Question on Nikon 80-400 vs 200-500 lens: I have the new version of the Nikon 80-400mm lens. A few people I know use the Nikon 200-500mm for birding. Do you feel the 200-500 is a...

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

I have the new version of the Nikon 80-400mm lens. A few people I know use the Nikon 200-500mm for birding.

Do you feel the 200-500 is a better choice for wildlife photography. I like my lens but curious what your thoughts are comparing both.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I think both are too short, especially if shooting smaller birds. I have the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and find it to be very sharp. However, I do shoot on a tripod which helps.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

First of I don't have the Nikon 200-500mm, I have the Sigma 150-600mm Sport version and the Nikon 80-400mm G version and for me I like the Nikon 80-400mm for hand held shots especially of birds in flight and the Sigma on my tripod or mono-pod due to weight constraints. I am sure that those that own the Nikon 200-500mm will like it above the 80-400mm especially for the price difference.

jccash wrote:

I have the new version of the Nikon 80-400mm lens. A few people I know use the Nikon 200-500mm for birding.

Do you feel the 200-500 is a better choice for wildlife photography. I like my lens but curious what your thoughts are comparing both.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

jccash wrote:

I have the new version of the Nikon 80-400mm lens. A few people I know use the Nikon 200-500mm for birding.

Do you feel the 200-500 is a better choice for wildlife photography. I like my lens but curious what your thoughts are comparing both.

Read this:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

Also, you don't need a super long lens. This is a friend's website who does an excellent job with birds. She uses a Canon 5D Mk III and a 400mm F5.6, always hand held, no TC, no stabilization. It just shows you how important technique - both shooting and in post processing - really is.

https://untamednewyork.smugmug.com/Birds

I've taken a 80-400 VR to Yosemite a couple of years back, and wasn't that thrilled with the results. They were ok, but I expected better. If you believe the Imatest results in the article in the link, the 200-500 is sharper than the 80-400.

I settled on a Sigma 150-600 Sport, which I use hand-held, as a lighter more versatile combo than my 600mm 4 and tripod. You can see some of my stuff here.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

jccash wrote:

I have the new version of the Nikon 80-400mm lens. A few people I know use the Nikon 200-500mm for birding.

Do you feel the 200-500 is a better choice for wildlife photography. I like my lens but curious what your thoughts are comparing both.

The Nikon 200-500mm is a very nice lens, but...

For wildlife and specifically birding all of the 150-600mm lenses are better and the Tamron G2 is best.

For events the shorter 80mm end of the range is very important and makes the 80-400mm a better choice.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Gene, her pictures are wonderful. I wonder how she does it.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

abc1234 wrote:

Her pictures are wonderful. I wonder how she does it.

We go shooting together a lot. First, she knows her birds - what their habits are, where and when to find them, and she is amazingly patient - she will follow and stalk a subject for a couple of hours, or we'll sit in one spot for the same amount of time waiting for the right shot. She will also take 1000 pictures in a single afternoon. Her post processing skills are quite good, particularly at sharpening (she uses several approaches, often mutli-pass, on a single image). She is quite critical of her images, and will only pick the very best to work on. She uses Lightroom, Photoshop and NIk and a collection of actions in PS that she has recorded for a variety uses in her editing. Her computer is a Windows platform, liquid cooled Intel i7700k overclocked to 5.6 ghz, 32 gb ram, 1 TB m.2 NVMe SSD, Quadro 4 GB 2200 graphics card, 12 TB storage and a NEC 30 bit display. I built it for her.

Shooting with her can be tedious, but her effort is well represented by her results.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Gene51 wrote:

We go shooting together a lot. First, she knows he... (show quote)

Thanks Gene. The big lessons learned are she knows her subjects and is so patient. Note how you said nothing about gear (look at the shot of her; Canon). It is about the shooter.

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

jccash wrote:

I have the new version of the Nikon 80-400mm lens. A few people I know use the Nikon 200-500mm for birding.

Do you feel the 200-500 is a better choice for wildlife photography. I like my lens but curious what your thoughts are comparing both.

My buddy I shoot with has your lens, I shoot the 200-500, we basically shoot the same stuff. After seeing my images he now covets my lens. I also have friends who have the Sigma and Tamron long zooms. After comparing my images with theirs they also want the Nikon and one has recently sold his Sigma and bought the Nikon, and he says he is now very happy with his new Nikon 200-500. Good bye Sigma and Tamron, their is a new shariff in town and it's name is Nikon 200-500.

Tigger1 Loc: Surrey, BC Canada

jccash wrote:

I have the new version of the Nikon 80-400mm lens. A few people I know use the Nikon 200-500mm for birding.

Do you feel the 200-500 is a better choice for wildlife photography. I like my lens but curious what your thoughts are comparing both.

Hi jccash, as you can see from my tag line I own the 200-500 Nikon. Do not own the 80-400 Nikon but have rented it and found it to be an excellent lens on my D7200, not so pleased on my D5100 which I have retired from service, except as a backup when on safari. That is when I had the opportunity to compare both lenses under similar conditions. For what I was shooting under the conditions I was shooting I found the 80-400 did not offer a significant benefit for me over using my 70-300 and my 200-500 in the safari conditions of East Africa and South Africa. But, and it is a big "but" that is me, your situation may be very different from mine, so your mileage may vary! As you already have the 80-400, I suggest you rent the 200-500 for at least a week or more and compare the two in your real world situation. That should give you the answers you need. Regards,
Garth

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I do not own nor I have ever used the 200-500 VR lens. I have seen many pictures made with it and they have been spectacular.
The lens I use for birds is the old 80-400 f4-5.6 D VR mostly hand held. I am not saying it is better than the 200-500 which is a more modern lens with new technologies but I am satisfied with the images I get from it.
Others who have used or are using the lens can give you a good perspective of what the lens is capable of.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

I replaced my 80-400 with the 200-500 I liked both but for me, the 200-500 works better. However, my son likes and does well with the 80-400 on a D7100. I use a D500

D500 200-500
D500 200-500...

(Download)

D500 200-500
D500 200-500...

(Download)

D500 80-400
D500 80-400...

(Download)

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

jccash wrote:

I have the new version of the Nikon 80-400mm lens. A few people I know use the Nikon 200-500mm for birding.

Do you feel the 200-500 is a better choice for wildlife photography. I like my lens but curious what your thoughts are comparing both.

Hi,

I have both lenses. If I were forced to say one was better, I would choose the 200-500, but maybe that is because I get the range I need to get the shot. I've taken many nice shots with the 80-400, too. I do use the 200-500 when birding but I also use the 80-400. I put the 200-500 on the tripod and the 80-400 on another camera and use it hand-held. So, I'm probably not much help! Get them both and use them as I do and then you won't miss a shot!

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

mborn wrote:

I replaced my 80-400 with the 200-500 I liked both but for me, the 200-500 works better. However, my son likes and does well with the 80-400 on a D7100. I use a D500

Very dramatic pictures. However, I think their sharpness is due more to a high shutter speed than to the lens. I judge sharpness using a lens target with a lot of printing. We may not really know what a sharp bird looks like but we sure do know fuzzy type. The target also shows you any chromatic aberration.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

I appreciate the comments everyone. Frankly, I have a long ways to go no matter which lens I use. Went to a lake in Kissimmee today and also to Gatorland and took a few shots. Many soft... I also have a long ways to go in learning Light Room and have not started using Photoshop yet.... It's a nice hobby for sure with plenty to learn...