I made the initial and singular comment below it was not in any way personal and I did not resort to name calling ..I did not make a direct response to MT but posted casual. I also provided information on other important criteria that everyone should consider in purchasing a lens.

This was my initial post. I never mentioned MT by name.

"This is not the way to compare lenses. All lenses are sharp in the middle, but getting the image sharp edge to edge is another question. There are other significant differences between these two. There are more elements and groups in the 200-400, just more glass. The 200-400 has nano-crystal coating to reduce flares, the 200-500 does not, it also has more ED glass. Better lenses significantly reduce chromatic aberration and distortion. Better lenses also increase color tones and saturation. They have superior optics, materials and are in part hand assembled. The optics are just better in the pro line. Between these two there is a significant weight difference. I am not able to ascertain whether or not all the elements are actually glass. Cheaper lenses often use a polycarbonate substitute."

MT responded with ....

"Simple fact is that Nikon has not introduced a new lens with "VR 1" technology in 7 years. Wake up and check spec sheets before you feel the need to make more of these inept remarks."

AND

"When you feel the desire to make these inept attempts to discredit someone, think ahead at the end result of your idiotic posts. No one comes away from this looking more foolish than you, as always.
Please take a remedial reading course so you can better inform yourself on facts.....of, I forgot, facts have no place in your posts."

"Inept comments", "idiotic posts", "Foolish", "Take a remedial reading course" etc...

PLEASE TELL ME WHO WAS OUT OF LINE???? TELL ME WHO STARTED THE NAME CALLING AND INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS??? Is MT allowed to make these comments but others in a response can not?????? That can not be fair. So based upon my initial response and MT's follow up. WHO SHOULD GET TOSSED????

MT is a very small time camera store owner in Montana. He is neither an expert on technology or photography. He does not have the equipment, processes or experience to make any comparisons, especially about today's most sophisticated camera lenses. The methodology he deployed in this comparison is faulty, incorrect and misleading. He left out critical criteria as I mentioned, including the fact that the 200-500 is an external zoom while the 200-400 is internal. All of that information is going to be necessary if you are going to make an expensive decision.

MT's conclusion based upon the two images he posted ... "To me it appears the new 200-500 model holds its own VERY well, especially at less than 1/4 the price!" (of the 200-400 f/4)

Really? Is this a sufficient summary for anyone here to make a decision on a purchase? Did anyone consider the fact that MT might be promoting this lens to sell? http://www.cameracottage.com/

If you went on Nikonians, you would never find an analysis like this.. This is a group that gets deep into technical specifications, charts, graphs, and more importantly actual field use. They produce articles, tutorials and access is either on a free or fee basis. The people who respond to questions and inquiries are actual experts. And when DP Review gets around to publishing its own, there will be 20 or more pages, examining every facet and nuance, filled with charts, graphs and other comparisons, as will DxO Mark.

My point, if I have not been clear is that there are much better and complete sources for analysis that should be used. No one should be attacked as I was for making such a reference or recommendation.

It was discouraging to find that several of you grouped up and began to attack spelling errors and grammar to discredit, disparage and demean while never considering or discussing the substance and content of my post. Why? And after reviewing the individuals postings on these forums, it was clear that these nondescript members could never discuss aberration, lens coatings, optics and alike because they have little experience and fewer skill sets, knowledge or abilities. It appears that spelling was the only thing they could find fault. That indeed is very sad. And when I mentioned that I have issues in my hands and arms from my military service, some of you even attacked that!!! Those are the saddest individuals.

My wife and I are headed to Stockholm in July to visit family and friends. This is my first trip to Sweden and I'm trolling for advice on what I should see and/or photograph. We'll visit the old town and go for at least one drive in the countryside, but aside from admiring a new baby our schedule is pretty open. I'm sure we will visit some museums, particularly Natural History and Science, though we don't have these nailed down yet.
I'm taking my Nikon D7000 and three lenses, the Tamron 18-270 zoom, the Tokina f4 12-28 wide angle zoom and the MicroNikkor 60 macro lens. I promised my wife I wouldn't bring my travel tripod to lug around and I'm trying to decide if I'll need my Metz flash unit. Any suggestions are welcome!