However, if you're used to lenses such as the 70-300mm or the 300mm PF, the Nikon 200-500mm will undoubtedly feel heavier in comparison. For example, even if I generally do not recommend using the Nikon 200-500 with teleconverters, I have used them before successfully, and so have other people I know. If you’re on a tripod, the situation is better, but going from 200 to 500mm is still a very long turn of the ring, and if you don’t grab the ring just right you’ll be doing the two-step, too.

While this might not be a deal-breaker for some, it's worth considering when evaluating the overall user experience.

Nevertheless, the lens boasts an exceptional five stops of VR, significantly improving its hand-holdability and making it easier to use in tight spaces and challenging terrains.

So looking at the pictures what did we conclude from our day at the beach using two different lenses to achieve the same result? Second, there is only one point of connection to the lens collar, located far on the back of the lens barrel, which means that most of that 2. I'm happy at maximum magnification at 320 of a second panning and still get a lot of good images at lower shutter speeds, 320 is my banker. Compared to the Nikon 200-500, the Nikon 300 PF shares many advantages with its predecessor, the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S.

This is also true for the superzooms at the extreme end of its focal length but not as noticeable as the prime. This is because primes have larger glass areas, have better quality glass and wider apertures, therefore letting in more light helping with the auto focus amongst other things. I shoot the 200-500mm as I shoot a rifle; you need to know how to hold it steady and pull the trigger slowly and smoothly for the best results.