tca2267 Loc: Florida

I can't decide on which lens I want to get........

The Nikon 80mm-400mm or the Nikon 200mm-500mm the lens will be used on the Nikon D850 and D750.
Used for Wild life and birds.

Like to hear from owners but

Any suggestions appreciated

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

Get both & put one on each

Quixdraw Loc: x

IMO the 200-500 works best for wildlife on a DX - mine stays on my D7200 most of the time. The 80-400 was not adequately sharp for me on FX bodies, and a little short for wildlife. You might consider getting the 1.4 extender to use the 200-500 on FX. It is a fine lens that delivers excellent results. My best friend has a D500 and says it and the 200-500 are a fabulous wildlife combination.

FTn

I own an 80-400 and really like it. Even works well with a tc 1.4 III on my D850. Never shot with a 200-500 so I can't compare them. One thing I do with all of my lenses is adjust the fine focus. I did that with the 80-400 at 400 and at about 100 ft. The adjustment was less than a -5 if I remember correctly with and without the tc.

- FTn

jscorbin Loc: Woodinville, WA

I have the 200-500 on a D850. There are tradeoffs, of course, when comparing with the 80-400. The main issues are: The extra reach of the 200-500 is more important to me than the extra 1-½ lb of weight and the slightly smaller max f-stop. Most of my wildlife photos are at 500mm. The IQ is great on the 200-500. However, carrying the 200-500 on longer hikes is uncomfortable. If I were to choose again, and $ were not an issue, I might go with the 500 PF. It's even lighter than the 80-400.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Rent both from borrowlenses.com or lensrentals.com and see which one works for you. The 80-400 is $108 for 8 days, the 200-500 is $78 for 7 days on lensrentals.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I had and liked both. On comparison, the 80-400 sometimes seemed a little sharper, but for my bird/wildlife usage, the 200-500 suited me better.

tca2267 Loc: Florida

Thanks.....

Don't you lose sharpness when using an extender?

CO

I have the Nikon 80-400mm AF-S lens. It's very sharp, has very fast autofocus, and tracks really well. I've photographed terns in flight. They're fast birds and the AF had no problem tracking them. It's light enough to hand hold for a while.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

You can never have too much reach for wildlife, especially birding. Pick up the 200-500mm f/5.6 along with a 1.4x teleconverter. I use mine on both a D500 and D850 with excellent results. Just note that the lens is on the big and heavy side, but that has not stopped me from taking it on long hikes. I don't have any issues using it handheld, but a tripod (or monopod) makes life easier. If you use a 1.4x teleconverter you will be at f/8 so AF will be a bit slow, but works just fine, but that gives you a reach of 700mm.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I am also looking at a similar question. I have had the 200-500mm f/5.6 for about two and a half years. I like it and use it, but am looking for something more versatile for more casual/less critical opportunities. A few months ago, I bought a used 24-120mm f/4 as a more flexible and slightly lighter alternative to the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 17-55 f/2.8 DX, but I'm not getting rid of either of those lenses. I'm thinking about trying to find a nice used 80-400 of some generation as a "casual Friday" alternative to the 70-200, while not getting rid of it, either. The 80-400 weighs about 3.5 pounds vs. the 5 pounds of the 200-500, but it ends up being close to the same size as the 70-200 before zooming. Weight is about the same, too. One thing I am looking for is a longer lens to use hand held and to carry around, and the one big question is whether the 80-400 would buy enough "convenience."

Since I am not personally familiar yet with the 80-400, the only thing I will observe is that the current version of it carries the "Gold Ring" designation, which the 200-500 does not. This implies that Nikon feels that it is designed and constructed to higher standards. It does not guarantee that there aren't some plastic components used in the construction of the lens. Despite not being a premium lens, the 200-500 is optically very, very good. Several folks here have reported problems when rotating the lens within the tripod ring while changing from landscape to portrait orientation. I've not had that problem, but I rarely change orientation when on a tripod.

Good luck as you look and decide.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I cannot comment on the 200-500, but I do own and am happy with the performance of the current 80-400.
I have used it with a Nikon 1.4 TC, but that is not so good.

FTn

Not really noticeable with the TC 1.4 III. I use it on both the 70-200 and the 80-400. Again, I have never shot with the TC 1.7 and the TC 2.0 so I don't know much about them.

-FTn

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

Not even close, the 200-500 is clearly better. I am not an owner, but I do participate in Nikons NPS program and have at least a month's experience - two different copies. I liked the lens, but I found the Sigma Sport ultimately a better choice over either of them.

This review illustrates the differences:

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

But the best in class is the Sigma 150-600 Sport - also in the article. I had the NIkkor 600mm F4 and downsized to the Sport so I could hand-hold. No regrets - the image quality is just as good as my 600F4.

Took this a couple of days ago with it.

(Download)

CO

The 80-400mm has Nikon's nano crystal coating on the glass. It's also one of only two Nikon lenses to have a super low dispersion glass element. The 200mm f/2 is the other Nikon lens to have a super low dispersion glass element. Many lenses have extra low dispersion glass elements but only two Nikon lenses have super low dispersion glass. I have found it to be very sharp. It also has very fast AF. It's light enough to be hand held for a while.

This is the Nikon 80-400mm AF-S on my D7000. I now use it on my D500. It's even better on the D500

(Download)