I’m looking for some advice from those of you with experience using the Nikon 200-500 or the 80-400. My photography hobby consists mostly of trying to get good action shots at the grandkids’ soccer and little league games. I have the latest version of the 70-200 2.8 teamed up with a d500 and I’m very happy with the results. I can get close to soccer fields so the 70-200 would likely always be the lens for soccer. But my grandson plays travel ball baseball and many of the fields are set up where you must stand much farther away from the action to get an unobstructed shot. Sometimes I’ll use my old trusty 18-300 and manage to get some good pics, but because I often have to crop in I think I’d like a little more reach. The 80-400 would be more versatile, so maybe it comes down to how well these lenses AF on moving subjects. Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks.

When I went to the FIELD OF DREAMS in Cooperstown Pennsylvania, I was privileged to have the opportunity to photograph my Grand Nephew pitching for his team. I prefer the Nikon 200-500 to the Nikon 80-400 for two reasons.
The 200-500 is a E lens, that means the aperture is electronic, meaning that when I am shooting 10 fps I know every exposure is going to be the SAME, not the same with the 80-400 which is not an E lens.
The second reason I like the 200-500 is because IMHO it is sharper throughout it's range especially at it's high end at 500.
Lets add a third reason, the 200-500 has more reach than the 80-400, on your D500 the 200-500 gives you a 750mm field of view compared to 600mm with the 80-400. And yes, this makes a real difference.
The image below is entitled, "Concentration", take a look at that tongue.

My kids play travel ball too and shoot with my d500 and 18-300mm or the 80-200mm. However, I stay close to the action either by using a step ladder and shooting over the fence by 1st or 3b, or just asking the umpire to shoot inside the field. This gives you greater flexibility. Umpires usually don't mind as long as you stay clear. Make sure to take your gear when you approach them so they know you are serious.

The only time I wanted a longer lens is when shooting behind the center field fence to home plate. I have yet to handle a 200-500mm lens, but the 18-300mm allows me to be mobile enough to shoot double plays and anywhere else the ball goes. But hey, if a long lens is in your crosshairs, by all means don't let me discourage you. I just wanted to share that using the smaller lens and a better shooting position you could probably do as well.

At my granddaughter’s soccer I can almost stand on the field so my 70-200 is fine. At baseball fields the best I’ve been able to do is near the outfield foul lines half way to the fence. I don’t want to take two lenses with me, so I’ll probably have to weigh flexibility of 80-400 vs. the reach of the 200-500. Thanks for the detailed response.
If you get the long lens, still try to get access to the field. Shooting closer to the grass gives you a great angle of the plays.

I’m looking for some advice from those of you with experience using the Nikon 200-500 or the 80-400. My photography hobby consists mostly of trying to get good action shots at the grandkids’ soccer and little league games. I have the latest version of the 70-200 2.8 teamed up with a d500 and I’m very happy with the results. I can get close to soccer fields so the 70-200 would likely always be the lens for soccer. But my grandson plays travel ball baseball and many of the fields are set up where you must stand much farther away from the action to get an unobstructed shot. Sometimes I’ll use my old trusty 18-300 and manage to get some good pics, but because I often have to crop in I think I’d like a little more reach. The 80-400 would be more versatile, so maybe it comes down to how well these lenses AF on moving subjects. Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks.

I’m looking for some advice from those of you with experience using the Nikon 200-500 or the 80-400. My photography hobby consists mostly of trying to get good action shots at the grandkids’ soccer and little league games. I have the latest version of the 70-200 2.8 teamed up with a d500 and I’m very happy with the results. I can get close to soccer fields so the 70-200 would likely always be the lens for soccer. But my grandson plays travel ball baseball and many of the fields are set up where you must stand much farther away from the action to get an unobstructed shot. Sometimes I’ll use my old trusty 18-300 and manage to get some good pics, but because I often have to crop in I think I’d like a little more reach. The 80-400 would be more versatile, so maybe it comes down to how well these lenses AF on moving subjects. Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks.