yes! he talks fast, but, delivers smoothly.

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

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

What gimbal is recommended for the 200-500?

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

Thanks :)

Definitely agreed. Top notch review.

Could not possibly agree more!

Well said!

Fro disagrees!

yes great work

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

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

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

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/

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 :)

JaseEvoX aaa

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

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.

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.

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

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

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/

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

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.

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. :)

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

@@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.

Smart Cat Collar Project similar to canons

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

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

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

Thanks :)

like all 5.6 zooms

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

Patrick Fitzgerald where did you hear that

Go to Tony Northrup's KZfaq channel and search "crop factor" for a detailed review.

Careful now... I like Tony, but in this case I think he causes more confusion than necessary. First, there is no difference in exposure between crop and full frame cameras, none. If I shoot a lens at F4 and 1/500th of a second at ISO 400 on a full frame camera, that's going to be the exact same exposure I'd use on a crop camera. You do NOT bump the ISO to compensate. The numbers always stay the same. I've shot hundreds (probably thousands) of test shots between FX and DX and using the same ISO, F/Stop and shutter speed the exposure is identical. What Tony is referring to is equivalent depth of field for the same field of view. So, if I'm shooting a 200mm lens at F5.6 on my DX camera, the depth of field would look like a 300mm F8.4 on a full frame camera (again for the same field of view). Now, to take this one step further, there is actually no difference in FX and DX depth of field. If your the same distance from your subject, the DX camera simply has a tighter field of view. You an prove this to yourself easily - imagine you shoot an image with a D810 (FX). Now, take that image into Photoshop and crop it the the DX area - did the background magically become sharper? Of course not. The reason you get more DOF with a crop camera is simple - you either have to use a shorter lens or move back further than you would with an FX camera for the same field of view - and that's what Tony was trying to explain :)

Steve Perry thats what i was thinking. i was a bit confused by what he said.

I've seen that video. In your original statement, you say that you need to bump the ISO to compensate for the "effective aperture" and that's not the case. An exposure of 1/125th of a second at F8 at ISO 400 is the same on a DX or FX body - you DO NOT need to change the DX camera to 1/125th, F8 at ISO1200 to compensate for the extra 1.5 stop difference. If you do, you overexposure the shot. However, if you're referring to the fact that the ISO performance will be 1.5 stops worse, sure, that's correct and pretty common knowledge. The DX camera will have same noise level an FX camera does at ISO 1200 - I'm not arguing that.

LOL

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???

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" :)

Thanks!!!

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!

@@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.

@@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.

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

well, in normal country you walk into store and you test a few pieces yourself, or you order 3 of them and return 2. In other countries, you order it, wait for a month to show up at the store and then they look at you like you're an idiot if you want to unbox it there and take a photo with it.

I made the switch as well and no regrets. Nearly all my shots are in the 500-600mm range and above 1/640. I put a 1.4tc on it making it a 640mm @ F5.6 and can remove that if I need an extra stop. The added weight of the tc is hardly noticeable. I even added a tripod collar and carry my lightweight travel tripod. This setup is super lightweight and compact! Perfect for long walks around the woods or lakes etc.