old poet

Thanks, but no decision necessary. I have the 200-500, and can't afford the 500.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

I own a D810 and D850. I have not tried my 200-500 on the D810 but I have used it quite a few times on the D850 and love it. As someone else mentioned, a lot of bang for the buck. One of the best priced long lenses Nikon makes. Its stout. Unless you are exclusive to birding only, you may not use the lens too much.

When I bought mine new it was around $1300. I saw some used in excellent condition at MPB.com for under $1000.00. I have had good success at that website if you want to buy used and save even more.

Here is a link to some hummer photos I took with the 200-500. First photo captured was the tongue of the hummer as he approached the feed bottle. I had never seen a hummingbird tongue before I took this photo.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-613357-1.html

old poet

Lovely photos. Great glass!

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Les I am glad your avatar is of a full moon. It reminded me about a handheld shot of a super moon I took with the 200-500 while leaning against the house. I was absolutely 100% blown away by the photo. No tripod and pure luck!

TonyBrown

Me neither. I found most of my shots using the 200-500 were at 500mm and the 500 pf is so much lighter and, I consider, sharper I am considering selling the 200-500. I also use the 300 pf with a 1.4 tc as a really light walk about option for wildlife and that is great too.

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

The 200-500 will deliver same results as 500 prime on prints 20X30 or smaller. How large do you need?

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

It's a very narrow range of quality - the 200-500 on the low end, and the 500 F5.6 on the high end. Both are very good. But if you are shooting birds, you may want a longer lens. Neither are amazing with a 1.4X TC.

I had a 600mmF4 for many years, but I wanted something lighter, with similar build quality, and comparable image quality. The only two lenses that ticked all three boxes were the Sigma Sport 150-600 and the Tamron G2. I have not spent any time with the 500mmF5.6, but I suspect it is comparable to the Sigma and Tamron, and just as close to the 600mmF4. The G2 provides the best value, without much compromise. The Sport is similar, but costs about $700 more, and the 500 F5.6 is both lighter, also very sharp and has a pro build quality but is more than double the cost of the G2. I would take the 200-500 out of consideration, particularly if you intend to use a 1.4X TC with the D810.

This review is worth a look. It is subjective but generally better informed than the nonsense that is out there.

https://photographylife.com/nikon-500mm-f-5-6e-pf-vr-initial-impressions

This review is also worth a look:

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

If you are going to make big prints, 24x36 or bigger, any of the above will work just fine. Fine detail is lost beyond 7 ft or so. Most people like to look at large prints at a "normal" viewing distance, and are not likely to notice any difference in quality. Only photographers will insist on bringing a loupe to examine fine detail capture up close.

Jeff Clow Loc: Iowa and Texas

The first review link you shared mirrors my own experience almost exactly at comparing the 500mm PF with the Nikon 200-500mm. Both good lenses ... but autofocus quickness and overall sharpness is just better with the 500mm PF.

richandtd Loc: Virginia

What about the AF-S NIKKOR 300mm F2.8G ED VRII with a AF-S Teleconverter tc-17e II.

old poet

Beautiful shot with a great lens! Thanks for sharing it!

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

That would be pretty good! You paying?? For a 6 grand and several pounds of weight it would be just lovely!