Recommendations for 200-500 5.6 replacement

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).

E

Evcarter82

New member
Member's gallery
I fell and broke my 200-500 Nikon lens in May. Paid $500 to fix it. This time it just slipped right out of my hand. I really like this lens!! But still struggle with enough light even on the Z8. Going to cost another $500 to fix. I would love to go to the z180-600 but hate the idea of 6.3 when I’m already struggling! I shoot mostly low light birds and occasionally low light sports. I prefer the convenience of zoom and don’t want to go with fixed lens. I’d like thoughts on the best way to go. TIA!
 
Member's gallery
I noticed that when I used the FTZll adapter the view was a bit darker. However, using native Z lenses I don't notice any fall of of light. I have a couple 6.3 lenses, nice and bright. Maybe others will see falloff, but it's not noticeable to me.
Sad you had a couple collisions with the 200-500, but the 180-600 will be a great upgrade.
 
Member's gallery
In the Nikon zoom world - at least for Z mount - there's not a lot of options in a zoom besides the 100-400 or the 180-600, especially if you tend to shoot on the longish side of the 200-500. I agree with Charles that the 180-600 is a great lens. Yes 6.3 can be an issue with low light, but my experience is my files taken with this lens clean up very nicely with the current crop of Noise Reduction software.
 
Member's gallery
You might reconsider whether you want the zoom convenience. I certainly get it but there are weight and aperture benefits to something like a 400 4.5. In your situation the 100-400 may be your best option. Weight goes way up as you get faster glass over 300-400mm.
 
Member's gallery
Evcarter82 said:
I fell and broke my 200-500 Nikon lens in May. Paid $500 to fix it. This time it just slipped right out of my hand. I really like this lens!! But still struggle with enough light even on the Z8. Going to cost another $500 to fix. I would love to go to the z180-600 but hate the idea of 6.3 when I’m already struggling! I shoot mostly low light birds and occasionally low light sports. I prefer the convenience of zoom and don’t want to go with fixed lens. I’d like thoughts on the best way to go. TIA!
Click to expand...
I don’t know of any F or Z mount telephoto zoom options that are going to meet your criteria. Any lens, prime or zoom, faster than 5.6 at 500 or 600 is going be heavy, expensive, or both.

Truthfully, I recommend Nikon’s 180-600 lens to you. It’s Nikon’s best value at 600mm and produces excellent images.
 
Member's gallery
What bothers you about using f6.3 or smaller? Higher ISO's? Today's NR software is excellent at reducing noise, especially when both sharpening and NR are applied to separately masked areas of the image.

FWIW - I enjoy my 100-400 a LOT. For a super tele to hand hold I am considering the 600mm f6.3.
 
Member's gallery
Sorry to hear about the difficulties with the 250 and really there are no current zoom lenses which afford the Av and reach albeit the 186. If you're struggling with the 250 and Tv/ISO for your subjects, the 1/3rd stop difference of the 186 at the long end won't be all that dramatic. If it is any consolation, I struggle with the 186 in the morning/evening for birds/wildlife. For a while, I kept my 400 f/4.5 and while it could "save the day" in some circumstances where I could dial back the ISO to "keep it real", it was a no go in the low light or rain forest. At least in my hands, the Z8/Z9 yields great images at ISO 6400 and is fine up to around 8-10k. Beyond that, the fidelity is really taking a hit. It's not to say that one can't make images at higher ISO's, it simply becomes more difficult depending on the exposure, colors, shadows.

I guess the only answers are expensive long primes (400 f/2.8, 600 f/4), illumination, or acceptance. Sometimes, I just have to experience the moment instead of trying to photograph it.
 
Member's gallery
I have not owned one but I found the 180-600 to be a very heavy lens compared to other choices.

I like working with very sharp lenses and using a combination of DX and/or crop to get extra reach.

I find the combination of the Z 70-200mm f2.8 and Z 400mm f4.5 works very well. The 70-200 has incredible IQ and tests out in DXOMARK as equivalent in sharpness to some of the best primes. By simply switching to DX or just relying on crop in post you can easily extend out to 300 plus focal length. Although this lens does work well with tc's I frequently don't bother. The 47mp sensor on my z9 really allows significant cropping with this lens.

I like to work the 70-200 alongside my 400mm f4.5. The 400 is incredibly sharp and is also very compact and light. It is very easily used handheld.

I shoot with dual straps carrying the 70-200 on one side and the 400 on the other. I just lift up whichever lens is appropriate for the shot I want while the other dangles by my side. I can quickly switch between lenses and I can cover all the way from 70mm up to about 600mm without even using a tc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top