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).

Member's gallery
While I owned the 200-500mm lens I also carried the 80-400mm lens or the 70-200mm zoom as well as 200mm was often too long a focal length and cropped a scene or subject excessively. The 200-500mm is a tremendous value and very useful lens for those on a budget. I do not think that replacing it outright with a fixed focal length lens as your only telephoto lens is a good idea.
 
Member's gallery
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...

Reading about your background I would go for the 500 PF. I had them side by side and within a short time I sent the 200-500 back. The primary reasons FOR ME were:
  • Using the 200-500 I ended up using the long end in the vast majority of time.
    This obviously heavily depends on what you are shooting and how you are doing it.
  • The 500 PF is still about 850g (!) lighter than the 200-500.
  • The AF accuracy and speed seemed to be considerably better with the 500PF. That said, the speed is a given due to the way the lens is built, while the accuracy may vary. I tested this with just the one copy I got and it can be read in many places that sample variation seemed to be an issue with the 200-500 and one property affected by sample variation was AF accuracy. Thus, this argument might partly be based on the individual technical properties of the copy I had.
  • Compared to the 500PF the 200-500 did feel kind of bulky and not very well balanced to me - again primarily at the long end, because it grows considerably when zooming in. Doing some tests I found it actually easier to handhold my 500 f4 G than doing it with the 200-500 (not in terms of duration, but in terms to keeping it still ;) ). Yes, the 200-500 is a lot lighter but in relation to the total weight it actually seemed more front-heavy than the big gun. But again this depends on the person using it.
  • The 500PF has the AF control buttons on the barrel that are assignable to other camera functions with the pro level camera models.
    Due to the construction of the lens the 200-500 doesn't have these buttons.
  • The gear ratio of the zoom was pretty small. I just couldn't get from short to long with one quick twist, but had to do it in two legs.
My friend (nature pro) uses the 200-500 if weight is an issue or/and needs to be flexible in difficcult situations (e.g. shooting from a canoe), but whenever he can he prefers to use the big prime - or my 500PF, after he had the chance to play with it for a couple of days :).
 
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
Sounds like the 500pf is a great lens. The lighter weight would certainly be a benefit in my situation. Now I have to figure out if I should sell the 200-500 to help pay for the lens. I probably wouldn’t use it after getting the prime as many have already stated.
 
Member's gallery
Woodpecker said:
Although I already have the lens, thanks for pointing out this review. I didn't know the guy up to now.
Click to expand...
Ari Hazeghi is a very fine bird photographer and according to Arthur Morris he is one heck of smart fella! If you look at his 500pf or D850 reviews the information he provides with his sample images is VERY instructive. It shows that most of us are not using a high enough shutter speed for birds in flight (BIF). He routinely floats the ISO and so many images are high shutter, high ISO and lens wide open. I think that fear of raising the ISO is why many of us do not get the sharp BIF images that Ari is so brilliant at capturing. If others have not discovered Ari they are in for a treat when they wander over to his site.
 
Member's gallery
Neil H. said:
Ari Hazeghi is a very fine bird photographer and according to Arthur Morris he is one heck of smart fella! If you look at his 500pf or D850 reviews the information he provides with his sample images is VERY instructive. It shows that most of us are not using a high enough shutter speed for birds in flight (BIF). He routinely floats the ISO and so many images are high shutter, high ISO and lens wide open. I think that fear of raising the ISO is why many of us do not get the sharp BIF images that Ari is so brilliant at capturing. If others have not discovered Ari they are in for a treat when they wander over to his site.
Click to expand...

Well, I haven't had the opportunity to look at other things he did, but I always like to read reviews about the same topic/item , but written by different people looking at it from a different perspectives.

Regarding high shutter speeds you are probably right, but IMHO shutter speeds of 1/2000 and well above are not that unusual. It is more the question of the noise you get with high ISO, especially considering people shooting with camera models that are less low light tolerant and thus more prone to high ISO noise. And if you look at what @Steve wrote about noise, high ISO and cropping, from my perspective it is understandable that many people become hesitant when the Auto-ISO goes through the roof. This applies especially because the people being on a budget with their camera usually have to cope with slower glass as well for the same reason. Now, if you take 1 stop by changing from a 500 f4 to a 200-500 f5.6, you go from a D4s to a D7200 and give away around 2 stops (minimum !) in terms of noise tolerance we are talking about 3 stops in total which can mean pushing your ISO from 3.200 to 25.600 with a given shutter speed and this is well beyond the comfort zone of most of the cameras. Yes, you can go further these days with thinks like AI-based denoising products, but there's also things like dynamic range and color rendition that usually drop considerable with increasing ISO.

Having people like Ari, @Steve, et. al. showing us what is possible doesn't autoamtically mean that everybody of us is able to achieve it with the knowledge and routine (s)he has, plus - and I hate to say that - beside all there are still aspects that are depending on the gear you use and how you are able to use it. I perfectly agree with @Steve 's saying that 80% of an image is made 4 inches behind the viewfinder, but if there are photographic topics where this ratio may move towards smaller figures, it is probably BIF. IMHO it is one of the topics requiring most practice and intuitive, sublimial coordination while shooting combined with good capabilities to actually "reading" the bird.
 
Member's gallery
Woodpecker said:
Well, I haven't had the opportunity to look at other things he did, but I always like to read reviews about the same topic/item , but written by different people looking at it from a different perspectives.

Regarding high shutter speeds you are probably right, but IMHO shutter speeds of 1/2000 and well above are not that unusual. It is more the question of the noise you get with high ISO, especially considering people shooting with camera models that are less low light tolerant and thus more prone to high ISO noise. And if you look at what @Steve wrote about noise, high ISO and cropping, from my perspective it is understandable that many people become hesitant when the Auto-ISO goes through the roof. This applies especially because the people being on a budget with their camera usually have to cope with slower glass as well for the same reason. Now, if you take 1 stop by changing from a 500 f4 to a 200-500 f5.6, you go from a D4s to a D7200 and give away around 2 stops (minimum !) in terms of noise tolerance we are talking about 3 stops in total which can mean pushing your ISO from 3.200 to 25.600 with a given shutter speed and this is well beyond the comfort zone of most of the cameras. Yes, you can go further these days with thinks like AI-based denoising products, but there's also things like dynamic range and color rendition that usually drop considerable with increasing ISO.

Having people like Ari, @Steve, et. al. showing us what is possible doesn't autoamtically mean that everybody of us is able to achieve it with the knowledge and routine (s)he has, plus - and I hate to say that - beside all there are still aspects that are depending on the gear you use and how you are able to use it. I perfectly agree with @Steve 's saying that 80% of an image is made 4 inches behind the viewfinder, but if there are photographic topics where this ratio may move towards smaller figures, it is probably BIF. IMHO it is one of the topics requiring most practice and intuitive, sublimial coordination while shooting combined with good capabilities to actually "reading" the bird.
Click to expand...
I was only trying to point out what an excellent photographer can do with the 500pf attached to a decent camera (with the focus being on the 500pf). Once you start spending serious money on glass, it makes sense to get something decent behind it. Always assuming you have mastered what ever gear you have, the good birders and stalkers that I know generally come away with the best wildlife images. Then there is luck when it appears in front of your nose. No substitute for getting out there regularly over many years. The guys we revere have often been doing it for lifetime. Work like hell and never give up has worked for me - even when I held my $100 camera to our birding club telescope for 2 years (GREAT training!) Back to the 500pf. I waited 2 years to purchase it and never looked back since I put out on my D850 with the 1.4TC. And yes the f8 brings noise but the images are razor sharp. By exposing to the right (ETTR) the noise problem is easy to handle even without purchasing special NR software.
 
Member's gallery
Went out in the snow and popped off a few shots with the new lens and love it. The autofocus improvement, weight reduction and image quality are great.
Z62_2894-3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Z62_2912-3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top