I love the shallow DOF from the 1.8. Here are a couple I shot with the 105mm 1.4

nicely done

While most pros do use Canon is not because its preferred, the reason why many pros use canon is because many agencies like AP, Getty and Local newspapers are contracted by Canon.
Many of those same photogs tell me they prefer Nikon over Canon because Nikon lens are sharper, but they have to use Canon because they are contracted by their agencies to use Canon only.
Also those said photogs do NOT own their gear.

Ever heard of Murphy's Law?
If it can happen, it probably will..
There are those who buy protection in case "if" needed.
I guess I'll move along to other things and get back to photography,
I suggest you do the same.

Ridiculous comment!!
The law only requires for you to have minimum liability, but from what I see/hear & read, there are many uninsured motorist out there. Lets say one of those uninsured idiots run into my 2012 Tundra and I only have the minimum coverage, then Im screwed. This is why I get full coverage with rental, especially living in the Dallas metroplex area.
Homeowners insurance is usually 1% deductible, but you can opt for 2% or higher. I kept it at 1% as we just had a major hail storm in our area.
The cost for replacing my roof, fence and gutters wound up costing $18k, minus $3k for my deductable, I can get everything done and still have something left over.
I also have insurance on my camera gear via Hill & Ausher, I dont need it, but I would never recover if somebody were to steal my gear.
Bottom line , it pays to have the proper coverage if you can afford it.

Best answer is 80-years old = cheaper 200-500 lens, dont blame you there.
But, by you saying that you will be very careful means absolutely nothing for me bc I do believe accidents do and eventually will happen.
Why do we buy insurance for our cars, houses and medical? Because sooner or later we will have to use our insurance for accidents.
I shoot 3 to 4 times a week and sometimes 50 hour weeks as Im constantly on the go as I even travel for assignments, but I am very protective and
still manage to baby my gear, but sometimes accidents do happen.

Could potentially need to calibrate the lens to the camera body. The d500 has a great Auto Fine Tuning for lens calibration.

But, are you being fair when comparing the 200-500 to the vintage Nikkor lens of yesteryear and even the 200-400 in overall quality,
remember how strong the build construction of the housings are on those other lens? The 200-500 does not even come close to those lens.
I personally see the 200-500 to be a very nice lens, but will not last years of accidental bumping or banging bc of is cheaply made housing.

Bill, I think your comment might be a bit stretched.
The 200-500 is indeed sharp, but thats it after that, go a head and throw in the much cheaper price.
The weight factor is lighter bc the build quality is as cheap as they come, the rotating collar will surely
irritate most pros bc of the overall build construction as its clumsy as it feels sticky.
If your shooting in lower lit conditions, then forget of ever using the 200-500 f/5.6, as the 200-400 will still get very
usable images at f/4, however not as good as a 400 prime.
I can say the 200-500 is truly a very nice lens at a fraction of the cost from its pro versions, but I also feel those
lens will not last through the test of time, sooner or later they will get bumped enough to where the cheap telescopic
housing will not retract fully or even get sticky and eventually become hard to zoom.
IMO, the bottom line is you get what you pay for, but its still cheaper to buy a 200-500 and a D500 than a 200-400 vr2.
That selling point is a whole lot of bang for your buck!

Thank you sir, you are correct, but AP and probably about 90% of the sports media outlets are nothing more than media whores to Canon bc they practically
give away their gear, chalk this up to Canon's marketing strategy as they are second to none in this industry, which is why Sony will never get a piece of the pie.
You are no longer ignorant, as I now appoint you to journey man. :)

Why would you even say such a thing that the a9 is somewhat superior in most categories, when there are not enough real world events to
show side by side comparisons?
Lets see what the a9 can really do under some of the best and hardest sports to cover in volleyball & Lacrosse as well as Pro sports
in Hockey, Soccer & Football. The real true test for me will be with a 400 2.8 for most of those events, but Sony currently does not have one.
Im not saying the a9 is not a great camera, I am highly interested, but very much reserved until I know more about it, but IMO, the video certainly
did not help me out in saying 'YES I have to get this camera for sure.' However, I am looking to kick the tires a bit, but need much more proof.
BTW, I can get the exact same results with a D4s and even the D810 bc those conditions on the video are hardly anything to brag about.
Best of both worlds is good too.

Oh, in that case we will just let you believe that then.
You do know they were both released about a month apart from each other, in time for the Olympics.
BTW, who said it was the leading camera for the the 2016 Olympics, Canon or was it their marketing?
Who said it was the same for the 2016 NFL season?
Please provide me some legitimate links, and Im not talking about showing me pictures of a lot of canon photographers
all bunched up together.
Either your a homer or just ignorant when it comes to knowing the real reason why there are many canon shooters at these events.
I know you've never really shot these events before or even on a weekly basis, otherwise you would know the reasons why.
I implore you do your homework and holler back once you fine the real answers.

C'mon man, to go from 500 to 8000 shots per battery is totally ridiculous to have such a broad range.
Most legitimate reviews out there dont even claim close to those high numbers. So, is there a magic battery out
there that gets such high numbers while others are not so lucky? Which is it really?

D5 and 1DXII were also designed specifically for sports and wildlife while the current glass for both are the biggest assets, meanwhile sony just cannot compete in the super telephoto market. Not even third party companies like a sigma do not offer some of their best long lens in weather-sealed for sony.
Until sony produces a great 400 2.8 lens and many other excellent lens Nikon already has, then I would consider the possibilities of owning the a9.
Nikon still has the better higher rez screen and a much higher ISO rating.
I personally wouldn't mind entertaining the idea of getting the a9 and a medium lens for a 3rd body as I cover most of the major sporting events from college to the pros in the DFW area.

What makes the canon 1DX mk 2 the new leader? Because you say so?
Please, give me specifics and why you make these allegations.
Provide some legitimate links if you will.

How did sony wipe out the D5?
The sony is a very impressive camera.
I would still prefer to see the A9 in action for soccer, volleyball, Lacrosse & Football, bc these sporting events will truly test the cameras.
IMO, the tests of one person running towards you and two fighters sparring in the same place are hardly the ultimate of tests.
You still have to factor in the cost of buying new lens and Sony still does NOT make a 400 2.8 lens, which is highly recommended for soccer and football.
I know sony can use an A mounted adapter for other DSLR lens, but it will knock the sony a9 to only 10fps and the focus on both subject tracking (Lock-on AF)
and Eye-AF will be unavailable when using other mounted lenses.
Another huge concern for me would be only 500 shots per battery, unless it has drastically improved, when compared to the D5, which is from 3,500 to 4,500 per
battery usage.
Finally, I would like to see how the future turns out, but would never sell my D5 and the many high end long lens I currently own until the a9 proves otherwise.