GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

I had the 200-500 that I used with a D-850 on targets 2-3 miles away (rocket launches). Light, fast focusing, just the slightest amount of fuzziness when set at 500mm around the outside edges (I had to really look for it). The only thing I didnt like was the hood being attached. Almost all of my shots were with a tripod for tracking the rocket during ascent. If the wind was over 7-8 mph, the hood would act as a sail. Attached is one of a previous launch. Distance to rocket 2.44 miles 500mm F/7.1 1/1250, ISO 125

(Download)

EJMcD

Yeah, the rocket is a little fuzzy. I suppose any long lens might be a problem on a very windy day but surprising since it was tripod mounted. I've taken many "hand held" images with mine and haven't had an issue.

photon-collector Loc: Tampa Bay Area, Florida

I believe the answer to your question is qualitative at best. Do you consider weight, size, sharpness, FX/DX, reach, and/or weatherproofing to be of importance? If so, you need to do further research rather than ask for opinion. You may want to check some of the comparison reviews on such sites as dpreview.com, Fstoppers.com, LensTip.com, among others. Bench-test compaitive data is often a good place to start.

I've always believed that the lower the zoom's magnification power, the sharper the image. I put my faith in a 14-24 (1.7 power); 24-70 (2.9 power); 70-200 (2.85 power); and the 200-500 (2.5 power). These are several of Nikon's sharpest optics. Each lens has a fast fixed minimum aperture: f2.8, f2.8, f2.8, and f5.6 respectively.

A few years ago, "everyone" seemed to be going wild over the 18-200 (11 power) with an aperture range f3.5 - f5.6, as the finest walkabout lens since sliced bread. I drank the Kool-Aid and bought both a Nikon and Sigma copy. Yes, the zoom range was convenient, but my images lacked the kind of quality that one seeks in exemplars. Both are gathering dust somewhere in my closet.

The 80-400 (5 power) with variable maximum aperture of f4.5 - f5.6...which means that the maximum aperture of the lens varies as you zoom. It seems, try as one might, when you ask a lens to do more range, the image suffers. It is very difficult to design and build an optic to be so flexible. This may be the case with the 80-400.

So, before you ask for user opinions, you might consider gathering and interpreting some real test data from unbiased sources. Just a thought.

EJMcD

Our opinions are biased because we've actually used both

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I know nothing of Nikon - but a 2.5x zoom is likely to be sharper than a 5x zoom. As you have a 70-200, it seems logical to choose the 200-500 to complete the range. As both lenses are short ranging, I doubt there would be problems pushing their extremes at 200 and 500, but I'd have thought that at 400, the 200-500 would give a better result than the 80-400. My logic is based on modern lens design from most manufacturers. The old adage (try before you buy) seems to be appropriate. Have a Happy Christmas, Delboy.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

If you don't have a Z then the 200-500 is a good choice. If you have a Z then either the 100-400 or 180-600 is a good choice. The 200-500 is still good with the Z's with the FTZ adaptor.

EJMcD

If he's considering the 80-400, I doubt that he has a Z. If he does, I agree that he should consider the 100-400 (assuming that's within his budget!).

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Rocket launches might not be the best place to critically check lens sharpness. Everything moves...the ground, the air, the rocket, and the viewing stand all vibrate in ways that one might not expect. I would guess that a higher shutter speed would noticeably reduce the fuzziness.

EJMcD

I guess you should have addressed this to GLSmith but he did indicate it was tripod mounted at 1/1250 shutter speed and 2.44 miles away which surely should have frozen the rocket and the camera.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Maybe! but do we ignore not only subject movement but ground tremble, haze, and other atmospheric aberrations?

EJMcD

I guess I'm just a doubting Thomas. I've admittedly have never attended a rocket launch but I'm not convinced that the ground would tremble 2.44 miles away enough to affect a tripod mounted 1/1250 exposure and, I don't see any evidence of haze in the photo. Regardless, I still recommend the 200-500.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

My brother lives near Cape Canaveral and the ground does indeed tremble.

EJMcD

So getting back to the original topic, I believe the OP intends to use the lens for sports photography and doubt the ground will be trembling. I still give a thumbs up to either lens.

SkyKing Loc: Thompson Ridge, NY

70-200 and 200-500 makes sense to me…here is a size comparison to help with your decision…from left to right:
70-200mm f/2.8 VR I (tripod collar removed), 80-400mm VR, 200-500mm f/5.6 VR

btbg

Then you want the 200-500. It is a much better lense and you already have the other focal lengths covered with your 70-200.

I used a Sigma 150-600 sport for shooting sports for the local newspaper for years. Had the 200-500 been available when I purchased the Sigma lense that would have been my choice.

The 80-400 is not a sports lense.