Nikon 200-500 mm sharpness
- Thread starter Toppcats
- 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).
Don't forget to add in lens hoods to that list of reasons for blurring?
eft
Well-known member
Are those arteries you can see inside the swallow's mouth, because if so, I would say the AF is "sharp AF"
LTK
Well-known member
Definitely the focus speed was one of the downsides to this lens, I got used to it but the useful feature this lens had is manual focus override , my thumb would often be working overtime on the focus ring to help speed things upI never liked mine due to slow AF speed but never complained about sharpness. I have tried various times to fine tune the AF but it was always too close to call for my untrained eyes.
Tree Swallow by David Hutson, on Flickr
Little Bunny by David Hutson, on Flickr
Mount Rainer by David Hutson, on Flickr
The best way to check if you have a "bad lens" or it needs some AF fine-tuning is to put the camera on a tripod, set the shutter speed to a minimum of 500th/sec at f/8 or a little lower (the generally accepted sweet spot)have enough light on the subject to keep the ISO below 500 (or whatever you are comfortable with) and take a shutter delayed shot. Then there is no shake, no motion blur and everything is pretty much at optimal.
If I take a 500 mm handheld shot at a shutter speed of 200, with a high ISO with any lens on my D500....it looks terrible. I am not very good at hand holding a heavy lens with my bad shoulder. I almost always use a tripod or monopod for anything above 300mm.
Also, if you are hand-holding make sure the image stabilization is on!
I have no issues with my 200-500....on a good tripod! Be prepared to shell out some major $$ but it is well worth it! I have a Really Righ Stuff (RRF) tripod that was a little over a $1000 and my only regret is that I didn't buy it sooner!!! Image quality jumped significantly!!
If I take a 500 mm handheld shot at a shutter speed of 200, with a high ISO with any lens on my D500....it looks terrible. I am not very good at hand holding a heavy lens with my bad shoulder. I almost always use a tripod or monopod for anything above 300mm.
Also, if you are hand-holding make sure the image stabilization is on!
I have no issues with my 200-500....on a good tripod! Be prepared to shell out some major $$ but it is well worth it! I have a Really Righ Stuff (RRF) tripod that was a little over a $1000 and my only regret is that I didn't buy it sooner!!! Image quality jumped significantly!!
Dave Douglass
Well-known member
My 200-500 is tack sharp, even with a 1.4 TC. I can hand hold it effectively but, when possible, I prefer using my monopod.
O
Well-known member
Sharpness really comes from YOU, invest in yourself more before the gear.
With exception to defective lenses..........All lenses can be sharp, its dependent on how you use them.
Individual lens samples can vary slightly as a result of production calibration and manufacturing tolerances etc not being as they should.
Zooms can still vary a little after you fine tune them or doesn't hold that long...............
I got my 200-500 only after it had been out a while, the first batches had some issues as i recall and where not focusing as well as intended..............something like that !
When i go into Nikon for sensor cleans etc i sometimes drop in the odd lens or two as well and have them check things over for optimum performance just to keep the settings tightly with in the factory parameters.
I have no issues with the 200-500 what so ever, i mostly use the longer end and therefore have it optimized for 500mm as the preference, i mean for tuning a zoom you need to have an average setting normally, however i lean towards the long end for what its worth, that said, its not much of a compromise.
Over all the 200-500 serves the purpose it was designed for very very well, its very versatile, sharp, has good color and fast enough for what its used for.
With only a 2.5 to 1 magnification ratio it clearly explains its performance.
Given that its a zoom and needs to perform over a range then the F5.6 wide open end is maybe not as brilliant as a prime, but the gap narrows around F8.
With exception to defective lenses..........All lenses can be sharp, its dependent on how you use them.
Individual lens samples can vary slightly as a result of production calibration and manufacturing tolerances etc not being as they should.
Zooms can still vary a little after you fine tune them or doesn't hold that long...............
I got my 200-500 only after it had been out a while, the first batches had some issues as i recall and where not focusing as well as intended..............something like that !
When i go into Nikon for sensor cleans etc i sometimes drop in the odd lens or two as well and have them check things over for optimum performance just to keep the settings tightly with in the factory parameters.
I have no issues with the 200-500 what so ever, i mostly use the longer end and therefore have it optimized for 500mm as the preference, i mean for tuning a zoom you need to have an average setting normally, however i lean towards the long end for what its worth, that said, its not much of a compromise.
Over all the 200-500 serves the purpose it was designed for very very well, its very versatile, sharp, has good color and fast enough for what its used for.
With only a 2.5 to 1 magnification ratio it clearly explains its performance.
Given that its a zoom and needs to perform over a range then the F5.6 wide open end is maybe not as brilliant as a prime, but the gap narrows around F8.
Roy
Well-known member
A well lit brick wall shows any barrel and pincushion distortion.
I have much more expensive lenses than my 200-500mm (600mm f4 200-400mm f4)
but I usually grab the 200-500mm because its light sharp and versatile.
While not as bad as other manufacturers there has been rare 200-500mm lenses that missed quality control.
Although its great - I dont have a 500mm pf lens.
The 200-500mm Nikkor has to be the best value sport/wildlife lens around.
I agree. I've considered getting the 500PF. I almost pulled the trigger when they were "on sale" back at Christmas time. More recently, a friend is moving to Canon and was selling his 500PF for a reasonable (not steal but reasonable) price. After much consideration and looking back over the past 3 years of photos with the 200-500, I think I would miss the versatility of the zoom. About 75% of my images with this lens are at 500 but among the 25% that were at some other focal length, quite a few are in my favorites folder. Had I been sporting a 500 prime I would have missed those shots or would have had to seriously change the composition.A well lit brick wall shows any barrel and pincushion distortion.
I have much more expensive lenses than my 200-500mm (600mm f4 200-400mm f4)
but I usually grab the 200-500mm because its light sharp and versatile.
While not as bad as other manufacturers there has been rare 200-500mm lenses that missed quality control.
Although its great - I dont have a 500mm pf lens.
The 200-500mm Nikkor has to be the best value sport/wildlife lens around.
The only problem I've had with y 200-500 is the zoom mechanism locked preventing it from going all the way back to 200. Nikon fixed it free under warranty and had it back to me in about 2 weeks. I used my older Sigma 150-600 as a backup during that time.
O
Well-known member
200-500 ........i agree exceptional lens and image quality, i do find it to have the edge over the other excellent brands esepcially in colour, the 2.5-1 magnification ratio was my deciding factor.
Speaking of Sigma LOL below is a image from the old 150-500 with broken VR, it just dose so well still.
Taken on the D4 S hand held, this image is so down sized, the original is so tack sharp.
My colleague in the club who is an amazing bird photographer has everything money can buy ..........he is going out spending and doing it all while he still can, he feels if the kids get a couple of million more or less in their inheritance to bad.
Now he has the Z9 currently and ordered all his expensive trick hi end Z glass..........
Ok, he has the 500 PF and finds it amazing because its so small and light, as he shoots mostly at 500mm its his go to bird lens usually was on the D500 then the D850 lately the Z9.
He says the 200-500 is heavier and larger, of course very versatile, he loves it and has no complaints.
Performance difference he says, yes their is a difference, but their is not a lot in it in between them in the real world, he is optically etc very happy with either.
The big advantage with the 500 pf is simply weight and size as we know.
He is contemplating selling the 500 pf when the new Z exotics arrive, i feel their will be a lot of great used glass to choose from as time goes on.
I am seeing more used 400 2.8, 200-400, 500 F4, 600 F4 glass on the used market than ever before.
Speaking of Sigma LOL below is a image from the old 150-500 with broken VR, it just dose so well still.
Taken on the D4 S hand held, this image is so down sized, the original is so tack sharp.
My colleague in the club who is an amazing bird photographer has everything money can buy ..........he is going out spending and doing it all while he still can, he feels if the kids get a couple of million more or less in their inheritance to bad.
Now he has the Z9 currently and ordered all his expensive trick hi end Z glass..........
Ok, he has the 500 PF and finds it amazing because its so small and light, as he shoots mostly at 500mm its his go to bird lens usually was on the D500 then the D850 lately the Z9.
He says the 200-500 is heavier and larger, of course very versatile, he loves it and has no complaints.
Performance difference he says, yes their is a difference, but their is not a lot in it in between them in the real world, he is optically etc very happy with either.
The big advantage with the 500 pf is simply weight and size as we know.
He is contemplating selling the 500 pf when the new Z exotics arrive, i feel their will be a lot of great used glass to choose from as time goes on.
I am seeing more used 400 2.8, 200-400, 500 F4, 600 F4 glass on the used market than ever before.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I'm hoping Nikon's 200-600 will be as sharp and clear or even more so than the 200-500 but lighter in weight and faster focusing. If it is, that would be the final straw that will move me into mirrorless. Well that and either a firmware update to the Z7ii to improve AF or a "Z8" to come in as a mirrorless D850 type camera.
Toppcats
New member
Thank you all for getting back to me with great comments and suggestions. Nice to see many of you have had great results with this lens ( and great skill of course ).
My motivation was to do a little "quality control" - before the return window closes.
Based on all the great suggestions I decided to to do a basic test at 200-300-400 and 500 mm at f5.6 and 8. Static subject 20 feet from the tripod with the D500. Not very scientific but as a newbie I was pleased with the results at both f stops. I did use a remote shutter release.
I would post a copy of the 500mm shot but couldn't make it work.
Thanks again...
My motivation was to do a little "quality control" - before the return window closes.
Based on all the great suggestions I decided to to do a basic test at 200-300-400 and 500 mm at f5.6 and 8. Static subject 20 feet from the tripod with the D500. Not very scientific but as a newbie I was pleased with the results at both f stops. I did use a remote shutter release.
I would post a copy of the 500mm shot but couldn't make it work.
Thanks again...
Toppcats
New member
Fantastic photos. I have a lot to learn -The 200-500 used to almost live on my D850 , I mainly use mirrorless now but the D850 200-500 gave me some decent shots . I ran the D850 200-500 with Reikan Focal calibration
I was at 500mm 95% of the time , focus could be a little slow to grab but once it grabbed it did well
_DSC8807_DxO by leon kirkbride, on Flickr
_DSC6122 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr
_DSC5099 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr
_DSC3165 by leon kirkbride, on Flickr
Any tips on uploading and keeping the sharp details? I tried using the forum guidelines for file size and pixel dimensions, but I loose some quality. My test is this cardinal.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.