billnikon wrote:
I own the 200-500 and the 200-400. I am hard pressed to see a difference in IQ, but you can really tell the difference in weight.
Bill, I think your comment might be a bit stretched.
The 200-500 is indeed sharp, but thats it after that, go a head and throw in the much cheaper price.
The weight factor is lighter bc the build quality is as cheap as they come, the rotating collar will surely
irritate most pros bc of the overall build construction as its clumsy as it feels sticky.
If your shooting in lower lit conditions, then forget of ever using the 200-500 f/5.6, as the 200-400 will still get very
usable images at f/4, however not as good as a 400 prime.
I can say the 200-500 is truly a very nice lens at a fraction of the cost from its pro versions, but I also feel those
lens will not last through the test of time, sooner or later they will get bumped enough to where the cheap telescopic
housing will not retract fully or even get sticky and eventually become hard to zoom.
IMO, the bottom line is you get what you pay for, but its still cheaper to buy a 200-500 and a D500 than a 200-400 vr2.
That selling point is a whole lot of bang for your buck!