markstjohn

I have from many years ago a Nikon 80-400 VR lens. It seems to work well with my new Nikon D810. I will be traveling soon and want to be able to take long distance pictures of birds and wildlife. Would the Nikon 200-500 be much better? I think I can use a teleconverter with it, but not with the 80-400. On the other hand the 200-500 is much larger and heavier. Would I really want to take both of them? So my question is would the newer 200-500 be much superior to the older 80-400? thank you for your thoughts...

Trabor

Teleconverter (Nikon 1.4X) works fine on my 80-400 "G"
, perhaps not on older version,

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

The 200-500 is sharper.

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

But even sharper would be the Tamron 150-600 G2 or the Sigma Sport 150-600.

KGOldWolf

Can't compare the quality but will say the 7.5 pound 200-500 gets a bit heavy after a while.

dannac Loc: 60 miles SW of New Orleans

Nikon 200-500 is a litle under 5 lbs.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Here you go.
Both the lenses you are asking about. You can decide easily from these which is objectively better vs what someone thinks from subjective investment in their personal decision.
The higher the solid lines and straighter from left to right the better.

And for comparison the Canon 100-400 MII
The Canon 100-400 MII can't go any higher or straighter.

80-400 Short

(Download)

80-400 Long

(Download)

200-500 Short

(Download)

200-500 Long

(Download)

Canon 100-400 MII

magpix Loc: St. Michaels, MD

I've owned both so my opinion can be more objective than subjective. The 200-500 was sharper and focusing was much quicker, making it much better for moving objects. The 1.4X teleconverter worked very well. I carried the lens and 95mm polarizing filter in a separate lens bag along with my backpack which had my D750, 18-35, 24-70 and 70-200 VR. If I was ONLY going to shoot non-moving landscapes I would take the 80-400, which was lighter and smaller and would fit in my backpack. It produced excellent results, as long as the subject was not moving. But after I bought the 70-200 VR and 1.4X tele, I didn't use the 80-400 very much. My 80-400 VR was also an older version and would not accept a teleconverter. If I had to pick one, I'd go with the 200-500, as long as I had the 70-200 mm range covered.

RickTaylor

The Nikon200-500 is a great lens. I currently use this lens now. I had the Tamron 150-600 G2. The Nikon blows it away. Google some of the reviews on this lens. Many people are saying it is under priced for the quality you receive. The problem I had with the Tamron was a focus issue as it always seemed to hunt. The Nikon is tack sharp. I used both these lens on the D500 the D810 and now the D850. I don't believe the Tamron was a true 600 as I see little difference between the two.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

I appreciate the guidance as to what a straight line at the top means but without a specific legend for the letter codes and graph I can't understand what the other lines mean.

photosfromtexas

I like MTF curves to compare quality within a line of lenses from a single vendor. But I understand they cannot be used to compare different vendors because they are each tested differently. I understand that Nikon’s curves are true curves, generated from real lenses. Cannon’s I read are are computer generated theoretical curves, not curves from physical lenses taken off the production line. In addition, either Nikon or Fuji’s curves are at wide open aperture while the other is one f-stop larger (one aperture smaller).

Even in million dollar CAT scanners, curves were used to the advantage of the vendors for sales promotions. I remember one company comparing their minimally higher line-pair resolution at 35% contrast difference vs another manufacturer’s curves which where taken with a 28% contrast difference in their test pattern. What a farce!

I would not say from the MTF curve that the Canon lens is any better than the Nikon....or any other vendor. Can’t compare across vendors.

Dalek Loc: Detroit, Miami, Goffstown

Curves were important in my younger days. Today it is ease of use. I own both the new version 80-400 and the 200-500. I will say this that both perform very well. I will give the 80-400 a slight edge in versatility. I use the 80-400 to shoot motocross and am able to hand hold bikes flying through the air. Out in the Everglades birding on a short trip I take the 200-500 but will agree with the writer who said the 70-200 1.7X is a great package. I use my D500 with the 70-200 and extender out in the Everglades and enjoy the smaller package and speed of focus. Now if I were buying the lens today I would first decide my main shooting scenario then make my purchase. I would also suggest try before you buy. If possible rent each and try them out or go to a camera store and try both there. Good luck and good shooting