adrianpd

Apart from price what do UHers think are the pros and cons of the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E ED AF-S VR Zoom NIKKOR Lens versus the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens?

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

https://backcountrygallery.com/nikon-500-pf-review/

Nice weight....

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

Zoom vs prime
Weight
Maximum aperture

I have the 20o0-500mm and love it based on cost. I would like, however, to get the Nikon 600mm

torchman310 Loc: Santa Clarita, Ca.

The Nikon 200-500 mm lens is Not weather sealed. In wet weather, the zooming of the lens barrel can suck moisture into the internal area of the lens.

The Nikon 500 MM is just that. . . 500 mm. No zoom capability. But it is weather sealed.
So, it comes down to your choice: Zoom, or just 500 mm.

Then there is the matter of weight. . . .

Largobob

Both are Nikon...both are incredible optics...but you are comparing Apples to Oranges. The image quality of the prime will kill the quality of the zoom, but will not be as flexible.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The 500 is much lighter/easier to manage and has a better tripod collar. Both are made in China and take 95mm filters. Sharpness is very close but in the field the better manageability of the prime will allow better sharpness realization - IMO. Can you live with foot zooming ??....and are your pockets deep enough ?
The prime should work better with TC's.
..

brontodon

The 500mm PF focuses faster than the 200-500mm zoom. It's smaller, lighter, and has better image quality. It's also a lot more expensive and is not as readily available -- people have been waiting months to get them.

tcthome Loc: NJ

Yup, I have seen a few used ones pass by ( $4-6k ) ( not often ) & could kick my self for not keeping enough disposable cash around to grab the deal quickly enough.

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

I now own both and I find that I love um both for what each is good for. If you can afford the Nikon 500 5.6, buy it. If you can't, buy the 200-500.
I have found the 500 5.6 to be a shade faster in initial focusing than the 200-500, but my keep rate on both lenses is about 98% once focusing is locked on using Group Auto Focus.
Sharpness and image quality is a toss up, their are instant's where each out preforms the other. But overall I would tend to favor the 500 5.6.
The 500 5.6 is weather proofed where the 200-500 is not, but to tell you the truth when it starts to rain I cover my equipment with my ever present trash bag, so weather proofed is not a deal breaker for me.
My main concern is weight as I hand hold my camera for wildlife photography in Florida Wetlands 7 days a week. And yes, the 500 is much lighter than the 200-500. But the 200-500 is more versatile. On my D500 the 200-500 has equivalent field of view of a 300-750 mm lens. On the other hand the 500 becomes like a 750MM 5.6 lens on the D500. Both are sharp and a lot depends on the ability of the photographer. A good photographer can make the 200-500 a fantastic lens, and on the other hand, I am sure someone can make the 500 5.6 lens look bad.
The front element of the 500 5.6 is especially coated to repel dust, I cannot tell you what a blessing this is. I have yet to clean the surface, I just blow any dust (very little) off with my Giottos blower.
Yes, the front element of the 500 5.6 is a FL lens, but I do not see that it has made any difference in the outcome of a shot, and sometimes I shoot into the sun but do not allow the sun to come into my field of view.
The lens shade on the 500 5.6 is a better fit than the one on the 200-500.
Again, I like both lenses for what their advantages are. I am still experimenting with the newer 500 5.6 and have found it works really nicely off my D850. I am blessed to be in a position to get the 500 5.6 because I am a member of Nikon Professional Services and I can get a lens when others sometimes cannot.
Below are some grab shots with both, I chose a Great Egret for both shots. Please do not use these as a basis of comparison, I am just showing what each is capable of. The first shot was taken with the 200-500 and was used as a lead in shot for one of my shows. The second was take just a week ago at Wakodahatchee Wetlands. Actually both were taken there about two years apart.
Again, I believe you would be happy with either. I have found them both to deliver excellent results.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

Great video !!! very informative

tcthome Loc: NJ

Quick ?, both pics taken with the same camera?

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Weight and how you feel about changing lenses in the field. It depends on how you plan to use them.

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

I don't believe so because when the first shot was taken I did not yet own a D850. I believe the first shot was taken with the D500 and the second was taken with the D850.
Again, they were not meant to be a comparison but just what each lens was capable of.
Thanks for your question.

agillot

the zoom will give you more choices , if you are too close at 500 , just zoom down .

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Sure the Nikon 200-500 zoom is nice, I have one, but the Nikon 500mm PF is sharper, has less barrel distortion and less chromatic aberration. That being said, those problems can be corrected to a degree in post processing. I know because I have to do it.