I’ll start this post now, to grab a position, just below Philip and Gary... and then edit as needed.
I have had the 500PF and 200-500 for years now.
Philip’s comment on the 500PF focusing is right.
My 500PF’s huge advantage is its lightweight. It’s a “walk-about” 500. However, I sometimes have fits trying to focus the 500PF, but that may be partly due to my daltonism. Literally, I am blind to the red or green boxes against foliage.
After reading the 2 above posts, I compared the AF of the 500PF to the 200-500. The 500PF AF is “snappy” while the 2-5 is smooth and slower but usually sufficient in speed.
Gary’s post is very informative. I remember when all zooms were too soft. As I look back on my loon work, the 200-500 has been the most valuable of the two above lenses. All my captures of loons "taking to flight" were done with the 2-5 (and it's considered slow to AF?) But its weight is too much. Yes, I can still heft it. No, I do not want to. But I will continue to deal with the weight.... simply because I need the versatility of a super telephoto zoom. In loon work both the watercraft and the loons are always moving.
I’ve combined Gary’s assessment of the 180-600, with Terry Vander Heiden's “deep dive” into it. I’ve been putting off buying this lens. While editing this post, I ordered it. I hope I become as excited about it as everyone is
Edited after shooting it a few days: Here are reasons I love it! I can zoom the entire 200-600 range with just one sweep of my thumb. I shoot long lenses at f8; this lens is very sharp. It has the smoothest VR I've ever experienced. Thanks Nikon for such a great lens at a great price.
Jun 12, 2025 at 09:00 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
I’ll start this post now, to grab a position, just below Philip and Gary... and then edit as needed.
I have had the 500PF and 200-500 for years now.
Philip’s comment on the 500PF focusing is right.
My 500PF’s huge advantage is its lightweight. It’s a “walk-about” 500. However, I sometimes have fits trying to focus the 500PF, but that may be partly due to my daltonism. Literally, I am blind to the red or green boxes against foliage.
After reading the 2 above posts, I compared the AF of the 500PF to the 200-500. The 500PF AF is “snappy” while the 2-5 is smooth and slower but usually sufficient in speed.
Gary’s post is very informative. I remember when all zooms were too soft. As I look back on my loon work, the 200-500 has been the most valuable of the two above lenses. All my captures of loons "taking to flight" were done with the 2-5 (and it's considered slow to AF?) But its weight is too much. Yes, I can still heft it. No, I do not want to. But I will continue to deal with the weight.... simply because I need the versatility of a super telephoto zoom. In loon work both the watercraft and the loons are always moving.
I’ve combined Gary’s assessment of the 180-600, with Terry Vander Heiden's “deep dive” into it. I’ve been putting off buying this lens. While editing this post, I ordered it. I hope I become as excited about it as everyone is
Edited after shooting it a few days: Here are reasons I love it! I can zoom the entire 200-600 range with just one sweep of my thumb. I shoot long lenses at f8 and this lens t is very sharp. It has the smoothest VR I've ever experienced. Thanks Nikon for such a great lens at a great price.
Jun 12, 2025 at 08:58 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
I’ll start this post now, to grab a position, just below Philip and Gary... and then edit as needed.
I have had the 500PF and 200-500 for years now.
Philip’s comment on the 500PF focusing is right.
My 500PF’s huge advantage is its lightweight. It’s a “walk-about” 500. However, I sometimes have fits trying to focus the 500PF, but that may be partly due to my daltonism. Literally, I am blind to the red or green boxes against foliage.
After reading the 2 above posts, I compared the AF of the 500PF to the 200-500. The 500PF AF is “snappy” while the 2-5 is smooth and slower but usually sufficient in speed.
Gary’s post is very informative. I remember when all zooms were too soft. As I look back on my loon work, the 200-500 has been the most valuable of the two above lenses. All my captures of loons "taking to flight" were done with the 2-5 (and it's considered slow to AF?) But its weight is too much. Yes, I can still heft it. No, I do not want to. But I will continue to deal with the weight.... simply because I need the versatility of a super telephoto zoom. In loon work both the watercraft and the loons are always moving.
I’ve combined Gary’s assessment of the 180-600, with Terry Vander Heiden's “deep dive” into it. I’ve been putting off buying this lens. While editing this post, I ordered it. I hope I become as excited about it as everyone is
Edited after shooting it a few days: I love it! I can zoom the entire 200-600 range with just one stroke of my thumb. It is very sharp. It has the smoothest VR I've ever experienced. Thanks Nikon for such a great lens at a great price.
Jun 12, 2025 at 08:54 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
I’ll start this post now, to grab a position, just below Philip and Gary... and then edit as needed.
I have had the 500PF and 200-500 for years now.
Philip’s comment on the 500PF focusing is right.
My 500PF’s huge advantage is its lightweight. It’s a “walk-about” 500. However, I sometimes have fits trying to focus the 500PF, but that may be partly due to my daltonism. Literally, I am blind to the red or green boxes against foliage.
After reading the 2 above posts, I compared the AF of the 500PF to the 200-500. The 500PF AF is “snappy” while the 2-5 is smooth and slower but usually sufficient in speed.
Gary’s post is very informative. I remember when all zooms were too soft. As I look back on my loon work, the 200-500 has been the most valuable of the two above lenses. All my captures of loons "taking to flight" were done with the 2-5 (and it's considered slow to AF?) But its weight is too much. Yes, I can still heft it. No, I do not want to. But I will continue to deal with the weight.... simply because I need the versatility of a super telephoto zoom. In loon work both the watercraft and the loons are always moving.
I’ve combined Gary’s assessment of the 180-600, with Terry Vander Heiden's “deep dive” into it. I’ve been putting off buying this lens. While editing this post, I ordered it. I hope I become as excited about it as everyone is
Jun 06, 2025 at 12:55 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
I’ll start this post now, to grab a position, just below Philip and Gary... and then edit as needed.
I have had the 500PF and 200-500 for years now.
Philip’s comment on the 500PF focusing is right.
My 500PF’s huge advantage is its lightweight. It’s a “walk-about” 500. However, I sometimes have fits trying to focus the 500PF, but that may be partly due to my daltonism. Literally, I am blind to the red or green boxes against foliage.
After reading the 2 above posts, I compared the AF of the 500PF to the 200-500. The 500PF AF is “snappy” while the 2-5 is smooth and slower but usually sufficient in speed.
Gary’s post is very informative. I remember when all zooms were too soft. As I look back on my loon work, the 200-500 has been the most valuable of the two above lenses. All my captures of loons "taking to flight" were done with the 2-5 (and it's considered slow to AF?) But its weight is too much. Yes, I can still heft it. No, I do not want to. But I will continue to deal with the weight.... simply because I need the versatility of a super telephoto zoom. In loon work both the watercraft and the loons are always moving.
I’ve combined Gary’s assessment of the 180-600, with Terry Vander Heiden's “deep dive” into it. I’ve been putting off buying this lens. While editing this post.....I ordered it. I hope I become as excited about it as everyone is
Jun 06, 2025 at 12:54 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
I’ll start this post now, to grab a position, just below Philip and Gary... and then edit as needed.
I have had the 500PF and 200-500 for years now.
Philip’s comment on the 500PF focusing is right.
My 500PF’s huge advantage is its lightweight. It’s a “walk-about” 500. However, I sometimes have fits trying to focus the 500PF, but that may be partly due to my daltonism. Literally, I am blind to the red or green boxes against foliage.
After reading the 2 above posts, I compared the AF of the 500PF to the 200-500. The 500PF AF is “snappy” while the 2-5 is smooth and slower but usually sufficient in speed.
Gary’s post is very informative. I remember when all zooms were too soft. As I look back on my loon work, the 200-500 has been the most valuable of the two above lenses. All my captures of loons "taking to flight" were done with the 2-5 (and it's considered slow to AF?) But its weight is too much. Yes, I can still heft it. No, I do not want to. But I will continue to deal with the weight.... simply because I need the versatility of a super telephoto zoom.
In loon work both the watercraft and the loons are always moving.
I’ve combined Gary’s assessment of the 180-600, with Terry Vander Heiden's “deep dive” into it. I’ve been putting off buying this lens. While editing this post.....I ordered it. I hope I become as excited about it as everyone is
Jun 06, 2025 at 12:00 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
I’ll start this post now, to grab a position, just below Philip and Gary... and then edit as needed.
I have had the 500PF and 200-500 for years now.
Philip’s comment on the 500PF focusing is right.
My 500PF’s huge advantage is its lightweight. It’s a “walk-about” 500. However, I sometimes have fits trying to focus the 500PF, but that may be partly due to my daltonism. Literally, I am blind to the red or green boxes against foliage.
After reading the 2 above posts, I compared the AF of the 500PF to the 200-500. The 500PF AF is “snappy” while the 2-5 is smooth and slower but usually sufficient in speed.
Gary’s post is very informative. I remember when all zooms were too soft. As I look back on my loon work, the 200-500 has been the most valuable of the two above lenses. All my captures of loons "taking to flight" were done with the 2-5 (and it's considered slow to AF?) But its weight is too much. Yes, I can still heft it. No, I do not want to. But I will continue to deal with the weight.... simply because I need the versatility of a super telephoto zoom.
In loon work both the watercraft and the loons are always moving.
I’ve combined Gary’s assessment of the 180-600, with Terry Vander Heiden's “deep dive” into it. I’ve been putting off buying this lens. While editing this post.....I ordered it. I hope I become as excited about it as everyone is
Jun 06, 2025 at 11:58 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
I’ll start this post now, to grab a position, just below Philip and Gary... and then edit as needed.
I have had the 500PF and 200-500 for years now.
Philip’s comment on the 500PF focusing is right.
My 500PF’s huge advantage is its lightweight. It’s a “walk-about” 500. However, I sometimes have fits trying to focus the 500PF, but that may be partly due to my daltonism. Literally, I am blind to the red or green boxes against foliage.
After reading the 2 above posts, I compared the AF of the 500PF to the 200-500. The 500PF AF is “snappy” while the 2-5 is smooth and slower but usually sufficient in speed.
Gary’s post is very informative. I remember when all zooms were too soft. As I look back on my loon work, the 200-500 has been the most valuable of the two above lenses. All my captures of loons "taking to flight" were done with the 2-5 (and it's considered slow to AF?) But its weight is too much. Yes, I can still heft it. No, I do not want to. But I will continue to deal with the weight.... simply because I need the versatility of a super telephoto zoom.
In my loon work both the watercraft and the loons are always moving.
I’ve combined Gary’s assessment of the 180-600, with Terry Vander Heiden's “deep dive” into it.
Jun 06, 2025 at 11:02 AM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
I’ll start this post now, to grab a position, just below Philip and Gary... and then edit as needed.
I have had the 500PF and 200-500 for years now.
Philip’s comment on the 500PF focusing is right.
My 500PF’s huge advantage is its lightweight. It’s a “walk-about” 500. However, I sometimes have fits trying to focus the 500PF, but that may be partly due to my daltonism. Literally, I am blind to the red or green boxes against foliage.
After reading the 2 above posts, I compared the AF of the 500PF to the 200-500. The 500PF AF is “snappy” while the 2-5 is smooth and slower but usually sufficient in speed.
Gary’s post is very informative. I remember when all zooms were too soft. As I look back on my loon work, the 200-500 has been the most valuable of the two above lenses. All my captures of loons "taking to flight" were done with the 2-5 (and it's considered slow to AF?) But its weight is too much. Yes, I can still heft it. No, I do not want to. But I will continue to deal with the weight.... simply because I need the versatility of a super telephoto zoom.
In my loon work both the watercraft and the loons are always moving.
I’ve combined Gary’s assessment of the 180-600, with Terry Vander Heiden “deep dive” into it
I’ll start this post now, to grab a position, just below Philip and Gary... and then edit as needed
My 500PF’s huge advantage is its lightweight. It’s a “walk-about” 500. However, I sometimes have fits trying to focus the 500PF, but that may be partly due to my daltonism. Literally, I am blind to the red or green boxes against foliage.
After reading the 2 above posts by Philip and Gary, I compared the AF of the 500PF to the 200-500. The 500PF AF is “snappy” while the 2-5 is smooth and slower but sufficeint in speed.
