500mm for my Nikon D810 (Page 2): There's no doubt the 500 pf is a great lens for birds. I shoot lot a of wildlife, bears, elk and love the versatility of zooms. I've been using the...

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

There's no doubt the 500 pf is a great lens for birds. I shoot lot a of wildlife, bears, elk and love the versatility of zooms. I've been using the Tammy 150-600 G2 for years and love it.

old poet

richandtd wrote:

I use both a D810 and D300 the current lenses are the the 17mm-35mm 2.8 , 50mm 1.4G , 105mm 2.8, and the AF-S VR-NIKKOR 70MM-200MM 1:2.8G. I have a desire to get into birds and need a longer lens. I’ve been looking at the AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED and the VR AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR from NIKONUSA.COM from my understanding the prime will give a better photograph than the zoom and it weighs less. Is there that much of a difference? What about the overall build quality?

I have the 200-500. I shoot lots of birds, and for the money, I love the lens. The 500 prime will restrict your focal distances as the zoom will not.

Jeff Clow Loc: Iowa and Texas

richandtd wrote:

I use both a D810 and D300 the current lenses are the the 17mm-35mm 2.8 , 50mm 1.4G , 105mm 2.8, and the AF-S VR-NIKKOR 70MM-200MM 1:2.8G. I have a desire to get into birds and need a longer lens. I’ve been looking at the AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED and the VR AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR from NIKONUSA.COM from my understanding the prime will give a better photograph than the zoom and it weighs less. Is there that much of a difference? What about the overall build quality?

Hope you can find one. I waited six months and have not used the 200-500mm one time since I got the 500mm PF.

Best lens I ever used for wildlife by a wide margin.

davesit Loc: Media, PA

I had both the 500PF and the 200-500. I just sold the 200-500. The image quality is definitely better with the 500PF, while the 200-500 is no slouch either. But the 500PF is stunning even wide open. Ultimately, the 500PF won me over because of its much lesser size and weight. I typically have to hike a way before getting to where I will be taking the pictures, and the nimbleness (I also bought a 300PF for the same reason) of the 500PF just makes it so much easier. Hand-held is very much possible with the 500PF, but quite tiresome with the 200-500, which you'll find yourself using the 500mm end of the zoom anyway as there is never enough focal length with wildlife, especially birds. If you could afford it, you won't regret getting the 500PF.

CaptainBobBrown

500 pF if you want a prime long lens you can hand hold all day or use with a mono pod for high quality images of birds, sports, wildlife. I've had one since the first day of release and don't see anything better in the future unless Nikon comes up with a 600mm pF. I use mine for birds and wildlife on a D500. See some examples at www.CaptainBobPhotos.com.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

OnDSnap wrote:

Good luck finding the 500mm PF, I've been on waiting lists everywhere for months...worth waiting for.

Check your PM’s.

RickL Loc: Vail, Az

richandtd wrote:

I use both a D810 and D300 the current lenses are the the 17mm-35mm 2.8 , 50mm 1.4G , 105mm 2.8, and the AF-S VR-NIKKOR 70MM-200MM 1:2.8G. I have a desire to get into birds and need a longer lens. I’ve been looking at the AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED and the VR AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR from NIKONUSA.COM from my understanding the prime will give a better photograph than the zoom and it weighs less. Is there that much of a difference? What about the overall build quality?

I use the Tamron 150-600 G2 on my D810 and D850 with excellent results. My wife and I are both Nature photographers and w e both have our own Tamron 150-600 G2 lenses. The photos are tack sharp at full range from 150-600 mm. Much cheaper than comparable Nikon lenses.

Jerry Coupe Loc: Kent, WA

Wilhan wrote:

I use the Nikon 300mm PF lens with my D850 and it's probably my most used lens. My friend has the 200-500mm lens and I'm not that keen on it mainly due to it's size and weight (my 300PF is about the size and weight of my 24-70mm 2.8 lens and because of this it always travels with me). I also have the Nikon 1.4 III teleconverter which gives me 420mm at f5.6 when used with the 300mmPF with very little loss in optical quality.

I am not a Nikon shooter but would add that at a Bosque del Apache workshop two weeks ago, the workshop leader was shooting with the new 300 mm Fresnel f4.0 lens. He commented that the size was very nice and he thought his images were as good as or better than with the Nikon 300 mm f2.8.

jefflane

I got the 500 PF which works great and a used 80-400. I find the combination spectacular.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

DavidPine wrote:

Many wildlife photographers and birders love the combination of the D500 and 200-500 or 500FP. Look at Back Country Gallery with Steve Perry. He's a Nikon Shooter and a member here.

I would like the 500FP but cannot afford it I love my 200-500

old poet

I'm wondering something. Maybe I just don't understand. Yes, the 500 is a superior lens, but many of the birds I shoot are quite close in a wildlife sanctuary, feeding within 15 or 20 feet away. If I have only the prime 500, I will have to carry more lenses and change them for the closer birds, maybe missing good shots. I carry only my 200 - 500 for several hours with a monopod and tilt head and don't fret the weight at 79 years old. Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a 500 if I could afford it, but am I missing something with all of the comments about giving up their 200-500 and using only the 500 prime for wildlife and birds?

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

Les Brown wrote:

I'm wondering something. Maybe I just don't unders... (show quote)

The 200-500 will deliver. Don't be concerned. I have owned and used the 200-500 for years and it preforms again and again.

Jeff Clow Loc: Iowa and Texas

Les Brown wrote:

I'm wondering something. Maybe I just don't unders... (show quote)

True ...you and your legs have to be the ‘zoom’ mechanism for the 500mm. I sometimes have to back off a few feet to get the whole bird in flight.

But 90% of the time, it’s a perfect situation. The best thing about the 500mm is it’s super quick subject acquisition. Really important for birds in flight and wildlife on the move.

old poet

Okay, question answered. Anyone got an extra $3000 to donate to an old teacher on fixed income. Address available upon generous offer. 😀😂🤣

Strange

Both are nice lens, buy what you can afford until you can afford the better lens. Rent if you don't need it often. Unless you are making LARGE prints, you may not be able to see the difference. Good luck on your decision.