danielheary

Have a D850 and a 200-500 f5.6 VR....is a prime 500 f4 non VR better if I am constantly shooting sports at 1200 sp+ ?... looking for recommendations.....I never use VR on 200-500....thoughts...and what price range ? Ty

btbg

500 f4 is better if you don't have quite enough light for the 200-500. Otherwise the 200-500 is more versatile.

600 f4 or 800 f5.6, now that's a different story. Both have huge advantages over the zoom.

Do you shoot sports for pay or just for fun, because that may make a difference in what equipment you actually need?

I'm actually looking at the 120-300 f2.8 with a 1.4 converter. That would make it faster and it would zoom to 420, so fairly close to the same reach. The football field I shoot on the most, not this year because of covid, but normally it is so dark that I have to underexpose with a 70-200 f2.8 at 8,000 iso. The 120-300 would be much more versatile for football and be faster than the 500f4.

As far as price, that depends on how new the lens is, and what condition it is in. The 500 f4 can go for as little as $2,500 to as much as $10,000 with vr, while the 600 f4 can go anywhere from $2,900 to a little over $12,000 used.

On the other hand the new Nikon 120-300 is about $9,500 without a 1.4 converter and the new sigma 120-300 f2.8 with a converter is about $4,700. It's under $3,600 without the converter.

There is no one right answer. It just depends on what you are shooting and how much money you can afford.
The other thing to look at if you are shooting sports is that a second body really helps. Example shooting football and they come to your sideline then a second body with a 24-70 or a 70-200 to go with a big prime is really helpful.

I have the sigma sport 150-600 which works great for daylight sports, but isn't fast enough for either the football field or gym I shoot the most in, but if you are shooting in daylight, it is another option. And, with the 1.4 converter it goes to f8 at 840mm and it will still autofocus in good sunlight, at least with a D5 or D6.

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

No comparison in sharpness between the 200-500 and the 500 prime. You WILL be able to see the difference, especially on an D850. Just keep in mind that the non-VR version was released in 2001 and has been out of production since around 2008, and, like my 600mm AF-S II (non-VR), Nikon may not have parts to repair it and will no longer support it. So if you need repair should something break, if it gets impact damage, etc you may be out of luck.

When I downsized from my 600F4, I considered the 200-500, the Sigma Sport 150-600, the Tamron 150-600 (original) and the Sigma 150-600 C. As a platinum member of Nikon's NPS program I borrowed 2 different copies of the 200-500, and though it was a pretty good lens, I was not comfortable with the lack of weather and dust sealing, and on my D810 it lacked the "snap" I got with the 600F4 and I was missing the extra 100mm - which I thought I might be able to live with. The only lens that did have the snap, weather sealing a very robust built quality was the Sigma Sport. In fact, I could not tell the difference with images taken with either one. So I bought one and sold the 600 last year for $3500. I could have gotten $1000 more if it was still supported. If I were to do it all over again, I would likely get the Tamron G2, which I have tried on my cameras and found it to be as crisp and sharp as the Nikon 600F4 and the Sigma Sport.If y

You may find this review interesting. I only came across it AFTER I had made up my mind on the Sport.

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

If you are shooting sports, you may find 600mm all the time to be too long in many circumstances, so I would likely opt for a zoom. Depth of field wide open on a 500F4 or a 600F4 is pretty thin, so more than likely you'll stop down a stop or two anyway. You'll have to decide if the extra weight, lack of zoom is going to be enough to warrant a new lens.

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

Primes should deliver better images than the 200-500 5.6 lens, provided the photographer is skilled. If your shooting sports and shooting faster than 1/1000 sec. you will not need VR on any lens.
Also, you get better separation from the background with a 500 f4.
WARNING, a non VR Nikon 500 f4 is very, very heavy. And, repair on these lenses could result in a lot of searching. Mid West Camera is a good place to get this lens repaired but, most of the time they have to cannibalize another 500 f4 for parts, so sometimes that could be an issue.
I have found that, under the right conditions, the 200-500 can deliver very usable images, I have used one for years until I got my Sony 200-600 and 600 f4 lenses.
I used to use GROUP AUTO FOCUS, continuous auto focus, and I got really good results from this lens.
I again would use caution buying an older non VR Nikon 500 f4.
Below are examples of use of the 200-500 on the D500. Using Group Auto Focus.

Bill_de Loc: US

I held off buying the Nikkor 200-500 because of the initial reports. A couple of years in I picked one up, with no regrets. Either I got lucky or Nikon overcame the issues of inconsistencies from copy to copy.

I did not do any scientific testing, but shot with the 200-500 and my 500mm F/4.0 AF-s (original version) switching back and forth. Ultimately I ditched the 500mm and kept the zoom. It does a nice job on both the D500 and D850. The lack of weather sealing was a concern because I usually don't know enough to come in out of the rain. If I know the weather is questionable I typically go out with a prime mounted.

I did try a Tamron 150 - 600 G2 and sent it back during the return period. I found the Nikkor lens to focus faster and produce sharper images. Considering the rave reviews the Tamron gets, this time I might just have been the unlucky one.

---

Vietnam Vet

I have a 500 f4, how far away from the action are you going to be? My initial thought is you would be better off with a 300 2.8

danielheary

Ty for the info, I have D750 with a 70-200 for closer action...I use both for all outdoor NCAA sports and horse racing. Used the prime f4 500mm for horse racing on a dark late afternoon and the frames were great ...WB auto, SP 1600, 25 point, f4, etc...

danielheary

Pic from 850- sp1600-wb auto-ap 4.0-iso auto

lrm Loc: Sarasota, FL

I have both the 200-500 and the newer 500PF. I am selling my 200-500 which should give you an idea. Shot thousands with both lenses (birds) and prefer the 500PF.. Slightly better resolution and much lighter, so hand holding for hours is a snap. Occaissionally miss the zoom feature when birds get close Just back up.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

For your use, I am thinking AF speed and accuracy and the ability to hand hold/manage the lens may take precedence over pure optical qualities ....... Have you considered the 300mm and 500mm PF lenses ??
.

photoman43

I have a D 850 too. The Nikon 500mm f4 prime or the Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf prime will be sharper than the 200-500. I own both Nikon 500mm prime lenses and rarely turn on VR as my shutter speed is usually 1/500 sec or higher. Most VR settings will cause more harm when used at high shutter speeds. However, a lot depends on your shooting techniques. I turn off VR at 1/500; others turn it off at 1/1000.

For the new versions of both Nikon 500mm primes, there is a price difference of $7000. The 500mm f4 new costs about $7000 more than the 500mm f5.6 pf. And the f4 version is heavier, harder to use hand and usually requires a series four tripod with a gimbal head. What you shoot and the time of day you shoot will also be a factor as whether you need the extra stop of light.

Owning and using any long tele lens is system decision with the lens being only one component of the equation.