Nikon 200-500 vs Nikon 300 PF - A Review And Comparison

[@backcountrygallery]

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!

[@JeremyEll]

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.

[@TonySahoo92]

yes! he talks fast, but, delivers smoothly.

[@antonoat]

@@patricksmith2553 My 200-500 f5.6 bought yesterday has Normal and Sport VR modes!

[@patricksmith2553]

@@antonoat Yeah your correct lol, I don't know what I was thinking when I said that haha.

[@phyllisblanchard]

What gimbal is recommended for the 200-500?

[@WanderingBobAK]

@Matt you can adjust the speed of vids under settings. As fast or sow as you want, Mate.

[@artmaltman]

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 KZbin and it makes you a keeper!!!

[@backcountrygallery]

Thanks :)

[@steamhackman]

Definitely agreed. Top notch review.

[@xavierhorn9825]

Could not possibly agree more!

[@ianbrown704]

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.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

Steve gets A+ for mentioning PRIME LENS superior rendering and "pop" (meaning microcontrast)

[@Marco_Wildlife]

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.

[@jazzdanne]

Well said!

[@yitzchallevi8208]

Fro disagrees!

[@OZZIEMV]

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.

[@asifmahmud0700]

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.

[@cabelas1987]

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.

[@lescobrandon3047]

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.

[@18yearsoldnot]

Were the images still sharp handheld with just the ibis on and vr off?

[@bertiewooster4043]

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!

[@karenjege]

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!

[@davidsmith3716]

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.

[@andyobrien6263]

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.

[@coloradofotomatt]

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.

[@backcountrygallery]

Thank you so much - and enjoy the lens, it's one of my all-time favorites!

[@ivanfeng5220]

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.

[@ciureamihai]

I have the 200-500mm i'm very, very satisfied with it...

[@slodays1158]

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.

[@rockapejv]

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.

[@martinaves7026]

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?

[@klackon1]

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.

[@martinaves7026]

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.

[@photosbyfry]

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!

[@corrbox2]

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. 👍😎📸🤩

[@MrCorelex]

Steve ... You should compare 200-400mm/4 with 200-500mm/5.6

[@CloudyNeSS2011]

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

[@JaseEvoX]

Did you know you got a "youtube channels that inspire" in Outdoor Photography? couldn't agree more :)

[@backcountrygallery]

Nope, didn't know that - that's really cool!! Do you have the link? THANKS!!!!

[@JaseEvoX]

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/

[@backcountrygallery]

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 :)

[@ashwarne3293]

JaseEvoX aaa

[@yukonstrong589]

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.

[@007Poojan]

You've become my favourite source of photography information on KZbin. You're just too good. Looking forward to more videos.

[@imgamba]

Excellent comparison. The way you differentiate the topics is very very well. Thanks, it helps me a lot!

[@sinetwo]

Incredibly well presented and laid out video. Thanks so much for covering topics I didn't even think of!

[@klackon1]

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.

[@backcountrygallery]

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.

[@baker2niner]

Steve, great review. I can confirm what you say here and thank you for presenting your judgements in context (wildlife). Notably for me, the PF's 'keeper rate' is higher than the 300/2.8 (& far better than the old 300/4 -- there is no bargain there) simply because it handles like a big 85mm. You just grab and shoot. (The first thought picking up the 2.8 and old f4 is, "crap, where did I leave the 88mm gun carriage?"). I love the 300 PF. Of course, Nikon found a way to put a bug in the ointment - I experience the low-mid-speed VR issue. But, It's sharpness is 'down low', so it's nearly always shot wide open so speeds are usually high. You do need to mind aperture priority because of it. 1/60 and below, VR is great. The goodness of the lens far outweighs this defect (But, why does VR work fine on all other Nikons?). I've been considering a jump to Canon and in comparison of each line's glass, the PF is the only lens I see between the two that is a unique advantage for Nikon.

[@BrendanHarington]

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?

[@inverlane1939]

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 😁

[@BillFerris]

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]

I just ordered the 200-500 used from Adorama. How can check the sharpness to see if it a “keeper”? Great video!

[@BillFerris]

@@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.

[@AnandavadivelanV]

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!

[@backcountrygallery]

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/

[@AnandavadivelanV]

This page is no longer available Steve. Do you have another link?

[@AMills-ox4ch]

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.

[@backcountrygallery]

Thanks!! ... but that dislike is coming, it always does LOL :)

[@AMills-ox4ch]

Haha... That's the internet, but to get to 100 without someone jumping in is pretty impressive. Thank you for all the great content.

[@Used2bike]

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.

[@Needacreate]

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?

[@UncleJaco]

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.

[@chandanaot]

You review better than Better Photography or Nikon Does. Thanks, It gave me a thought & recommendation for my next lense that is 200-500 @ $1180

[@pavochon]

The 200-500 can be very sharp at times, but it's so frustrating to use on overcast / low light days.

[@kennethmills5470]

like all 5.6 zooms

[@djrocc-jamaica3527]

Oh, got your ebook, and it was greatly informative, with some fantastic shots!!

[@backcountrygallery]

Thanks :)

[@smartcatcollarproject5699]

Nikon needs a 400mm f/5.6 with the same tech as the 300 PF.... something between the 400mm f/2.8 and the 300 ! Quick AF, light, sharp as a prime...

[@Jessehermansonphotography]

Smart Cat Collar Project similar to canons

[@R3tr0v1ru5]

I'm hoping for a 400mm f4.5 or 500mm f5.6 PF... I think I'm a bit deluded though.

[@lupagonzales]

Nikon should start making it at a reasonable price and then buy the fixed telephoto lens immediately.

[@ZaberAnsaryOfficial]

There's a 500 f5.6 PF coming.. Its been Confirmed.

[@lizb2146]

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

[@juleskarney4009]

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.

[@primate2744]

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?

[@frankkristensen4256]

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.

[@jessev.bassiii4689]

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!!

[@TheMrBennito]

nails it . time and again. Steve is simply the best for wildlife shooters. Keep it up!

[@CyberDNA13]

Steve, Great review and best video I've found so far on KZbin, 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!

[@backcountrygallery]

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.

[@VladimirBarriere]

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!

[@backcountrygallery]

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. :)

[@kds8404]

I have the Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 C and the Nikon 300mm f4E. I agree that heat distortion appears to affect the zoom more than the prime. On the Sigma, 300mm is it's sharpest focal length and compared to the prime it's almost a wash other than the one stop difference in DOF. On the other hand with the sport version of the 150-600, 300mm is reportedly not very good but the optics are better on its long end than the contemporary model. The minimum focusing distance is much better on the prime also. The only times I notice the Phase Fresnel flare issue is when shooting into the sun or at night shooting into bright lights. I prefer to use the 300mm PF on my D7200 and the 150-600mm on my D750. 600mm appears soft on the DX body but acceptable at f/11 on the FX.

[@MrModerate_kane]

I am stuck in this choice, i shoot events in arena, but recently been outside of 70-200 range, thus i am here. 300PF i have decided to save and purchase. I think its the right decision, arena lighting can be so bad and i cant go anymore with 70-200 cropping, i did consider going 70-200 in DX mode to get further but i want FF output after all that's why i bought the FF body. So decided based off my need for AF Speed, more light, smaller size, keeper rate. Thanks for the detailed video.

[@Csoery]

It just blows my mind that we are talking about $1-2k lenses and you still need to return two copies before you get a good one... Shouldn't it be Nikon's job to test the lenses before they are launched? :S Great video, as always, thanks!

[@backcountrygallery]

LOL - i blew my mind too! I figured one bad lens, sure it happens, but when the second copy didn't preform as expected, I was really thinking that maybe the lens just wasn't everything people said it was. Glad I was wrong.

[@koolkutz7]

Me too. When you pay so much for a lens it really should work perfectly and consistantly. Same with camera bodies; the D750 (and other Nikon's) have had several recalls!

[@TonySahoo92]

As far I can understand "returning" means taking the lens to a nikon service center. Not a bid deal. I have done these things before.

[@SuperFucdat]

I’ve heard amazing things about the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6, but to be honest I’ve also heard quite a few negatives. I shoot wildlife (or at least try!) & have delayed purchasing a 200-500 because of the negatives. I agree & think if your paying £1260 for a lens you should be able to expect it to perform. Mark.

[@Thunder1976NL]

I bought my 200-500 online and it is tack sharp from the go. Just need to get out more and take pictures. ☺️

[@ArnaudSiemons]

You are awesome. Humble yet outspoken.

[@davecasey6469]

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.

[@elmerdeloso594]

I'm totally sold! Just had to buy your e-book after this. Thank you for publishing it and your channel!

[@stevemartin239]

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.

[@MBrady1970]

I had them both, tested them extensively, and kept the 200-500VR. The VR on the 300 pf is a big problem, and all the lenses are the same, the fix did nothing (I've tested 3 of them all with serials after the supposed fix) the shutter speed drifts into the problem areas (80th to 200th of a second 1/125th is the worse) all the time in low light...so until they fix this..I wouldn't have another one. The different variations on tests results is due to pixel density differences on full frame and croppers, eg, its gonna look worse on the D7200, than it will on D4 or a DF with a mere 16mp spread accross a FF, Even a D800 only has something like a 15mp DX crop...where as the d7200 has 24mp...but those extra pixels are great for cropping, and you need every pixel you can get in wildlife..:) www.flickr.com/photos/130542709@N06/22329214568/

[@ebonyreeves885]

Found this extremely helpful thank you for spending so much time sharing!

[@daltonramsey9585]

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.

[@tgmwright]

GREAT Steve. UGH. I bought the 200-500, now you're telling me I need the 300F4PF too?? Fine, you've twisted my arm.

[@backcountrygallery]

LOL

[@JonWilliamsJonnyKstudio]

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.

[@ungavaproductions]

Love the way you review things...You're doing an excellent job and have the kindness to share. Thanks, you are a fantastic reference.

[@hugueninflorian]

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!

[@fastidioussloth6013]

A few wardrobe changes (A,B,C,A), a haircut trim, bucket loads of information, no expletives, no non sequiturs, no hesitations, no waffle, some humour and a gallery of superb images. I need a lie down.

[@CarlyWaarly]

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.

[@leftykelly3944]

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.

[@tomaskosik5783]

Hi Steve, Thank you for your review and videos overall. I just can see the huge difference between USA and Europe, at least middle Europe where wildlife shooters tend to have problem to get close enough to animals because of hunters. You shoot in national parks, where animals got used to be with people but here they are afraid of us because of hunters who shoot them, I mean by gun not camera unfortunately. I am looking forward to next year to try do wildlife in USA national parks for couple weeks.

[@richandgem]

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.

[@jc32750]

Steve, the Nikon 200-500 arrives Friday. Going to take it out Saturday for a test with the D500.

[@kochel331]

Excellent review, though Steve talks a bit too fast for me. I also think that 80-400 needs to be in this conversation.

[@RussHeim]

I'd love to see that one in there too... I noticed the 200-500 to have much slower AF than my 80-400 and could swear it seemed to have even more trouble focusing in bright light though I DID change it to dynamic AF before noticing that little quirk???

[@RussHeim]

Haha... watched another of Steve's awesome videos and now I'm wondering if I weren't caught up in situation where I was being subjected to "Long Lens Heat Distortion" :)

[@RodAllsopp]

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.

[@nandi123]

Steve, Thank you for this. You are an excellent teacher and your Wildlife Photography book is great!

[@sushantacharekar]

Beautiful review Steve .. you have made me rethink my plans to buy the 200-500 😀 now I am looking the 300pf too hehehe

[@andrewbutler9533]

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! ;-)

[@definitelynotatroll]

No extra fluff, very straight to the point. Great review! You earned a subscriber.

[@backcountrygallery]

Thanks!!!

[@definitelynotatroll]

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!

[@balintk.9373]

@@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.

[@backcountrygallery]

@@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.

[@backcountrygallery]

@@balintk.9373 Yup, the 1.4 TC is really good with that combo, Not 500 F/4 good, but good.

[@richardbarakett4163]

Awesome VDO! Thank you Steeve for what you do!

[@InCountry6970]

This covers everything, very good review !

[@VTPyzon]

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.

[@jimt9479]

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 !

[@backcountrygallery]

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).

[@jimt9479]

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.

[@anirbansinha1245]

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.

[@varghamehregan1183]

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.

[@maxfactor4209]

such an under rated channel.... Subscribed

[@MultiAudrey1234]

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!

[@Guairenito]

I will love to see a comparison the Nikon AFS 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR lens and the Nikon 200-500mm, it will be amazing as well to include the Nikon 300mm f/4 to see the difference with the 80-400

[@hepela1959]

The best videos on these two nikon lenses. Thank you

[@sebastiaolima2801]

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?

[@backcountrygallery]

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.

[@brucegraner5901]

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.

[@chrisogrady28]

My only supertele is the old Nikkor 400mm f/3.5 manual focus. It's unbelievably sharp and contrasty, and separates backgrounds amazingly. But Wildlife photography without autofocus isn't for the fainthearted, fun though.

[@maximme]

this is where Canon has a leg up. 100-400 lens has a resistance selector. if you set it at lowest, you CAN DO the pull push zoom with NO PROBLEMS.

[@Wildtotarda]

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 !

[@andygibson9422]

What a great video - you’ve put a lot of work into it and it shows. New sub here!

[@marvitz4224]

So glad I found you! I thoght there was something wrong with my new 300 f4 PF, since I tried the sport VR and images were horribly blurred!

[@marcperry1746]

Can you elaborate on how you tested your first 2 copies of the Nikon 200-500 lens before you obtained a "good" copy ?

[@randya.917]

ALWAYS great information Steve, and Thank you!

[@Ark7760]

VR on 500mm lenses is a must for shooting handheld, I'm less fortunate and use a mirror lens for telephoto work and it's very tricky to get well centered photos with all the shaking going on.

[@octapusxft]

I really got to get the 200-500 one cause that extra reach is very important as usually the wild birds in Greece are more distant

[@sofiasartstudios6618]

Great Review! Love it. Your pictures are amazing!!

[@ashj1979]

Great video! Watched your entire library of videos. Really appreciate it! Thank you. Anders from Denmark

[@hemakhatri3442]

Hi steve , please come up with a head to head comparision for nikkor 300mm pf (with tc) vs 500mm pf which is better for wildlife photography