Recommendations for 200-500 5.6 replacement

[AlanB313]

If you want to stay relatively inexpensive, you could try a used Tamron 150-600mm g2. I'm still shooting a d500 so I can't comment on how it works with a z8 and FTZ. But you could probably get one used in excellent condition for not much more than the cost of fixing your 200-500. You'd have an extra 100mm. But you will lose a half stop of light. It's f6.3 at 600mm.
I'm another person who was taking photos mostly on the long end of my Tamron 150-600mm's range, so I got a 500PF and love it. I do sometimes miss the 600mm range. But I plan to use my 500PF with a z8 when I eventually switch. Many people on this forum report good results.

 

[Abinoone]

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.

I understand and appreciate (from personal experience) his issue using 5.6/6.3 lenses with very low light, as very early in the morning or late in the evening these apertures produce very noisy and often soft images, even on full frame, high mp bodies, which NR and sharpening SW can't really completely correct. Plus, there's the problem of AF acquisition & locking in very low light situations. I don't really have a solution other than faster, heavier, and more expensive glass, unless of course Nikon releases a 200-600 f4.

P.S. the 180-600 f5.6-6.3 is the natural successor to the 200-500 of course, and it's a better lens in many respects. The difference between 6.3 and 5.6 is negligible.

 

[AlanB313]

I have another thought. Still in the F-mount world because that's where I currently live. But my current line-up is a 300mm PF F4 (with or without a 1.4TCiii) and a 500mm PF. I use the 300mm pf f4 when the light really goes down. I need the birds to be close, but one of my targets is marsh birds like Rails, Sora, wrens, common yellowthroats, and other common marsh birds. If I park myself, let the light go down, and the birds might get used to me being there, I am finding the 300mm f4 very fun to use. Others may suggest a 70-200mm f2.8 for this purpose. (I might try that too.)

I know you mentioned that you aren't ready for a fixed lens solution, but if you want or can tolerate a two lens solution, maybe a 300mm f4 pf and a 500mm pf could cover your range needs. The 300mm pf is very close focusing which is really nice. But it won't help with distant subjects in low light.

At this point I'm not adding any lenses until I get a z8 because I think it could completely change my thinking. I was a "zoom guy" until I tried the 300mmPF/1.4TCiii combo and fell in love with primes and their faster AF, lighter weight (with the two I have), and learned that my feet work to zoom.
Good luck, sorry about your 200-500.

 

[wotan1]

I have another thought. Still in the F-mount world because that's where I currently live. But my current line-up is a 300mm PF F4 (with or without a 1.4TCiii) and a 500mm PF. I use the 300mm pf f4 when the light really goes down. I need the birds to be close, but one of my targets is marsh birds like Rails, Sora, wrens, common yellowthroats, and other common marsh birds. If I park myself, let the light go down, and the birds might get used to me being there, I am finding the 300mm f4 very fun to use. Others may suggest a 70-200mm f2.8 for this purpose. (I might try that too.)

I know you mentioned that you aren't ready for a fixed lens solution, but if you want or can tolerate a two lens solution, maybe a 300mm f4 pf and a 500mm pf could cover your range needs. The 300mm pf is very close focusing which is really nice. But it won't help with distant subjects in low light.

At this point I'm not adding any lenses until I get a z8 because I think it could completely change my thinking. I was a "zoom guy" until I tried the 300mmPF/1.4TCiii combo and fell in love with primes and their faster AF, lighter weight (with the two I have), and learned that my feet work to zoom.
Good luck, sorry about your 200-500.

I echo recommendation for the 500mm pf. That is a really great lens and it works really well with teleconverters. My photo buddy has used one quite a lot and they are deeply discounted these days as people have been flocking to the 600mm pf.


A shorter zoom with that lens would also work well.

 

[tomfranic]

I don't recommend 180-600mm. I sold mine. Not enough sharp, especially for low light and sport. My friend, a professional photographer was also trying 180-600mm and he was returning to his F 200-500mm.

 

[Evcarter82]

I have another thought. Still in the F-mount world because that's where I currently live. But my current line-up is a 300mm PF F4 (with or without a 1.4TCiii) and a 500mm PF. I use the 300mm pf f4 when the light really goes down. I need the birds to be close, but one of my targets is marsh birds like Rails, Sora, wrens, common yellowthroats, and other common marsh birds. If I park myself, let the light go down, and the birds might get used to me being there, I am finding the 300mm f4 very fun to use. Others may suggest a 70-200mm f2.8 for this purpose. (I might try that too.)

I know you mentioned that you aren't ready for a fixed lens solution, but if you want or can tolerate a two lens solution, maybe a 300mm f4 pf and a 500mm pf could cover your range needs. The 300mm pf is very close focusing which is really nice. But it won't help with distant subjects in low light.

At this point I'm not adding any lenses until I get a z8 because I think it could completely change my thinking. I was a "zoom guy" until I tried the 300mmPF/1.4TCiii combo and fell in love with primes and their faster AF, lighter weight (with the two I have), and learned that my feet work to zoom.
Good luck, sorry about your 200-500.

Thank you. Me too I’m going to look at primes but most are out of my price range. Had to dip into retirement funds to get the camera lol

 

[Evcarter82]

I echo recommendation for the 500mm pf. That is a really great lens and it works really well with teleconverters. My photo buddy has used one quite a lot and they are deeply discounted these days as people have been flocking to the 600mm pf.


A shorter zoom with that lens would also work well.

Unfortunately that’s out of my budget range.

 

[Evcarter82]

I don't recommend 180-600mm. I sold mine. Not enough sharp, especially for low light and sport. My friend, a professional photographer was also trying 180-600mm and he was returning to his F 200-500mm.

I think the 200-500 is a super lens! Wish I could get at least an f4 but money is always an issue.

 

[TurtleCat]

With a limited budget I would agree with the idea of the Tamron 150-600. It may be your best overall option for length if the weight is light enough for you.

 

[ButlerKid]

I agree with the recommendations of the 500 PF. VERY low priced right now.....and if you shoot it for a while and don't like it....you shouldn't lose much on re-sell.

 

[AlanB313]

With a limited budget I would agree with the idea of the Tamron 150-600. It may be your best overall option for length if the weight is light enough for you.

The tamron 150-600mm g2 is lighter than the 200-500 , that's why I chose it at the time. But a little slower. I've seen used copies in the $650-$700 range. I still like mine and use it when I'm not hiking as far.

 

[Craig Yuill]

I just don’t think I will be happy with a 300

A TC-14E III would convert it to a 156-420mm f/4 lens. A TC-20E III would convert it to a 240-600mm f/5.6. The problem is that if you want a long fast lens then the lens is going to be large. If you want a lighter, more compact lens then you have to be satisfied with a slower lens.

 

[Evcarter82]

With a limited budget I would agree with the idea of the Tamron 150-600. It may be your best overall option for length if the weight is light enough for you.

fixing the 200-500 looks like my best option at this time. I sold my tamron 150-600 because I like the 200-500 and I really don’t want a 6.3 lens.

 

[Evcarter82]

I agree with the recommendations of the 500 PF. VERY low priced right now.....and if you shoot it for a while and don't like it....you shouldn't lose much on re-sell.

I must be looking at a different lens because every one I’ve looked at has been $3k+

 

[TurtleCat]

I must be looking at a different lens because every one I’ve looked at has been $3k+

Brand new, yes. But in the used market they tend to be between $1500-2000.

 

[Evcarter82]

Brand new, yes. But in the used market they tend to be between $1500-2000.

I have not seen that. I will check again. Thx

 

[Craig Yuill]

FWIW, a regional photography-store chain is selling copies of the 500mm f/5.6 PF for the equivalent of $1900-2100 US.

 

[WonderfulNaturePhotography]

I understand and appreciate (from personal experience) his issue using 5.6/6.3 lenses with very low light, as very early in the morning or late in the evening these apertures produce very noisy and often soft images, even on full frame, high mp bodies, which NR and sharpening SW can't really completely correct. Plus, there's the problem of AF acquisition & locking in very low light situations. I don't really have a solution other than faster, heavier, and more expensive glass, unless of course Nikon releases a 200-600 f4.

P.S. the 180-600 f5.6-6.3 is the natural successor to the 200-500 of course, and it's a better lens in many respects. The difference between 6.3 and 5.6 is negligible.

completely agree here : difference between 5.6 and 6.3 is only 1/3 of a stop ... I switched from 200-500 5.6 on D500 to Z800 6.3 with Z9 and it allows me to shoot in the same light conditions , even better as the VR has improved

 

[Patty15]

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.

I agree. I also use the 100-400 and find it to be a really good lens. I love my 600 6.3 as well, but it's not a zoom. I always thought the 200-500 was pretty heavy.

As far as ISO and noise goes, the newer software is great. I use the built-in in Lightroom and get very good results. Steve did a video a bit back on his technique using this. I have no fear of noise or using smaller aperture settings anymore.

 

[threesixty]

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!

Hey, Ev

I’ve been through your dilemma — I shot and loved the 200-500 5.6 and now shoot the 180-600, the 400 4.5, and the 400 2.8TC.

Honestly, as JA notes, the 180-600mm is an excellent direct replacement for your 200-500mm.

I agree with you on the loss of a 1/3 stop — f/6.3 is slow for low light situations.
But the 180-600 also gives you 100mm more reach, so you’ll be enlarging your noise less at any given distance.
Sharpness is superior to the 200-500 and the zoom is internal, and it’s 3/4 of a lb lighter than the 200-500.
It also takes a 1.4TC much better than the 200-500 for times when you simply must extend.
The only deficit I’ve noted is that it tends to throw a bit more chroma than the 200-500 in bright high contrast situations (e.g. a fast white seagull on a very bright blue sky).

Another alternative is the 400 4.5 — it’s optically superb, rivalling the 400 2.8 for 1/5 of the price.
It’s feather light (2.5lbs), and handles a TC really well to become a high quality 560mm 6.3,
(The sharpness of my 400 4.5 +TC matches the sharpness of the 180-600 naked and significantly exceeds the 200-500).
The extra light gathering is significant in blue hour, and you can add the TC when the day gets brighter.
Tiny birds that refuse to let you get close will be challenging but, if you can get close, the results you get will be superb.

I haven’t shot the 100-400 5.6, but it gets lots of praise.
Remember you’ll have to crop more with it and that means enlarging noise.
But it’s pretty light and will take a TC better than your 200-500.

Needless to say, the 400 2.8 TC is the pinnacle for low light — f/2.8 and it becomes a beautiful 560 f/4 with a flip of a lever.
Performance with the TC is outstanding.
Shooting with it is transformational. I’m able to get blue hour shots that would be otherwise impossible.
The weight’s nothing to sneeze at 6.5 lbs — a pound and a half extra over your 200-500.
Still, I shoot it handheld all day. Your mileage may vary.
But, of course, there’s the price — yikes.

Finally, the 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 2xTC will get the job done, but I don’t recommend it for your case.
The 180-600 gives you 200mm more reach so you won’t be cropping and enlarging noise.
After shooting the 200-500, I think you’d find the 70-200 frustrating for small subjects.

Good luck!

 

[Marsha Jane]

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!

I have really enjoyed my Z 600 mm PF, the first prime lens I have used. Since I typically shot at the long end of my F200 to 500, the 600 mm is a bonus, and it’s much lighter in weight. I have found it easier to use a prime than a zoom, because zooming in and out is one less thing to think about. Cropping on the Z8 still produces tack sharp photos. As others have pointed out, raising your ISO can be cleaned up post processing.

 

[cdfturner]

I went from the 200-500 on a D7500 to a Z8 with the 600 pf. There are very few times I find myself wishing I could zoom out. I usually find a shot that works. The only disadvantage with the 600 I have noticed is the minimal focal distance (about double the 200-500). I do find myself getting "up close and personal" with my subjects at times and I can't always move back (risk spooking them). Those few times I just enjoy being that close. Perhaps outside your price point but I love shooting with this combo. And do I want faster glass, well, sure but for now I am very happy.

 

[Evcarter82]

completely agree here : difference between 5.6 and 6.3 is only 1/3 of a stop ... I switched from 200-500 5.6 on D500 to Z800 6.3 with Z9 and it allows me to shoot in the same light conditions , even better as the VR has improved

Thank you. This is the information I was hoping for! I did look at the 500 j4 but goodness!!! it weighs over a pound more than the 200-500. Im barely holding it!

 

[Evcarter82]

Hey, Ev

I’ve been through your dilemma — I shot and loved the 200-500 5.6 and now shoot the 180-600, the 400 4.5, and the 400 2.8TC.

Honestly, as JA notes, the 180-600mm is an excellent direct replacement for your 200-500mm.

I agree with you on the loss of a 1/3 stop — f/6.3 is slow for low light situations.
But the 180-600 also gives you 100mm more reach, so you’ll be enlarging your noise less at any given distance.
Sharpness is superior to the 200-500 and the zoom is internal, and it’s 3/4 of a lb lighter than the 200-500.
It also takes a 1.4TC much better than the 200-500 for times when you simply must extend.
The only deficit I’ve noted is that it tends to throw a bit more chroma than the 200-500 in bright high contrast situations (e.g. a fast white seagull on a very bright blue sky).

Another alternative is the 400 4.5 — it’s optically superb, rivalling the 400 2.8 for 1/5 of the price.
It’s feather light (2.5lbs), and handles a TC really well to become a high quality 560mm 6.3,
(The sharpness of my 400 4.5 +TC matches the sharpness of the 180-600 naked and significantly exceeds the 200-500).
The extra light gathering is significant in blue hour, and you can add the TC when the day gets brighter.
Tiny birds that refuse to let you get close will be challenging but, if you can get close, the results you get will be superb.

I haven’t shot the 100-400 5.6, but it gets lots of praise.
Remember you’ll have to crop more with it and that means enlarging noise.
But it’s pretty light and will take a TC better than your 200-500.

Needless to say, the 400 2.8 TC is the pinnacle for low light — f/2.8 and it becomes a beautiful 560 f/4 with a flip of a lever.
Performance with the TC is outstanding.
Shooting with it is transformational. I’m able to get blue hour shots that would be otherwise impossible.
The weight’s nothing to sneeze at 6.5 lbs — a pound and a half extra over your 200-500.
Still, I shoot it handheld all day. Your mileage may vary.
But, of course, there’s the price — yikes.

Finally, the 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 2xTC will get the job done, but I don’t recommend it for your case.
The 180-600 gives you 200mm more reach so you won’t be cropping and enlarging noise.
After shooting the 200-500, I think you’d find the 70-200 frustrating for small subjects.

Good luck!

Wow! Thanks so much for all this info!! Yes, I have a 70-200 2.8 and it’s very frustrating for birding!! You’ve given me much to think about and check pricing on lol again, thanks!

 

[Jason Prince]

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!

Best walking about lens i have is my 500mm PF f/5.6 or you could get the 300mm PF f/4.0. The 500 is about 1kg (2.2 pounds) lighter than 200-500 (still a great lens tho.)