# Nikon 200-500mm vs Canon 100-400mm II



## AlanF (Feb 13, 2016)

I have been following the reviews of the 200-500mm with great interest to see if it a superior alternative to Canon offerings. By coincidence, I was able to handle one yesterday and also TDP posted its image quality on the D3S.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1035&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

Reviews so far have frequently raved about the sharpness of the 200-500mm but there is near unanimity that its AF is slow for BIF. However, the MTFs on ePhotozine are not remarkable and you have to stop down to f/8 - f/11 for best sharpness. One I reviewer decided to keep his Sigma 150-600mm S as it was significantly sharper and sell the 200-500mm.

The TDP tests show it has much poorer IQ than the 100-400mm on the 1Ds3, and the Canon with a 1.4x TC is still sharper. In addition, the 100-400mm II on the 7DII has better IQ than the 200-500mm on Nikon FF and with more effective reach. The Nikon at 2.4 kg is more than 700 g heavier than the Canon lens. So, I am not tempted to migrate to the D500 + 200-500mm.


----------



## krisbell (Feb 13, 2016)

Many thanks for the comparison Alan. I am always trying to figure out the best portable, hand-holdable solution for distant wildlife and this helps put my mind at ease that I'm not missing out.


----------



## canonrumorstony (Feb 13, 2016)

Who cares what TDP tests show? Try looking at some real-world examples:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1379476/999999#lastmessage

You do not have to stop down for best sharpness and AF is good enough for BIF.

Advantages over the Canon 100-400: 500mm @ f5.6 compared to 400mm @ f5.6. 700mm @ f8 with a 1.4x TC compared to 560mm @f8 with a 1.4x TC. Less expensive.

Gives great results on my D5200 and am expecting much better performance with the D500.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2016)

canonrumorstony said:


> Who cares what TDP tests show?



People interesting in comparing lenses. 

Sure, good pictures can be taken with any lens, and manual focus can be used for BIF.


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 13, 2016)

canonrumorstony said:


> Who cares what TDP tests show? Try looking at some real-world examples:
> 
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1379476/999999#lastmessage
> 
> ...



Imagine if those images were taken with the 100-400LII...


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 13, 2016)

400mm Crop (640mm equivalent.) vs. 500mm Full Frame
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1035&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

400mm Full Frame vs. 400mm Full Frame
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1035&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Canon 400f5.6 Prime, best budget telephoto lens on the market for 23 years and counting.

I think Brian should re-review that lens, it still has a unique and significant place on the market and he hasn't got any 7DMkII or 5Ds samples.
(Mostly significant in the weight to performance ratio)
Not that the 200-500 is bad, the center portion of the image looks pretty good even at 500mm and it seems to me that the Nikon 200-500 has better contrast than most other telephoto zoom lenses. The CA shows up heavy in test charts, but it seems to be Nikon tradition to ignore CA since it's usually hard to notice in photographs, especially outdoor/nature type stuff.
And it is 500f5.6, that's still a dream come true in a lot of ways.

One thing I think I should note is that the "partial weather sealing" on the 400f5.6 Prime is a bit of a myth. I got a little ways in trying to disassemble mine after I dropped it (I have no fear when it comes to taking things apart), I got two body sections sort of apart, but more importantly I took some switches off and found nothing in the way of sealing, it's just hard plastic on metal body.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 14, 2016)

I think the 80-400 and the 100-400 are more comparable. However, the 200-500 is a good consumer option that Canon does not yet have.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2016)

eml58 said:


> And just to correct the mistake in the header, this Canon 200-400f/4 (1.4x) is still in it's original Version I iteration, there is no version II, yet.



I suggest you read the header again. The Canon *1*00-400 II is the lens under discussion.


----------



## eml58 (Feb 14, 2016)

I did & your right, my mistake & my apologies

I'll of course never make this mistake again.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2016)

9VIII said:


> 400mm Crop (640mm equivalent.) vs. 500mm Full Frame
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1035&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
> 
> 400mm Full Frame vs. 400mm Full Frame
> ...



Boy the 200-500 doesn't impress me in this illustration.

Jack


----------



## candc (Feb 14, 2016)

I took a gander at the posts on the fm forum for the 200-500. the shots look great. punchy and natural colors, good sharpness and nice bokeh. its definitely capable of delivering quality images. I gather from the write ups that the af and build quality are mediocre but the iq is good.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 14, 2016)

9VIII said:


> 400mm Crop (640mm equivalent.) vs. 500mm Full Frame
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1035&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
> 
> 400mm Full Frame vs. 400mm Full Frame
> ...



He has the 400/5.6 and the other lenses on the 60D, and you can compare those if you want to see their relative merits on crop. Here it is vs the 100-400mm II at 560mm. The development in lens technology over the past 20 years is so remarkable that a modern zoom can outperform an old prime.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1


----------



## AlanF (Feb 14, 2016)

Here are some representative reviews vs the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mms.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200-500mm_f5-6E_ED_VR/verdict.shtml

http://www.cardinalphoto.com/content/super-telephoto-zoom-shoot-out-nikon-200-500mm-f56-versus-sigma-150-600mm-sports

https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c/6

Different reviewers rate them in different orders for sharpness etc, which might reflect on copy variation. They are all capable of producing excellent images under the right conditions. Interestingly, one review describes the Nikon as being razor sharp close up but softer at longer distances, a comment which I have seen elsewhere. 

The Nikon is definitely sharper stopped down to f/11 - see https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-200-500mm-f-5-6e-ed-vr-review-28326

One of the big pluses of the 100-400mm II is the lack of copy variation, being made to an outstandingly consistent standard, as measured by lensrentals 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/08/canon-100-400-is-ii-mtf-and-variation-tests

It's safe to order a 100-400mm II from your favourite on-line retailer.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 16, 2016)

AlanF said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > 400mm Crop (640mm equivalent.) vs. 500mm Full Frame
> ...



You forgot to take the 1.4xTC off of the Prime lens.

Here's the 400f5.6 Prime on Full Frame with the 1.4xTC, where it handily beats the 100-400MkII. There's no doubt this lens is best utilized on Full Frame, if only f8 Autofocus were more prevalent.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

And here's the 400f5.6 Prime at the same focal length and with the same sensor as the 100-400MkII, where both lenses are nearly identical.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 16, 2016)

If you want to suggest that a modern zoom lens on crop is approaching parity with an old Full Frame Prime, then compare the 400f5.6+1.4xTC on Full Frame with the 100-400MkII on the 7DMkII.
The old prime lens has too much CA to look good on a high resolution crop sensor, you can tell that from just looking at the 60D samples, but the modern lens handles the extra detail quite well.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

It's still not quite equal IQ but the new lens handles cropping extremely well. Given how Autofocus slows down at f8, and the lack of AF points, it's easy to say that you're better off cropping the new lens than using a TC on the old one.

(Looking at this stuff really, really makes me wish Canon would make a Full Frame SL1. Most of the reason I only use my 400f5.6 on crop is just for the size of the body, but it's really a shame since the corners on that thing are so spectacular. That lens is really utilized best on Full Frame. *sigh*)


----------



## dslrdummy (Feb 16, 2016)

I never had a problem with the inherent IQ of the 400 5.6, only the lack of IS in low light situations.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 28, 2016)

Comprehensive review in https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

There is terrible sample variation, 2/5 copies were duds but the best was very good. The Nikon is better than the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm C (which brands also have bad sample variation). The Sigma S was the winner, as found in another review. Fortunately, as Lensrentals showed, the sample consistency of the 100-400mm II is superb.


----------



## TeT (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> canonrumorstony said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares what TDP tests show?
> ...



http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1379476/999999#lastmessage

I would go a step farther and submit that most PPl could not take that picture with the BEST lens & camera setup... There is alot to be said for comparing chart sharpness as well as looking at real life photographs. The chart should always be at its best, real life may be soft due to human input or sharp from Post and is never an apples to apples comparison..


----------



## Aglet (Mar 29, 2016)

krisbell said:


> Many thanks for the comparison Alan. I am always trying to figure out the best portable, hand-holdable solution for distant wildlife and this helps put my mind at ease that I'm not missing out.



The MFT mount 100-400mm Leica-Panasonic and the Fuji with same focal length will be on my consideration list as well for hand-held long glass this summer. The Sigma Sport is pretty good but it's a bigger beast.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 29, 2016)

I thought about the Panasonic-Leica 100-400mm long and hard as I am always on the lookout for lighter weight gear. It's tempting as the Panasonic GX8 is being sold cheaply at present. The lens is clearly superb and light. But, I decided against going that route after a lot of reading for the following reasons amongst others, which are pertinent to my own needs.

1. The diffraction limited aperture on M4/3 with a 20 mpx sensor is 5.9, slightly below the widest aperture of f/6.3 for the lens at 400mm. In practice, the lens has hardly any more real reach, if none at all, than a 400mm on a 7DII or 80D or 5DS, but has a very restricted field of view equivalent to an 800mm on FF, which makes it very difficult to use for birds in flight or even finding them when sitting still in a tree, as well as the drawback of being mirrorless.

2. I use the camera and lens as a spotting scope, and this would be more difficult with the GX8 at 400mm, as well as running down the battery very quickly.

There are one or two other problems. I think that you would be restricted to using the lens with Panasonic because the IS on the lens has to be coupled with that on the sensor. Despite being mirrorless, the camera has shutter shock and so has to be used with the electronic shutter at lower speeds.

If you are already into Panasonic, the 100-400mm would be an excellent acquisition and would provide many excellent shots. If you have Canon gear already, you would be sacrificing flexibility and a superior system, but it might be worth it if you didn't want to lug around 2.5 - 3kg.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 31, 2016)

AlanF said:


> 1. The diffraction limited aperture on M4/3 with a 20 mpx sensor is 5.9, slightly below the widest aperture of f/6.3 for the lens at 400mm. In practice, the lens has hardly any more real reach, if none at all, than a 400mm on a 7DII or 80D or 5DS, but has a very restricted field of view equivalent to an 800mm on FF, which makes it very difficult to use for birds in flight or even finding them when sitting still in a tree, as well as the drawback of being mirrorless.



that diffraction-limitation is not too big a deal at these still "normal" apertures, the output is still very good.
for BIF ML may still be a drawback in some shooting scenarios. I don't do this sort of thing enough to appreciate all there is to it.




> 2. I use the camera and lens as a spotting scope, and this would be more difficult with the GX8 at 400mm, as well as running down the battery very quickly.



but not so difficult at 100mm and them zooming in with a stabilized display to assist.
battery life - agreed.



> There are one or two other problems. I think that you would be restricted to using the lens with Panasonic because the IS on the lens has to be coupled with that on the sensor. Despite being mirrorless, the camera has shutter shock and so has to be used with the electronic shutter at lower speeds.



we don't yet know if Oly's 5-axis system, designed to work in tandem with the OIS on their new 300mm lens, is also set to work with the 100-400 Pany. It might, at least, provide roll correction using the IBIS.



> If you are already into Panasonic, the 100-400mm would be an excellent acquisition and would provide many excellent shots. If you have Canon gear already, you would be sacrificing flexibility and a superior system, but it might be worth it if you didn't want to lug around 2.5 - 3kg.



I'm considering the 100-400 Pany as an add-on to my EM10, ATM. I may get the EM1 or its v2 eventually, in which case I'd expect a bit better overall performance, but still get the reach with my current MFT body.
OTOH, the 100-400 Fuji on my XT1/10 bodies should work quite decently as well. The new XT2 may have the same or better improvements as the X Pro 2 which could up overall performance a bit more.

I'm tempted to buy a bazooka zoom for my FF Nikon but the uses I generally have for long lenses don't lend themselves to large prints so the overall IQ of the Fuji, or even the MFT systems, would suffice for me.

It's nice to have choices, even if there isn't one all-around perfect match.


----------

