Have nature and wildlife photography questions? Check out the BCG Forums! Ask and answer gear and technique questions questions, post photos and more. Check it out and sign up today! bcgforums.com/index.php Bonus - I also post exclusive tips, tricks, and techniques to the forum you can't get anywhere else! Check it out!
Excellent video. This is my first time watching one of your video's and I'm hooked. The reason is that you offer extremely valuable information - very useful - AND you do it quickly, concisely. No long stories about your trip to this forest or that lake. No long stretches telling us the obvious. You cut to the chase and you bottom line it. Awesome! This is not so common on TH-cam and it makes you a keeper!!!
This is a fantastic piece of work you put together. Thanks a lot. You are becoming (you already are actually) one of the most reliable source of information for wildlife photographers.
Forget the reviews. Steve, your wildlife and bird photos are beautiful and very inspiring, and after I get my first dslr, I will try my best to get pictures like u.
3 years on and this video is still relevant. I'm looking at switching from Canon to Nikon and I have the D500 and 200-500mm lens on my radar. As I'm in Australia, the heat distortion test was of great value. Cheers Steve ... subscribed.
Another great video, Steve is a superb wildlife photographer and his opinions are supported by real world images. Honest and comprehensive review, one of the best reviewers on the web.
Excellent and helpful review. I've used both of these lenses and couldn't see any cases where I'd disagree with your assessment. Happy to be the 100th like with zero dislikes. Well deserved.
Thanks for a great vid Steve. I'm a pro shooter and educator wanting to shoot more wildlife for personal goals. Up till a few weeks ago I owned the 300 f4 ED-IF AF-S with TC 14 E ii combo. An unfortunate River trip left my Nikon gear fairly soaked (everyone lived). I was torn between upping to the 300 PF, repurchasing the ED-IF I had...or making the leap to this beast. After chatting with a former photojay colleague and getting to handle this lens I did it. So far I'm blown away by this lens. I'm definitely using lens correction in Lightroom and any lack of "microcontrast" is handled with a dash of dehaze. Definitely enjoying your channel as I explore a new area and finding you to be a solid reference for my private and college photo students.
Couldnt agree more with several comments already made about how very well made and reliable your reviews are; one more excellent video. I have to come to watch your videos the moment I get a notification..and thanks for posting these... One request I have is to hear your views on the Nikon 80-400 Lens and how it compares with the 300 and 200-500 both. Thanks in advance!
Thanks! I don't have any current comparisons, but I did do one a while back with the 300 AF-S and the 80-400: www.backcountrygallery.com/photography_tips/nikon-under-3k-tele-comparison/
I have to say Steve, you speak loud and clear. You approach your review in a very mithodical and organized manner. This is very appreciated as I go through the review and think about my questions of my newly received, "pre-owned", Nikkor 200 - 500 lens. All my best and thanks you very much. 👍😎📸🤩
I’ve tried the 300 f/4 VR on my new Z7 and had problems focusing. A few days later, I tried shutting the lens VR off and got much better focusing because the camera VR was not interfering with the lens VR on. The combination of a light lens and light mirrorless has made my DSLRs rest in back of my equipment closet. Hey, it’s a bit easier on my body since I am now 78 years old. Coff coff coff. By the way, your video was very well done and I have subscribed.
Seriously, thank you so much. What a wonderful video, and person. So rare to see reviews not influenced by manufacturers or bias. Well done Steve you've got a fan for life 8). Im gonna go with 300f4 + 1.4x TC simply for backpacking weight. Really these two seem so close it's just size vs reach at the end of the day.
Thanks for this - I chose the 300 PF a year ago and added a 1.4 TC (based on your review, I maybe should take the TC off a little more often). It was a no brainer for me, all of the big lenses were simply too heavy for me and too big for my hands to operate, but you have made me feel even better about my choice. I take it out (literally) every single day shooting wildlife handheld - I can't remember ever putting it on a tripod. I've been incredibly happy with it. I'm hoping one day they make a PF 200-500 or 150-600. :) I've never seen any of the halo problems you mentioned. I have no problem handholding the 300 PF with the 1.4 TC at 1/60 on either my original D3300 or my new D500. I do shoot between 1/250 and 1/1000 most of the time because birds are moving, but I haven't had problems between 1/60 and 1/250 when a bird decides to sit still. Thanks for the reviews. I just found your channel. I shoot wildlife on Nikon and I am finding all kinds of great information on your site!
I've been using my 200-500 since it was launched and as an amateur, I'm more than satisfied. If I had been making my living off shooting, I would probably have ended up with the 200 f/2, 400 f/2.8 and the 600 f/4 primes but for my needs, the 200-500 is perfect. Great review, Steve - absolutely love your videos. No, shouting, no gimmicks, just informative and pleasant videos. Keep up the good work!
Hi Steve, Thank you for your video. I have been using the 200-500mm for 2 years. I learned something new about it from your video. I think it's the best zoom lens at this price. I'll keep using it until I get a new mirrorless camera.
Very nuanced and practical discussion of the pros and cons of both lenses. Found this intriguing enough to watch till the end. I am saying this as a generalist-approach Pentax shooter, who would feel more confident now to make an informed pick between offerings even in the competing system, given that the selection criteria are pretty universal. Did I mention that your wildlife photography rocks big time, Steve?
Thanks for another down to earth, honest and to the point review! Always a pleasure watching your videos with fast, honest real world advise and insights.
Great review and based on your findings, I have just ordered the 300 PF and a TC 1.4. I also love your style of presentation and have just subscribed. Thank you 😁
Very well done, Steve...THANKS! I use the 300 PF on my Fujifilm X-H1 with a Fringer adapter with stunning results and I can use the Fuji 1.4 TC between the adapter and body! I compared using the 300 PF on a D7200 and while the focus acquisition and tracking is a little better, the IQ on the Fuji body is remarkably better. I had to do the test twice to confirm what I was seeing and without any post processing, cropping or pixel peeping, the clarity and sharpness difference just jumps out.
Fantastic review & comparison of these lenses Steve. I'm lucky enough to have both & tend to use the 200-500 on my D500 for the additional reach, and the 300 PF on my D5, often with the TC1.4 iii. As you mentioned, the D500 / 300 PF combo is a great walk around option. I also have the Sigma 150-600 sport lens, which is considerably heavier than the 200-500, although I find it sharper at the long end. That said, I tend to grab the 200-500 in preference to the Sigma because of the weight saving and its constant f5.6. I've had one or two issues with the 209-500 lens hood falling off. I love the sigmas push/pull zoom option as opposed to the lengthy zoom process of the Nikon. Keep up the great work.
As usual Steve your videos are superb. I bought the 200-500 vr a couple of months ago. I have practice with it around the house, etc. Now next week since high school sports (Maxpreps) is starting I will really put it through it's paces. Everybody at Ugly Hedgehog likes your videos too. Keep up the good work, you have made me a better photographer.
I have the 200-500mm and love it. A zoom of that range shouldn't even be close to the prime telephotos and the fact that it is, is remarkable. I don't regret my choice, although when I'm packing my camera bag for a trip or at the end of a long hike, I do start wishing I had the 300mm PF as a compact lightweight option.
Another great tube Steve. As always the most informativeI Photo tube around. I have the old 300 AFS F4, & was wondering which way to go. Thanks for all your hard work.
Thank you, Steve, for an informative video. You definitely had my attention for the entire review. Interesting information about the heat distortion. Never thought you would see differences among lenses at equal circumstances.
Thanks for another fantastic video. Now as someone who never questioned my lenses (in the sense I never thought there were bad copies!) I'd be interested to know how you test your new lenses to figure that out!
In this case, it was easy because I was comparing the 200-500 to my 300 PF. Everything's on a tripod, carefully focused in Live View, mirror up, EFC, cable release, etc. The first two copies were so far off it was obvious something wasn't right. I also saw it in the field - I'm used to shooting long glass and for the life of me I couldn't get a sharp image with the first copy and only marginally sharp images with the second. The third has been fantastic and I like to think that most of the lenses are like my third copy. :)
Steve Perry wow! A response on a 3 year old video within just a couple hours! That’s amazing. Seriously, kudos! I guess if there is a chance of you reading this then I might as well ask a question I had: in your opinion does the Nikon D3500 have too few autofocus points? My current camera’s shutter is dying and I will probably need to buy another one, I’m on a fairly tight budget as a grade 12 student and so I’m looking at the entry level options by all brands. Do you think that the 11 AF points isn’t enough or should it do just fine, my current camera has 19 cross type points (Canon 7D), but I rarely use anything but the single focus point in the center. Thanks!
@@backcountrygallery Hey Steve! Currently using a D500+ 300 f4 pf. Kinda find the combination a little short on focal length in certain situations. Do you still recommend getting a 1.4 tc mark 3 for this setup? I do not want to buy a zoom lens, on a long run i would probably buy a 500mm F4 but financially it is out of reach right now.
@@definitelynotatroll Sorry for the delay. I you're mostly using the center point, I think it's fine. The truth is, there's not any cameras in the D3500 budget range that are going to have wall to wall AF points anyway. I think it's a good choice. Of course, if you can get into a D5xxx series, that may be even better - or possibly a used D7200.
You do a great job on your videos. I am researching for a camera and lens for wildlife photography. I just ordered your e-book. Looks like it will be a big help for my upcoming Alaska trip.
Great video! I'm getting ready to purchase the 200-500 and was curious to see if you could recommend a good way to test the lense for sharpness when it arrives?
Steve, Great review and best video I've found so far on TH-cam, but...... You've forgot to mention the main aspect of using Crop sensor cameras. Nikon D500 should definitely have 1.5 times cropped numbers on those FF lenses. 300/4 would be 450/6 and 200-500 would be 300-750/8.4 in 35mm equivalent. I think it should be written as disclaimer at least because this is the fact that not everyone do pay attention to it. Cheers!
The "effective F/stop" is only for DOF if you shot a full frame equivalent lens from the same distance. Note that it DOES NOT affect exposure as many people fear.
Steve, glad to see you found a good copy of the 200-500. I appreciated your comments about the benefits of shooting at f/4 vs. f/5.6. My experience shooting with the 200-500 has sold me on the advantage of f/5.6 vs. f/6.3. Photographing BIF in anything less than great light, the ISO starts to climb pretty quickly. I'm usually always wide open at f/5.6 and am typically at 1/2000 to freeze action so, opening the aperture or slowing shutter speed are not options...at least, not preferred options. Even a 1/3-stop lower ISO can make the difference between acceptable and unacceptable noise. Regardless of how good the 150-600's may be, I have no desire to give up another 1/3-stop of light. As someone who's never shot with a 500 f/4, shooting with the 200-500 had given me an appreciation of the idea of having such a lens. If your looking for suggestions on topics to cover in future videos, I'd be interested in a discussion of the wildlife/bird scenarios where each - 500 f/4 and 200-500 f5.6 - shows its value. Which scenarios are tailor made for the exotic and which for the zoom?
@@1stRealty one subject I'll recommend is a 1st quarter Moon. Of course, the weather needs to cooperate but assuming it's clear, the Moon is detailed, conveniently positioned, and can be used to test things like autofocus acuity, image quality at different focal lengths and f-stops, and vibration reduction (VR) at different shutter speeds.
thanx for the great videos and info. my wife just bought me the 200-500 and i bought the D500 earlier this year. love the combo and have good success so far. thanx for all the info you give on everything nikon!!
I loved this so much I saved my money to buy one and it is as sharp as everyone says and well worth the money. I had a 150-500 Sigma 5.6-6.3 and it cannot hold a candle to this nikki 200-500 5.6. I do appreciate all your hard work!
FYI, on crop sensors you also need to multiply the max aperture by the crop factor: 300mm f/4 = 450mm (FOV) f/6 (effective max aperture), 200-500mm f/5.6 = 300-750mm (FOV) f/8.4 (effective max aperture). Bumping up the ISO on APS-C sensors to compensate can quickly lead to unacceptable noise for professional applications.
Careful now... I like Tony, but in this case I think he causes more confusion than necessary. First, there is no difference in exposure between crop and full frame cameras, none. If I shoot a lens at F4 and 1/500th of a second at ISO 400 on a full frame camera, that's going to be the exact same exposure I'd use on a crop camera. You do NOT bump the ISO to compensate. The numbers always stay the same. I've shot hundreds (probably thousands) of test shots between FX and DX and using the same ISO, F/Stop and shutter speed the exposure is identical. What Tony is referring to is equivalent depth of field for the same field of view. So, if I'm shooting a 200mm lens at F5.6 on my DX camera, the depth of field would look like a 300mm F8.4 on a full frame camera (again for the same field of view). Now, to take this one step further, there is actually no difference in FX and DX depth of field. If your the same distance from your subject, the DX camera simply has a tighter field of view. You an prove this to yourself easily - imagine you shoot an image with a D810 (FX). Now, take that image into Photoshop and crop it the the DX area - did the background magically become sharper? Of course not. The reason you get more DOF with a crop camera is simple - you either have to use a shorter lens or move back further than you would with an FX camera for the same field of view - and that's what Tony was trying to explain :)
I've seen that video. In your original statement, you say that you need to bump the ISO to compensate for the "effective aperture" and that's not the case. An exposure of 1/125th of a second at F8 at ISO 400 is the same on a DX or FX body - you DO NOT need to change the DX camera to 1/125th, F8 at ISO1200 to compensate for the extra 1.5 stop difference. If you do, you overexposure the shot. However, if you're referring to the fact that the ISO performance will be 1.5 stops worse, sure, that's correct and pretty common knowledge. The DX camera will have same noise level an FX camera does at ISO 1200 - I'm not arguing that.
It's in this months Magazine, I'm in the UK not sure if it's available worldwide.. it's only a small part on page 12 with your picture and a a link to this channel. The Magazine is : www.outdoorphotographymagazine.co.uk/magazine/2016/08/op209-the-highlights/
Awesome - I'll have to see if I can find a copy here in the states (some of my local bookstores have a selection of UK mags). Thanks again for letting me know - that's really cool :)
Well Steve, 7 months on from my last post and I bought a new Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6. It is brilliant: and despite the weight I have been using it instead of my 300mm f4 PF VR since buying it a fortnight ago. I find it really easy to aquire a subject (far easier than my Olympus EM1 mark II + Oly 300mm f4) and it works really well for birds in flight.
Congrats :) As an owner of both lenses, I find myself going back and forth between them all the time - can't go wrong either way and I'm glad you're enjoying to 200-500. I personally think they pair up well.
I'm not currently in the market for either of these (yet), but I always learn from your videos. I really like your practical approach to things. Thanks! BTW, it would be interesting to hear your evaluation of the competing Tamron and Sigma lens in this price/focal length category.
Steve love the videos AND really love your book. Torn between the 2 lenses still...I shoot a Nikon d810 and am considering the 300mm over the 200-500 zoom and at times when shooting outdoors ( mainly sports ) I will put my camera in DX mode to give me extra reach when using my 70-200 f/2.8. I realize i reduce my pixel density to 16Mp but the images still work well for me. Any thoughts on using this technique instead of paying an additional $500 for a 1.4x teleconvertor ? And would you recommend this technique ? Your video on cropping full frame vs crop sensors was excellent also !
It sounds like you're using a D800/ 810. Using a TC should get you more detail than cropping down to 16MP, so it may be worth it to you. Of course, if 16MP is all you need, then I wouldn't bother. As for the two lenses, for sports I'd probably lean towards the 300 F4 with its faster AF and larger aperture (although I'm not a sports shooter, so that's just a guess).
Thanks Steve, yes I do use a Nikon d810 and have been torn between the 2 lenses for quite some time. Looks like I'm going with the 300mm F4 and a 1.4x TC. If I begin to start shooting more wildlife I will consider the 200-500. Keep up the great work ! Your videos, book and photos are fantastic and I love the channel.
Love your videos Steve - the 300 PF + tc 1.4 + D500 is perfect for me - I have the Tamron 150-600 as it came out before the 200-500 - but still always go for the 300 as its so easy to hand hold and walk around with
Such a thorough review! Lots of examples of what you are talking about makes it a joy to watch. Too many review are just talk. Thank you. Though you didn’t come out and directly state it, sounds like the 200-500mm AF just isn’t fast enough for erratic sports action photography. Can you confirm? Right now I have the 70-200 F4 and love it but would like a zoom with more reach. Been using my AF-S 70-300 VR and getting good results but I miss shooting at F4. Been thinking about getting a used 2.8 version and adding a 1.7 TC or the newer 80-400 VR. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance for any reply.
I won't say it's impossible (because there's always someone who will claim otherwise), but the 200-500 would not be my first choice for sports action. (or my second choice, or third choice... :)
Great comparison Steve! I have a question regarding the 200-500: Can I mount the lenses on a tripod directly out of the box? I don't see an arca swiss compatible plate, so I assume I have to buy one? Thanks!
MrCorelex I have used both and I would personally go for the 200-500mm. Having used the 200-500 then returning it for the 200-400, I went back to the 200-500 as it’s just as sharp if not more so, a lot easier to carry around making it more adaptable to environments etc and the colours etc from it are gorgeous, not that the 200-400mm arnt but for the money and weight, it Defo wasn’t worth the small pros for me
Hi Steve, If both lemses were hipothetically the same price which one would you go for ? I've found a second hand 300pf (in almost unused condition) for the same price as a new 200-500 5.6. After watching the video and taking everything you said into consideration im still cannot make up my mind though. I'm aware every photographer is a different world altogether but if you were in my situation which one would you go for ? Glad to see that you're better !
Great review as always Steve. I agree with all of you points. I have both plus the big glass f4's. I love them all. But the big glass costs thousands for a reason.
Steve, Great review, thanks. I have experienced the same VR issues you mentioned but also generally shoot at 1/250 or higher so it's not a problem. Generally the VR works well even in the 1/60 to 1/200 range but not always and I only use it with one camera (D7100). That said, I LOVE my 300mm f4 PF. However, I also almost always stop it down 2/3rds of a stop whether I'm using a TC (I use the Kenko Pro 300 1.4 and am very happy with it) or not. It makes a BIG difference in sharpness. Thanks again.
Living in the UK I guess there's not too much concern about heat distortion as much as rain distortion, especially at the moment. A great video and review of each lens. My decision is between the older 300mm AF-S + 1.4TC 2 and the 200-500mm. I kinda wanna go for both, but I don't think that will be an option.
Beautifully explained to the beginners. I use 500mm f4 VR II and 1.4 & 1.7 TC on D610. Surprisingly the 1.7 TC on this Fx gives better and sharper results in 850 mm than 1.4TC on 700 mm. I also use 300 mm non VR full metal old scale lens but it does not track moving objects easily with 1.4 and 1.7 TC II. Did you test the 1.7 TC on 300 f4 VR? If yes how was the AF and sharpness on FX? Need your practical experience of this small prime for the purchase of D850/D760 in near future.
The one thing I have to say about the 200-500 tripod collar is that it's nice for carrying the lens. I've had the canon 400mm 5.6L and the sigma 150-600c and there wasn't a comfortable way to grip it for a suitcase carry type of position which makes carrying that large lens a lot more convenient when hiking around.
Late to the comments section, but, I have to totally agree with everything related to the Nikon 200-500 stated in this video. After using the 200-500 for around two years now, the first thing that immediately comes to mind is the huge difference between 500mm image sharpness at distance and at close range on a warm day. At full aperture down, the short range performance (i.e small bird in a branch at say.. 6m) is outstanding! (razor sharp with wonderful bokeh!), but at distance (50+m) images are often dissapointing; not always mind, but it is a definite trend. The VR on the 200-500 is outstandingly good! My other gripe is the relatively slow focus, which I could have offset a bit by using manual focus, had Nikon not put the focus ring so close to the lens mount..... sigh! I have also used this lens for close up work at around f8 (flying insects etc.), where it truly excels, with wonderfully, completely defocussed backgrounds. But yes, a good copy of this lens will offer great value for money, and is marginally better than the simmilarly priced 3rd party opposition.
Steve, I love this video and it should help me make a decision. But, one question… did you try to use these both in low light scenarios for birds in flight (such as owls hunting at dusk)? I wonder about the 200-500’s aperture when zoomed out in low light? I use a d7500 for reference to my inquiry. Of course, cost is a consideration, but I don’t want to be disappointed by getting the cheaper option.
I never used them side by side for BIF. Based on my use of the lenses, for low light BIF work if 300mm was enough, that's the lens I'd use. The 200-500 is great, but the extra stop form the 300 makes a difference.
Excellent review Steve. I agree with all your findings having had this lens myself since April. Sorry to hear you had two bad copies to start with. I must have been lucky first time then I guess. I use mine with a D7200, and for me, I get great results with it. As you say, focusing not the fastest, but you work with what you've got and for the money it's certainly well worth it. It's down to me now to become a better photographer! ;-)
I rented a 200-500 and D750 earlier in the year and was really impressed with the images of birds in flight and on the strength of this purchased a D500 and 200-500. I can see from your excellent review and images that this lens is very capable when connected to a D500. I used to shoot Canon and sold it all some years ago, but I had pro gear including capability with extenders to 600mm f/5.6, so I have experience with wildlife and birds in flight. My experience with Nikon is one of disappointment. With good light and supported on stationary objects, it's pretty good. For birds in flight it's simply horrible. I haven't yet achieve a single useable shot having tried VR variations on and off, varying shutter speeds and aperture settings and all are soft. Even on slow moving birds. I'm on my second 200-500 and about to return that, but I'm thinking returning it all for a refund to reconsider options. For those having bad 200-500, was this across the range or specific to a certain focal length or scenario?
Martin Aves: Keep the D500 and get a 300mm f4 PF VR + Nikon 1.4 TC 111, you will be amazed as to how incredible this combination is for birds and dragonflies in flight. I had a Canon 7D mark 11 + Canon 100 - 400mm IS mark 11 prior to my Nikon system and for me, the D500 + 300mm is far superior. I have been considering the Nikon 200 - 500mm f5.6 but Tamron have just released the 150 - 600mm f5/6.3 G2.
Cheers Pete, that's exactly what I did and am delighted with the results. The 300mm f4 PF is a great little lens and results are really sharp. I've not tried the 1.4TC III extensively yet, but some initial quick shots look promising.
Steve, Thanks for this video and all of your video's. They are all excellent! This is probably a dumb question ..but I am just getting started in wildlife photography. In your above Video towards the end you show yourself shooting a 500MM prime on a Gimbal Head and rotating that to vertical in an instant. How are you doing that? Is it an adapter or a specific brand of Gimbal that allows you to do that?
Hi Steve. Grateful for your video, interesting and informative. I've recently started venturing in to wildlife and nature photography. I've got a Nikon D850, I have recently picked up a 300mm f/4D AFS second hand...but I'm considering returning it and getting the 200-500mm f/5.6...the issues I have regarding the 300mm is mainly due to some concerns about the the lack of back element in the lens when changing the lens...as dust will go inside and I won’t be able to remove it myself...I can clearly see the diaphragm and there is nothing in-between. Although the diaphragm closes down to minimum aperture when the lens is detached from the camera, if dust or particulates goes into the lens, it will get through the hole onto the last glass element that sits in front of the diaphragm....as well as that there is no rubber gasket on its mount...so reading other articles suggesting a tele converter to be kept there at all times to protect the lens from particulates and dust...that leads to the lens becoming a fixed 420mm F/5.6...so my question is it really worth keeping the 300mm when a TC will be attached permanently essentially becoming a fixed 420mm f/5.6 when I could get a 200-500mm f/5.6? With the D850 in crop mode that 420mm (with the Nikon TC-14E II) can also increase to a reach of 600mm which is more than enough for me in my opinion...and in time I can invest in a 400mm f2.8 or a 600mm f/4...thoughts?
I think you're over thinking it. The lens is only exposed to dust when it's not attached to a camera or when it doesn't have a back cap - in theory, a matter of seconds each time you mount, dismount the lens. Unless you change lenses in dust storms all the time, you should be just fine. Also, you can manually move the little lever on that lens to open up the aperture and hit the element below with a rocket blower.
Hi Steve, I recently discovered your channel and find your videos very interesting and educational. Thanks for sharing your insights! One question about the 200-500: I don't know if you've ever had or know the AF-S NIKKOR 200-400 MM 1:4G ED VR I personally. I would be interested in your opinion in comparison to the 200-500 in terms of AF speed and image quality. Thank you very much in advance and best regards from Austria!
Astonishing that you went thru 3 of the super zooms. For those of us who have to save for years for something like these, could you do a video about how you test the individual lenses for sharpness? I admit to being a nube, but wouldn't want to make such an investment and find out a year later it should've been returned
well, in normal country you walk into store and you test a few pieces yourself, or you order 3 of them and return 2. In other countries, you order it, wait for a month to show up at the store and then they look at you like you're an idiot if you want to unbox it there and take a photo with it.
Steve, I have a Sigma 150-600 mm (not the Sports model). It is pretty heavy and I use it mainly on a tripod. I also use it handheld for photographing foxes in my backyard on my D500. I have got some great fox photos, but when trying to follow very fast moving foxes, the weight seems to get to me. I am not planning on selling this long zoom, but I have been thinking about the Nikkor 300mm for my D500. because of the weight. I am 67 years old, and the long zoom seems to be getting heavier and heavier. Does my thinking make sense to you. Money is not really the object, so you can eliminate that from your thoughts. Thanks for your response in advance, and a great video as always.
Thanks for making the video. For the copies of the 200-500mm that weren't sharp, did you take test shots of the boxes? Would be interested to see the differences.
Hi! First of all thanks for all your great videos. So useful ! I am really interested in buying the 200-500 mm. You said that the first 2 that you bought were not sharp. I would like to know how can i chek if the one I will buy is actually sharp. I'm a beginner and i have only use a 300mm f4 afs lenses for the past year so I d'ont have many reference to compare the sharpeness. Is there a way I can test my lense to see if its as sharp as it should be ? thanks a lot and sorry for my english, i'm from quebec!
Great videos Steve! I'm wondering if you've put anything together on how to calibrate a long telephoto lens - you mention your use of the LensAlign tool in this video. I'm also wondering if you've done anything on how to know if you've gotten a bad copy of a lens. I recently switched to Nikon and I'm using a D500 with the 200-500 5.6 and the new 600 4.0 lens. I've been less than excited with my results from both of these lenses (soft images) and suspect I need to be micro adjustments to both combos. I'm a little intimated about the process based on what I've seen so far on the internet. It would be great if you could break down the process in easy to understand steps. Thanks.
Hi Thomas - I don't have any videos on it yet, but I do outline AF Fine tune in my Nikon AF Book: backcountrygallery.com/secrets-nikon-autofocus-system/ Just FYI - my 200-500 and 600E are incredibly sharp. Test your lenses using Live View and to eliminate PDAF focus error. If they aren't sharp in Live View, there's a problem with the lenses. Here's my test procedure: backcountrygallery.com/lens-sharpness-testing/
Thanks Steve. I am new to your channel. I was wondering if you have any experience with the Tamron 150-600 as an alternative to the 200-500. I have none and wondered if you had any insight. Thanks.
Love your videos, Steve! I have a 200-500mm question: Which do you think gives the best image quality (regardless of crop factor): the 200-500mm on a D750, on a D500, or on a Z 7II w/FTZII?
Great work Steve, I have both of these lenses and have pretty much decided that I am keeping both to support D500 and D810. Just curious on the heat distortion tests whether you used live view for focus or phase detect. I would speculate that on a subject with a moderate distance from the camera the AF method itself could be involved in the variation in sharpness and not just the optics.
Hi Jerry - Both lenses were focused via Live View, so the testing method was the same. Additionally, one of the reasons I did the test was I noticed a drop in acuity in the 200-500 under these conditions in the field using phase detect. Both AF systems can actually be fooled by heat distortion, however, all the tests for both lenses were under the same conditions and the 300 PF was more consistent time and again. Even in the second test where the sharpest 200-500 image was on par with the 300 PF, the rest of the 200-500 images were not as close and the 300 PF was still more consistent. I don't think it's a huge issue or deal breaker, just something to be aware of :)
A really great review that's thorough and entertaining. You're a good teacher. Please consider having yourself cloned and having your clone create equally informative reviews for the Lumix MFT cameras.
Hi Steve, what an excellent video and very clear explanation of (i guess) all considerations. Unfortunately, you've made it even harder for my choice now, LOL. Currently I've a D300, with a 70-200 2.8 sigma lens. Unfortunately, without VR. I'm planning to get my camera and lenses under the dusty desk. Wanna enjoy the nature more and ofcourse get my camera to see it too :) So bothering to get rid of my 70-200 2.8 APO and my 18-50 2.8 to get myself a new lens for birds and wildlife. Will keep the default standard zoom 18-200 Nikon VR, for general and wide landscapes. However, since this video was published in 2016, I would very like to get your opinion is this 2,5 years on the Nikon 200-500, maybe sigma 100-400 or the 300 Nikon PF. What are your experiences since? The 300PF will give me a default 450 zoom with my D300 crop keeping the F4. Teleconverter with it, and tadaaaa. 5.6 over 630. 5.6 is still acceptable and as I could see in your video the AF is with converter still a bit faster than the 200-500. My other option is the Nikon 80-400 4.5/5.6 without converter, that will give me a 600 F5.6 maximum. But i've read some less good experiences on review websites. My consideration is the weight as well. 200-500 with 2.3 kilo's is a bit heavy for a daytrip walking the woods...... Despite the weight, I surely admire the zoom opportunity what can come in handy. I love to hear your 2,5 years experience or experience from other wildlife and bird enthusiastics!
Great video presentation, Steve; thanks a lot. I have the 300 f4 PF VR + 1.4 TC 111 fitted to my D500. I hardly ever take the TC off the lens and find the focusing speed is still incredibly fast and accurate. It was the IQ and lightweight of the lens that caused me to buy mine, as I wanted to match the weight of my Olympus EM 1 system. The only problem I sometimes encounter, is that the reach of the 300 + 1.4 TC is sometimes inadequate at one of the locations I regulary visit. I have been considering the 200 - 500 f5.6 to compliment my 300mm f4. and planning on attaching my 1.4 TC to it; but watching your presentation has made me question that idea. You have assessed the IQ and focusing speed of the 300mm + 1.4 TC against the 200 - 500mm but what I would like to know is this: did you discern any real advantage in reach when using the 200 - 500mm without the TC against the 300mm + 1.4 TC when fitted to a D500?
The difference in reach isn't huge, but it is noticeable and could easily be the difference between "close enough" and "not quit there" IMO. However, I also got rid of a 500mm F4 for a much heavier 600mm F4 because I wanted the little bit of extra reach - in my mind, every bit counts.
Thanks for the prompt response, Steve. I will take your experience on board and buy a 200 - 500mm f5.6 - probably a second hand one as it will not be a lens I use every day but will come in very handy.
Hi Steve, Great information and confirms for me that the 200 - 500 with or without 1.4 Nikon TC works perfectly, on budget for the shots I need for the perfect provenance for my professional wildlife paintings. Thanks for all the content and test results. Before I go ahead and buy your online book, do you recommend that the 200 - 500 with and without 1.4 Nikon TC be fine tuned at all and if so, what would you recommend do you think...or is this sort of thing covered in the online book? Another quick question too if I may - is it wise to leave VR on all the time, even at high shutter speeds or is this not a good idea? Finally, I previously owned the Nikon F2.8 300mm VR prime with 2xTC and also 1.7xTC and replaced all of that heavy kit with this lighter 200 - 500 F5.6 lens for versatility and less all day carrying about weight. Admittedly the optics on the prime was amazing but really burdensome for all day shooting in mixed mountain and hill terrain. Thanks again and...great portfolio of images you have. Shame I'm the other side of the Atlantic as it would be great to have you teach me. Lets see what your book says! Cheers. Robert
Hi Robert - Thanks for the kind words :) As for AF fine tuning, yes, tune the 200-500 and the 200-500 with the TC attached (they'll likely be different settings). I always tune my lenses, especially the telephotos. For VR, I tend to turn it off between 1/500th and 1/1000th, especially on the 200-500 (it doesn't seem to like VR at high speed as well as some of my other glass). Enjoy the 200-500 :)
Hi Steve, could I ask you your expert opinion, what do you recommend? Also, why does such a fab camera and lens combo need fine tuning anyway? Had a D7000 then a D7100 and neither needed it (as far as I know). By the way, I'll buy your pdf book on Saturday. Manic at the moment. Right in the middle of filming more art promo at the moment. Thanks again Steve (promise Saturday). Cheers.
@@backcountrygallery thanks ...another question if i may...70-200 f2.8 vr11 with TC1.4/TC2X vs 200-500 5.6 in nature reserves ..what is the degradation in the TC's? Also is the 200-500 very weighty ...im 64 with back & neck issues unfort but the passion outweighs that ..🤣 Keep up the great work mate....brilliant knowledge and presentation...how a major tv network hasnt picked you up is beyond me !! Ok ..grovelling over!!
@@backcountrygallery too kind Steve ... thanks for your time and advice...i'm primarily a Landscaper who supplies images for a North East England hospital project..#ENLIGHTENPROJECT run by #DrLauraJohnston to aid paralysed patients with their wellbeing, using projectors & touchscreens, but after watching your vids im looking to get into nature a bit more also...thanks again.
Have nature and wildlife photography questions? Check out the BCG Forums! Ask and answer gear and technique questions questions, post photos and more. Check it out and sign up today!
bcgforums.com/index.php
Bonus - I also post exclusive tips, tricks, and techniques to the forum you can't get anywhere else! Check it out!
This is the best lens review I have seen on youtube. You talk fast and don't waste anytime and get to the point. Consider me a subscriber.
yes! he talks fast, but, delivers smoothly.
@@patricksmith2553 My 200-500 f5.6 bought yesterday has Normal and Sport VR modes!
@@antonoat Yeah your correct lol, I don't know what I was thinking when I said that haha.
What gimbal is recommended for the 200-500?
@Matt you can adjust the speed of vids under settings. As fast or sow as you want, Mate.
Excellent video. This is my first time watching one of your video's and I'm hooked. The reason is that you offer extremely valuable information - very useful - AND you do it quickly, concisely. No long stories about your trip to this forest or that lake. No long stretches telling us the obvious. You cut to the chase and you bottom line it. Awesome! This is not so common on TH-cam and it makes you a keeper!!!
Thanks :)
Definitely agreed. Top notch review.
Could not possibly agree more!
This is a fantastic piece of work you put together. Thanks a lot. You are becoming (you already are actually) one of the most reliable source of information for wildlife photographers.
Well said!
Fro disagrees!
Forget the reviews. Steve, your wildlife and bird photos are beautiful and very inspiring, and after I get my first dslr, I will try my best to get pictures like u.
3 years on and this video is still relevant. I'm looking at switching from Canon to Nikon and I have the D500 and 200-500mm lens on my radar. As I'm in Australia, the heat distortion test was of great value. Cheers Steve ... subscribed.
Another great video, Steve is a superb wildlife photographer and his opinions are supported by real world images. Honest and comprehensive review, one of the best reviewers on the web.
Excellent and helpful review. I've used both of these lenses and couldn't see any cases where I'd disagree with your assessment. Happy to be the 100th like with zero dislikes. Well deserved.
Thanks!!
... but that dislike is coming, it always does LOL :)
Haha... That's the internet, but to get to 100 without someone jumping in is pretty impressive. Thank you for all the great content.
Thanks for a great vid Steve. I'm a pro shooter and educator wanting to shoot more wildlife for personal goals. Up till a few weeks ago I owned the 300 f4 ED-IF AF-S with TC 14 E ii combo. An unfortunate River trip left my Nikon gear fairly soaked (everyone lived). I was torn between upping to the 300 PF, repurchasing the ED-IF I had...or making the leap to this beast. After chatting with a former photojay colleague and getting to handle this lens I did it.
So far I'm blown away by this lens. I'm definitely using lens correction in Lightroom and any lack of "microcontrast" is handled with a dash of dehaze.
Definitely enjoying your channel as I explore a new area and finding you to be a solid reference for my private and college photo students.
Thank you so much - and enjoy the lens, it's one of my all-time favorites!
Couldnt agree more with several comments already made about how very well made and reliable your reviews are; one more excellent video. I have to come to watch your videos the moment I get a notification..and thanks for posting these...
One request I have is to hear your views on the Nikon 80-400 Lens and how it compares with the 300 and 200-500 both. Thanks in advance!
Thanks!
I don't have any current comparisons, but I did do one a while back with the 300 AF-S and the 80-400:
www.backcountrygallery.com/photography_tips/nikon-under-3k-tele-comparison/
This page is no longer available Steve. Do you have another link?
I have to say Steve, you speak loud and clear. You approach your review in a very mithodical and organized manner. This is very appreciated as I go through the review and think about my questions of my newly received, "pre-owned", Nikkor 200 - 500 lens. All my best and thanks you very much. 👍😎📸🤩
You've become my favourite source of photography information on TH-cam. You're just too good. Looking forward to more videos.
Amazing video Steve. What about the older 300mm F4 without VR? They are dirt cheap at the moment and wondering if it wouldn't be worth giving it a go?
I’ve tried the 300 f/4 VR on my new Z7 and had problems focusing. A few days later, I tried shutting the lens VR off and got much better focusing because the camera VR was not interfering with the lens VR on. The combination of a light lens and light mirrorless has made my DSLRs rest in back of my equipment closet. Hey, it’s a bit easier on my body since I am now 78 years old. Coff coff coff.
By the way, your video was very well done and I have subscribed.
Were the images still sharp handheld with just the ibis on and vr off?
Seriously, thank you so much. What a wonderful video, and person. So rare to see reviews not influenced by manufacturers or bias. Well done Steve you've got a fan for life 8). Im gonna go with 300f4 + 1.4x TC simply for backpacking weight. Really these two seem so close it's just size vs reach at the end of the day.
Thanks for this - I chose the 300 PF a year ago and added a 1.4 TC (based on your review, I maybe should take the TC off a little more often). It was a no brainer for me, all of the big lenses were simply too heavy for me and too big for my hands to operate, but you have made me feel even better about my choice. I take it out (literally) every single day shooting wildlife handheld - I can't remember ever putting it on a tripod. I've been incredibly happy with it. I'm hoping one day they make a PF 200-500 or 150-600. :)
I've never seen any of the halo problems you mentioned. I have no problem handholding the 300 PF with the 1.4 TC at 1/60 on either my original D3300 or my new D500. I do shoot between 1/250 and 1/1000 most of the time because birds are moving, but I haven't had problems between 1/60 and 1/250 when a bird decides to sit still.
Thanks for the reviews. I just found your channel. I shoot wildlife on Nikon and I am finding all kinds of great information on your site!
I've been using my 200-500 since it was launched and as an amateur, I'm more than satisfied. If I had been making my living off shooting, I would probably have ended up with the 200 f/2, 400 f/2.8 and the 600 f/4 primes but for my needs, the 200-500 is perfect.
Great review, Steve - absolutely love your videos. No, shouting, no gimmicks, just informative and pleasant videos. Keep up the good work!
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your video. I have been using the 200-500mm for 2 years. I learned something new about it from your video. I think it's the best zoom lens at this price. I'll keep using it until I get a new mirrorless camera.
Excellent comparison. The way you differentiate the topics is very very well.
Thanks, it helps me a lot!
Steve gets A+ for mentioning PRIME LENS superior rendering and "pop" (meaning microcontrast)
Very nuanced and practical discussion of the pros and cons of both lenses. Found this intriguing enough to watch till the end. I am saying this as a generalist-approach Pentax shooter, who would feel more confident now to make an informed pick between offerings even in the competing system, given that the selection criteria are pretty universal. Did I mention that your wildlife photography rocks big time, Steve?
Thanks for another down to earth, honest and to the point review! Always a pleasure watching your videos with fast, honest real world advise and insights.
Incredibly well presented and laid out video. Thanks so much for covering topics I didn't even think of!
Would love to have both but the 200-500 is it for me. Maybe I'll rent the prime...my arms would love it. Great review.
Great review and based on your findings, I have just ordered the 300 PF and a TC 1.4. I also love your style of presentation and have just subscribed. Thank you 😁
Very well done, Steve...THANKS! I use the 300 PF on my Fujifilm X-H1 with a Fringer adapter with stunning results and I can use the Fuji 1.4 TC between the adapter and body! I compared using the 300 PF on a D7200 and while the focus acquisition and tracking is a little better, the IQ on the Fuji body is remarkably better. I had to do the test twice to confirm what I was seeing and without any post processing, cropping or pixel peeping, the clarity and sharpness difference just jumps out.
Fantastic review & comparison of these lenses Steve. I'm lucky enough to have both & tend to use the 200-500 on my D500 for the additional reach, and the 300 PF on my D5, often with the TC1.4 iii. As you mentioned, the D500 / 300 PF combo is a great walk around option. I also have the Sigma 150-600 sport lens, which is considerably heavier than the 200-500, although I find it sharper at the long end. That said, I tend to grab the 200-500 in preference to the Sigma because of the weight saving and its constant f5.6. I've had one or two issues with the 209-500 lens hood falling off. I love the sigmas push/pull zoom option as opposed to the lengthy zoom process of the Nikon. Keep up the great work.
As usual Steve your videos are superb. I bought the 200-500 vr a couple of months ago. I have practice with it around the house, etc. Now next week since high school sports (Maxpreps) is starting I will really put it through it's paces. Everybody at Ugly Hedgehog likes your videos too. Keep up the good work, you have made me a better photographer.
I have the 200-500mm and love it. A zoom of that range shouldn't even be close to the prime telephotos and the fact that it is, is remarkable. I don't regret my choice, although when I'm packing my camera bag for a trip or at the end of a long hike, I do start wishing I had the 300mm PF as a compact lightweight option.
Another great tube Steve. As always the most informativeI Photo tube around. I have the old 300 AFS F4, & was wondering which way to go. Thanks for all your hard work.
Thank you, Steve, for an informative video. You definitely had my attention for the entire review. Interesting information about the heat distortion. Never thought you would see differences among lenses at equal circumstances.
nails it . time and again. Steve is simply the best for wildlife shooters. Keep it up!
Oh, got your ebook, and it was greatly informative, with some fantastic shots!!
Thanks :)
Thanks for another fantastic video. Now as someone who never questioned my lenses (in the sense I never thought there were bad copies!) I'd be interested to know how you test your new lenses to figure that out!
In this case, it was easy because I was comparing the 200-500 to my 300 PF. Everything's on a tripod, carefully focused in Live View, mirror up, EFC, cable release, etc. The first two copies were so far off it was obvious something wasn't right. I also saw it in the field - I'm used to shooting long glass and for the life of me I couldn't get a sharp image with the first copy and only marginally sharp images with the second. The third has been fantastic and I like to think that most of the lenses are like my third copy. :)
Thanks!
I'm totally sold! Just had to buy your e-book after this. Thank you for publishing it and your channel!
No extra fluff, very straight to the point. Great review! You earned a subscriber.
Thanks!!!
Steve Perry wow! A response on a 3 year old video within just a couple hours! That’s amazing. Seriously, kudos!
I guess if there is a chance of you reading this then I might as well ask a question I had: in your opinion does the Nikon D3500 have too few autofocus points? My current camera’s shutter is dying and I will probably need to buy another one, I’m on a fairly tight budget as a grade 12 student and so I’m looking at the entry level options by all brands. Do you think that the 11 AF points isn’t enough or should it do just fine, my current camera has 19 cross type points (Canon 7D), but I rarely use anything but the single focus point in the center.
Thanks!
@@backcountrygallery Hey Steve! Currently using a D500+ 300 f4 pf. Kinda find the combination a little short on focal length in certain situations. Do you still recommend getting a 1.4 tc mark 3 for this setup? I do not want to buy a zoom lens, on a long run i would probably buy a 500mm F4 but financially it is out of reach right now.
@@definitelynotatroll Sorry for the delay. I you're mostly using the center point, I think it's fine. The truth is, there's not any cameras in the D3500 budget range that are going to have wall to wall AF points anyway. I think it's a good choice. Of course, if you can get into a D5xxx series, that may be even better - or possibly a used D7200.
@@balintk.9373 Yup, the 1.4 TC is really good with that combo, Not 500 F/4 good, but good.
You do a great job on your videos. I am researching for a camera and lens for wildlife photography. I just ordered your e-book. Looks like it will be a big help for my upcoming Alaska trip.
Great video! I'm getting ready to purchase the 200-500 and was curious to see if you could recommend a good way to test the lense for sharpness when it arrives?
Steve, Great review and best video I've found so far on TH-cam, but......
You've forgot to mention the main aspect of using Crop sensor cameras. Nikon D500 should definitely have 1.5 times cropped numbers on those FF lenses. 300/4 would be 450/6 and 200-500 would be 300-750/8.4 in 35mm equivalent. I think it should be written as disclaimer at least because this is the fact that not everyone do pay attention to it.
Cheers!
The "effective F/stop" is only for DOF if you shot a full frame equivalent lens from the same distance. Note that it DOES NOT affect exposure as many people fear.
Steve, glad to see you found a good copy of the 200-500.
I appreciated your comments about the benefits of shooting at f/4 vs. f/5.6. My experience shooting with the 200-500 has sold me on the advantage of f/5.6 vs. f/6.3. Photographing BIF in anything less than great light, the ISO starts to climb pretty quickly. I'm usually always wide open at f/5.6 and am typically at 1/2000 to freeze action so, opening the aperture or slowing shutter speed are not options...at least, not preferred options. Even a 1/3-stop lower ISO can make the difference between acceptable and unacceptable noise. Regardless of how good the 150-600's may be, I have no desire to give up another 1/3-stop of light.
As someone who's never shot with a 500 f/4, shooting with the 200-500 had given me an appreciation of the idea of having such a lens. If your looking for suggestions on topics to cover in future videos, I'd be interested in a discussion of the wildlife/bird scenarios where each - 500 f/4 and 200-500 f5.6 - shows its value. Which scenarios are tailor made for the exotic and which for the zoom?
I just ordered the 200-500 used from Adorama. How can check the sharpness to see if it a “keeper”?
Great video!
@@1stRealty one subject I'll recommend is a 1st quarter Moon. Of course, the weather needs to cooperate but assuming it's clear, the Moon is detailed, conveniently positioned, and can be used to test things like autofocus acuity, image quality at different focal lengths and f-stops, and vibration reduction (VR) at different shutter speeds.
thanx for the great videos and info. my wife just bought me the 200-500 and i bought the D500 earlier this year. love the combo and have good success so far. thanx for all the info you give on everything nikon!!
You are awesome. Humble yet outspoken.
I loved this so much I saved my money to buy one and it is as sharp as everyone says and well worth the money. I had a 150-500 Sigma 5.6-6.3 and it cannot hold a candle to this nikki 200-500 5.6. I do appreciate all your hard work!
FYI, on crop sensors you also need to multiply the max aperture by the crop factor: 300mm f/4 = 450mm (FOV) f/6 (effective max aperture), 200-500mm f/5.6 = 300-750mm (FOV) f/8.4 (effective max aperture). Bumping up the ISO on APS-C sensors to compensate can quickly lead to unacceptable noise for professional applications.
Patrick Fitzgerald where did you hear that
Go to Tony Northrup's TH-cam channel and search "crop factor" for a detailed review.
Careful now... I like Tony, but in this case I think he causes more confusion than necessary.
First, there is no difference in exposure between crop and full frame cameras, none. If I shoot a lens at F4 and 1/500th of a second at ISO 400 on a full frame camera, that's going to be the exact same exposure I'd use on a crop camera. You do NOT bump the ISO to compensate. The numbers always stay the same. I've shot hundreds (probably thousands) of test shots between FX and DX and using the same ISO, F/Stop and shutter speed the exposure is identical.
What Tony is referring to is equivalent depth of field for the same field of view. So, if I'm shooting a 200mm lens at F5.6 on my DX camera, the depth of field would look like a 300mm F8.4 on a full frame camera (again for the same field of view).
Now, to take this one step further, there is actually no difference in FX and DX depth of field. If your the same distance from your subject, the DX camera simply has a tighter field of view. You an prove this to yourself easily - imagine you shoot an image with a D810 (FX). Now, take that image into Photoshop and crop it the the DX area - did the background magically become sharper? Of course not.
The reason you get more DOF with a crop camera is simple - you either have to use a shorter lens or move back further than you would with an FX camera for the same field of view - and that's what Tony was trying to explain :)
Steve Perry thats what i was thinking. i was a bit confused by what he said.
I've seen that video.
In your original statement, you say that you need to bump the ISO to compensate for the "effective aperture" and that's not the case. An exposure of 1/125th of a second at F8 at ISO 400 is the same on a DX or FX body - you DO NOT need to change the DX camera to 1/125th, F8 at ISO1200 to compensate for the extra 1.5 stop difference. If you do, you overexposure the shot.
However, if you're referring to the fact that the ISO performance will be 1.5 stops worse, sure, that's correct and pretty common knowledge. The DX camera will have same noise level an FX camera does at ISO 1200 - I'm not arguing that.
Did you know you got a "youtube channels that inspire" in Outdoor Photography? couldn't agree more :)
Nope, didn't know that - that's really cool!! Do you have the link? THANKS!!!!
It's in this months Magazine, I'm in the UK not sure if it's available worldwide.. it's only a small part on page 12 with your picture and a a link to this channel.
The Magazine is : www.outdoorphotographymagazine.co.uk/magazine/2016/08/op209-the-highlights/
Awesome - I'll have to see if I can find a copy here in the states (some of my local bookstores have a selection of UK mags). Thanks again for letting me know - that's really cool :)
JaseEvoX aaa
Love the way you review things...You're doing an excellent job and have the kindness to share. Thanks, you are a fantastic reference.
Well Steve, 7 months on from my last post and I bought a new Nikkor 200 - 500mm f5.6. It is brilliant: and despite the weight I have been using it instead of my 300mm f4 PF VR since buying it a fortnight ago. I find it really easy to aquire a subject (far easier than my Olympus EM1 mark II + Oly 300mm f4) and it works really well for birds in flight.
Congrats :) As an owner of both lenses, I find myself going back and forth between them all the time - can't go wrong either way and I'm glad you're enjoying to 200-500. I personally think they pair up well.
I'm not currently in the market for either of these (yet), but I always learn from your videos. I really like your practical approach to things. Thanks! BTW, it would be interesting to hear your evaluation of the competing Tamron and Sigma lens in this price/focal length category.
Awesome VDO! Thank you Steeve for what you do!
Beautiful review Steve .. you have made me rethink my plans to buy the 200-500 😀 now I am looking the 300pf too hehehe
Steve, Thank you for this. You are an excellent teacher and your Wildlife Photography book is great!
Steve love the videos AND really love your book. Torn between the 2 lenses still...I shoot a Nikon d810 and am considering the 300mm over the 200-500 zoom and at times when shooting outdoors ( mainly sports ) I will put my camera in DX mode to give me extra reach when using my 70-200 f/2.8. I realize i reduce my pixel density to 16Mp but the images still work well for me. Any thoughts on using this technique instead of paying an additional $500 for a 1.4x teleconvertor ? And would you recommend this technique ? Your video on cropping full frame vs crop sensors was excellent also !
It sounds like you're using a D800/ 810. Using a TC should get you more detail than cropping down to 16MP, so it may be worth it to you. Of course, if 16MP is all you need, then I wouldn't bother. As for the two lenses, for sports I'd probably lean towards the 300 F4 with its faster AF and larger aperture (although I'm not a sports shooter, so that's just a guess).
Thanks Steve, yes I do use a Nikon d810 and have been torn between the 2 lenses for quite some time. Looks like I'm going with the 300mm F4 and a 1.4x TC. If I begin to start shooting more wildlife I will consider the 200-500. Keep up the great work ! Your videos, book and photos are fantastic and I love the channel.
Found this extremely helpful thank you for spending so much time sharing!
What a great video - you’ve put a lot of work into it and it shows. New sub here!
Excellent Video! Great Job!
So hard to decide the best lens for my D7200 (DX body) but the versatility of the 200-500mm is a big plus!
Love your videos Steve - the 300 PF + tc 1.4 + D500 is perfect for me - I have the Tamron 150-600 as it came out before the 200-500 - but still always go for the 300 as its so easy to hand hold and walk around with
This covers everything, very good review !
Such a thorough review! Lots of examples of what you are talking about makes it a joy to watch. Too many review are just talk. Thank you.
Though you didn’t come out and directly state it, sounds like the 200-500mm AF just isn’t fast enough for erratic sports action photography. Can you confirm? Right now I have the 70-200 F4 and love it but would like a zoom with more reach. Been using my AF-S 70-300 VR and getting good results but I miss shooting at F4. Been thinking about getting a used 2.8 version and adding a 1.7 TC or the newer 80-400 VR. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance for any reply.
I won't say it's impossible (because there's always someone who will claim otherwise), but the 200-500 would not be my first choice for sports action. (or my second choice, or third choice... :)
Great comparison Steve!
I have a question regarding the 200-500: Can I mount the lenses on a tripod directly out of the box? I don't see an arca swiss compatible plate, so I assume I have to buy one?
Thanks!
Steve ... You should compare 200-400mm/4 with 200-500mm/5.6
MrCorelex I have used both and I would personally go for the 200-500mm. Having used the 200-500 then returning it for the 200-400, I went back to the 200-500 as it’s just as sharp if not more so, a lot easier to carry around making it more adaptable to environments etc and the colours etc from it are gorgeous, not that the 200-400mm arnt but for the money and weight, it Defo wasn’t worth the small pros for me
Hi Steve,
If both lemses were hipothetically the same price which one would you go for ?
I've found a second hand 300pf (in almost unused condition) for the same price as a new 200-500 5.6. After watching the video and taking everything you said into consideration im still cannot make up my mind though. I'm aware every photographer is a different world altogether but if you were in my situation which one would you go for ?
Glad to see that you're better !
Great review as always Steve. I agree with all of you points. I have both plus the big glass f4's. I love them all. But the big glass costs thousands for a reason.
Steve, Great review, thanks. I have experienced the same VR issues you mentioned but also generally shoot at 1/250 or higher so it's not a problem. Generally the VR works well even in the 1/60 to 1/200 range but not always and I only use it with one camera (D7100). That said, I LOVE my 300mm f4 PF. However, I also almost always stop it down 2/3rds of a stop whether I'm using a TC (I use the Kenko Pro 300 1.4 and am very happy with it) or not. It makes a BIG difference in sharpness. Thanks again.
The best videos on these two nikon lenses. Thank you
Steve, the Nikon 200-500 arrives Friday. Going to take it out Saturday for a test with the D500.
Living in the UK I guess there's not too much concern about heat distortion as much as rain distortion, especially at the moment. A great video and review of each lens. My decision is between the older 300mm AF-S + 1.4TC 2 and the 200-500mm. I kinda wanna go for both, but I don't think that will be an option.
Beautifully explained to the beginners. I use 500mm f4 VR II and 1.4 & 1.7 TC on D610. Surprisingly the 1.7 TC on this Fx gives better and sharper results in 850 mm than 1.4TC on 700 mm. I also use 300 mm non VR full metal old scale lens but it does not track moving objects easily with 1.4 and 1.7 TC II. Did you test the 1.7 TC on 300 f4 VR? If yes how was the AF and sharpness on FX? Need your practical experience of this small prime for the purchase of D850/D760 in near future.
The one thing I have to say about the 200-500 tripod collar is that it's nice for carrying the lens. I've had the canon 400mm 5.6L and the sigma 150-600c and there wasn't a comfortable way to grip it for a suitcase carry type of position which makes carrying that large lens a lot more convenient when hiking around.
Good review, have the 200 - 500 we do commercial construction / demolition work with it but we are about to get the 300PF, horses for courses.
Late to the comments section, but, I have to totally agree with everything related to the Nikon 200-500 stated in this video.
After using the 200-500 for around two years now, the first thing that immediately comes to mind is the huge difference between 500mm image sharpness at distance and at close range on a warm day. At full aperture down, the short range performance (i.e small bird in a branch at say.. 6m) is outstanding! (razor sharp with wonderful bokeh!), but at distance (50+m) images are often dissapointing; not always mind, but it is a definite trend.
The VR on the 200-500 is outstandingly good!
My other gripe is the relatively slow focus, which I could have offset a bit by using manual focus, had Nikon not put the focus ring so close to the lens mount..... sigh!
I have also used this lens for close up work at around f8 (flying insects etc.), where it truly excels, with wonderfully, completely defocussed backgrounds.
But yes, a good copy of this lens will offer great value for money, and is marginally better than the simmilarly priced 3rd party opposition.
ALWAYS great information Steve, and Thank you!
About the VR sport mode, I've also heard it is used for when you and the camera are moving, like in a vehicle, etc.
Steve, I love this video and it should help me make a decision. But, one question… did you try to use these both in low light scenarios for birds in flight (such as owls hunting at dusk)? I wonder about the 200-500’s aperture when zoomed out in low light? I use a d7500 for reference to my inquiry. Of course, cost is a consideration, but I don’t want to be disappointed by getting the cheaper option.
I never used them side by side for BIF. Based on my use of the lenses, for low light BIF work if 300mm was enough, that's the lens I'd use. The 200-500 is great, but the extra stop form the 300 makes a difference.
Excellent review Steve. I agree with all your findings having had this lens myself since April. Sorry to hear you had two bad copies to start with. I must have been lucky first time then I guess. I use mine with a D7200, and for me, I get great results with it. As you say, focusing not the fastest, but you work with what you've got and for the money it's certainly well worth it. It's down to me now to become a better photographer! ;-)
Thanks for this video, Steve. I'd like to get something better than my 200-500. It won't be a 300 PF. You saved me a lot of time!
I rented a 200-500 and D750 earlier in the year and was really impressed with the images of birds in flight and on the strength of this purchased a D500 and 200-500. I can see from your excellent review and images that this lens is very capable when connected to a D500. I used to shoot Canon and sold it all some years ago, but I had pro gear including capability with extenders to 600mm f/5.6, so I have experience with wildlife and birds in flight. My experience with Nikon is one of disappointment. With good light and supported on stationary objects, it's pretty good. For birds in flight it's simply horrible. I haven't yet achieve a single useable shot having tried VR variations on and off, varying shutter speeds and aperture settings and all are soft. Even on slow moving birds. I'm on my second 200-500 and about to return that, but I'm thinking returning it all for a refund to reconsider options. For those having bad 200-500, was this across the range or specific to a certain focal length or scenario?
Martin Aves: Keep the D500 and get a 300mm f4 PF VR + Nikon 1.4 TC 111, you will be amazed as to how incredible this combination is for birds and dragonflies in flight. I had a Canon 7D mark 11 + Canon 100 - 400mm IS mark 11 prior to my Nikon system and for me, the D500 + 300mm is far superior. I have been considering the Nikon 200 - 500mm f5.6 but Tamron have just released the 150 - 600mm f5/6.3 G2.
Cheers Pete, that's exactly what I did and am delighted with the results. The 300mm f4 PF is a great little lens and results are really sharp. I've not tried the 1.4TC III extensively yet, but some initial quick shots look promising.
Steve,
Thanks for this video and all of your video's. They are all excellent!
This is probably a dumb question ..but I am just getting started in wildlife photography.
In your above Video towards the end you show yourself shooting a 500MM prime on a Gimbal Head and rotating that to vertical in an instant.
How are you doing that? Is it an adapter or a specific brand of Gimbal that allows you to do that?
Vertical rotation actually comes from the lens collar, not the gimbal. :) So, it works that way with any gimbal.
Thanks Steve! Just waiting on the 200-500 lens and Gimbal head to arrive.
Hi Steve. Grateful for your video, interesting and informative. I've recently started venturing in to wildlife and nature photography. I've got a Nikon D850, I have recently picked up a 300mm f/4D AFS second hand...but I'm considering returning it and getting the 200-500mm f/5.6...the issues I have regarding the 300mm is mainly due to some concerns about the the lack of back element in the lens when changing the lens...as dust will go inside and I won’t be able to remove it myself...I can clearly see the diaphragm and there is nothing in-between. Although the diaphragm closes down to minimum aperture when the lens is detached from the camera, if dust or particulates goes into the lens, it will get through the hole onto the last glass element that sits in front of the diaphragm....as well as that there is no rubber gasket on its mount...so reading other articles suggesting a tele converter to be kept there at all times to protect the lens from particulates and dust...that leads to the lens becoming a fixed 420mm F/5.6...so my question is it really worth keeping the 300mm when a TC will be attached permanently essentially becoming a fixed 420mm f/5.6 when I could get a 200-500mm f/5.6? With the D850 in crop mode that 420mm (with the Nikon TC-14E II) can also increase to a reach of 600mm which is more than enough for me in my opinion...and in time I can invest in a 400mm f2.8 or a 600mm f/4...thoughts?
I think you're over thinking it. The lens is only exposed to dust when it's not attached to a camera or when it doesn't have a back cap - in theory, a matter of seconds each time you mount, dismount the lens. Unless you change lenses in dust storms all the time, you should be just fine. Also, you can manually move the little lever on that lens to open up the aperture and hit the element below with a rocket blower.
Hi Steve, I recently discovered your channel and find your videos very interesting and educational. Thanks for sharing your insights!
One question about the 200-500: I don't know if you've ever had or know the AF-S NIKKOR 200-400 MM 1:4G ED VR I personally. I would be interested in your opinion in comparison to the 200-500 in terms of AF speed and image quality.
Thank you very much in advance and best regards from Austria!
Astonishing that you went thru 3 of the super zooms. For those of us who have to save for years for something like these, could you do a video about how you test the individual lenses for sharpness? I admit to being a nube, but wouldn't want to make such an investment and find out a year later it should've been returned
well, in normal country you walk into store and you test a few pieces yourself, or you order 3 of them and return 2. In other countries, you order it, wait for a month to show up at the store and then they look at you like you're an idiot if you want to unbox it there and take a photo with it.
Steve,
I have a Sigma 150-600 mm (not the Sports model). It is pretty heavy and I use it mainly on a tripod. I also use it handheld for photographing foxes in my backyard on my D500. I have got some great fox photos, but when trying to follow very fast moving foxes, the weight seems to get to me. I am not planning on selling this long zoom, but I have been thinking about the Nikkor 300mm for my D500. because of the weight. I am 67 years old, and the long zoom seems to be getting heavier and heavier. Does my thinking make sense to you. Money is not really the object, so you can eliminate that from your thoughts. Thanks for your response in advance, and a great video as always.
great channel you have here. Do you have any tips on getting images sold or entering competitions?
Thanks for making the video. For the copies of the 200-500mm that weren't sharp, did you take test shots of the boxes? Would be interested to see the differences.
Hi!
First of all thanks for all your great videos. So useful ! I am really interested in buying the 200-500 mm. You said that the first 2 that you bought were not sharp. I would like to know how can i chek if the one I will buy is actually sharp. I'm a beginner and i have only use a 300mm f4 afs lenses for the past year so I d'ont have many reference to compare the sharpeness. Is there a way I can test my lense to see if its as sharp as it should be ? thanks a lot and sorry for my english, i'm from quebec!
Great videos Steve! I'm wondering if you've put anything together on how to calibrate a long telephoto lens - you mention your use of the LensAlign tool in this video. I'm also wondering if you've done anything on how to know if you've gotten a bad copy of a lens. I recently switched to Nikon and I'm using a D500 with the 200-500 5.6 and the new 600 4.0 lens. I've been less than excited with my results from both of these lenses (soft images) and suspect I need to be micro adjustments to both combos. I'm a little intimated about the process based on what I've seen so far on the internet. It would be great if you could break down the process in easy to understand steps. Thanks.
Hi Thomas -
I don't have any videos on it yet, but I do outline AF Fine tune in my Nikon AF Book:
backcountrygallery.com/secrets-nikon-autofocus-system/
Just FYI - my 200-500 and 600E are incredibly sharp. Test your lenses using Live View and to eliminate PDAF focus error. If they aren't sharp in Live View, there's a problem with the lenses. Here's my test procedure:
backcountrygallery.com/lens-sharpness-testing/
Thanks Steve. I am new to your channel. I was wondering if you have any experience with the Tamron 150-600 as an alternative to the 200-500. I have none and wondered if you had any insight. Thanks.
Full of great information I have the 200-500 lens , I’ve always wondered about the 300 pf but currently have a tamron 210 f4 which is great.
Love your videos, Steve! I have a 200-500mm question: Which do you think gives the best image quality (regardless of crop factor): the 200-500mm on a D750, on a D500, or on a Z 7II w/FTZII?
I have the 200-500mm i'm very, very satisfied with it...
Great video! Watched your entire library of videos. Really appreciate it! Thank you. Anders from Denmark
Great work Steve, I have both of these lenses and have pretty much decided that I am keeping both to support D500 and D810. Just curious on the heat distortion tests whether you used live view for focus or phase detect. I would speculate that on a subject with a moderate distance from the camera the AF method itself could be involved in the variation in sharpness and not just the optics.
Hi Jerry - Both lenses were focused via Live View, so the testing method was the same. Additionally, one of the reasons I did the test was I noticed a drop in acuity in the 200-500 under these conditions in the field using phase detect. Both AF systems can actually be fooled by heat distortion, however, all the tests for both lenses were under the same conditions and the 300 PF was more consistent time and again.
Even in the second test where the sharpest 200-500 image was on par with the 300 PF, the rest of the 200-500 images were not as close and the 300 PF was still more consistent. I don't think it's a huge issue or deal breaker, just something to be aware of :)
A really great review that's thorough and entertaining. You're a good teacher. Please consider having yourself cloned and having your clone create equally informative reviews for the Lumix MFT cameras.
Hi Steve, what an excellent video and very clear explanation of (i guess) all considerations. Unfortunately, you've made it even harder for my choice now, LOL. Currently I've a D300, with a 70-200 2.8 sigma lens. Unfortunately, without VR. I'm planning to get my camera and lenses under the dusty desk. Wanna enjoy the nature more and ofcourse get my camera to see it too :) So bothering to get rid of my 70-200 2.8 APO and my 18-50 2.8 to get myself a new lens for birds and wildlife. Will keep the default standard zoom 18-200 Nikon VR, for general and wide landscapes. However, since this video was published in 2016, I would very like to get your opinion is this 2,5 years on the Nikon 200-500, maybe sigma 100-400 or the 300 Nikon PF. What are your experiences since? The 300PF will give me a default 450 zoom with my D300 crop keeping the F4. Teleconverter with it, and tadaaaa. 5.6 over 630. 5.6 is still acceptable and as I could see in your video the AF is with converter still a bit faster than the 200-500. My other option is the Nikon 80-400 4.5/5.6 without converter, that will give me a 600 F5.6 maximum. But i've read some less good experiences on review websites. My consideration is the weight as well. 200-500 with 2.3 kilo's is a bit heavy for a daytrip walking the woods...... Despite the weight, I surely admire the zoom opportunity what can come in handy. I love to hear your 2,5 years experience or experience from other wildlife and bird enthusiastics!
Great video presentation, Steve; thanks a lot. I have the 300 f4 PF VR + 1.4 TC 111 fitted to my D500. I hardly ever take the TC off the lens and find the focusing speed is still incredibly fast and accurate. It was the IQ and lightweight of the lens that caused me to buy mine, as I wanted to match the weight of my Olympus EM 1 system. The only problem I sometimes encounter, is that the reach of the 300 + 1.4 TC is sometimes inadequate at one of the locations I regulary visit. I have been considering the 200 - 500 f5.6 to compliment my 300mm f4. and planning on attaching my 1.4 TC to it; but watching your presentation has made me question that idea. You have assessed the IQ and focusing speed of the 300mm + 1.4 TC against the 200 - 500mm but what I would like to know is this: did you discern any real advantage in reach when using the 200 - 500mm without the TC against the 300mm + 1.4 TC when fitted to a D500?
The difference in reach isn't huge, but it is noticeable and could easily be the difference between "close enough" and "not quit there" IMO. However, I also got rid of a 500mm F4 for a much heavier 600mm F4 because I wanted the little bit of extra reach - in my mind, every bit counts.
Thanks for the prompt response, Steve. I will take your experience on board and buy a 200 - 500mm f5.6 - probably a second hand one as it will not be a lens I use every day but will come in very handy.
hi, I have the 200 to 500 coupled to a D4 and find if you select 9 point focus that is the quickest the lens focuses, have you tried that setting?
Great Review! Love it. Your pictures are amazing!!
Hi Steve, Great information and confirms for me that the 200 - 500 with or without 1.4 Nikon TC works perfectly, on budget for the shots I need for the perfect provenance for my professional wildlife paintings. Thanks for all the content and test results. Before I go ahead and buy your online book, do you recommend that the 200 - 500 with and without 1.4 Nikon TC be fine tuned at all and if so, what would you recommend do you think...or is this sort of thing covered in the online book?
Another quick question too if I may - is it wise to leave VR on all the time, even at high shutter speeds or is this not a good idea?
Finally, I previously owned the Nikon F2.8 300mm VR prime with 2xTC and also 1.7xTC and replaced all of that heavy kit with this lighter 200 - 500 F5.6 lens for versatility and less all day carrying about weight. Admittedly the optics on the prime was amazing but really burdensome for all day shooting in mixed mountain and hill terrain.
Thanks again and...great portfolio of images you have. Shame I'm the other side of the Atlantic as it would be great to have you teach me. Lets see what your book says!
Cheers. Robert
Hi Robert -
Thanks for the kind words :)
As for AF fine tuning, yes, tune the 200-500 and the 200-500 with the TC attached (they'll likely be different settings). I always tune my lenses, especially the telephotos.
For VR, I tend to turn it off between 1/500th and 1/1000th, especially on the 200-500 (it doesn't seem to like VR at high speed as well as some of my other glass).
Enjoy the 200-500 :)
Hi Steve, could I ask you your expert opinion, what do you recommend? Also, why does such a fab camera and lens combo need fine tuning anyway? Had a D7000 then a D7100 and neither needed it (as far as I know). By the way, I'll buy your pdf book on Saturday. Manic at the moment. Right in the middle of filming more art promo at the moment. Thanks again Steve (promise Saturday). Cheers.
Hi Steve..great vid as per usual..going off track ..may i ask...what ballhead are you using in the vid? Thanks.
Really Right Stuff BH-55 - it's an awesome ballhead!
@@backcountrygallery thanks ...another question if i may...70-200 f2.8 vr11 with TC1.4/TC2X vs 200-500 5.6 in nature reserves ..what is the degradation in the TC's? Also is the 200-500 very weighty ...im 64 with back & neck issues unfort but the passion outweighs that ..🤣
Keep up the great work mate....brilliant knowledge and presentation...how a major tv network hasnt picked you up is beyond me !! Ok ..grovelling over!!
@@bekindalwaysx1g I'd pick the 200-500 for sure. I've never liked TCs with zooms - even the 70-200 + TCs isn't generally as good as the 200-500.
@@backcountrygallery too kind Steve ... thanks for your time and advice...i'm primarily a Landscaper who supplies images for a North East England hospital project..#ENLIGHTENPROJECT run by #DrLauraJohnston to aid paralysed patients with their wellbeing, using projectors & touchscreens, but after watching your vids im looking to get into nature a bit more also...thanks again.
such an under rated channel.... Subscribed
It was a great review, thanks to you.
But can you help me to choose between: 200-500mm vs 200-400mm f/4 vr II.
thank you.