Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 vr is a new kid on the block. It is much more affordable than other supertelephoto lenses. How does this lens stand next to the best performing super telephoto: Nikon 400mm f2.8 vr ?
Some might think, why on earth would you compare a prime lens to a zoom ? To me it makes totaly sense. Because this will let us find out, how far the technoology reached in zoom lenses.
200-500 is a sharp lens, it has a pleasing bokeh, it is hand holdable, and versatile. But it has also its weaknesses. The very first one is the autofocus speed. When you shoot wildlife, autofocus speed plays a vital role to capture action. And since it is aperture is 4x less brighter then the 2.8, you will either have not enough shutter speed to freeze the action, or you will have much more noise in your pictures. I disagree with people who says, with today's camera technology, i am not afraid to crank the iso up. Well, think it like this: Wildlife action happens either early in the morning, or in the late afternoon. And the light at these hours will be much less stronger. So if you are at iso 2000 with a 2.8 lens , you will need to crank it the iso 8000 to get the same result with a 5.6. Today no matter which camera you use, iso 8000 will never look similar to iso 2000. The more iso, the lesser sharp the photo will be as well.
The built quality of the 400mm 2.8 vr is definitely superior, and it also has weather sealing as well, which is important in the long run too. Autofocus accuracy is something hard to measure, but in general brighter lenses tend to focus more correctly, but they are also harder to nail the sharpness, because the depth of field is extremely thin. When i shot both lenses while handholding them, i had more keepers with 200-500 5.6 vr. This has two reasons: one of them is the super shallow depth of filed, and the other one is the weight of the lens. If both lenses were on a tripod with a gimbal head, 400mm would definitely give you better results.
Would i recommend the 200-500 ? Absolutely yes! It is a phenomenal lens for the price you pay. If you are into wildlife photography, it is a great way to start. Start with this lens, and see how it goes. If you feel the need later and get more serious about wildlife photography, you can upgrade to the primes like 400 2.8 500 f4 or 600 f4.
You can download and check the images yourself. Just go on top of the image you like, right click, and save.
200-500 5.6 vr
I had diffculty to keep the autofocus on fast moving objects with 200-500, like this flying duck below.
You can see how sharp the 200-500 is with the photo of the rat below:
Lets compare the lenses:
Nikon 200-500 f5.6 vr
400mm f2.8 vr (Realize how much smoother the background is ? )
200-500 5.6 (keep your attention on the people at the right top corner of the image)
400mm f2.8 vr (Notice how the people melt away, due to superior depth of field? )
For those, who are interested, i also have a video on youtube, click on the video to watch it.
Comments
Bruce Levy
My comments are coming very late in this discussion, but I like this site, the photographer, and his approach. My first telephoto lens was the 200-500mm f/5.6. (new sold as used version). I tend to buy all my gear used from several sources, but one is our local largest camera store (who does keep an eye out for used equipment for me). After shooting wildlife and birds in flight (BIF), I found the limitations mentioned in the description above. AF speed was one of the main drawbacks (i.e. bird launching). Limitations surrounding AF points and types available were also an issues, as was the minimum aperture. The lens was fantastic for what it is, but I found a new "Used" version of the 600mm f/4 E FL ED VR and essentially never picked up the 200-500mm f/5.6 again (except for rare occasions). Fast Forward: I was going to sell the lens (and still might) but the Z9 made the 200-500mm lens a new animal. Suddenly, the AF speed seemed much better and I was capturing bird after bird in flight. Now, it doesn't compare to the 600mm prime, but it is a bit more handholdable and flexible. As for the new Z 400mm S f/2.8 TC being the king (compared to the new 600mm S f/4 TC - I haven't shot with either lens, but I imagine it will come down to what you shoot, how close you can get, and the amount of low light/shutter speed combination you need. Wish I could own either one - needless to say, both? ;-) .
BIG LENS ADVENTURES
Hi Bruce, sorry there was a techniqal issue with comments section, I just happen to see your comment right now only.
My two cents about the subject is: Two photographers. One with the latest technology equipment. Takes it for granted shoots a few frames and leaves.
The other one with mediocre equipment. But knows his subject, calculates the best position, buils a hide and waits there.
Second one wins.
Jon
Enjoying your photos and blog. I’ve got a 200-500 VR and agree with you about it’s weaknesses. I can’t afford a 400 2.8 VR. So what about a 300 2.8VR with a 1.4x and 1.7x converter? I have the 1.4x and the effective 420mm f4 seems good to me. What would you think was better between a 300mm f2.8 with a TC17 and the 200-500 f5.6?> All the best
BIG LENS ADVENTURES
You are welcome! If you tend to shoot mostly at 500mm, 200-500 is a better option. But if you are shooting more between 300-400 range, get the 300mm 2.8.
1.7 is not a good teleconverter, I would not use anything else than the 1.4. If you have the budget, go for 300mm with 1.4. Because it is a much faster lens.
Imtiyaz
Hi Ozkan, Thank you for the interesting comparison. If it makes more sense to buy a used 400mm 2.8 as against a new 200-500mm 5.6? Your feedback will help me immensely. Thanks & cheers, Imtiyaz
BIG LENS ADVENTURES
Hi imtiyaz, sorry for the laste answer. 400mm is a the king of all lenses. Period.