uhaas2009

I can’t decide what lenses I want or need. From playing kids to flying birds-I “shoot” em all.....lol....if it’s possible I like to shoot handheld.
What’s your experience or opinion on what lenses

pendennis

I can only speak to the 200-500 f/5.6, but it's among my favorite lenses. It is heavy, but with the VR, I've handheld it and gotten some great photos. At the 500mm setting, I've gotten some fine shots of lighthouses when they were .25 miles, using it on a tripod.

The following was shot using VR, handheld, ISO 400, 1/640, f/11, @500mm setting

texasdigital Loc: Conroe, Texas

Grays Nikon Camera shop in merry old England has a weekly pod cast. One of the episodes tested the 200-500 head to head with the 500 PF. The conclusion came down to what you were willing to spend.

The 200-500 was softer but acceptable and the 500 PF more expensive.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

At twice the price you should ascertain how much time you spend on BIF vs. whatever else you might use the lens for. Is it worth the extra bucks? Also you mentioned shooting lots of different things -- with a 500mm prime, you will have to do a lot of backpedaling to get everything you might like to have in a shot. Look at the shot I'm posting with this reply. It was shot with the Nikon 200-500 with a z50 (20 mpx. camera) at 500 (750 equivalent on 35 FF). It was cropped to about 50% of the full area and I think it shows very good detail. Had I used my D850 it might have been even sharper. I believe the 200-500 would be your best bet but only you can decide that for sure.

(Download)

THRYLLOS

I have both of these lenses and use them with a D850, D500 and D800E. They are different lenses and use them for different purposes. First, 200-500mm is a zoom lens and is bigger and heavier than the prime 500mm PF. Both have the same maximum aperture at f/5.6. The 500mm sells for $3,600 and the 200-500mm for $1,400. You can draw your own conclusion about quality regarding materials, insulation against rain, sand, wind etc.
For birds, in any kind of situation, I use the 500mm because you can never have enough focal length for birds usually on the D500 to maximize the subject size in the viewfinder for better and faster autofocus. For other subjects such as kids, people, domestic animals, landscapes, etc the 200-500mm will give you a better focal range without need to change lenses.
The 500mm is a sharper than the 200-500mm even though the 200-500mm lens is very sharp; just the 500mm is superb.
I have way too many long lenses, 600mm f/4, 200-400mm f/4, 80-400mm, etc and it crossed my mind to sell one of them and the 200-500mm may be sold very soon. Never crossed my mind to sell the 500mm PF.
Which one you buy, depends on your budget,purpose of using your lens and what other lenses you may own.
Walking with the lens, the 500mm is lighter and smaller and easier to handle.
You can rent both lenses for a week and then you can decide which one to keep.
For me itis the 500mm PF

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

My 200-500 copy was sharp through the range

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Check YouTube and Steve Perry, a member here, of Backcountry Gallery, he did an excellent review/comparison.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Great topic for consideration and an exceptional shot 🍒💯🎯💯🍒

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

A splendid catch 🔥✳️🔥

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

Thanks Joe!

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Hands down the 500mm PF is the sharpest, but at a premium price. My favorite feature of the 500pf is the VR. I recently came back from Costa Rica shooting wildlife and most of my time was under the canopy. To keep ISO in reason I shot at least 60% of my exposures at 1/250 of a second or Lower. If the subject didn't move the image was tack sharp. Some images as low as 1/40 second all handheld. Or coarse you need good technique but I've Never been able to pull this off with any of my other long lens. The weight, sharpness and Vr places this lens in a league of it's own. That said, you are stuck at a fixed focal length, which has it's own disadvantages.

1/200 second

(Download)

1/200 second

(Download)

1/250 second

(Download)

cedymock Loc: Irmo, South Carolina

The three reasons I purchased the Nikon 200-500 over the Nikon 500 PF.

No difference in aperture
Difference in price
Don't like to be handcuffed to one focal length

Been very pleased with the 200-500

Lagoonguy Loc: New Smyrna Beach, FL

I never have buyer’s remorse concerning my 500 PF. I am constantly amazed at the results I get. I am 76 and the weight of the D500 & 500 PF is in my comfort zone for handheld BIF. The weight and image quality are more important to me than the extra cost over other alternatives. Similar feeling I have to my 36 year old Rolex, expensive at the time but always worth it. Good luck, either lens will make you happy.

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

The 500 PF is too much for Playing kids. The versatility of the 200-500 is what is needed. It can also do flying birds just fine. And there is a price difference. The 200-500 is sharp at 500, in fact it is sharp through out it's zoom range. You cannot go wrong. Trust me.

yvesfeder Loc: Bath, ME

Absolutely wonderful, unusual capture!