The Nikon 200-500/5.6 is a budget gem

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).

Mark_Laidlaw

Mark_Laidlaw

Member
Member's gallery
Got my paws on a 200-500 over the weekend to test out! Borrowed it from a colleage.

Lens is pretty heavy, within a few grams of my 800PF actually.

AF can be described as "leisurely" if it needs to make big moves, I also think the zoom ring has too much throw on it, you really gotta crank it. That said, optically it's really not terrible for the price. Combined with a Z50II, I think it's a pretty great deal if you can find one used. 700mm equivalent for under $2000, with the shutter speeds afforded by f/5.6? I can think of worse places to be! Outside of maybe tracking cheetahs, I really can't imagine much you couldn't do with this.

Detail rendering and backgrounds really remind me of the 400/4.5Z w/ 1.4TC (at least around the center). I'm not sure I would want to attempt a 1.4TC on this. At that point, I think this lens would have a tough time rendering detail at anything wider than f/11.

Optically speaking, when it's stopped down to f/7.1-ish, I'd say in the real world this lens is just as good as the Canon RF 100-500L. Except that Canon can't open up to 5.6 ;-)

Is the 180-600/6.3 better? For sure. Definitely an ergonomic improvement, but it's also quite a bit more expensive. All in all I'm pretty impressed with what this tank could do, even if it's really heavy for what it is.

song_sparrow.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
I had one for probably 5 years. It captured a number of great images - almost all while mounted on a D7200. As you noted, it’s not a featherweight, it weighs in a few ounces heavier than a 180-600. The Z8, combined with the 180-600 is lighter (but not by much) than the 7200/200-500 combo.

I sold mine to help fund my Z8 - 180-600 project.
The 500’s weight, long twist zoom collar, leasurely AF, and the extra 100mm of the 180-600 pushed me pretty hard.

Can’t disagree, though, the 200-500 is a solid bargain at today’s prices, particularly for DX shooters.
 
Member's gallery
I've had the 200-500 for a number of years now and have generally been very happy with it, especially for close up nature photography. It is on the heavy side with leisurely AF, as you say, but it's proven to be a very reliable long zoom and a great value, IMO, considering its price. I later bought and then returned the 180-600, thinking I'd replace the 200-500 with it, but I was disappointed with the sharpness of my copy. I've continued to hold on to the 200-500 and use it with my Z9 and Z8 in situations that call for a zoom - which isn't often. But it does the job when called upon.
 
Member's gallery
I had one for a number of years and found it to be a very good lens as the others have stated. Just a little slow on the AF but a very solid performer optically given its price.
 
Member's gallery
Mark_Laidlaw said:
Got my paws on a 200-500 over the weekend to test out! Borrowed it from a colleage.

Lens is pretty heavy, within a few grams of my 800PF actually.

AF can be described as "leisurely" if it needs to make big moves, I also think the zoom ring has too much throw on it, you really gotta crank it. That said, optically it's really not terrible for the price. Combined with a Z50II, I think it's a pretty great deal if you can find one used. 700mm equivalent for under $2000, with the shutter speeds afforded by f/5.6? I can think of worse places to be! Outside of maybe tracking cheetahs, I really can't imagine much you couldn't do with this.

Detail rendering and backgrounds really remind me of the 400/4.5Z w/ 1.4TC (at least around the center). I'm not sure I would want to attempt a 1.4TC on this. At that point, I think this lens would have a tough time rendering detail at anything wider than f/11.

Optically speaking, when it's stopped down to f/7.1-ish, I'd say in the real world this lens is just as good as the Canon RF 100-500L. Except that Canon can't open up to 5.6 ;-)

Is the 180-600/6.3 better? For sure. Definitely an ergonomic improvement, but it's also quite a bit more expensive. All in all I'm pretty impressed with what this tank could do, even if it's really heavy for what it is.

View attachment 105017
Click to expand...


I rented a 180-600 this weekend to see how it stacked up against the Sigma 150-600 C I have had since DSLR days. Honestly there was hardly any difference optically. Slightly sharper at F 6.3, once stopped down they looked identical. So optically I would say not any real benefits for my shooting needs. This was out shooting wildlife and swapping lenses back and forth. I could not tell the difference between shots later unless it was 6.3.

But the 180-600 did literally everything else better. VR is really good, fast and silent focus motors in comparison. The short throw zoom is really nice. Internal zoom and weather sealing.

For me it's not the lens I'm going to go for. For now I'm adding the Tamron 150-500 because it's much more compact than the 180-600 and I'll bring it more places and get more shots because of that. The Sigma will be fine for my 600mm needs as I so so little difference in the output between the two. I'm sure the corners are better on the Nikon but in the wildlife shooting I did that didn't seem to matter for any of the shots.

I think some of these F mount lenses, this one included are going to be steals now for those who don't need/want the VR and other nicety's in the Z lens. For Z50ii owners it's pretty great that you can find a bunch of these lenses used in excellent condition for 500-1000 dollars.
 
Member's gallery
I've seen copies of the Tamron 150-600 G2 between $400 and $800. There's an excellent rated one on MPB for $739. I'm still very happy with mine but tend to use my 500mm PF more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top