Please help me choose: Thank you for the interesting topics. I would like to purchase a Nikon 80-400 or a Nikon 200-500 for the Nikon 810 that I really enjoy using. I have shorter...

popcornjuice

Thank you for the interesting topics.
I would like to purchase a Nikon 80-400 or a Nikon 200-500 for the Nikon 810 that I really enjoy using.
I have shorter prime lenses and am interested in the 400 or 500 aspects.
I have rented both and obtained super results with both.
The 80-400 is more mobile, the 500 gets in closer......
The older 80-400 is more expensive.
Any thoughts that might help me decide, please?
stan@popcornjuice.com

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Personally, I would go for the more mobile. What good is a lot of reach if you don't take it with you because of its weight? When I was shooting Nikon, I had a 70-200 that was lovely. But... Because of its bulk, I rarely used it.

popcornjuice

thank you

Eddy Vortex

I went with the 18-400 because of the lighter weight. !.7 lb versus 5 lb.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Had both and for my money the 200-500 works very well.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

popcornjuice wrote:

Thank you for the interesting topics.
I would like to purchase a Nikon 80-400 or a Nikon 200-500 for the Nikon 810 that I really enjoy using.
I have shorter prime lenses and am interested in the 400 or 500 aspects.
I have rented both and obtained super results with both.
The 80-400 is more mobile, the 500 gets in closer......
The older 80-400 is more expensive.
Any thoughts that might help me decide, please?
stan@popcornjuice.com

The Nikon AFS 80-400mm model is a true gold ring Pro Nikon 5X zoom lens featuring NANO coatings and weather sealing amongst its many Pro features, its only detraction is the variable aperture used to attain the 5X zoom range . The Nikon 200-500mm is a non-sealed consumer level lens that has fantastic optics! Its also only a 2.5X zoom range because of its fixed F5.6 aperture which most of us view as a plus.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

popcornjuice wrote:

Thank you for the interesting topics.
I would like to purchase a Nikon 80-400 or a Nikon 200-500 for the Nikon 810 that I really enjoy using.
I have shorter prime lenses and am interested in the 400 or 500 aspects.
I have rented both and obtained super results with both.
The 80-400 is more mobile, the 500 gets in closer......
The older 80-400 is more expensive.
Any thoughts that might help me decide, please?
stan@popcornjuice.com

Contrary to most folks here I have found the 200-500 to be sharper than the 80-400, and, it is less expensive. But not weather sealed. But again, I never shoot in the rain so it makes no difference to me. Also, on a full frame camera like the 810, you get 100 more mm with the 200-500. And, to be honest, the older 80-400 did not have a good reputation. I had one an quickly got rid of it.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

popcornjuice wrote:

Thank you for the interesting topics.
I would like to purchase a Nikon 80-400 or a Nikon 200-500 for the Nikon 810 that I really enjoy using.
I have shorter prime lenses and am interested in the 400 or 500 aspects.
I have rented both and obtained super results with both.
The 80-400 is more mobile, the 500 gets in closer......
The older 80-400 is more expensive.
Any thoughts that might help me decide, please?
stan@popcornjuice.com

You stated three of your own assessments. If money is a problem, now you have two. You pull the trigger. The outside answers will only be their prejudices.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

popcornjuice wrote:

Thank you for the interesting topics.
I would like to purchase a Nikon 80-400 or a Nikon 200-500 for the Nikon 810 that I really enjoy using.
I have shorter prime lenses and am interested in the 400 or 500 aspects.
I have rented both and obtained super results with both.
The 80-400 is more mobile, the 500 gets in closer......
The older 80-400 is more expensive.
Any thoughts that might help me decide, please?
stan@popcornjuice.com

Either or. Both are good lenses. You tried both now you have make up your mind.

Largobob

billnikon wrote:

Contrary to most folks here I have found the 200-500 to be sharper than the 80-400, and, it is less expensive. But not weather sealed. But again, I never shoot in the rain so it makes no difference to me. Also, on a full frame camera like the 810, you get 100 more mm with the 200-500. And, to be honest, the older 80-400 did not have a good reputation. I had one an quickly got rid of it.

I agree with Bill. I shoot with a D810, which is full frame and relatively high resolution (36MB)...and it DEMANDS good glass. I have culled my lens selection down to: a 24-70mm f/2.8; a 70-200mm f/2.8; a 200-500 f/5.6; and a 105mm f2.8 Micro....all Nikkor and all VR. These lenses cover the range of 24-500mm without overlap and are of excellent optical quality. Although other companies produce very excellent lenses....I stick with Nikkor which provide fast and accurate autofocus, and a build quality that will last a lifetime. Warning: None of these lenses are lightweight nor inexpensive....except for the 200-500mm (which sells new for approx. $1,400).

I have attached a jpeg of a Wood Stork taken with the 200-500mm. Sorry, but it is the only example I have on this computer. It was taken hand-held, at 500mm, in very harsh early morning light, and I missed the intended focal point (the eye). I have additional and better examples of images taken with the 200-500....but not on this computer. Try double download.

Wood Stork
Wood Stork...

(Download)

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Both are excellent lenses from what I know. You have used both and with all due respect you should know by now which one fits your purpose better.
You mentioned that the old 80-400 is more expensive, or that is what I understood. The simple answer is NO, the new version is over $2000 while excellent samples of the old screw driven lens can be bought used for around $500. I have and use the old version.

Nikon1201

I don’t understand why people aske for advice in choosing a lense . Before I bought my 50-500 I rented one , that’s what you should do . Rent each one for a weekend and decide for yourself . Then you will know and can’t blame anyone for bad advise.

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

How about the 80-400 and a teleconverter if you find yourself needing that extra reach.

Largobob

Nikon1201 wrote:

I don’t understand why people aske for advice in choosing a lense . Before I bought my 50-500 I rented one , that’s what you should do . Rent each one for a weekend and decide for yourself . Then you will know and can’t blame anyone for bad advise.

I agree, Nikon1201. If you decide to rent them, I suggest you rent both at the same time, so that you can do some controlled comparison shots...with same subject, lighting conditions, distances, apertures, shutter speeds, magnifications, etc. If you don't write everything down...your EXIF data will provide the information. Pixels are cheap! A poor lens decision...not so much.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Nikon1201 wrote:

I don’t understand why people aske for advice in choosing a lense . Before I bought my 50-500 I rented one , that’s what you should do . Rent each one for a weekend and decide for yourself . Then you will know and can’t blame anyone for bad advise.