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

Yes, reports are encouraging but it it heavier than it's predecessor and that ruled it out for me. I sold my 200-400 cause of the weight.

agillot

the 200/500 zoom is good even with a 1.4 attached to it .

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Since I (speaking only for myself) tend to shoot birds at f8 or up, there is no great benefit (to me) for a 2.8 lens. If you can handle 600mm for BIF and can afford it, go for it.

rossen

In my experience the new 80-400 is actually sharper than the 200-500

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

If money and weight are not considerations I've always thought the 400 2.8 was king. With a 2.0 TC, having an 800mm with the close focusing of a 400 is no mean thing.

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

Not according to many many reviews on both lenses. And the 80-400 has always been soft at 400. Not so with the 200-500. The first version of the 80- 400 was bad. The second was better, I have shot both extensively and the 200-500 is superior through out it's range. I am a Nikon guy and I'm saying they need to discontinue the 80-400, it is that bad.

bapsey

I have a Nikon mirror lens. Very compact but limited by fixed f8 aperture

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Here's a tip. A good use for mirror lenses is for shooting at concert venues where only compact cameras and lenses are allowed.

bapsey

The Nikon 500mm mirror lens works well with my Sony 6500 mirrorless camera that has 5 axis stabilization.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

i shoot with Canon gear, but the question is essentially the same...

I bought a 500mm f/4 because it's a little lighter and a bit more manageable than a 400mm f/2.8 or a 600mm f/4. It's still a very large lens... about 150mm diameter front element, around 15" long without the coffee-can-size lens hood and close to 8 lb.

With such long focal length, especially when used with a 1.4X teleconverter, depending upon distances you can very strongly blur down a background with f/4 or even f/5.6.

A couple examples. First one is the 500mm alone, wide open (and on full frame/film camera), photographed through leaves and branches...



Another example, this time using the 500mm + 1.4X teleconverter, also wide open (on APS-C crop DSLR)....



The above images were not cropped much and can give you some idea of the DoF shallowness potential with 500mm. Unlike some other lenses, super telephotos are typically optimized for wide open use.... at least Canon's are, though I'd bet that Nikon does the same.

To me a 400/2.8 is more of a sports lens.... ideal on the sidelines of a football field, for example, when it's used on a full frame camera.... especially night games. I use a 100-400mm a lot for sports in good light.... but with it on an APS-C camera I don't find myself using upwards of 300mm very much. When I need to shoot in lower light conditions, I switch to f/4 and f/2.8 lenses... but I rarely use less than f/4. At a distance, f/2.8 may give adequate DoF....



But up close, f/2.8 makes focus accuracy critical...



Both the above dressage photos were done with 300mm f/2.8 wide open on APS-C DSLR. Even with it and other f.2.8 lenses, I'm stopped down to f/4 most of the time to insure adequate DoF.

One other thing... on some cameras f/2.8 or larger max aperture lenses may allow a little higher autofocus performance. Though, I don't think it's much different, after many year using both f/2.8 and slower lenses.

600mm... or even 800mm might be preferable if shooting a lot of small subjects that are difficult to approach.

With any of the super telephoto lenses, you'll probably want a sturdy tripod, possibly with a gimbal head. At the very least, for anything more than a quick shot or two you'll want a monopod.

GED Loc: North central Pa

I have used all three of the focal lengths in Nikon you mentioned and for the purposes you described. I have settled on the 400/2.8 to replace the three lenses you mentioned and I also use a 300/2.8 for much of the same subject matter. My Nikon 400/2.8 showed no discernible difference in sharpness with a 1.4 converter compared to either the 500 or 600. Without the converter the 400mm was the sharpest and by itself is the fastest. Working from a blind I use the 300mm and 400mm equally. The 400mm gives you a lot of versatility. I much prefer to work closer if I can safely do so rather than use a longer lens, and working from a blind will enable you to do so. I have often photographed song birds from a blind and needed an extension tube to focus close enough using the 300mm lens. Think about it this way, if your set up in a marsh with a 600mm shooting a small bird and a nice whitetail buck comes into view at half the distance or a softshelled turtle craws out on a log thirty or 40 feet away from your blind will you miss getting the shots you had not planned on because of too much magnification. I know from experience this can happen frequently when working from a blind. I really have not found using the 400/2.8 with a 1.4 converter when outside of a blind to be limiting either.

Saleavitt10 Loc: Maine

Thanks for all the additional comments. A decision I will take my time with! The money is not burning a hole in my pocket yet! Lots to consider that's for sure.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Now you went and did it ... the forum police will soon frown upon you suggesting something the OP didn't ask about, but I would make the same choice you suggested.

Flatbroke Loc: Mt. Juliet, TN

I used the 400mm 2.8 to shoot a few races in Austin, Tx a couple years ago. When all was said and done the only thing I was upset about was the lens was not mine! It is a beast and if I could justify the purchase I would do it in a heart beat?

Flatbroke

Jwshelton Loc: Denver,CO

Have a 400mmF4. Use it with a 1.4 TC on both my D4 and D850. Tack sharp. When do you use a long tele in bad light ? I don't. Love the lens. Went from a 300mmF2.8 to this lens and love it. Good luck!