ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

I’m impressed by the Hoggers who still have the ability to venture out fully loaded in their advanced years. You’re an inspiration! However, I think this discussion misses the point about the lens. If the zoom lens is going to be used at full extension for most or all of the time, why not get a prime and avoid the optical compromises that come with a zoom? The 200-500 was my first long lens, and I was thrilled to have it. However, I acquired the 500 PF two years ago, and have only used the 200-500 maybe four times since. I can think of a handful of times when the zoom would have been helpful, but in general it is difficult to be “too close” to wildlife (birds).

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

My 200-500 gets used through the full range. Certainly more use at the larger numbers, but even 200 gets use occasionally. I'm shooting events, not wildlife, and I am frequently in an enclosed space where I can't get too far from the subject, but need more than 200.

My typical event gets a two-body operation. Depending on the size of the event, I have one camera with 24-70 and one with 70-200, or if it's a large group, one with 70-200 and the other with 200-500. I have tried a three-body operation and my bag just isn't large enough.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I agree. I have said before that I'm surprised that Nikon doesn't charge twice as much for it!!! But don't tell Nikon I said that! My wife and I own two of them and shoot side by side with two D850s. We are happy campers!!

Ray and JoJo Loc: Florida--Tenneessee

Just call me ambling a long at 81, D500 70-200/2x = 500. lighter and not quiet the expense but still get the job done!

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I don't see any significant advantage for IQ with the 500PF over the 200~500. Maybe I would if I owned one. Everyone says Primes are better than Zooms. It must be true. But I'm happy as a pig in sh...mud with my 200~500.

I took it to Africa in 2020. I had a D500 with me also with a 70~200. As things worked out, one of the couples on the Safari were trying to make do with a cell phone!!!(will they never learn)! I reluctantly loaned them the D500 with the 70~200 for the duration of the safari and they got some pretty good photos. And, of course, I had to give them an SD card too! And several lessons in photography techniques and D500 usage over the whole period that we were there! They didn't know how a zoom lens worked!

But I was left with just the D850 and the 200~500. There were many opportunities for a shorter lens that I would have missed altogether if I was stuck with only a 500mm lens.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Because… not all of us can afford or justify the cost of a $3500 lens.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

I am 77 yrs. old and I love the 200-500 5.6 vr. I never use it without a monopod. I use it on Nikon D500 and D4. Produces excellent results. May be a bit soft at 500mm. Other than that a fine lens for daytime sports only. I was fooling around at a night football game and used it on the D4 a couple of keepers but at 5.6 the noise level was off the charts. Won't do that again.

William Kemp Loc: Letts, Iowa

I am 78, 79 next month and had open heart surgery in April, they put in a new valve, a couple bypasses and a reroute. I was out this week with my 90D and Sigma 150-600 lens. I have one of those cotton carriers that helps a lot. I didn't have to walk that much but I did have to walk up and down stairs and I still had enough energy to take a few pictures of eagles.

Harry13

[quote=leftyD500]I am a long-time Nikon shooter. I did purchase the Nikon 200-500mm lens and really liked it. at most I am out shooting 4 hours (I am 79 years old) . If I cannot carry that lens on my Nikon D7500 camera for 4 hours (at times with the use of monopod), then I need to resign myself to my recliner.

I'm 92 and I laugh when I read complaints about lens being too heavy. When I can't carry any of the lens that I have accumulated over 50+ years, I'll quit. I 'spose my heaviest lens is a 70-300. I've been a field trialer since the early '60s and recently decided to quit because I can neither walk for an hour over rough ground nor ride a horse over it. Many years ago I had a really smooth Tenn Walker that I rode at trials but he could trip over a piece of paper. He'd trip and I'd bail. That was OK when I was young but no more. Harry

Rodeo Lensman

I used to have the 200-500, but switched to the "Real Beast" of a lens, the Sigma 300-800 f/5.6
This lens makes the 200-500 feel like a bag of cotton. I do keep it attached to a very sturdy tripod with a gimbal head.
Since I'm almost 74 years old, I've been considering renting a pack mule for outings.

SunBeach1962 Loc: Syrscuse, NY

I also have the 500PF and agree the light weight is worth having too much lens on occasion