera settings and then pull it into Nikon software, and then finish off in Lightroom?

 

[VStammer]

I am beginning to think that if I am not selling prints or printing for a publication I would have a more "enjoyable" experience just shooting JPEG utilizing some in camera processing and then do final touchups in Lightroom and or Topaz DeNoise!

 

[DRwyoming]

I am beginning to think that if I am not selling prints or printing for a publication I would have a more "enjoyable" experience just shooting JPEG utilizing some in camera processing and then do final touchups in Lightroom and or Topaz DeNoise!

That's certainly a valid way to work, just know that it's harder to correct for small exposure or white balance errors when shooting jpeg and allowing the camera to do the raw conversion.

The analogy I've always used is that shooting jpeg is similar to shooting slide film, you really want to get it right in camera but if you do and the scene and lighting isn't too challenging everything is good and the end product can be very high quality.

Shooting raw is a lot more like shooting print film back in the film days where you had a lot more creative control on processing and printing and even better than film in terms of being able to make fairly large post processing changes to white balance and exposure compared to either film or jpeg shooting.

That's coming from someone that shot jpeg exclusively for several years after transitioning from shooting slide film. But after struggling with some tough lighting situations and challenging jpeg post processing I switched to shooting raw for most of what I do. I'll still shoot jpeg on occasion, especially for non critical event type work where I treat it a lot like shooting slide film but even then if lighting is harsh (events don't always happen in golden hour ) or the contrast of the scene is difficult or even if the light temperature is variable (some indoor sports under aging lights of varying color) then shooting raw can really help.

But a well shot jpeg can deliver a very high quality image.... just do your best to get it right in camera

 

[MartyD]

You can always shoot both! If you are satisfied with the JPEG fine, if you need the RAW files you have it.

I shoot a lot of sports and in situations where I have shot in the same facility a number of times I shoot JPEG only. I have a white balance that I am satisfied with, I have a picture control that I like, and I may need to provide 200 photos quickly, so I just shoot JPEG. It has worked well for me. If I am shooting in a location that I am uncertain about, I will shoot JPEG and RAW, if the JPEGs are fine I will discard the RAW files.

 

[Chad Huff]

I can say that my 200-500 is soft at 500mm. I can get tack sharp images at 450-480mm though... I'd be interested to hear what happens if you back it off just the slightest amount from maximum focal length. Is it sharp then? I've wondered if others have the same issue.

 

[Graham Clark]

I am beginning to think that if I am not selling prints or printing for a publication I would have a more "enjoyable" experience just shooting JPEG utilizing some in camera processing and then do final touchups in Lightroom and or Topaz DeNoise!

As with most things there probably isn't a single, perfect solution. I'll certainly shoot jpg if its a newsworthy situation that needs to hit an editors desk soonest, sometimes it can be a case of acceptable IQ vs absolute IQ.

Most of the time I'm shooting RAW because it gives me more options than a jpg shot using Pic Control. An example of this sharpening, nearly all of my stuff is selectively sharpened (masked) in LR, something I can't achieve "in camera". The video @Steve did on RAW vs jpg processing gives a great insight

I know a lot of folks get images they're happy with shooting jpg and that's what counts

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

Photography should be enjoyable - and as Graham Clark says - if you are happy - that's what counts. When it becomes a chore, you are on the wrong path.
I shoot raw and I love spending time in Photoshop. Not everyone does.
D500 + 200-500, and am so happy with my lens, that I bought a second copy of the 200-500 (in the even something goes wrong in the bush - as it has in the past - loose screw inside) I don't battle with sharpness, and mostly apply very very little in post processing.

 

[ccirelli]

I'm curious too if you're using a UV or clear filter on the front of your 200-500?
Also, if you really want to go down the rabbit hole - pick up a focus calibration tool (I have the JJC brand from Amazon, $35). Check out some of Ricci Talks' vids on YouTube too for ideas of how he tests sharpness between lenses. Curious to see what your 200-500 would show on a calibration tool (it would be a less subjective approach I think).

 

[Andrew Lamberson]

I have the 200-500 on a D500 and I find that a shutter speed of 1/500 or faster helps. (seems to be that's in one of Steve's tips somewhere)
I wonder...is the lens sharp....or is there a tiny bit of shake that blurring the shot?


If it's "micro shake"... does that have more effect on a closeup or distance shot. I'm thinking it would on a close up due to the desire for fine detail.

My best shots have come at fast shutter speeds, on a heavy tripod using a wired remote (there is a cheap one that works well!). And I always shoot spot, single servo.

I seldom get a "sharp" shot hand-holding. Steve's recent piece on tripods really cemented that for me. NO more handheld with the big lens!

 

[Mercutio7]

Kind of off topic but still regarding the 200-500 lens; if I tell my D850 to shoot in DX mode, does that effectively increase my focal length, is so to what?

 

[Larry Shuman]

I use the 200-500 with an D810 or D600 and flash and always on a monopod. I use 4 digit shutter speeds (1/000 and higher) and the lens as always been set to sport. The attached shot was at the Lake Erie beach so I didn't need the flash but I was still on the monopod.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Jucaboes]

Hi. The lens is a beast for the price but please consider:

1. Calibrate "fine-tune" the af focus with the camera.
2. To get the best sharpness out of it, usually max at 450mm
3. stay at F7.1 (Usually mandatory) but some can get up to F6.3 and some cnat pass f8

My friend Memo Gomez used to use the same camera and lens combination. Now he is a sony ambassador but you can only get awsome comments on that combo and especially from that lens. His Instagram in case you want to see his work: https://www.instagram.com/memogomezfoto/

I have been using it for a couple of years and I think is incredibly sharp for the price.

 

[Larry Shuman]

I use the "Picture Control" to set sharpening at #9. I also use Nikon transfer 2 to download . Doing this the camera applies all presets to each and every shot. I don't micro adjust any of my cameras. The above shot was done using the "Picture Control" settings.

 

[Replytoken]

Kind of off topic but still regarding the 200-500 lens; if I tell my D850 to shoot in DX mode, does that effectively increase my focal length, is so to what?

You can shoot in DX mode or you can crop in post. You will eventually get the same results. The biggest difference is which is more comfortable for your shooting style.

--Ken

 

[Mercutio7]

Thanks Ken. I'm really asking what is the effect on my effective focal length? Just a technical question, I know that what I ultimately obtain is what matters.

 

[Mercutio7]

Another 200-500 comment. I recently purchased the Nikon TC-20E III 2x AF-S Teleconverter, which Nikon says autofocus does not work with the 200-500, but playing with it this morning I found that against high contrast subjects it actually works as well as my manual focus shots.

 

[Rassie]

Kind of off topic but still regarding the 200-500 lens; if I tell my D850 to shoot in DX mode, does that effectively increase my focal length, is so to what?

It does not increase effective focal length. All it does is use the portion of the sensor that would be the same size as a DX sensor. So it discards the part of the image captured by the outer portion of the FX sensor that's larger than the DX sensor. You could achieve the same effect by shooting FX and subsequently cropping the image smaller in post processing. Because DX sensors are smaller the crop factor is about 1.5. So when you shoot a 46 MP sensor in DX mode you end up using roughly 50% of those pixels and discarding the rest.

It's for this reason that one can argue that for wildlife where you want to fill the frame with far away animals and birds it makes more sense to use a D500 DX camera. It makes a more capable camera for wildlife action than the D850, for a lower cost.

 

[Rassie]

I can say that my 200-500 is soft at 500mm. I can get tack sharp images at 450-480mm though... I'd be interested to hear what happens if you back it off just the slightest amount from maximum focal length. Is it sharp then? I've wondered if others have the same issue.

I don't have the same issue. My lens is equally sharp at any focal length. Apparently some of the earlier copies were soft at 500mm.

 

[DRwyoming]

I don't have the same issue. My lens is equally sharp at any focal length. Apparently some of the earlier copies were soft at 500mm.

I sold my 200-500mm when I purchased the 500mm PF but my experience matches yours Rassie. My 200-500mm was very sharp at 500mm and that's compared to lenses like the 500mm and 600mm f/4. Maybe I just got lucky and landed a sharp copy but I had no complaints regarding image quality, especially at center frame with the 200-500mm f/5.6.

 

[Replytoken]

Thanks Ken. I'm really asking what is the effect on my effective focal length? Just a technical question, I know that what I ultimately obtain is what matters.

The effective focal length will depend on which crop mode you use in the D850. Steve touches a bit on it here: https://backcountrygallery.com/all-about-your-cameras-crop-modes/ .

--Ken