Nikon 500mm pf 5.6 vs 200-500mm 5.6

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).

sh1209

sh1209

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I’ve had the 200-500mm 5.6 for about three years and really like the image quality of the lens. Having said that, the weight at times gets to me. I’ve had multiple elbow surgeries and have tried cutting down on gear weight over the last few years. I truly love shooting wildlife and have considered the 500mm pf 5.6. The weight is considerably less but the reviews I’ve seen are mixed on the lens. It’s certainly an expensive lens compared to the 200-500mm and also less versatile being a prime. I’m really struggling with deciding what to do. The main reason for the apprehension is, I’d first have to sell me 200-500 to be able to afford the 500. Any input appreciated, thanks.
 
Member's gallery
In terms of versatility you should consider whether you use your zoom mostly at 500mm. if you do and price was not a consideration I would go with the 500 PF. I was in the same situation, only I was new to Nikon and was trying to decide whether to go with the zoom or the PF. I tried the zoom and for me it is a large lens to hand hold. That discouraged me and I knew that if a bought the zoom over time I probably would be doing what you are doing now . I also knew that I would be shouting almost exclusively at 500mm. I already bought a 70-300 zoom which I knew would cover me for the other situations. So I figured I would save myself $1800 And get the PF Outright. That being said one of the reasons I went with Nikon in the first place was the image quality of the zoom. I have seen image after image on this site taking with the zoom and they are outstanding. So in terms of image quality I would say that if the PF is better not by much. I love my 500 PF and it is extremely easy to hand hold. I’m 67 years old and only 5’3” tall. My carpel tunnel affects my holding onto heavy objects but I have no issues with the PF. I have never looked back. For me the 400 wouldn‘t do it. I have owned the 400 and it just doesn’t pull in the subject for me as much as I would want.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I’ve had the 200-500mm 5.6 for about three years and really like the image quality of the lens. Having said that, the weight at times gets to me. I’ve had multiple elbow surgeries and have tried cutting down on gear weight over the last few years. I truly love shooting wildlife and have considered the 500mm pf 5.6. The weight is considerably less but the reviews I’ve seen are mixed on the lens. It’s certainly an expensive lens compared to the 200-500mm and also less versatile being a prime. I’m really struggling with deciding what to do. The main reason for the apprehension is, I’d first have to sell me 200-500 to be able to afford the 500. Any input appreciated, thanks.
Click to expand...
I am curious about the "mixed reviews" in which people compare the 200-500 to the 500PF. I have yet to see a review that suggests the the 200-500VR focuses faster, is easier to use, is sharper, has better build, or has better contrast than the 500PF. Note my use of the word or... The 500PF is better on all of these accounts. I have owned and shot the 300PF, 500mm f/4G, 200-400G, 200-500E, and 500PF. Other than the loss of 1 stop of light compared to the more expensive exotics, the 500PF has been the sharper and more contrasty lens.
In my own relatively controlled test, I have shown that when using both live view and straight shooting the feather detail produced by the PF is superior.
VR and lack of zooming is where the 300PF and 500PF lag. Maybe it is the light weight or the design, but the 500PF does not stabilize as well as the 200-500VR. I suspect that this is more related to shutter shock and is a not issue if you use the lens w/ a Z camera. I have posted this link before, but here is my comparison of the 200-400 and 200-500 to the 500PF lens (posted 9/2018): http://btleventhal.com/bruceleventh...m-pf-200-500mm-vr-amp-200-400mm-f4?rq=geeking

regards,
bruce
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I’ve had the 200-500mm 5.6 for about three years and really like the image quality of the lens. Having said that, the weight at times gets to me. I’ve had multiple elbow surgeries and have tried cutting down on gear weight over the last few years. I truly love shooting wildlife and have considered the 500mm pf 5.6. The weight is considerably less but the reviews I’ve seen are mixed on the lens. It’s certainly an expensive lens compared to the 200-500mm and also less versatile being a prime. I’m really struggling with deciding what to do. The main reason for the apprehension is, I’d first have to sell me 200-500 to be able to afford the 500. Any input appreciated, thanks.
Click to expand...
I own the 500 PF, great lens. I considered the 200-500 briefly, but everyone I know with that lens takes >85% of their shots zoomed out to at least 400, this was enough to cement my decision in getting the prime, and I have no regrets. Maybe look through your catalogs and see how often you're fully zoomed in, and what shots you love that you would've 'missed' by not having less focal length.
For me, it is very rare that the 500 is too much focal length, the portability of this lens (for me) far outweighs those potential missed shots.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for all the comments. I’ve looked for a few months now trying to find one used to no avail. I’m thinking of just selling the 200-500 first to put the money toward the purchase. I would say 95% of my shots are between 350-500mm for sure. Quiet often I’ll switch over to do mode as well to fill the frame more.
 
Member's gallery
I would also like to get any input from guys that have used this lens adapted via the ftz adapter on the mirrorless bodies. I’m sure it would be just as good as the 200-500mm which works flawlessly on the adapter.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I would also like to get any input from guys that have used this lens adapted via the ftz adapter on the mirrorless bodies. I’m sure it would be just as good as the 200-500mm which works flawlessly on the adapter.
Click to expand...

My experience: I really dislike the adaptor because it slows the AF system down on the first gen Z6 and Z7 (no experience with second gen). But if you consider it to work flawlessly with the 200-500 then I wouldn’t have any reason to suspect it wouldn’t with the 500.
I sold my F mount bodies for a Z6 and Z7 when they were first release and used the 500 quite a bit with the FTZ, and decided to get rid of my z6 and get a d850 again. There’s no doubt autofocus is faster with my d850+500 PF than it is with my now ex-Z6 and current Z7, but the setup worked perfectly, just wasn’t quite as swift with the AF.
 
Member's gallery
I don't have a 200-500 but I have a Tamron 150-600G2 and it's been sitting on the shelf since I got the 500pf. The pf is so much lighter and easy to handle, I am never afraid of grabbing it, even for a 3 to 4 hour hike. It's really changed my ability to shoot at all times.
I don't know what lukewarm reviews you have seen on the pf but my copy is superbly sharp, fast and has great tolerance for flare and backlit artifacts. I used to own the Canon 400 f;4 DO when it first came out and that lens was disappointing - artifacts in backlit conditions and weird OOF areas - so I took my sweet time deciding on the pf because I was burnt once before and I see nothing to complain about with the pf.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I would also like to get any input from guys that have used this lens adapted via the ftz adapter on the mirrorless bodies. I’m sure it would be just as good as the 200-500mm which works flawlessly on the adapter.
Click to expand...
I have the 500mm PF and 200-500mm and use them with the D500, Z6, Z7, and Z7ii. The 200-500mm is one of the best lenses for the money providing great image quality. The 500mm PF is also a great lens for the money, although significantly money more than the 200-500mm. The build quality, AF speed, ease of carrying and handholding while shooting are all great aspects of the 500 PF. For me, it makes it easier to track moving objects like birds or dogs. I kept my 200-500mm to use on a second body when needed, but rarely use it any longer. I don’t notice 2x the cost in IQ, but I do notice the significant weight reduction and overall smaller size. Regarding the use with the FTZ, it does slow the lens down some. It does feel better on the Z7ii than the first gen, but that is likely related to the better AF on the Zii cameras. It does focus a little faster using the D500. In summary, if you are buying it for the difference in IQ, I think it is difficult to justify the cost difference as the 200-500mm (at least my copy) is very good. If you are looking for the weight reduction, it is the only way to go and provides a significant difference. Also the 500mm PF is about as long as the 200-500mm at 200mm and narrower through most of the lens. I have no regrets buying the 500mm PF.
 
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
I have the 500mm PF and 200-500mm and use them with the D500, Z6, Z7, and Z7ii. The 200-500mm is one of the best lenses for the money providing great image quality. The 500mm PF is also a great lens for the money, although significantly money more than the 200-500mm. The build quality, AF speed, ease of carrying and handholding while shooting are all great aspects of the 500 PF. For me, it makes it easier to track moving objects like birds or dogs. I kept my 200-500mm to use on a second body when needed, but rarely use it any longer. I don’t notice 2x the cost in IQ, but I do notice the significant weight reduction and overall smaller size. Regarding the use with the FTZ, it does slow the lens down some. It does feel better on the Z7ii than the first gen, but that is likely related to the better AF on the Zii cameras. It does focus a little faster using the D500. In summary, if you are buying it for the difference in IQ, I think it is difficult to justify the cost difference as the 200-500mm (at least my copy) is very good. If you are looking for the weight reduction, it is the only way to go and provides a significant difference. Also the 500mm PF is about as long as the 200-500mm at 200mm and narrower through most of the lens. I have no regrets buying the 500mm PF.
Click to expand...
Yeah the weight reduction is certainly the main reason for me. I agree in your findings with the 200-500, because mine renders superb image quality in every regard. My left elbow is basically destroyed after a workplace injury and my right isn’t well either. I can use it with a monopod or tripod but the weight of carrying it is what gets to me. I’d definitely have to sell the 200-500 to be able to afford the other. I now have a first gen Z7 and a z6ii both of which I really like. I miss the snappy d850 but certainly don’t miss the weight. I’d really like to find the 500 mm used somewhere but they’re just none out there anywhere that I’ve been able to find.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
Yeah the weight reduction is certainly the main reason for me. I agree in your findings with the 200-500, because mine renders superb image quality in every regard. My left elbow is basically destroyed after a workplace injury and my right isn’t well either. I can use it with a monopod or tripod but the weight of carrying it is what gets to me. I’d definitely have to sell the 200-500 to be able to afford the other. I now have a first gen Z7 and a z6ii both of which I really like. I miss the snappy d850 but certainly don’t miss the weight. I’d really like to find the 500 mm used somewhere but they’re just none out there anywhere that I’ve been able to find.
Click to expand...
Then i think the switch is worth it for you. AF is faster with the 500pf over the 200-500 so that will help too. If you decide you want to have a zoom to compliment, the 70-300mm AF-P is a good light option.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
Thanks for all the comments. I’ve looked for a few months now trying to find one used to no avail. I’m thinking of just selling the 200-500 first to put the money toward the purchase. I would say 95% of my shots are between 350-500mm for sure. Quiet often I’ll switch over to do mode as well to fill the frame more.
Click to expand...
Jump on over to Fred Miranda's site in the buy/sell section... I think there are two 500pf's currently for sale. :)
Hatch
 
Member's gallery
I use my 200-500 on a monopod or tripod 99% of the time. Being able to carry the monopod across my shoulder and using the camera to "hook it" across my back or neck makes the whole setup weight "acceptable".

I use it more to minimize the shake and movement that I seem to get regardless of the lens. When I really want to make sure I have no shake, I use the tripod and a wired remote control, or I use the focus and trigger process on the back screen which I have set for a 3 sec. delay giving the system a chance to settle (I wish I could set it 5 sec!). I honestly don't think I would be able to use the 500 pf handheld either. I take pictures of birds and dragonflies for the most part, and I'm a "tack sharp" fanatic!

If you have not seen it yet, watch Steve's video: https://backcountrygallery.com/using-a-gimbal-head-on-a-monopod/

It might be a lot more cost-effective to purchase a really good monopod (make sure it can be adjusted to be taller than you, for those high above the horizon shots on the gimbal) and use the Whimberley MonoGimbal. For long hikes, I have a pool noodle with a slit cut in it to slip over the monopod to cushion it on my shoulder! That REALLY helps! The foam doubles as my window cushion on the rare times I shoot from the car.
 
Member's gallery
Thank you Andrew, I’ll check that out. I did recently purchase a Gitzo monopod and rrs monopod head but due to having surgery on dec 28th I haven’t had a chance to try it out. I just had a cheap manfrotto monopod without a head before and it was difficult not having a head on it. Hopefully this will make the situation better.
 
Member's gallery
FYI.... I use Threadlocker ORANGE on the threads mounting the MonoGimbal to the Monopod That thing is NOT going to work loose! I also used it on the thread mounting the ArcaSwiss plate on my 200-500 lens mount.
 
Member's gallery
Have the 200-500 and the 500PF. Once I received the 500PF and shot with it my 200-500 has not been used again... :(. I picked it up the other day to move it and couldn't believe how much heavier it felt than the 500PF. 500PF takes wonderful shots, no complaints at all. I don't use a tripod with the 500PF so no longer have to lug that around for shots.
 
Member's gallery
If money were no object, then I would definitely go with the 500mm PF. My copy of the 200-500mm is very sharp, especially at f/6.3 or f/7.1, and the VR works great, no question. However, 74% of my shots with that lens have been at 500mm, so I rarely need the zoom. That being the case, I'm carrying around a lot of bulk and weight that I really don't need. After purchasing the 300mm PF I realized these lenses really are "game-changers" if you do a lot of hiking or have physical limitations. Incidentally, Steve made a nice video review of the 500mm PF and compared it to the 200-500mm, if you haven't already watched it:
 
Member's gallery
I have both the 200-500 and the 500 PF. I photograph primarily Eagles, Ospreys, Hawks and Wildlife. IMO.... the 500 PF is preferred over the 200 - 500 based on weight and it's so much easier to carry and hand hold for BIF. For tripod photography watching Eagle or Osprey Nesting sites I mount the D500 w/ 200 - 500 on the Tripod with a wireless remote and the D850 w/ 500 PF is used for Hand hold BIF situations. Since the purchase of the 500 PF the 200 - 500 has seen more time on the shelf.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I would also like to get any input from guys that have used this lens adapted via the ftz adapter on the mirrorless bodies. I’m sure it would be just as good as the 200-500mm which works flawlessly on the adapter.
Click to expand...
I have used my 500 mm PF extensively on a D500, D850 and Z7 with the FTZ adapter. I also have the 200-500 mm lens. I think the 500 mm PF is the better lens for optics (especially in the corners and at the edges), focus speed, and size/weight/maneuverability. The 500 mm PF has been my most used lens since I got one a couple of years ago. I have kept the 200-500 mm lens because it is a good lens and there are times when I want the flexibility of the zoom — but I have not used it much since getting the 500 mm PF.

I think the 500 m PF works very well on the Z7 with the FTZ adapter. Some have noticed slower focusing with the FTZ and F mount lenses, but that has not been an issue for me with the 500 mm PF or with the 7–200 f2.8E lenses, both of which are pretty fast focusing lenses, particularly as I am not typically trying to go from minimum focus to infinity or the reverse. So if the 200-500 mm works for you on the Z7 with the FTZ, I think you’ll be happy with the 500 mm PF on the Z7 with the FTZ — it should be faster.

I mostly photograph birds and other wildlife with the 500 mm PF and 200-500 mm lenses. (I also shoot landscapes, but typically with shorter focal lengths.) I shoot a lot from a kayak and also while walking around, so I really like the Z7 and the 500 mm PF on the FTZ. It’s just easier for me to carry and use. Two other points — if you want to use the 1.4x TCIII on the 500 mm PF, I find it works better on my Z7 than it does on my DSLRs. The combination is 700 mm and f8, but on the Z bodies, all the focus points work covering the full frame, whereas on my DSLRs, only a small number of the focus points in the center of the frame work. I have even shot birds in flight with the Z7 + 500 mm PF + 1.4x TCIII. If I think I may need shorter focal lengths, I often bring along the 70-300 mm AF-P lens on my Z6.

I replaced my Z6 with a Z6II in December, but have not had a chance to use my 500 mm PF on the Z6II. I have a Z7II on order, but have not received it yet. From comments I have seen from others, I expect the autofocus performance will be better for BIF and fast action on the ZII bodies.
 
Member's gallery
I had used a Tamron 150-600 for about two years and had good results but 50% of the photos were soft. So when the 500 pf came out and reviews said not only was it light but teh results were great. I shoot with a D810, D500, Z6II. This lens works well with all of them. It is a little slow to focus with the 810 but super fast with the 500 and Z cameras. What shocked me was the photos. Where with the 150-600 I was getting 50% sharp photos... now I was getting 90-95% sharp photos. The pairing with the D500 I like best because it gives me another 1.5 for crop factor. I dropped a few sample images.
Photo_D5L_1064-Edit_20210113.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Photo_D5L_6630-Edit_20201214.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Photo_D5L_0317-Edit_20210109.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Hi

If you have a Z series camera take a look a this comparision of the 500 PF with the 200-500 and also the Z series 70-200 with teleconverters.


The 500PF comes out really well, 200-500 works well on Z series, if you have the 70-200 Z lens the teleconverters maybe an option to look at as quality similiar to the 200-500
 
Member's gallery
DL Photo said:
I had used a Tamron 150-600 for about two years and had good results but 50% of the photos were soft. So when the 500 pf came out and reviews said not only was it light but teh results were great. I shoot with a D810, D500, Z6II. This lens works well with all of them. It is a little slow to focus with the 810 but super fast with the 500 and Z cameras. What shocked me was the photos. Where with the 150-600 I was getting 50% sharp photos... now I was getting 90-95% sharp photos. The pairing with the D500 I like best because it gives me another 1.5 for crop factor. I dropped a few sample images.
View attachment 14471View attachment 14472View attachment 14473
Click to expand...
Really nice shots
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top