Looking to pick up a 200-500 Nikon. Is it as good as everyone says?

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).

Member's gallery
As everyone is saying yes it is a great lens for the money. It isn't fast but for a zoom and its price range its sharp. I highly suggest you buy a used one. I bought one in January and paid $750 for it like new. It is fairly easy to find them in the $750-850 range. At that price it is second to none.
 
Member's gallery
It's hard to beat for the price.
20201011-_DSC3761-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I started with Bird photography and purchased the 200-500 mm. It is an affordable and sharp lens. (sharpest at 450 mm but also sharp enough at 500 mm.) The VR is the best I've seen, even when compared to my 300 pf and 70-200 f4. The flexibility of zooming came in handy, specially when Birds out of the blue landed in front of me. The only 3 minor issues one must consider:
1. its slow AF.. it takes time but does it with accuracy
2. its slow f5.6, makes it hard to achieve AF when birds are hidden within trees
3. its weight of 2.2 kg makes it hard to handhold for longer durations (BIF)

The latter is easily resolved with a Monopod.. takes off the weight and lets you maintain the flexibility of moving deep into woods.

With birds I did notice that i was photographing 85% of the time at 500 mm.. so I would also recommend the 500 pf if you can afford it. It's got all the advantages of the 200-500 with better sealing, lighter, faster AF, Prime IQ, but you do lose the zooming flexibility.

I recently bought the 300 pf and I am saving for a TC14e iii.. this is another combo option that seems to be favorized by BIF photographers.
 
Member's gallery
How is an example of a bird shot of a Jay hiding among leaves. (Jpeg straight out of the camera / Sharpness set to standard).
It was challenging due to different light shades on the bird (partly sunny) and I'm happy with the results.

FC9C7D8C-F509-4B40-A6F1-376F83ABF2D1.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


and a photo of a woodpecker, before feeding his babies:

B44367DE-07C7-42C4-8D8E-E582B6AA6E57.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I had been, prior to buying the 500PF, using the 200-500 with a D500 for several years and loved the resultant shots. It was a bit heavy for hand-holding but I could do it for short durations. Since I got the 500PF it has not left my D500!
 
Member's gallery
Love mine. Shot at 390mm, 1/800 sec, f/8. ISO 100 with D750. Sharp enough to read the numbers on the leg band and identify the goose. Not cropped.
Not the lightest lens but the ability to zoom makes it more valuable to me than a fixed 500mm lens.

Geese.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I just recently picked up a 200-500 and I have to say I am very impressed. It is my first real tele lens and I found it to be easier to use than expected. The VR is very impressive. It took a couple of days to get a feel for the lens. I am currently shooting on a D7100. As many others have mentioned focus is not the fastest nor is it the lightest lens around. That said I have no trouble hand holding for short periods of time. Bottom line is that for me it is a great value for the money and I am excited to get out and shoot with it.
Hum Port.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Lologrande said:
I just recently picked up a 200-500 and I have to say I am very impressed. It is my first real tele lens and I found it to be easier to use than expected. The VR is very impressive. It took a couple of days to get a feel for the lens. I am currently shooting on a D7100. As many others have mentioned focus is not the fastest nor is it the lightest lens around. That said I have no trouble hand holding for short periods of time. Bottom line is that for me it is a great value for the money and I am excited to get out and shoot with it. View attachment 7795
Click to expand...
Beautiful Shot!
 
Member's gallery
I owned the 200-500 since its introduction. It was my wife's primary telephoto and it has served us well through the years. As of one month ago we had the 300PF, 200-400, 500PF, and 200-500. With so many overlapping focal lengths and my wife's desire to lighten the load, we sold the 200-500... When asked by friends or clients interested in starting wildlife photography, I always tell them that a D500 + 200-500 will get them their best bang for the buck... here are two that I took w/ the lens... one was a quick grab shot of a rarely seen species in North America, and the other was taken from a kayak... (both are mustelids... so it must be a good mustelid lens ;))

Wolverine_TLL9836.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

SeaOtter_BJL6033-Edit copy.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Reading through this thread it has kind of all been said. I was one of the first to own the D500, 200-500 combo in my area. I preordered and know it was the first such combo to be sold out our local major camera store. I have enjoyed using the combo very much and find it hard to believe there has been a better value available in Nikon gear over the last few years. Having said that you do need to be ready to accept the use of some higher ISO settings when photographing in my neck of the woods. (Ontario, Canada) We just don't have the light available like folks living closer to the equator. Topaz helps in that regard.
CardinalMaleRSMarch19.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Boat Guy said:
My wife and I both used the 200-500 with D500's and later with D850's. To me its the best value in a long Nikon lens and they produced some wonderful images. That said we now have the 500pf's, though not as versatile as a zoom we shoot at 500mm most of the time anyway. The focus and tracking on the PF is much better and quicker as well. I have a 500f4 FL ED VR and it is another step up, particularly with a 1.4 tel. What I have come to find, particularly at altitude the 500f4 is heavy even though it weighs just 6.5lbs. Add a gripped D850 with its heavy battery and its quite a load to carry any distance. I find myself using the 500pf lens more and more vs the f4 except for short walking distance tripod work.
Click to expand...
I have had better luck using the 200-500 on the D500 than the D850. The D850 seems to do better using the 500pf in my experience.
 
Member's gallery
It is indeed a great lens as others have stated already. Like any piece of gear, there is a learning curve to get the most out of it. The lens isn't magic and the photographer still needs to do his/her part.
 
Member's gallery
It is a very good lens but it is not something I would use on a DX camera where the field of view is that of a 300-750mm lens on a full frame camera. Lots of too tightly cropped shots with subjects divorced from their surroundings. With my D500 camera I favored using the 80-400mm lens for this reason. The 200-500mm is something I would use only with a FX camera and the D850 is ideal as it also provides 19MP sensor output in DX mode when you do have a very small subject.
 
Member's gallery
I used this lens on an 850 and found that I spent most of my time at the 500mm end. I sold this lens and bought the nikon 500 f5.6. While nikon's 500 f5.6 is more expensive than the 200-500 I find it is also worth the additional cost. I also find that the 500 works very well with the 1.4 teleconverte and thus you also have a 700 mm lens at f8. So my question to you would be are you buying the 200-500 to get less expensive access to a 500mm lens? If yes, then consider the more expensive 500 f5.6.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top