d3200prime

I have a Nikon 200-500mm and just purchased a Nikon 300mm f/4 PF ED. Also, have a TC-14E 1.4x converter. I shoot birds/wildlife with a Nikon D500. If you own both these lenses could you please post which one you would keep if you had to choose and the reasons. Thanks.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

I would keep the 300 PF and sell the 200-500. Buy a 500 PF and enjoy!

d3200prime

That's one for the 300. Thanks, Sinewsworn!

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

I have the 200-500. Great lens but heavy if one wishes to carry it for distance. Handheld, as all know, is doable for a short period. The 500 PF, on the other hand slight enough to allow handheld shots, and to be carried all day.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

The 300 PF us a great lens I often couple it with the TC 1.4III with good results. I'd keep the 200-500 until you get a longer prime lens. Shooting wildlife the longer the better. I also shot with a D500 I'm trying out a Sigma 60-600 in hopes of not having to switch lens so often.

User ID

My tendency is to follow Edward Weston’s wisdom and guidance:

“If it’s more than 500 feet from the road it’s not photogenic,” which I’ve updated and extended to include “If it needs more than 300mm ..... “.

My own lenses in that range are 300/4.5 and 150-500/5.6. I guess you can easily see which one I’d let go.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I own the 200-500 and very pleased with it. Super sharp across the range. I like it for the veratlity. The days I feel I did not have my wheaties, I use a monopod with my 200-500.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Not a decision someone can make for another photographer. Physical matters, issues of style and operating method, also pocketbook. Have the 200-500 like it quite a bit - great value for the performance it delivers and more flexible than a prime. Have gotten good results with extenders, but don't much care for them if they can be avoided. As to the 500 - I do love and spend a lot of time taking photos but $3,600 is a little rich for my blood. The 300, $2,000 plus $400 and change for the extender. If money were no object, I might have one or the other, can't tell. Good luck with your decision!

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I love my 200~500. Never owned a big telephoto prime and probably never will. The 200~500 is just too versatile. And so much less expensive. My personal opinion is that 300mm is not enough for wildlife photography. And I don't like TC's

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

d3200prime I purchased the 200-500mm f/5.6E Nikkor which has epic VR and wonderful acuity albeit it's rotating tripod collar is lame... In the User's Manual Nikor cautions to lock the collar before use.... Like what was Nikon thinking? I shoot league soccer commercially and that lame lens jumped out of the rotating track and locked up on more than one occasion... so I picked up an AF 300mm f/2.8 prime to work on the pitch and never looked back... it increased my hit rate by an order of magnitude and mechanically it is superb!

As for the 300mm f/4 PF ED? wouldn't touch it... it has issues with focus and VR conflicts (ask Steve Perry). Besides it's a full stop slower than my f/2.8 which has virtually no focus issues and is razor sharp...

That said I only shoot league soccer and fashion editorials with my long glass... enough said...
Hope this helps or is at least food for thought...
btw, the 200-500 is soft above 400mm... word!

OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

If you can grab a Nikon 200-400 ƒ/4. Older or newer version. Even with a 1.4 converter its a fantastic lens.

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

I have both the 200-500 and the 300 PF with 1.4TC. The 300 PF gets more usage by far due to its portability, the fixed aperture, and the IQ you get from a prime lens.

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

Interesting question. I own both the Nikon 200-500 and the 300 PF. I shoot in Florida wetlands where we are quite close to wildlife.
The 200-500 offers versatility for close and far subjects, especially when using the D500, the lens provides a field of view of 300-750 mm, with this, you are good to go for most situations.
The 300 pf is one sweet lens, f4 is hard to beat and really helps separating the bird from the background.
And, by using the D500 on both lenses, you are in essence using only the center part of the glass, the sharpest part. However, you are at a field of view of 450 mm. So, sometimes you will not have enough and sometimes too much. That's why I tend to lean toward the versatility of the 200-500.
I do not like converters, never have, never will. Some folks swear by them.
By mounting the converter on the 300, you know have 675 mm of fun at f5.6, not bad and the results will be OK. But, again, you are confined to one lens at one mm. For me the advantage again is the 200-500.
Lets talk sharpness, as you know, sharpness is more up to the photographer than the lens, I can get beautiful images from both. Some say the 300 is sharper, after using both for years I would say it's a toss up. Once you have mastering lighting you can get great images with either one.
Below is a shot from the 300 that is one of my favorites (Great Blue Herons greeting each other, iso 400, 1/1250 sec. f4, D500) , and second on is also one of my favorites taken with the 200-500 (Great Egret on nest taken through dark foliage, iso 3200, 1/640 sec. f6.3), both images hand held.
Why not carry both and use each for the advantages each give you.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

DogFriend

I have both but use the 300 much more. I also use and love the teleconverters: 1.4, 1.7 and 2x. I have not sold the 200-500 yet because of the 500mm reach and the cost of a fixed 500. I also use all three teleconverters on the 200-500 although it takes a bright day for focus with the 2X.

I find the teleconverters to be very sharp and love them for the added versatility. I also use them with the 70-200. That was my travel kit when flying and I did not want the extra weight of my 300 f/2.8.

Alas a slip in the mud photographing eagles and the 300 got damaged and it is too old for Nikon or independent shops to repair.

Old44

Fellow Hogger Steve Perry did a wonderful analysis of the 300PF vs. 200-500. I have both and think the 200-500 is a tad sharper than the 300 with the 1.4 TC, and the zoom is always a useful feature.