I am looking at buying one of these two great Nikon lenses this Fall. I love shooting birds but also want something for mammals and distance landscape shots. I have the 300mm F4 already that I use with a 1.4 teleconverter. Either way I will probably keep it for bird in flight shots handheld.
Can't afford both. I have rented both and liked them. I am on the fence. The 200-400 is great all around but for birding alone the 500 is much better. Decisions, decisions.
For those out there with these lenses any input would be appreciated.
I went through the same decision making process a couple of years ago. In the end it comes down to what/how you shoot most often. I went with the 200-400 because I often find myself in situations where the subjects dictate the distance I'm shooting so the zoom comes in handy. The only time I wish I had the 500 is when shooting in a situation such at a viewing platform in a bird refuge or shooting small birds around a feeder. In those cases the subjects remain at a relatively fixed distance and you can adjust your position accordingly. If you shoot small birds a lot I would definately recommend the 500. On the other hand if you shoot a lot of mammals the 200-400 is great. In either case definately a 1.4x TC is very useful with minimal compromise in IQ.
No matter which way you go you will run into situations where you'll wish you had made the opposite decision. Such is life...
Like you, I was using a 300mm with and without the 1.4 teleconverter. Then I sprung for a 600 mm and a whole new world became available, especially for birds and putting the moon in landscapes. However, I also found myself being compromised by the big lens--its reduced portability and inability to focus close without attaching extension rings. So then I started using the equivalent of the 200-400 zoom, and really liked its flexibility. One thing is for sure: I never use the 300 any more. So my advice is get the 500 and sell the 300 to buy the 200-400. If your experience is like mine, you will like them both
Andrew:
I went through the same agonizing decision and purchased the 500mm in July 2009. My decision was based on the fact that I shoot mostly birds. I've shot side-by-side with Ray Barlow who uses the 200-400mm in Newfoundland and Tanzania. My conclusion is that you can't make a bad decision. Both lenses are great. I still use the 300mm f/4 a lot. I use it on whale-watching expeditions when bouncing up and down makes hand holding the 500mm difficult. I mount the 300mm and a teleconverter on the D700 and crank up the ISO for birds in flight in low light levels (see my most recent post). A common mode of shooting for me is to have the 500mm and 1.4x tc mounted on the tripod and aimed at shorebirds with the 300mm and 1.7x tc mounted on the second body placed on top of my camera bag so I can grab it quickly to capture osprey or egrets as they suddenly appear and fly overhead. My prediction is that you will be very happy with whatever decision you make.
Same decision for me. I actually had both for awhile to test them out.
Since I shoot mostly bitrds, I kept the 500mm. (I should also add I have and ioften use the 300 + 1.4 or 1.7)
While I occasionally did clip wings with the 500, it was not enough to matter. The sharpness and reach can't be beat, especially if you hand-hold as I do, and add a 1.4 TC. I've even gotten away with a 2.0TC with ideal conditions, but not often. . (A 600 or 800 would also be great - but these are not part of this discussion and cannot be hand-held. )
There is nothing wrong with the 200-400. It's a great lens, but I found it less useful than the 500, and a bit slow with a TC.
You really will not go wrong with either, but MY choice was the 500.
Happy shooting!
Sandy
Discussion
5 repliesCan't afford both. I have rented both and liked them. I am on the fence. The 200-400 is great all around but for birding alone the 500 is much better. Decisions, decisions.
For those out there with these lenses any input would be appreciated.
Andrew
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/lenses/supertelephoto/nikon-200-400mm-f4-af-s-vr-ii
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/lenses/supertelephoto/nikon-500mm-f4g-ed-vr
No matter which way you go you will run into situations where you'll wish you had made the opposite decision. Such is life...
I went through the same agonizing decision and purchased the 500mm in July 2009. My decision was based on the fact that I shoot mostly birds. I've shot side-by-side with Ray Barlow who uses the 200-400mm in Newfoundland and Tanzania. My conclusion is that you can't make a bad decision. Both lenses are great. I still use the 300mm f/4 a lot. I use it on whale-watching expeditions when bouncing up and down makes hand holding the 500mm difficult. I mount the 300mm and a teleconverter on the D700 and crank up the ISO for birds in flight in low light levels (see my most recent post). A common mode of shooting for me is to have the 500mm and 1.4x tc mounted on the tripod and aimed at shorebirds with the 300mm and 1.7x tc mounted on the second body placed on top of my camera bag so I can grab it quickly to capture osprey or egrets as they suddenly appear and fly overhead. My prediction is that you will be very happy with whatever decision you make.
Since I shoot mostly bitrds, I kept the 500mm. (I should also add I have and ioften use the 300 + 1.4 or 1.7)
While I occasionally did clip wings with the 500, it was not enough to matter. The sharpness and reach can't be beat, especially if you hand-hold as I do, and add a 1.4 TC. I've even gotten away with a 2.0TC with ideal conditions, but not often. . (A 600 or 800 would also be great - but these are not part of this discussion and cannot be hand-held. )
There is nothing wrong with the 200-400. It's a great lens, but I found it less useful than the 500, and a bit slow with a TC.
You really will not go wrong with either, but MY choice was the 500.
Happy shooting!
Sandy