Question on Nikon 80-400 vs 200-500 lens (Page 2): I do not know how soft the picture is because I do not know how much you cropped and did not look at the noise. The picture is...

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

jccash wrote:

I appreciate the comments everyone. Frankly, I have a long ways to go no matter which lens I use. Went to a lake in Kissimmee today and also to Gatorland and took a few shots. Many soft... I also have a long ways to go in learning Light Room and have not started using Photoshop yet.... It's a nice hobby for sure with plenty to learn...

I do not know how soft the picture is because I do not know how much you cropped and did not look at the noise. The picture is defintely soft in terms of contrast and your exposure may be off. I hope you shoot raw. The autofocus may also be a culprit. Practice with live view and spot focusing on static as well as moving objects. Compare the quality with and without a tripod. Lenses, especially cheaper ones, do go soft at maximum aperture or focal length. Put up a lens target or something with large print or even a book shelf. Shoot at four apertures (maximum and then in 2 stop increments) and three focal lengths (shortest, longest, in between). Use very bright light and a tripod. All these things rule out the lens quality so do them first before buying a new one.

Good luck.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

abc1234 wrote:

I do not know how soft the picture is because I do... (show quote)

Thank you,

lrjames Loc: Lacey Washington

Great Shots

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

you should be fine with either lens. for some 600mm or even 800mm may not be long enough.

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

abc1234 wrote:

Thanks Gene. The big lessons learned are she knows her subjects and is so patient. Note how you said nothing about gear (look at the shot of her; Canon). It is about the shooter.

I did in my first post - Canon 5D Mk III and Canon 400mm F5.6.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

jccash wrote:

I have the new version of the Nikon 80-400mm lens. A few people I know use the Nikon 200-500mm for birding.

Do you feel the 200-500 is a better choice for wildlife photography. I like my lens but curious what your thoughts are comparing both.

ed the Nikki 80 - 4 I have owned a Nikkor 200 - 50m for a few months. My copy is superb, I seem to be able to lock on to birds in flight faster than with my Nikkor 300mm f4 PF VR. I rate it better than ant lens I have owned, except for my Canon 300mm f2.8L IS.

Though I have never us

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Gene51 wrote:

I did in my first post - Canon 5D Mk III and Canon 400mm F5.6.

I stand corrected.

kenneil Loc: Jupiter, Fl, Ochlocknee, Ga, Iron Range, Mn

I have both. They are both great lens for wildlife pix! If I had to pick one it would be the 200-500. ;-)

JFleming Loc: Belchertown, Ma

jccash wrote:

I have the new version of the Nikon 80-400mm lens. A few people I know use the Nikon 200-500mm for birding.

Do you feel the 200-500 is a better choice for wildlife photography. I like my lens but curious what your thoughts are comparing both.

I had both versions (old/new) of the 80~400 and sold both of them; could never really "warm up" to either one..... I guess it was a love-hate relationship. Performance, especially at the long end was always inconsistent to say the least. I ended up getting the Nikon 200-500 and IMHO, is a better performer all around. The 200-500 is a "sleeper" of a lens and at it's price point is a bargain.

John

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

JFleming wrote:

I had both versions (old/new) of the 80~400 and sold both of them; could never really "warm up" to either one..... I guess it was a love-hate relationship. Performance, especially at the long end was always inconsistent to say the least. I ended up getting the Nikon 200-500 and IMHO, is a better performer all around. The 200-500 is a "sleeper" of a lens and at it's price point is a bargain.

John

B&H will pretty much trade me straight up for my 80-400mm for a refurb 200-500mm. Thinking about it...

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Gene51 wrote:

Read this: br br https://photographylife.com/revi... (show quote)

Looked at your link Gene. Awesome shots and processing.

jimneotech Loc: Michigan

jccash wrote:

B&H will pretty much trade me straight up for my 80-400mm for a refurb 200-500mm. Thinking about it...

I'd do it. I don't think you'll be sorry. I have both and the 200-500 is clearly better. The only shortcoming is when you want the lower end (80mm) and you need to change lenses.

carl hervol Loc: jacksonville florida

Here is one I shot with a 24/120 with no crop.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

jccash wrote:

I have the new version of the Nikon 80-400mm lens. A few people I know use the Nikon 200-500mm for birding.

Do you feel the 200-500 is a better choice for wildlife photography. I like my lens but curious what your thoughts are comparing both.

I luv my Nikkor 200-500 in combo with my D7200!

A couple of recent shots with my D7200/Nikkor 200-500 combo!

(Download)

Landcaster

Recommend a trip to a photo shop to pick up and handle both lenses. The decision on which lens best serves your needs may be answered with this test. Neither lens is light, but for me and the way I shoot, the 80-400 was the winner, because of the better handling. After a year of shooting, I have also been very happy with the performance. The 80-400 is made in Japan where the better lenses are made.