runakid Loc: Shelbyville, TN

At the long end what is the advantage of me buying the newer 500 5.6? I love the 200-500 but wonder what if?

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Usually, the difference between long primes and zooms are corner to corner sharpness, better contrast (t-stops), less distortion and CA, as well as a larger aperture. Let's forget about weight and bulk for a moment. In this case aperture is a wash and with modern PP software distortion and CA are not really an issue, so you are down to outer edge sharpness and better contrast. For wildlife photographers, especially birders, you are cropping out the corners anyway. So, are you actually seeing problems with the IQ of your 200-500mm f/5.6? If you can't see it, don't spend the money. Spend time on technique, which usually yields better results than better equipment.

PS: Take this with a gain of salt as this is from a guy who started out with a Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 G2, added a Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 with a 1.4x teleconverter and then added a Nikon 600mm f/4.

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

The 500PF is the easy winner at the long end. It's sharper all around, AF is faster, it's weather sealed, it's lighter, it's smaller (great for getting into tight places), and it includes memory set / function buttons.I haven't used my 200-500 since getting it.

Also, don't dismiss superior edge sharpness too quickly - it comes in handy for tight verticals. :)

I have a review out there for the 500PF and I do compare it to the 200-500. Admin doesn't like me posting links, so you'll have to google Steve Perry 500 PF review.

Drip Dry McFleye

I went for the 500PF because of weight and physical size. It's a great lens and I have no regrets. BUT zoom-ablitiy is also a huge benefit not to be ignored. Unless you are the Olympic gold medal winner in the lens changing event you just can't have it all. More seriously, if you can deal with the weight and bulk of the 200-500 I'd work on getting the best you can with what you already have. The 500PF will cost you 3 times what you have invested in your current lens.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

How about posting the link in the Links Section, then posting here that you have done so? That ought to satisfy Admin and us readers.

runakid Loc: Shelbyville, TN

Thanks for all the posts. AND Steve I will check out your review.

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

I use and shoot both in Florida wetlands. One big advantage of the 200-500 is that it is a zoom and sometimes your too close (sometimes) and the zoom is really nice to have. You can also compose your shot with a variable zoom vs. a prime lens.
Both deliver very sharp images.
The one big advantage of the prime 500 5.6 is the weight. The 500 5.6 is weather proofed (not water proof) but I never take my camera's and lenses out into the rain. I carry a Walmart plastic bag just in case it starts to R.(I never say the R word, bad luck)
Both lenses focus fast and accurately. The 200-500 on the D500 body is one bad ass wildlife combo that has delivered many award winning photo's for me. That said I really like the portability of the 500 5.6. But on the d500 is gives me a field of view of 750 mm. Which, is too much sometimes to capture a large bird, a Sandhill Colt or Blue Heron if your too close.
So, If I were you the question comes down to cost, you know what the 500 5.6 costs. So, your decision.
Below are two images, both have won awards, the first was taken with the 200-500 hand held on a Nikon D4s. The second was taken with a 500 5.6 on a D850, also hand held. Check out the open mouth on the brown water snake.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

runakid Loc: Shelbyville, TN

Beautiful photos. Great logic too. Probably keep what I have for now.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

The biggest difference that I know of, can you find a 500 5.6 for sale any where?

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

I shoot rocket launches, & after shedding my old 400mm Goliath of a heavy lens purchased the 200-500. I was immediately struck the first time I used it was the physical length when fully extended to 500 mm. I started looking at the lenses in my bag...The 70-200 covered a great bit & I decided with a 1.4 or 1.7 teleconverter I could easily fill in the “gap” between 200-500. With Steve Perry’s assistance I was able to immediately locate a location in Chicago & Detroit (ProCam.com) that had a new 500 mm, which I purchased. I’m amazed at the speed the new 500 operates and capabilities. Essentially the same size as a 70-200 & about the same weight.

Lagoonguy Loc: New Smyrna Beach, FL

I recently got lucky and picked up a Nikon 500 PF from Adorama to use with a D500. I reacted on impulse when seeing it magically available and I am so glad I did. I ruled out the 200-500 due to it being 30 ounces heavier than the 500 PF. At least I know that if the photos don’t measure up it’s not the equipment that’s the problem.

Richard HZ Loc: Indiana, US

Hello Steve, Watched your review a few times. Love your this review and many other reviews! I have both lens and love the 500mm/PF. It is just much easier to handle with excellent results. I can put into my camera bag along with 70-200mm/2.8, 24-70mm, macro 105mm for travel. Just leave other lens such as 800mm, 400mm and of course 200-500mm at home. Thanks!

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

Amen

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I own both lenses. Since I received the 500PF it has never left my D500, although when I was out shooting yesterday I did bring the 200-500 along but it sat in its case. The bokeh is so much better with the 500PF and it is so easy to hand hold for a long period of time. The images are also much sharper. I like having both lenses.

photoman43

I own and use the 500mm f5.6 often with a Nikon 1.4x tc.. It is on my D500 all the time. For my needs a prime makes the most sense for me as I need max reach 99% of the time. And it is smaller and lighter than the 200-500mm. It all comes down to your needs and budget.