Recommendations for 200-500 5.6 replacement

[DougC]

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 completely agree.

 

[Roy]

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 off 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.

You shouldn't lose any6 more light with the FTZ adpters.
The 180-600 is a great upgrade for the 200-500 ...

 

[doclrb]

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!

Good Evening,

Probably not what you wish to hear, but ditch the zoom, go with the 600 F6.3! It’s a dream on the Z8. My ‘walk around’ birding lens. It’s about the least heavy of the other Z options mentioned here, and WAY! lighter in weight than the Z 180-600.

 

[Woodpecker]

Well, my 200-500 times are some time ago a honestly I lasted only a couple of days for test at the time and after that went right back, because I strongly disliked the handling of this zoom lens - although I prefer to have zoom flexibility.

For the purpose the Z 180-600 IMHO basically deliveres on any single point where I got cross with the f-mount 200-500.

• Internal zoom, i.e.
  • no air pumping
  • no change of length / balance
• Faster zoom ring allowing swift one/two finger operation
• Significantly better resolution and a more homogenous distribution across the frame, especially at the long end.
• 100mm more reach providing 600mm with an IQ a little weaker than at 500mm but still better than the 200-500 at 500mm
• Still slighly lighter than the 200-500

But it comes - lietrally - at a price, because it is new and thus more expensive and at least compared with the 200-500 being in the 200mm (travel) position, it is bigger - which can cause bag issues when wnating to go small and light.

This 1/3 stop less light shouldn't make a relevant difference, especially in times of high quality denoising and considering that the Z cameras are much better with low light AF compared to DSLR times, where at f8 we besically lost most of the AF sensors completely and on the way there lenses started much earlier to slow down with AF.

If you clearly put the zoom flexibility in favour of a better IQ at the long end IMHO you should go for the Z 180-600.

One aspect that might be less obvious is somenthing I encounter with the only F lens left in my setup - the 500 f4 G - and this is operational integration of VR.
While with the Z lens you have the VR settings at your finger via the camera's control elements, there is a kind of break-up with the F lens. With my F lens on the Z8 the camera just displays whether the VR is on or off withoug being able to disitnguish between the VR mode selected on the lens. If you shoot a lot in low light yo might want to be able to change VR mode depending on the situation or objekt when getting on the brink of things, which is really convenient to have it on the camera controls while keeping you left hand in place.

During F-mount times the 180-400mm f4 was one of my dream lenses because of the zoom flexibility and the integrated TC, but I never got my hands on it - mostly due to the enormous price tag. But I owned a 200-400 f4 G earlier and I can confirm that this type of lens lens isn't something to handhold for longer periods - at least it wasn't for me.

The 2kg plus of the Z 180-600 is probably as light as you can get with this kind of zoom range and this quality - talking about Nikon only of course.

All the best with your decision and ... in case you go for it, please don't drop it .

 

[Anjin San]

Good Evening,

Probably not what you wish to hear, but ditch the zoom, go with the 600 F6.3! It’s a dream on the Z8. My ‘walk around’ birding lens. It’s about the least heavy of the other Z options mentioned here, and WAY! lighter in weight than the Z 180-600.

True…and I have one…but the loss of flexibility with a single prime is a problem for me most of the time. While heavier…the zooms offer that flexibility and final output images are pretty much indistinguishable from the 600PF.

 

[O]

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!

What’s the alternative to the 200-500 for low light zoom shooting, Its tough one and the answer is on everyone's wish list.

Rent before you buy may save time money and effort.

There is no silver bullet, well that's affordable, you want zoom and low light, that comes at a cost and compromise, if you have the heart and deep pockets full of cash there are some expensive solutions.

There are some F4 zooms in 200-400, the 100-400 Z is nice but let the MTF charts speak to you. The 100-400 its a good handy lens chronically overpriced for what it is, road test one, you will love the size and weight. But will it be good enough in low light ?

The 200-500 is a excellent tool, the 180 600 is equally good with a whisker of improvements here and there, i hear some say it has a tiny edge on sharpness, i think reading the MTF charts on any glass may help and gauge the % differences. The 180-600 may well have the edge on a Z6III ZF over the Z8 for low light use.

The theory is the newer Z model cameras like the Z6 III, ZF, have 2 more stops of low light focusing capacity 3 more stops of IBIS over the Z8 Z9, this performance difference will no doubt spread into newer models coming. The less number of and larger pixels combined with the IBIS and extra stops focusing in low light could very well be a greater asset over a Z8 for low light performance ? making the 180-600 more tolerable.

Depending on what you exactly shoot, the point being, you may or may not be able to shoot at lower shutter speeds and lower iso that could play your way, just a left field consideration to throw in the mix. Again You may find that the Z6III may well outperform the Z8 in challenging lower light shooting taking the pressure of the limited options in lenses.

Look at the data of your images taken and work on say if 75% of images are in one narrow range or not, you may be surprised and can tolerate a fixed lens in F4, and say if you’re in the 200-300 or 400-500 range mostly then a F2.8 or F4 prime lens may be an option, used ones of course.

Remember you really like the 200-500, try it with a rented Z6III, or even a D5 as a comparison of measure.

Only an opinion