Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Nikon 200-500 vs 70-200 2.8 with 1.7 converter?

zoom lens for sport telephoto comparison

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1
Iain

Iain

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Country Flag

For some time I have had a 70-200 2.8 paired with a D500 which, for the majority of photos is fine; the majority of my photography is of kayaking events which provide fast moving subjects and variable distances.  However, reach is sometimes an issue and heavy cropping can be required.  To try get over this, I have a 1.7 converter to further boost my 70-200 to 510mm with the crop factor.  Not satisfied, I have recently tried the 200-500 5.6 but I have to say that I really am on the fence if the £1,000 spent on this lens is worth while.  Results have been ok but the sharpness does not seem to be the same as with the 70-200 and some more distant photos e.g. 80mtrs have been disappointing.  Perhaps, as an amateur, I am expecting too much and should not expect the quality I see in similar photos taken by others on full-frame cameras and prime lenses.

 

Grateful for any views about this dilemma.



#2
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

Neither, if you want really crisp shots @ 340 mm. The AF-S 80-400 or either 100-400 from Sigma or Tamron are better choices on your D500.

 

Here is a sample @ 330 mm with the 80-400.

gallery_1251_619_150448.jpg



#3
fallout666

fallout666

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Locationcfl area of space coast

i have one for my gen 1 70-200mm but to slow on Z6 so going to give  to bother when i see him so get 2 new lenses and teleconverter 



#4
Iain

Iain

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Country Flag

Peter, thanks for your input.  Have done some reading around the 80-400 and have bagged a used (mint) lens for £1,100 which I will collect later today and will be using to photograph a national kayak competition over the weekend.  I will let you know how I get on.



#5
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

Good luck! I know you will like it as long as it is the AF-S version you have got. I know I could handhold mine for ridiculously long exposures. The Harvards in my example shoot were at 1/60 to get those full prop discs.

#6
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

I don’t think the 200~500 ever received particularly high marks for sharpness. Most of the reviews I read when it was first released stated that the lens was mediocre at best. Certainly not as sharp as the the 70~200 f/2.8. 

 

Peter, I was today’s years old when I discovered that the RAF version of the AT-6 Texan was called a Harvard. 

 

—Ron







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: zoom lens for sport, telephoto, comparison