This lens has great reviews from just about everyone on the major sites such as Adorama, B&H Photo, and DP Review. Even Ken Rockwell had good things to say about it. I’m waiting for Thom Hogan’s review but he hasn’t posted much – but he has hinted that he likes it.
 |
| Nikkor AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR |
I’m not going to go over the specs of the lens; you can read details about the lens at many other and more informed web sites. But I will mention why I want it and why I’m hesitant to get it.
I have shot enough to know that at times I wish I had a longer lens. In particular, this last summer on my trip along the Oregon coast, I shot some sea lions from distances that I would like to have had more reach available. By the time I shot and cropped what I could shoot with my 200mm lens, there wasn’t a lot of image left.
For my Nikon D610 I have the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G (with the lovely gold band) and like it a lot. I had a plan to get the Tamron 150-600mm but a friend convinced me that the 70-200mm was a better lens, that I’d like the image quality (IQ) better on it. So I went that route and haven’t been disappointed at all with my choice other than the lack of reach.
When the Sigma 150-600 came out and had reports or reviews that it had better IQ than the Tamron, plus it had the docking station available to get firmware updates, and the lower priced version was right even with the Tamron, I started thinking that I’d pick one of those up. I was more interested in the less expensive version, not feeling that basically doubling the price was worth what the “sport” version offered for how I shoot.
Then, this last August, Nikon announced their 200-500mm lens. This is a tough call. It’s a little narrower focal range than the 150-600mm. That means that on the short end I might be able to use the Tamron or Sigma for a particular shot but I may have to swap out the Nikkor to my 70-200mm if I really wanted to be shorter than 200mm. If you’re backed up against a wall or cliff and want to include more of a scene than 200mm will allow, the choice is to swap lenses or compromise on the composition. Or, have the Tamron or Sigma.
On the long end, 100mm extra on the Tamron or Sigma probably wouldn’t be noticed quite as much. I might have to crop the Nikkor shot a bit if I needed to remove something from the shot that I couldn’t get rid of through extending the lens that extra 100mm but it wouldn’t be nearly as bad as the difference between the 200mm maximum I have now compared to the 600mm of the Tamron or Sigma. That’s 3 times the distance or 200% increase! Between the 500mm to 600mm there is only a 20% increase.
Nikon has a cool angle (or field) of view simulator that you can also use to see the dramatic difference (or lack of difference) between focal lengths. It is online at:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/
For a full frame camera, the diagonal angle of view for 150mm is 16.4 degrees and for 200mm it is 12.3 degrees which is fairly significant. The diagonal angle of view at 500mm is 5.0 degrees and at 600mm it is 4.1 degrees. That end is not very significant as can be seen on the Nikon simulator.
The Nikkor is somewhat more limiting at both ends when compared to the Tamron or Sigma. The difference is that Nikon can fine tune the optics easier since they are providing only a 3x zoom, compared to the others that are a 4x zoom. This is born out in the reviews where actual users state pretty convincingly and in sufficient numbers that the Nikkor has improved IQ.
In addition to the focal length, the Nikkor also offers a larger and constant aperture of f/5.6. By comparison, the Tamron and Sigma aperture is f/5 to f/6.3. The Nikkor will support using a teleconverter, if desired and your camera supports it, at all focal lengths while providing auto focus.
All three lenses have image stabilization by the Nikkor claims that their new version offers 4 stops worth of stabilization. All of the lenses expand and contract according to the focal length so they’ll all have breathing to do.
My biggest factor in my photography is striving for IQ. Because of this, I believe that the Nikkor is the best choice for me. I’d rather swap a lens at the short end and gain any edge in IQ. I’m still a Nikkor only guy with my lenses and have been pretty satisfied with all of them. And, if I mount the 500mm focal length on my D3200 I end up with a 750mm equivalent!
Okay, I’ve convinced myself regarding WHICH lens to get, I just need to convince myself that I truly need a longer lens. I think I need one more photo shoot where I come across a situation that I could ACTUALLY benefit from a longer lens. Once I do, I think I’ll order a copy!
P.S.(es)
1. Purchasing this lens at roughly $1,400 US will be my third lens of $1,000 or more. In fact, all told I think it would mean I will have spent about $3,600 on lenses ($1,000 for the 16-35mm f/4, $1,200 for the 70-200mm f/4, and the $1,400 for the 200-500mm). This is after having been into photography for less than 3 years. Also note that I have my eye on the Nikon D810 which is also about $3,000. Sheesh. I may need to sell a guitar or two!
2. I don’t use my D3200 crop camera enough. Next time I want more focal length I should really get out the D3200. I actually have the 55-300mm DX lens, which provides an equivalent of 450mm at the long end. I’ll admit that I did NOT get that rig out when shooting the sea lions and now I wish I’d taken the time to do it. I did think about it at the time but didn’t do it (it was cold and windy, I was parked a bit away from where I was shooting and the D3200 was in my Explorer, I would have had to put the quick release plate on the D3200, and I could probably come up with more excuses – such as I never seem to be as happy with the D3200 IQ in anything other than bright light).
In addition, one other thing that’s been on my mind lately, is that I’ve never tried my more expensive lenses on the D3200. I should see if the IQ is better on the D3200 if I use a better lens.
