# Nikon 200-500 reviewed!!



## sanj (Aug 5, 2015)

How on earth can anyone review a lens which is still not being sold!?! 
Hint: I am not allowed to name the person here.


----------



## K (Aug 5, 2015)

The same is true of the 24-70 2.8 VR

This person is just going by MTF charts and specifications and a little speculation too. But all that is admitted in the reviews.

Personally, I like the MTF chart as a measurement of optical quality. Truth is, it is the only real measure anyway. All other tests involve including the camera and then it is more of a system test, not a lens test. At least when comparing Canon to Nikon. Within the same system, a single body can be used to compare output.

The charts provided by the manufacturers are very close, almost identical to what independent testers find when conducting the same tests. So they seem fairly trustworthy. I find this more helpful than going by RAW image comparisons. There's just too many variables involved in photography that one blogger can make a lens and camera combo look world-class, the other can make it look mediocre.

The way I use RAW image comparisons is to collect many images from several testers and build a consensus opinion. That is, when I can't test the stuff myself. Even then, I still like to compare to others, since individual samples can vary too. Not all bodies and lenses of the same model are exactly the same. I can't test 4-5 24-70 2.8's in a row to eliminate the possibility that one is flawed.

If the 200-500 is reasonable on image quality, it will be a big hit. I'm not expecting miracles here for the price point. Especially from Nikon. Nikon has tremendous value in their bodies, but their glass is, in my opinion, over priced.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 5, 2015)

K said:


> The charts provided by the manufacturers are very close, almost identical to what independent testers find when conducting the same tests.



Sorry, but no. First off, no independent testers conduct the same tests, because the manufacturers (with the exception of Zeiss) aren't testing anything – their MTF charts are generated in silico from the optical design of the lens. Second, Roger Cicala tested a 10 copies each of several lenses from Canon, Nikon and Sigma on his optical bench and commented that none of them measured up to those theoretical MTF charts.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 5, 2015)

It's a placeholder. It'll change once it's "reviewed."

I'm not sure how popular it'll be. It's ~1.5 lb heavier than the 100-400 II, and why a constant f/5.6?


----------



## old-pr-pix (Aug 5, 2015)

KR is at his finest! Calling the Tamron lenses "junk brand" and likely " they will not work with whatever new camera you buy ten years from now." That comes right after explaining how the new Nikon won't work properly on Nikon cameras pre-2007. (My math says that was only 8 years ago!) What a hypocrite!

Great plug for the Canon 100-400L II at the end.

Oh, and don't buy from your local retail outlet 'cuz they might slip you a used lens in a new box. Only use the links from KR's page so he gets the revenue! You tell 'em KR.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 5, 2015)

Ken rockwell already has his reviews up and surprisingly tells you to buy them all ... what a guy.


----------

