Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6 - IS IT SHARP?

[@EricWoodyVariety59]

i just bought one. i cant wait to use it this weekend.

[@PerrynBecky]

This lens is definitely what he says it is. I have one, and I am glad I chose it over the 150-600 mm Tamron or Sigma offerings.

[@bear5016]

Ditto

[@troyr57]

He Sean, been watching your RV channel for about a year, and was searching reaviews for the Nikor 200-500, low and behold I found this, great review. I just ordered the lens, and should have it Next Tuesday, can't wait. Enjoy all your videos. I have the Nikon D7500, and a D3400, going to use it on.

[@mooinabc1]

It reduring color and contrast is excellent. Sharpness to me is micro contrast, rendition, depth rendition, color saturation ect. is just as important. It has it all. F 5.6 even with my 50mm f 1.8 it use f 5.6 sometime and f12 most of the time. Know to get me hands of the Nikon 710.

[@CarlyWaarly]

Love this lens, I consider it part of the trinity from 14 - 500mm coverage with 4 lenses.

[@alexblaze8878]

Actually the trinity was meant to be 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, and the 200-400 F4.

[@razrv3lc]

The reason I'm not too concerned about f/5.6 is because most modern cameras now can handle decent ISOs so you can typically bump that up to accommodate. I know with my D750 I've gotten images up to 6400 that were usable so the thought of having to bump the ISO up to make up for the relatively slow aperture doesn't worry me. I'll also try to use it on my D7100 too though so I'm a little more wary of cranking the ISO up on that camera. It performed well when it was modern but compared to newer DX cameras, it's not as great anymore. Still, in good light it'll be fine and if I'm worried about the light I'll probably just opt for the D750 instead since I've got that option.

[@SecBarbie]

OH NO! Just when I didn't think I could adore you guys more, I find out you guys shoot with NIKON! I JUST bought this glass for my D5, thanks for the review!

[@TheSeanMichael]

hey, it's great to see you here! I am a longtime Nikon shooter and (full disclosure) now shoot both Nikon and Sony. I love shooting this lens with my D750. I hope you have a great experience with your 200-500 -- I love mine!

[@sndman60]

I have a 55-300mm nikor. I have really been reading everything I can about this lens. Your photos shot using the D7100 and this lens are amazing. I too shoot a D7100. A great BLUF (bottom line up front) informational video. Thank you, this has my mind made up.

[@TheSeanMichael]

Thanks much! I'm confident you will enjoy the 200-500mm lens. I use mine almost daily. It's everything it's promised to be.

[@hugueninflorian]

sndman, I noticed that with my 55-300 over 200mm (D7200), it really gets not sharp at all! Did you try with the 200-500? Is it better.

[@johnyentes6643]

The way you do your reviews are so awesome. When you said crow's eyeball, I laughed pretty hard

[@ManWander]

wow, those shots were amazing! thanks for the video!

[@TheSeanMichael]

+Jay Montero (jMon) Thanks, I tried to select shots that would spotlight the sharpness of the lens. Glad you liked it!

[@a9-x_youtuber165]

Ah, That KSP music in background. Great video!

[@cowboystuff2002]

Are these photos taken by just putting the lens on the camera and shooting, or have you done the lens fine tuning in the camera?

[@freddieslaughter1107]

How does this compare to the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens? Reply

[@lonnieclemens8028]

Thank you for sharing this video.

[@freddieslaughter1107]

How does this compare to the Nikon NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 G AF-S VR ED Lens

[@davidhammond10]

which of the two would you buy? Because I am looking at both lenses.

[@kevink7087]

I tested both and the 80-400 was a great general lens, the 200-500 was much better suited for wildlife. Much sharper at the long end, and a lot cheaper! I ended up buying the 200-500

[@fahrupitak695]

What about sigma150-600? Which one the best?

[@leifnilsen6107]

Thank you for the video! Good job

[@vincenterwinphotography4224]

sorry which one is the best and sharpest one for birding between tamron new series g2 150-600 f5-6.3 or new nikon 200-500 f5.6? thanks alot,nice capture n video

[@desertoo23]

Very good video. I am definitely subscribing

[@xaviercoutant635]

Would you recommand this lens on a Nikon d7000?

[@kanaknaik8434]

How does it compare to the Tamron 150-600mm in terms of af speed and IQ for bird photography? Is the Nikon 200500mm still at an advantage onstead of the shorter 100mm reach at the long end?

[@Detjo]

Hi Sean - thanks so much for your time on these reviews. From what I read on the web, it's a bit hit-and-miss on the sharpness of this lens, depending on what copy one happens to receive. Another review I read saw different results among the 3 copys of the lens that he had tried. It sounds like you have a good copy of this lens. One thing I have found with less expensive zoom lenses (ie: not pro) is the 'AF fine tune' is all over the place. It might be, for instance, -3 @ 200mm and moving up to +10 @ 500mm. Do you find the same to be true for your 200-500mm lens?

[@mst7806]

Dude is funny and informative!

[@sumitchaudhuri]

Great review yaar......loved it

[@kamaccord]

How does the Tamron 150mm - 600mm compare along the same focal length of the Nikkor 200-500mm

[@EdwinHenryBlachford]

time to sell the motorbike I think....

[@drawlikeapro6916]

Lol

[@AZTEC_ARTS]

What were your settings ? (Aperture ... etc)

[@Scottyman99]

You don't mention the f stop used with each pic. I'm curious how sharp f5.6 performs compared to higher f-stops. Sharpness can vary greatly.

[@KISSMYACE3203]

+Scott L f8 is the magic number on mine as far as sharpness goes.

[@JuicyMorsels]

is it a good lens for D5200?

[@matthewbell1968]

Very good lens but beware sample variations. Check out what Nasim Manrusov writes on photography life. ..

[@erintaylor5856]

Is it sharp wide open? Thats where the rubber meets the road. What aperture were these shot at?

[@EdwinHenryBlachford]

what a stupid remark. If any super telephoto is sharp at any aperture it's a feat of physics. For less than $12,000 it becomes Choas Theory. For $2,000 it's water made into fine wine

[@GThenameisleo]

Edwin Henry Blachford Sharp relative to other lenses of a similar category

[@EdwinHenryBlachford]

relative to price

[@Lseven7]

I'm curious of some of the shutter speeds and if all were hand held. I assume you kept the ISO pretty low given lack of noise. So shutter speed to get the crisp shots. I have had the lens briefly and just looking for some input. With a 1.5 crop (D7200) I have been shooting at 1/800 -1/1600 but have been bumping the ISO as a result. Mostly using a monopod so far as well.

[@TheSeanMichael]

+Jim Uffelmann I usually shoot this lens handheld. Shutter speed set at 1/1000 for starters but will go faster or slower as needed. Of course it depends on how fast your subject is moving too. Bird in motion, 1/1000 at least. But birds will occasionally pause / freeze for a fraction of a second - at those times you can get away with a much slower shutter speed and bring down your ISO to reduce noise.

[@-BIT-MrityunjayPathak]

Hey have you used this lens on a full frame camera ?? 😐

[@lonnieclemens5131]

It seems that people are buying this lens in confidence. I can't say that for the 3rd party lenses. Not in the area of wildlife photography.

[@KeithCanisius]

mostly lenses build the last 40 years are sharp. Sharpness is not everything though. micro contrast, rendition, depth rendition, color saturation ect. is just as important.

[@jurajmatej4875]

+KeithCanisius yes and AF speed... this lens it's not very fast, i can say AF its slow.

[@TheSeanMichael]

+KeithCanisius I think sharpness has become more of a concern due to the new higher megapixel sensors. I have a variety of vintages lenses - some of these lenses may perform well on a 12 or 16 MP sensor, but they reach their limits when paired with a 24 MP sensor.

[@BillFerris]

+KeithCanisius you raise a valid point about sharpness not being the only important quality of a lens. That said, one of the biggest criticisms of this lens since its release has been that it is not sharp. Like Sean, my experience doing photography (mostly birds in flight) with the 200-500 on my D610 is that the lens delivers quite sharp images when good technique is applied.

[@BillFerris]

+Juraj Matěj I will respectfully disagree with your assessment that the 200-500's AF speed is slow. It may not be as fast focusing as an f/2.8 long telephoto prime, however I've had good success witht he lens acquiring and tracking focus while photographing birds in flight on cloudy, overcast days. At f/5.6, I would not recommend this lens for pre-dawn or post-sunset photography of moving subjects. However, I've found good technique in moderately bright daylight conditions (and better, of course) results in reliably good images.

[@MrNYCman530]

Good info! I have the Nikon D750 as well as the Sony RX10 lV f2.4-4.0. I'm wondering if I should sell the Sony and use the Nikkor 200-500 f5.6. I'm thinking the sharpness and detail will be better with the Nikon, due to the difference in sensor size.

[@TheSeanMichael]

I think the Nikon would probably be better but it's a LOT more to carry around than the RX10. I love the 200-500 but it's probably not something you want to lug all day. RX10 is a great travel setup.

[@MrNYCman530]

I decided to sell my RX10 IV and order the Panasonic G9 from B&H and will opt for the 100-400mm f4.5-6.3 as one of the lenses. Really light and no problem handheld. I like shooting zoo wildlife and this lens will have a 800mm equivalent. And the IBS for the G9 is rated at 6.5 stops. Meanwhile, I will use my Nikon for night shots. Nice shots, BTW.

[@TheSeanMichael]

Sounds like a good plan -- the G9 looks fantastic and there's so much choice in Micro Four Thirds glass. (And I also like to use my D750 at night, it's still a great lowlight camera.)

[@yousef-alnassar]

I'm keen on replacing my wildlife combo (d7100 + 70-200) with a (d750 + 80-400 OR 200-500), out of the last two, which one would any of you deem the more relevant choice? thanks

[@tolga1cool]

You will lose frame rate by switching to the 750. also you will loose reach. so I would definitely get the 200-500 if it's primarily for wildlife

[@R3tr0v1ru5]

Don't get a D750 for wildlife. Instead get the excellent D500. Don't get the horrible 80-400 either.

[@lonnieclemens5131]

@@R3tr0v1ru5 please don't say that. I just bought the 80-400mm yesterday.

[@R3tr0v1ru5]

@@lonnieclemens5131 What are you doing?! It's a horrible lens! Should've bought an older 300mm f4!

[@foretravelman67]

Sean, where any of these shot wide open?

[@Malinois_Whisper]

On your other review of this lens I ask haw bad the DX crop factor would be. This vid here answered that since you used a DX. I just hope I don't have to go too high on the iOS to get early day/morning or late afternoon birding shots. Will golden hour shots be sharp with the f5.6 factor? Not too grainy in other words?

[@TheSeanMichael]

+Jim Navickas Well, it's hard to say. Which DX camera? DX high ISO performance gets better with every generation. D40 and D500 are technically both DX, but they are VERY different cameras.

[@Malinois_Whisper]

The D7200. Using it with the kit 70-300mm f5.6. I get decent shots of birds...even gulls in flight if they're within 30yrds or so. But friends with 300 or 400mm f2.8-4 are getting so much closer. The cost of the 500 is pretty good. But am I'm going to have that wow factor? I know I can't compete with the primes but just want to be sure $1300 bucks is going to be worth it over my kit 70-300mm f5.6. I look forward to your thought. Thx in advance!

[@hugueninflorian]

Same question for me Jim! Owner of a D7200, I am wondering to buy it or not ...

[@Malinois_Whisper]

Now i' on the fence. Waiting for more reviews to come in for the new Tamron 150-600 G2. So far that one is sounding good.

[@19Photographer76]

Jim, there are other issues to factor in like weight, CA over 500mm, the ability to place a TC on, the VR that's unbelievable and works great on video. Having tried all of the current ultra long zooms, the Nikon is the best for me. My primary bodies will be the D810 and D500.

[@nicodimus2222]

I've heard some say that the sharpest point on this lens is f8, and others say it's f11. Did you try stopping down at all?

[@nicodimus2222]

I've been shooting at f8 and getting nice results all spring. :)

[@bear5016]

4:52 lmao!

[@edgomezuribe]

Hi Sean! hey which converter do I need to put this beauty on my sony A7II e-mount?

[@TheSeanMichael]

+Ed Gomez Hi Ed, unfortunately there's not a good Nikon-to-Sony adapter that supports autofocus yet (although I believe there will be one later this year). If you are okay with manual focus, I'd just pick up a cheap Nikon G to Sony adapter for now. amzn.to/1mPPudH The only "catch" is that this 200-500 lens is an "E" lens which has electronic aperture control. I need to doublecheck and confirm that you will be able to open the aperture. I'm afraid that *at best* you'll simply be able to keep the aperture at f5.6 (which is thankfully a good setting for this lens anyway). If you can wait, I think/hope we'll get some autofocus Nikon/Sony adapters later this year.

[@desmoface]

Thanks for sharing. How is the af performance for moving subjects like bif?

[@TheSeanMichael]

+desmoface I think it's good, but not outstanding. Some people say the 200-400 has slightly better AF (for an extra $5600, one would hope so).

[@larryandjackieoz5275]

I know you are not the answer man. I have followed you on the RV stuff and am kind of interested in photograph. I have some GoPro but would like to get a newer camera and I am looking at a Nikon. But I have a very old Canon A-1 and a bag of lenses and filters. Is there a way of using my old bayonet type lenses with the newer Nikon camera?I understand if you don't want to become a source for newbie questions.

[@TheSeanMichael]

+Larry and Jackie Oz So your lenses are for Canon mount? I don't think you can mount Canon lenses on Nikon cameras. However, they will work on Sony cameras. Have you considered Sony? The new Sony bodies work great with older lenses.

[@Windiguana]

I'm pretty sure most of these shots were taken stopped down. They wouldn't have much dof to work with otherwise

[@mainemonty]

Mine super soft at 500

[@bryancalk7206]

That's a Purple Finch

[@TheSeanMichael]

Thank you for the correction. 👍 We don't see too many of those around here.

[@4839jen]

would this lense work with nikon 5300?

[@sephiroth6227]

yes

[@TheClosedpalm]

What exactly is a 100% crop?

[@TheSeanMichael]

1920x1080 pixels (“100%” of the output for this video)

[@alexandergomes3317]

how fast is this in focusing..mediocre or very snappy

[@yoadriaaannn]

IN between, about .375 seconds compared to a 500mm f4 af-s which does .200 of a sec from infinity to focus. Not bad but don't expect snappy specially in lower light.

[@RobertKingofMaine]

You mean a Raven don't you. :)

[@Detjo]

A Raven is a Crow - part of the Crow family.

[@Raysnature]

Both members of the family corvidae but two very distinct species.

[@prairiepainter]

Yes a Raven is a Raven...not a Crow...like saying a wood thrush is a robin, and justifying it as the same because they are both Thrushes. Also the House Finch is not a House Finch but a male Purple Finch...otherwise I have and use a 200-500mm 5.6 and LOVE it!

[@TheForge10]

looks great for wild life but too slow for sports ?

[@CITAP1]

That is nice. Best I can do is a Canon 70-200 F-2.8 non IS with a doubler on it making it 140-400 F-5.6. Need a better tripod because I do get a little shutter bounce distortion. I see Canon just released the EOS 1 DX Mark II. Pretty amazing! www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/news/unveiled-new-blazing-fast-4k-capable-canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii?Email&NewAnnouncement&CanonEOS1D%20160201&Retail&#vid

[@TheSeanMichael]

In 1.3x crop mode on my D7100 APS-C camera, the full frame equivalent field of view for my 200-500 is about 1000mm! Nikon has made a winner in this lens. Yes, big news from Canon this week! 👍

[@bensslightnature]

if there are no samples of full sized images, i wont believe it.

[@TheSeanMichael]

+Moody I've thought about starting a website, but it's usually a lot of work for little reward (not unlike KZbin in that respect ;-)). Cheers

[@bensslightnature]

Loloho.Photo why starting a website? you can upload to sites such as "mega.nz" for people to download. im seriously considering moving to cannon because there are no decent long lenses for medium range cost.

[@TheSeanMichael]

If Canon has the gear you want and Nikon does not, you might as well go ahead and move to Canon.

[@bensslightnature]

Loloho.Photo yeah but the problem is.. i already started with nikon. but i guess i will move to cannon. nikon is amazing and im in love with the colors and quality. but if i wanna buy good quality lenses i need tons of money. cannon, though, has some solutions. even cannon's 70-300 is is better than nikon's 70-300 vr.

[@johnr7895]

Think I need to calibrate my 200-500 because mine is not sharp 🤔 my 70-200 blows my 200-500 away.

[@Filinozavr]

did calibration work out?

[@thusi99]

Lion king

[@Windiguana]

My 40 year old 300mm f4.5 ED IF AI-s lens is sharper.

[@TheSeanMichael]

+bmxchat2001 I haven't tried the 300mm f4 AI-S, but I do have the 200mm f4 AI-S, and it's not nearly as sharp on a 24MP sensor as the 200-500. I like the 200mm f4 for what it cost me, but it shows its age. However, my copy of the 300mm f4 AF-S is razor sharp. I'll try to get my hands on a 300mm f4 AI-S.

[@fynthemtns]

Your "House Finch" is actually a Purple Finch. Please give complete image metadata in the future and back off on the sharpening.

[@patricksmith2553]

God all the talking parrot's these day's..."is it sharp, is it sharp, hello, is it sharp?" All $1,000 plus lenses these days are sharp and if you can't get sharp photos with them you should sell your camera and get into stamp collecting or something else. People these days don't even know what a great lens' qualities are, like saturation, contrast, micro contrast, etc. Like the beloved new 105mm 1.4G lens, which is sharp so people love it...but it sucks in every other category. It is flat and has no saturation or warmth. People though rave about it and I'm sure someone is going to say, yeah but you can add that in post. NO!

[@earlyeo8298]

All your examples seem to be shot at 20 to 25 feet of the subjects ,,, What happens to images shot at 75 feet, ??? ,, I have the 200-500 attached to a D800E , and all that was shot at 50 feet , or greater , is really not that sharp ! I have tried to shoot the moon , and all my test pics , were "not sharp" at all .. I am currently in the process of having Nikon review and fix my lens , I hope It will return to me , with it's sharpening issues fixed ... P.S. Closing the aperture , to gain on death of field , does not give me more sharpness ,, focusing is still off subject , with all images taken at distances greater than 75 feet. There seem to be a 2/5 chance your copy will preform really well ... GOOD LUCK ..

[@MrShaun_D1]

Im with you on that. I thought I would be a little shaper than what I am getting, especially at 500.

[@freddyacosta2358]

Why JPEG? 😏

[@Delphisteve]

NOT sharp!

[@rockapejv]

Sharp!

[@mazennabulsi7246]

why to sharpen an image if you want the viewers to be impressed with the lens sharpness ?? why dont you show it straight out of the camera without using LR ..?? thats frod ...

[@LongLongHoneymoon]

Well, I showed you both, right?

[@MrDaveB123]

@@LongLongHoneymoon Frod ? lol

[@nicodimus2222]

I've heard some say that the sharpest point on this lens is f8, and others say it's f11. Did you try stopping down at all?

[@KISSMYACE3203]

+nicodimus2222 I find mine to be much sharper at f8, not much, if any difference, at smaller apertures; that and you'll most likely have to boost your ISO up.