Nikkor f/5.6 200 - 500mm e

[Manfred M]

I have had a friend ask me about the Nikkor f/5.6 200-500mm e. I can't remember anyone mentioning it here at CiC.

Does anyone have it or has anyone used it? He's not interested any other lens.

He lives out in the country (hills and forests, rather than farms) and sees plenty of wildlife and birds in and around his property. He shoots both a D300 and D750.

[rpcrowe]

I would assume that you have researched the specs of this lens. The glaring thing that I noticed is that it weighs 7.28 pounds (3.3 kg) while the Tamron 150-600mm weighs 4.3 pounds (1.95 kg) and the Canon 100-400mm Mark II weighs 3.5 pounds 2.04kg.

The Nikkor lens is priced between the Tamron ($989) and Canon ($2,000) but, is closer to the Tamron at $1,348.

A 3.3kg lens would be a load to carry in the field and would certainly need a sturdy (= heavy) tripod. I don't think that I could hand-hold a massive lens like the Nikkor wit any degree of success. But, much wildlife (except BIF) is actually shot from a tripod!

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Richard,

What I've seen shows it as around 2.3 kg (5 lb), so perhaps you read a spec. with a typo somewhere or may be that's the boxed shipping weight with all packaging, etc.

It does have good VR apparently (for hand holding), that said, it does rather depend on the user and their strength.

Cheers, Dave

[Manfred M]

The glaring thing that I noticed is that it weighs 7.28 pounds (3.3 kg) while the Tamron 150-600mm weighs 4.3 pounds (1.95 kg) and the Canon 100-400mm Mark II weighs 3.5 pounds 2.04kg.

Not sure where you are getting the 3.3kg from Richard, but Nikon lists it at 2.3kg / 5lb 1oz, which is still not a small lens, but definitely in the ballpark of some of the others.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...Tabs-TechSpecs

[rtbaum]

I had considered this lens last Summer, as well as the Sigma 150-600 Sport. I just could not get past two issues: 1) the size and weight and 2) the extension to 500 mm made my rig very front heavy. I chose to go with the Nikon 300mm f4 pf vr instead as it is much lighter and fits my normal hand-holding style better.

[rpcrowe]

I got the weight from This Amazon listing:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-200-500m...200-500mm+lens

This is obviously incorrect since Amazon lists the following under Technical Details:

Item weight - 7.28 pounds

Shipping weight - 6.97 pounds

I don't know where they got the 7.28 pounds but, unless they strip something off this lens it could hardly be a lower shipping weight.

Perhaps, I did't understand Item Weight - but that seems pretty self explanatory

[Manfred M]

I got the weight from This Amazon listing:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-200-500m...200-500mm+lens

This is obviously incorrect since Amazon lists the following under Technical Details:

Item weight - 7.28 pounds

Shipping weight - 6.97 pounds

I don't know where they got the 7.28 pounds but, unless they strip something off this lens it could hardly be a lower shipping weight.

Perhaps, I did't understand Item Weight - but that seems pretty self explanatory

Perhaps if is shipped in a package supported by a helium balloon to reduce the weight? That's the only way that I can figure out where the shipping weigh is less than the product weight.

It seems to me that on-line spec data is not proof read particularly well, even on manufacturer's websites.

My tripod, according to the Canadian Feisol website can support 12kg / 26.5 lb:

http://www.feisolcanada.com/?product...-center-column



But the USA and European websites suggest a limit of 30kg / 66 lb for the same unit.

http://www.feisol.net/tripods/elite-...ct-3372lv.html

[singlerosa]

I've owned this lens for 7 months, using it on a D750 and D7200. So far, I've mainly shot motorsports and the lens performs well. I've shot hand-held as well as from a monopod and gimbal/tripod. I consider this a great deal from Nikon.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Saorsa]

Perhaps if is shipped in a package supported by a helium balloon to reduce the weight? That's the only way that I can figure out where the shipping weigh is less than the product weight.

It seems to me that on-line spec data is not proof read particularly well, even on manufacturer's websites.

My tripod, according to the Canadian Feisol website can support 12kg / 26.5 lb: But the USA and European websites suggest a limit of 30kg / 66 lb for the same unit.

http://www.feisolcanada.com/?product...-center-column

http://www.feisol.net/tripods/elite-...ct-3372lv.html

Well, what do you think the bubble wrap is filled with????

[Saorsa]

I've owned this lens for 7 months, using it on a D750 and D7200. So far, I've mainly shot motorsports and the lens performs well. I've shot hand-held as well as from a monopod and gimbal/tripod. I consider this a great deal from Nikon.

[IMG][/IMG]

That's pretty sharp. I see it's at 200mm, how does it do at 500?

[NorthernFocus]

Hey, Manfred. I've got the 200-500 though it has seen limited service thus far. I had both the 200-400 and 80-400 and hoped to sell them both and replace them with the 200-500. The low zoom ratio is attractive from a physics perspective and I figured I'd slim down the kit a little bit. Well I did sell the 200-400 but after shooting the 200-500 handheld a bit I decided to hang on to the 80-400 which is much lighter. From an IQ standpoint from what I've seen so far the 200-500 is about on par with the 80-400. It doesn't have the hi-tech coatings so no doubt will not have as good contrast in some situations. But unless one is extremely critical I'm not sure you can notice the difference other than with bench testing. I'm not much on providing images as proof of gear quality but if you friend wants to see some I posted a few a while back in this thread.

IMO the lens is a great bargain for long glass with IQ capable of exceeding the skills of most shooters.

[Manfred M]

Thanks Jim and Dan - I have passed your comments over to my friend.

[rpcrowe]

Along with Dan's remarks... Although my new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens pretty well covers the focal range of my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and despite the fact that the 100-400 II is very hand holdable (due to its fine Image Stabilization), I am keeping the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens for half of my general walk-around kit (along with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens) due to the lighter weight of the 70-200! I can certainly understand Dan keeping the 80-400mm lens because of the weight!

[singlerosa]

That's pretty sharp. I see it's at 200mm, how does it do at 500?

That shot was @ 450mm.

[JHzlwd]

I have had a friend ask me about the Nikkor f/5.6 200-500mm e. I can't remember anyone mentioning it here at CiC.

Does anyone have it or has anyone used it? He's not interested any other lens.

He lives out in the country (hills and forests, rather than farms) and sees plenty of wildlife and birds in and around his property. He shoots both a D300 and D750.

Your friend should buy this. I have had the 200 - 500 since last November and it's fantastic. It is sharp across the field, even at 500 mm. I find it an excellent companion to the high-pixel-density D7200 and also the D800. It's a superb wildlife lens and, for a Nikkor, a bargain as well.

[NorthernFocus]

Manfred, not sure if your friend made up his mind yet on the lens. I've had time to shoot it a bit more in the past couple of days. My previous little shooting with it was on the D4. This time I tried it on the D7200. My opinion hasn't changed. This lens is quite a bargain. Not a prime, but darned good. If he want pictures here's one plus a full rez extract of detail. Shot wide open and handheld. Uploaded for view in lightbox.

Nikon D7200, 200-500mm E @ 500mm
1/1000s, f5.6, ISO640, handheld