Nikon super telephoto lenses

[HRB]

Hello all, new here but have been watching Steve's video channel for quite some time. Switched to Nikon several years ago from Canon/Sony. Now have a D500, D850 and recently purchased a Z6. A 24-120 is on the D850, a 200-500 is on the D500 and the Z6 came with the 24-70 kit lens. I also have the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 E lens that I can switch to any of the bodies for a medium telephoto light weight hiking system. Since I shoot mainly wildlife here in South Dakota's Black Hills, I have been looking for additional telephoto lenses that provide better image quality than the Nikon 200-500 f5.6. So I narrowed my choices to used prices that won't break the bank between the Nikon 300mm f2.8 and the 200-400 f4. The 300mm f2.8 has a great reputation but I know very little about the 200-400 f4. If you have or have used the 200-400 f4, I would love to hear your opinions about it.

 

[Steve]

You'll find a lot of different opinions on the 200-400. I had one and ended up selling it for a 300 2.8 (which I later again sold, but the 300 2.8 is a great lens).

My issue with the 200-400 is that it's not the best lens at greater distances and it doesn't take TCs as well as I'd expect. At closer range, it's really a great optic - prime like even - but if you get much beyond 30 yards or so, it starts to soften up. At least mine did. I've read lots of other reports where people had similar problems, although we do sometimes disagree at the distance where the lens gets soft (I think it depends how picky you are). Of course, there are also people who love it and claim there's no issue at all, but again, it may depend how picky you are and the distance range that you typically use it.

Put another way, I'd rather have the 200-500 than the 200-400 any day. BUT I'd pick the 300 2.8 (and TC) instead of the 200-500.

Also, I'd also worry a bit about focal length. 300mm is a bit short for wildlife - even in the black hills. There are times it'll work, but there are times you'll really want more lens. You can add TCs, but that's not always ideal (and I'm not a big fan of Nikon's 2X TC - although I never have tired it on a 300 2.8, it might be fine).

It's not as fast, but maybe a 500PF might be something to look at too.

 

[Strodav]

Just curious. You mentioned you are looking for better image quality than the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6. Ignoring what the reviews are saying / showing, what do you see in your images that concerns you?

 

[DRwyoming]

I"ll second Steve's post above. I owned the first generation Nikon 200-400mm AF-S lens and it was an amazing lens if you could get close to your subjects. It was my go to lens for working from a blind near a watering hole or other situation where the subjects would be within 75 feet or so. But for a lot of wildlife photography like National Park work where it's more typical to work from or near a road and have wildlife out a hundred yards or more the lens was a bit soft.

What are your typical subjects in the Black Hills. If you're talking birds then I'd strongly recommend something longer than 300mm. If you'll work a variety of subjects and many of them will be larger(and/or you can get closer) then it's hard to go wrong optically with a Nikon 300mm f/3.8 but I tried that route for a while and now shoot a 600mm f/4 for my long glass as it's far more likely that I want more reach than ending up in situations where I have too much lens with the 600mm (though it does happen). As posted above the 500mm PF lens is a pretty versatile piece of glass especially if your photography includes a lot of walking around.

 

[John_DE]

Third vote for Steve’s post above. I had the 200-400 some time ago. It’s great up close, but not at a distance. Also it is heavy for the focal length. For hiking, the 500 f/5.6 PF is hard to beat.

 

[ssheipel]

Not on your list, and likely due to the cost, but what about the 180-400 (1.4). It's apparent that while they have my $ Nikon Canada has screwed with me about "availability" as I've been waiting for the lens for a too-long while ,but that revelation about my impatience aside I chose that lens as every review I read said it's the best zoom telephoto ever made (certainly by Nikon) that outperforms many of the "inexpensive" primes, as well. With built in teleconverter (again, by all accounts great performance) it'll get me almost to 600 at 5.6. I didn't go with the 600 f4 'cause I'm new to getting serious about the wildlife side of things and wanted (need)!! the flexibility of the zoom. Not a great weight for hiking with, but I will be hiking (including overnight trips) with mine -- which may be famous last words once it's been on my back for a couple of days I do have the 300 pf that I use almost always with the 1.4 for kicking about; love it and for that reason thinking thinking the 500 pf too should I be able to sell another kidney to afford another lens, for use especially when shooting in a canoe or trekking by canoe. Good luck with your decision and purchase.

 

[DRwyoming]

With built in teleconverter (again, by all accounts great performance)

From what I'm hearing the built in teleconverter is the weak link in this otherwise superb lens. I haven't owned this lens so it's all from other photographer's reviews but I've heard disappointing reviews on the TC built into the lens.

 

[ssheipel]

From what I'm hearing the built in teleconverter is the weak link in this otherwise superb lens. I haven't owned this lens so it's all from other photographer's reviews but I've heard disappointing reviews on the TC built into the lens.

Academic now as the lens is in the mail but I'll have another search. Have read easily 15 field test reviews (with only a sprinkling of ambassadors involved) including with technical testing (which I ignore but for the conclusions) in several reviews, and not come upon 'disappointment.' However, two YouTubers who who didn't actually touch the lens did find shortcomings comparing data sheets with a couple of the big primes. Did learn that I need very much to make sure I have the D6 and the lens calibrated for each other.

 

[SBurkholder]

Hello all, new here but have been watching Steve's video channel for quite some time. Switched to Nikon several years ago from Canon/Sony. Now have a D500, D850 and recently purchased a Z6. A 24-120 is on the D850, a 200-500 is on the D500 and the Z6 came with the 24-70 kit lens. I also have the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 E lens that I can switch to any of the bodies for a medium telephoto light weight hiking system. Since I shoot mainly wildlife here in South Dakota's Black Hills, I have been looking for additional telephoto lenses that provide better image quality than the Nikon 200-500 f5.6. So I narrowed my choices to used prices that won't break the bank between the Nikon 300mm f2.8 and the 200-400 f4. The 300mm f2.8 has a great reputation but I know very little about the 200-400 f4. If you have or have used the 200-400 f4, I would love to hear your opinions about it.

Talking about the 200-500 lens, I owned that lens for about a year. There was a softness in it that wasn’t really soft but I wasn’t able to get sharp images as often as I would have expected. I fooled around with if for several months not knowing if it was me or the lens. Finally I sent it in to Nikon, explaining the situation. That lens came back to me and it was night and day difference. It was now razor sharp. It was a great lens. I sold it because of the weight. It was just too heavy to hold, especially as the day wore on. I’ve since gone to a 300 PF and most of the time a 1.4 TC. Not as flexible but more useable for me.

 

[DRwyoming]

Academic now as the lens is in the mail but I'll have another search. Have read easily 15 field test reviews (with only a sprinkling of ambassadors involved) including with technical testing (which I ignore but for the conclusions) in several reviews, and not come upon 'disappointment.' However, two YouTubers who who didn't actually touch the lens did find shortcomings comparing data sheets with a couple of the big primes. Did learn that I need very much to make sure I have the D6 and the lens calibrated for each other.

Hopefully your copy is stellar. The feedback I got on this lens was from a couple of local photogs, one that rented the lens and one that purchased it and subsequently returned it due to the perceived internal TC issue. Perhaps they didn't go through the proper AF Fine tune both for the main lens and with the internal TC engaged.

Steve weighed in on this lens a couple of days ago with similar findings: https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/question-on-the-nikon-180-400mm-lens.1459/#post-10119

But all of that could be production alignment issues or something else easily resolved and perhaps the vast majority of these have no TC issues whatsoever. I'd give it a very careful test run with the internal TC engaged and compare it to the same lens with an external TC-14 to make sure the internal TC is at least as crisp as the external TC.

I'm probably overly sensitive to small issues after I dropped a lot of cash to purchase the original 200-400mm f/4 lens new and found it was less than ideal when focused out at far distances. Unfortunately it took me longer than the return period to really figure out what was happening with that lens. That experience has probably left me hyper critical of big glass zoom lenses.

 

[ssheipel]

Hopefully your copy is stellar. The feedback I got on this lens was from a couple of local photogs, one that rented the lens and one that purchased it and subsequently returned it due to the perceived internal TC issue. Perhaps they didn't go through the proper AF Fine tune both for the main lens and with the internal TC engaged.

Steve weighed in on this lens a couple of days ago with similar findings: https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/question-on-the-nikon-180-400mm-lens.1459/#post-10119

But all of that could be production alignment issues or something else easily resolved and perhaps the vast majority of these have no TC issues whatsoever. I'd give it a very careful test run with the internal TC engaged and compare it to the same lens with an external TC-14 to make sure the internal TC is at least as crisp as the external TC.

I'm probably overly sensitive to small issues after I dropped a lot of cash to purchase the original 200-400mm f/4 lens new and found it was less than ideal when focused out at far distances. Unfortunately it took me longer than the return period to really figure out what was happening with that lens. That experience has probably left me hyper critical of big glass zoom lenses.

Thanks for this. The last review I read spoke to the 2-400 infinity focus 'issues'; suggested the 180-400 solved the problem. That review also noted softness on one of his cameras until alignment done. But, yah, the price of my first car so it better please me

 

[Whiskeyman]

Talking about the 200-500 lens, I owned that lens for about a year. There was a softness in it that wasn’t really soft but I wasn’t able to get sharp images as often as I would have expected. I fooled around with if for several months not knowing if it was me or the lens. Finally I sent it in to Nikon, explaining the situation. That lens came back to me and it was night and day difference. It was now razor sharp. It was a great lens. I sold it because of the weight. It was just too heavy to hold, especially as the day wore on. I’ve since gone to a 300 PF and most of the time a 1.4 TC. Not as flexible but more useable for me.

Do you have a breakout of what Nikon changed on the camera and lens to effect the change? I've looked into this and it is a fairly pricey service just to bring a camera and lens to where they really should be in the first place.

W

 

[ssheipel]

Hopefully your copy is stellar. The feedback I got on this lens was from a couple of local photogs, one that rented the lens and one that purchased it and subsequently returned it due to the perceived internal TC issue. Perhaps they didn't go through the proper AF Fine tune both for the main lens and with the internal TC engaged.

Steve weighed in on this lens a couple of days ago with similar findings: https://bcgforums.com/index.php?threads/question-on-the-nikon-180-400mm-lens.1459/#post-10119

But all of that could be production alignment issues or something else easily resolved and perhaps the vast majority of these have no TC issues whatsoever. I'd give it a very careful test run with the internal TC engaged and compare it to the same lens with an external TC-14 to make sure the internal TC is at least as crisp as the external TC.

I'm probably overly sensitive to small issues after I dropped a lot of cash to purchase the original 200-400mm f/4 lens new and found it was less than ideal when focused out at far distances. Unfortunately it took me longer than the return period to really figure out what was happening with that lens. That experience has probably left me hyper critical of big glass zoom lenses.

And just read's Steve's experience; maybe that's why my lens hasn't arrived....? Dang.

 

[HRB]

What are your typical subjects in the Black Hills. If you're talking birds then I'd strongly recommend something longer than 300mm. If you'll work a variety of subjects and many of them will be larger(and/or you can get closer) then it's hard to go wrong optically with a Nikon 300mm f/3.8 but I tried that route for a while and now shoot a 600mm f/4 for my long glass as it's far more likely that I want more reach than ending up in situations where I have too much lens with the 600mm (though it does happen). As posted above the 500mm PF lens is a pretty versatile piece of glass especially if your photography includes a lot of walking around.

The primary animal subjects in the Black Hills include bison (of course), antelope, elk and deer. The only ones difficult to get close to are elk and deer which may require something longer than 300mm. However, many of the best times to photograph the more secretive animals are late evening/early morning where a 300mm f4.5-5.6 won't gather enough light. Smaller animal subjects include fox, coyote, prairie dogs, bobcat and badgers that normally require a longer focal length. Bird subjects include eagles (both golden and bald), ospreys, grouse, various hawks and of course songbirds. I've had excellent luck shooting ospreys with the 300mm f4.5-5.6 on the D500 because of the crop factor. But only because I have staked out their nest and can watch their activities. The only time I'll shoot buffalo is during the rut when they might be fighting or doing something interesting and that usually doesn't require a very long focal length. But if you're not careful, you can find yourself in the middle of the action! So bottom line, I shoot the 200-500 f5.6 from the car at long range subjects in good light and I don't carry it in the field. The rest of the time I shoot the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 on either body (prefer the Z6) when hiking in the field. What I'm really missing is a light weight 100-400mm f4.5 L2 like the Canon lens I had in the past. Nikon's 80-400 would fit the bill but then I might as well cary the 200-500 in the field since they weigh about the same. Nikon's S-series roadmap calls for a Z mount 100-400 in the future which might be worth waiting for? Sorry but this is getting to be a lengthly diatribe with no clear solution. Stick with what I got in the mean time...

 

[Boat Guy]

I too had the 200-400. Biggest mistake ever. Bought it to shoot puffins in Iceland. We were living on a boat at the time, anchored in Port Washington, NY on the way north, took a train to the city, picked it up and lugged the beast back. Long story short, when my wife got her 200-500 her keeper rate smoked mine, the lens was just to heavy to hand hold plus it was soft on the long end as everyone has said. Paid $7200, sold it for $2000. Now we both have PF's and 1 f4. Much, much happier.

 

[DRwyoming]

The primary animal subjects in the Black Hills include bison (of course), antelope, elk and deer. The only ones difficult to get close to are elk and deer which may require something longer than 300mm...

The 300mm f/2.8 really does sound like a great option for your situation. It certainly is a fine lens optically and it sounds like a great choice for where and when you'll use it.

 

[Johan P Strumpfer]

This will probably get me banned from the forum, but here goes: Sold my Nikon 200-500 yesterday. Was just unable to get sharp pictures at 500 wide open. The reviews & test reports warn of that, as well as Guru Steve's experience with this lens. After much research I went with a Sigma 150-600 SPORT, which was purported to be very sharp wide open at 600. It is. In side to side comparisons with the 200-500 it is chalk and cheese. Yes it is heavy (~ 1lb, 1/2 kg more than 200-500), but image quality is in different league.

Part of what convinced me to go with the Sigma, was my experience with the Sigma 70-200 f.2.8 SPORT. With a Sigma 2x converter yielding 4oo mm, it was significantly sharper wide open (effectively 5.6 with the TC) than the Nikon 200-500 at 400 and wide open (5.6). But also heavy.

 

[SBurkholder]

Do you have a breakout of what Nikon changed on the camera and lens to effect the change? I've looked into this and it is a fairly pricey service just to bring a camera and lens to where they really should be in the first place.

W

No, they just sent the lens back to my with really no explanation. The lens was under a year old at that point so they didn't charge me. Just had the cost of shipping it to them, which was a bit pricey as I recall.

 

[Amy]

Have you considered the 500 PF? I have loved that lens for almost every single shot and it lives on my camera. Just added the 180-400mm and would like something in the 600 reach still, but you can't beat that 500PF. The fact that it is so light makes it great for carrying also- that's an added bonus.

 

[jcgamble]

I'm a walking around guy that shoots a lot of BIF. I use both the 500 f5.6 (95%) and 300 f4 pf (5%) on a D500. Both are killer combinations and occasionally use the 1.4 converter if I need more magnification. Can't beat the image quality of the 500 pf.

 

[SNEDDERS6666]

I also shoot a 500PF on my D500 and D750 love it and for a long day out these are brilliant combinations. I also use a Nikon 1.4 TC with great results, sure you are f8 at this point but still very very usable. I also use a Black Rapid double shoulder harness, brilliant bit of kit.

 

[JANuser]

Another AF-S 200-400 VR owner here (first generation), and I still have it. Other than for short bursts I wouldn’t use it handheld. It is a great lens for close subjects, but starts to drop off when the distance increases, and using a TC is a little hit and miss. Before owning the 200-400G VR, I used a AF-S 300mm F4D IF-ED and Sigma 120-300mm F2.8, and that was a much more portable piece of kit (size wise), but I do like the flexibility and faster AF of the 200-400. I tried a 200-500, and realized it wouldn’t be much lighter to carry around, let in less light, and focused slower, which I didn’t care for. I think the 200-500 was sharper at longer focal lengths though. Haven‘t had a chance to try the 500PF, but want to and would likely sell the 200-400 for it.

 

[Michael Audette]

Hello all, new here but have been watching Steve's video channel for quite some time. Switched to Nikon several years ago from Canon/Sony. Now have a D500, D850 and recently purchased a Z6. A 24-120 is on the D850, a 200-500 is on the D500 and the Z6 came with the 24-70 kit lens. I also have the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 E lens that I can switch to any of the bodies for a medium telephoto light weight hiking system. Since I shoot mainly wildlife here in South Dakota's Black Hills, I have been looking for additional telephoto lenses that provide better image quality than the Nikon 200-500 f5.6. So I narrowed my choices to used prices that won't break the bank between the Nikon 300mm f2.8 and the 200-400 f4. The 300mm f2.8 has a great reputation but I know very little about the 200-400 f4. If you have or have used the 200-400 f4, I would love to hear your opinions about it.

I have both the 200 - 500 and the 500mm pf. Shoot mainly birds. It's sharp, light and a good value for the reach. The 500 f/4 and 600 f/4 are monsters without a tripod and not very convenient for a day of bird photography on foot. Looking to see my 200 - 500 with kirk collar.

 

[markymark]

You'll find a lot of different opinions on the 200-400. I had one and ended up selling it for a 300 2.8 (which I later again sold, but the 300 2.8 is a great lens).

My issue with the 200-400 is that it's not the best lens at greater distances and it doesn't take TCs as well as I'd expect. At closer range, it's really a great optic - prime like even - but if you get much beyond 30 yards or so, it starts to soften up. At least mine did. I've read lots of other reports where people had similar problems, although we do sometimes disagree at the distance where the lens gets soft (I think it depends how picky you are). Of course, there are also people who love it and claim there's no issue at all, but again, it may depend how picky you are and the distance range that you typically use it.

Put another way, I'd rather have the 200-500 than the 200-400 any day. BUT I'd pick the 300 2.8 (and TC) instead of the 200-500.

Also, I'd also worry a bit about focal length. 300mm is a bit short for wildlife - even in the black hills. There are times it'll work, but there are times you'll really want more lens. You can add TCs, but that's not always ideal (and I'm not a big fan of Nikon's 2X TC - although I never have tired it on a 300 2.8, it might be fine).

It's not as fast, but maybe a 500PF might be something to look at too.

Hi Steve
I’m an old sod & agree the 300 f/2.8 is an unbelievable lens, but I sold it as I found it a little heavy going on hikes & always seemed to come across something that needed a little more reach. I now take my 200-500 & find that a little easier.

 

[Madriver1]

Hi Steve
I’m an old sod & agree the 300 f/2.8 is an unbelievable lens, but I sold it as I found it a little heavy going on hikes & always seemed to come across something that needed a little more reach. I now take my 200-500 & find that a little easier.

The 200-500 certainly has many fans, but I was put off by the lack of balance and weight. I opted for the 80-400 for my D500 and have been very happy with the purchase. The lens is more expensive, probably due to where it’s made, but it‘s a sharp, versatile and a very manageable walk around lens.