Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I disagree Gene these shots were taken with the 80-400mm G on the D500. I get the same IQ on the D850 with TC or the Z6 with adapter and TC.

Silver fox 80-400mm

(Download)

Zebra 80-400mm G

(Download)

picsman Loc: Scotland

I have the 70-200 f4 and the new 80-400. The 70-200 is regularly used for mtb events and the 80-400 for wildlife and sometimes mtb stuff. I like the lighter 70-200 and find it great when mobile on the course but sometimes I take the 80-400 if I am going to be static. I always have a monopod with me for the 80-400 but rarely use it and end up hand holding as it is not too heavy. But if out all day and on the move the 70-200 is my first choice. I wouldn't sell either.

SkyKing Loc: Thompson Ridge, NY

...it is a shame that the 80-400 doesn’t have the same VR as the 200-500...the 80-400 is on my camera more often than the 200-500...

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Love my 80-400mm. Taken last weekend. SOOC

(Download)

CWGordon

Weighing in: I use the 2.8 70-200. I love it. Use it whenever close enough to fill the frame with what ever I am shooting. I find the 80-400 the more flexible of the two. I find it is not quite as sharp, but much more close than you might think. I have not ever been disappointed with the quality of image it produces. On Safari in Africa I used it more than 90% of the time. Very happy w/it. Recently, I borrowed a 200/500 from a Photo Guide/tour leader. I was impressed with the results I obtained. It was very sharp. Sharper than my 80-400 for sure, but closer than you would have expected. Again, my 80-400 pro duced images of high quality. To give me more reach, I recently purchased the new Phase Fresnel 500mm. Why not the 200-500? Weight/size made my decision. The new 500 is about the size/weight of the 70-200. I think lighter, actually. The 200-500 is great and can be obtained for great prices. However, I just cannot rationalize carrying around the Bazooka that is the 200-500. I will still primarily use the 80-400 for wildlife. For me, the most flexible. I will still use the 70-200 when possible. You can weigh the pros and cons and make your own determinations. However, think long and hard before you buy the 200-500. Unless you plan to ONLY use it on a tripod, or you are a weightlifter, you may find that you will not carry it with you simply because it is too heavy. If you are going to tripod it, you will likely be very pleased with it. Just OMO.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The 80-400 (I have the old version) is more manageable than the 200-500 f5.6 VR, it is smaller and less heavy. The new lens has VR which mine does not.
Both are excellent optics.

ELNikkor

I don't like redundancy, and having an 80-400 gives you 120mm overlap with the 70-200 (which you should NOT sell!) The 200-500 makes the most sense, and you will appreciate the extra reach. You might find a tripod or monopod helps with the extra weight.

lsaguy Loc: Udall, KS, USA

I'm not either a Nikon OR photography expert by any stretch of the imagination but I would suggest NOT selling any lens as highly regarded as the 70-200.
For airshows I like to have more wide angle capability at least down to 28mm (on an APS-C body).
For cheap experience you might want to consider trying to find an inexpensive 28-300 or 18-300 from KEH or other sellers of used equipment. That way you can establish the zoom range that works best for you and then go shopping with your high limit card. Best of luck

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Like cjc2 said... "I replaced the 200-500 with a 200-400 F4 VR II which I like much better..."
The 200-500 has some rather serious issues for shooting soccer... It will jump out of the rotating tripod collar going from horizontal to vertical.... had I know this I would have never purchased it.... tucked away in fine print in it's owner's manual is the brutal fact that Nikon says you must lock the collar BEFORE use... like wtf were they thinking? That said I love the 200-500 for location editorial fashion... and for beauty narratives in the studio.... In these scenarios the AF-S 200-400 f/4 doesn't make sense owing to it's a monopod only piece of glass... Albeit my AF-S 200-400 f/4 IF ED VR is one of my favorite optics... hands down! It's not a pumper and the glass will remain pristine clear forever... unlike those consumer grade pumpers you're looking at...

btw, how much do you want for that AF-S 70-200mm f/4? I'm interested in it alexol... it is a seriously versatile pro quality optic ideal for commercial location work...

alexol

Reading the comments with great interest.

Probably the one thing that comes shining through is that the 70-200 should stay exactly where it is, and another lens should be an 'addition to', as opposed to 'instead of'.

These GAS attacks tend to generate a logic distortion field all of their own...

alexol

Duplicate post

SonyBug

Couple of thoughts. First, the camera you used back then was not nearly the camera of the d850 today. So, the lenses MUST be better to take advantage of your camera. I would look at the mtb stats of both lenses to decide which one you need if you upgrade. My preference would be maybe a Sigma Sport 150-600 or so, to keep the cost reasonable and get the performace of that camera. Good luck!

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

I use the 200-500 on the D850. I use GROUP AUTO FOCUS, continuous auto focus, center weighted metering, aperture priority, and a fast shutter speed. HAND HELD with a keeper rate of 98% wide open. What other lens can give you that at the price. And it is currently on sale. Actual user ratings are excellent.

coolhanduke Loc: Redondo Beach, CA

I have both lenses for my D850's. The main thing I would say is that the 200-500mm is much more heaver to handle and you almost MUST use a monopod at least. It is a very sharp lens. Otherwise, you can't go wrong with either lens.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I do not have the 80-400. I do have a D850 and the 200-500, as well as a 70-200 f2.8. It's been a while since I've been to an air show. Knee problems just limit mobility too much. When I did shoot airshow and other CIF (craft in flight) situations back in my film days, I used a 300mm f4 with good results. Here are my thoughts, though. I'll provide a little bit of background narrative at the end around a similar dilemma I recently solved and what my thought process ended up being.

The 200-500 is fairy large and heavy. When extended to 400 or 500mm, it can be a little bit unwieldy. If your shooting technique involves holding your camera up to or near your eye most of the time, I'd agree that it may be a little bit tiring to use. But I've used mine hand-held in some reasonably difficult situations with good results, including shots of the moon. A number of those shots at various apertures and shutter speeds are posted in various locations here. I occasionally use it on a tripod, but almost never use it in portrait orientation, so have not encountered the tripod collar problem. Remember...this lens provides very good performance, but it is not a "Gold Ring" professional lens.

I would also recommend against selling the 70-200. In fact, even though it seems to be somewhat short for air shows, there can be a real benefit in having some extra space around the aircraft you are photographing. I prefer space either in front of the aircraft (to indicate that they have somewhere to go) or behind the aircraft (to show some of the "smoke," if the pilot is using it. It is also a lot easier to capture interesting formation shots when the aircraft are either not quite as tight or when they are "breaking" at the end of a maneuver. Any images that need to be cropped can easily withstand your doing so, with plenty of resolution left for making nice prints.

I promised you a word about my dilemma. After moving from DX (D300, D300s) to FX (D810, D850) a coupe of years ago, I decided to update my DX capability and bought a D500, which I have come to really love. My plan (which has turned out to be a pretty good one) was simply to continue to use the 17-55mm f2.8 zoom that I've had for about 11 years. That is a fine lens and produces outstanding results on the D500, which has about the same sensor density as the D850. I'll continue doing that. But because of the way I use the D500, it sometimes goes out as the only camera/lens when it is called on. So in those situations there is a need for a somewhat more flexible lens. The 17-55 is probably the best Nikkor DX lens, at least in my mind. It does cover from wide angle to <very> short telephoto, but it runs out of gas pretty quickly on the long end. I looked at the 16-80 DX Gold Ring zoom, but found it somewhat disappointing on several levels. There are quite a few comments here about it developing focus problems or becoming noisy or getting loose over time. What I ended up doing was buying a used 24-120mm f4 Gold Ring FX zoom for those occasions. It will not replace the 17-55 for critical application, but will do nicely for those more casual outings. It was also a lot less expensive than a used 16-80. It's not what I went shopping for, but it has already performed very nicely for me. So you may want to have a little bit of an open mind, especially after you try the teo lenses you are looking at.

Good luck on your journey.