alexol wrote:
I will be able to try both at some point, although I'd like to start with some thoughts in place along with an open mind - clearly there are pro & cons.
I like motor sports and air shows, and would like to spend more time on wildlife. I'm very much an amateur, taking photos strictly for my own pleasure. Disappointingly they are mostly snap-shots, occasionally very well timed, obtained at considerable expense. On the positive side, by buying unnecessarily expensive gear I contribute to keeping the costs down for everyone else, but that's a different topic;)
Although the 80-400 doesn't have quite the reach, cropping an 850 image should still yield decent results.
It is smaller & lighter, and means I could possibly dispense with my 70-200/f4. Maybe. Years ago I had a Canon 80-400 L series which was superlative, but it sucked in a lot of dust and didn't quite have all the reach I would have liked.
The 200-500 has a lot of reach and is less expensive, but is big enough that it would only be used when really needed. Probably not something you're going to leave on the camera for "just in case".
Thanks in advance for your thoughts and comments.
I will be able to try both at some point, although... (
show quote)
Although the 80-400 does not have quite the range on the high side, but it is more useful because it will go down to a 70mm. If you need the extra reach, try a Nikon 1.4 teleconverter. It will not focus as quickly with the teleconverter, but you will probably not need the teleconverter as much as you may think.