500mm Wildlife lens review: Nikon 500mm f/5.6E PF vs Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E

Use our 10% off coupon 'YouTube'

RECOMMENDED PHOTOGRAPHY GEAR:

STARTER CAMERAS:

LANDSCAPE CAMERAS:

PORTRAIT CAMERAS:

WILDLIFE CAMERAS:

VIDEO CAMERAS:

DRONES:

[aussie]

$6, 000 vs $1, 900 in Australia. I think the choice is pretty easy.

[FrederickDunn]

Oh! Such a nice review Tony! I just picked up the 200-500 and I'm encouraged by the shots you took with the Z6. I plan to use that combo for many of my venomous insect video sequences. Always a coffee break well spent watching your videos and always even better when I have my buying decisions reinforced. Happy New Year to both of you!

[KenCheng]

the OCD in me was tortured by the no-lens-caps on both lenses (the body end) lol

[andrestorhaug]

D500 with the 200-500 is just awesome. The VR is insane. I often shoot at f8 and then sharpnes is quite good. The zoom makes it even good for landscape details.

[PhilThach]

As a Disney Vacation Club member, I've been attempting to figure out where everyone stayed at the Z6 event. Now I'm pretty sure it must have been the Four Seasons. We've never stayed there but it looks nice. On the subject of your video. I'm not surprised about the 200-500 having better VR. Before I ordered mine I made a photo with a friend's at 500mm & 1/60s, I was amazed when it was sharp. I placed my order that night. I also own a 500 F/4G. The 200-500's superior minimum focus distance keeps me coming back to it. Like you did in this video, I use the 200-500 for butterfly photos. It does even better with a 1.4x TC attached! I would seriously consider the new 500 if it had a better minimum focus distance. I love its tiny size and weight. Nice video as usual.

[MattJacques]

Finally managed to get my hands on the 500mm PF and can't wait to compare it to my 200-500mm... already love the 3lbs + weight savings! Will dive in more later, but just posted a quick first impressions video over on my little channel... :)

[TheExtraTerrestrial]

Thanks for the quick review! I noticed the same thing with the VR at 1/100. These PF lenses have very flaky VR; the 300PF doesn't work well, either, at slower speeds. A lot of people gloss over this, but it's a real issue if you're not always shooting at 1/1000 or something.

A little trick I found is to shoot in Qc mode with the EFCS enabled. This works wonders, and I can get great sharpness at low SS. However, I'm not sure if any Nikons besides the D850 can do this. I was disappointed with this lens, but can live with it now that I found this workaround. I still believe Nikon needs to do something to fix the VR on these PF lenses, but maybe it's just not possible. The downside with Qc is we're limited to 3 fps, but if I'm shooting at 1/100, it's because the light sucks, so I don't need blazing speed anyway. Just my 2 cents. Take care!

[renszo]

The problem with the 200-500 is that the weather sealing is lacking. That's the only reason I still own a 150-600 G2 of Tamron. I don't feel like I can use the 200-500 in a rain forest.

[ejpeiker]

I did an extensive test and also found that VR degrades image quality significantly with VR in normal mode. However switching the VR to sport mode gave me very sharp shots in virtually all shooting scenarios. If the VR was in normal mode in your test where it performed worse than the 200-500, it is very possible that in Sport mode you would have gotten better results that are more comparable to the 200-500 at slower shutter speeds. It’s counter intuitive for sure but I was able to repeat this over and over and it was true regardless of shutter speed.

[BillFerris]

Several reviewers have commented on the 500mm f/5.6E PF having difficulty with VR at slow shutter speeds. I routinely shoot at 1/100 with the 200-500 (a necessity when shooting wildlife with an f/5.6 lens) and have gone as slow as 1/30 with good results. The PF looks every bit an excellent lens but the VR is a bit concerning. Hopefully, like the 300/4 PF, a firmware update will address this.

Personally, if I'm going to pay $3, 600 for a wildlife lens, I'd rather pay a bit more for a quality used 500/4. The biggest limitation of the 200-500 isn't sharpness or even AF; it's the f/5.6 aperture.

[speakingconstitution]

In my real world experience, my 7dm2 w/ sigma 150-600mm 5-6.3 contemporary lens does an amazing job and only missed focus due to operator error. I am having amazing results and the more I practice, the less I miss focus, especially with wildlife/farm animals/pets in motion. I am also amazed at how tight I can crop without the 'noise' factor being a problem.

[ftdoomplays]

I've been birding with an old Sigma 400mm f5.6 FD mount lens adapted to my Olympus OMD EM-10mkii the last couple of weeks. Picked it up for $125 in mint condition, and with my Olympus body it's effectively an 800mm stabilized lens.

[SolamenteVees]

Good stuff, thank you for the side-by-side comparo. I'm currently using a D500 with the 200-500 Nikon lens. I'd love to have the 500 prime but I can't justify the incremental improvement in image quality for the dollars spent. I'm still blown away at some of the images that come from my plebeian rig.

[aspenandvail]

Tony. Im just seeing this video. You were at Championsgate just south of Orlando. What a great place for wildlife photography. The last time I was there in 2018 I toured the back areas of the golf course by the head of grounds for the resort. Deep in the wetlands area. Gators, roseate spoonbills, all kinds of cool wildlife. If you ever go back you guys should do that.. It was so worth it. Keep up the good work. Love your channel!

[yasaisony]

I have the 200-500mm lens and I would rather have it. One main reason is that at 500mm you only have so much width in your field of vision. Trying to find that bird in a tree or in flight when the lens is at 500 mm is tough. I prefer to keep it somewhere between 200-300mm because it's easier to find that moving subject and then I zoom in. If I have to find that moving subject when I'm locked at 500mm, it's like searching though a straw. Much easier to stay wider, then zoom in once I have the subject. I may even take a few shots as I'm zooming in incase I lose lock on the subject or it flys off before I get to 500mm and am able to take the good shot that I want to take.

[pacific-midwest]

One important thing to note about the 200-500 5.6 is the lack of consistency in performance/sharpness. My 200-500 5.6 is very sharp at 500mm, however my partner's 200-500mm was soft throughout the focal range. When you purchase the 200-500 5.6 lens, it is important to test the sharpness before taking it out into the field.

In regards to the 500mm PF, it is better built, faster at focus acquisition, and easier to handhold than the 200-500 5.6, however at $3500, what you are paying for is weight reduction and portability. Although 5.6 is disappointing at this price-point, what you gain is a very easy to maneuver lens where weight and focus acquisition do not restrict you from capturing a great moment.

[UAP_]

I disagree with the VR issue for the 500pf, I can get sharp results even at 1/60sec. with it.

[KANDARA]

Tony & Chelsea Northrup
Thank you for all the videos, I learn a lot from you!!!
You guys are the first to put up a real new camera review, different from others, and after that everybody start repeating the same things you guys said. Thank again!!!

[Harvmorbi]

Bought the Tamron 150-600. Used it for a month in Africa. I some amazing tack sharp photos at 600. Some shots were darker than I would like, my bad settings. but were fixed and looked very good in PS. Reading all the good reviews about the Nikon 200-500 I bought it. I Used and tested it for another month. Compared the 2 lenses and photos and realized for me the Tamron was the better choice.

[EaveeDoesIt]

wow that wildlife at 5:10!!!! stunning!!