Help me choose: 200-400 F4 VRII or 200-500 F5.6

I'm having a bit of a tough time figuring out which lens is the right lens for me. 90% of my shooting is done using my 70-200 f2.8, which is just a fantastic lens, but now that my boy is of baseball and soccer age, I am shooting a lot more of his sports and find that 200mm on my D4 is JUST out of reach, and I end up cropping more than I want from my images.

So from my research, a used 200-400 F4 VRII, or a new 200-500 F5.6 are my two likely candidates. My budget is not THAT tight, so I can spring for either one. My primary attribute is image quality. I love really sharp lenses and I would lean that direction if there were a clear difference between these two. Also how good the VR is, is important too which is why am looking at the VRII over the VR in the 400. I am not sure if the extra stop of the 400 more beneficial, or the extra 100mm on the 500 is more beneficial for what I shoot, that is of course only if the IQ and VR are equal.

So I guess the real question is how does the image quality and VR really compare between these two lenses? The price difference is staggering, but I will certainly take the bigger hit to the pocketbook if the IQ and VR (and maybe even focus accuracy) is notably better on the 200-400.

What say you? Recommendations? I am very rural and don't have access to a lens rental.

Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR II for sure, hands down. The extra stop and faster AF will help you keep up with the sports. Just buy a cheap monopod (I use a $40 Manfrotto one), and you are all set! Just in case you need extra reach, add a TC-14E III. I love mine! Here are some of my sample images with that lens. I used a TC-14E III on most of them.

I have both the 200-400 V1 and the 200-500, the 200-400 is a heavy beast and I rarely need the faster f stop for sports,mainly motorsport, if you shoot wildlife this matters for early mornings/evenings,.I tend to use the 200-500 more, the extra reach is the benefit, the VR is superb. as to AF it's not quite as snappy as the 200-400 but once locked on to a subject there are no problems. I also use the new 70-300 FX P lens which fosues very fast also has superb VR and is very light. for field sports you may find that 200mm at the short end is to long toframe your son, and the 80-400 may be a better choice if you need the 400mm end. Think about the 70-300, hand held it's very usable. you would need to keep changing lenses with either of your choices to cover the whole field. or use a second body .




200-400




100% blow up of this lens.








200-500






70-300



--
Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

As budget covers either unit, the 200-400 II plus a TC14 e is my suggestion.

Good though the 200-500 is for the money - handling is not its strong point.

The 200-400 VR is rated up to 3 stops. The 200-500 is better at 4.5 stops.

How much is a new 200-500? In the UK at under £1,000 including 20% sales tax it is very affordable.

They are both big, heavy lenses. Do you really want to be toting a load like that to a Little League or kid soccer game? I think that would get old...fast. Maybe, instead of either lens, buy a D500 to use with your 70-200?

I have the 200-400VRII and the 200-500. I think you'll find the 200-400 to be too much to haul around for little league. The 200-500 is not bad, but I consider it a "good light" lens. If that's what you're shooting in, I'd probably go with that. It's not the fastest focusing lens for sure, but hooked to a D4 it'll be fine.

If it were me, and I sold mine, but I think to keep it compact for where you're shooting, I'd go for, or at least try, an 80-400 VR G. AF is faster then the 200-500, and it has a smaller form factor.

--
A Canon G5 and a bit of Nikon gear.
---------------------------
He could be right, he could be wrong. I think he’s wrong but he says it in such a sincere way. You have to think he thinks he’s right. - Bob Dylan

The 200-400 is a sports lens, the 200-500 is a wildlife lens. Seems an easy choice.

Thank you for the suggestions so far, everybody. I genuinely appreciate your time.

The general lean of the suggestions kinda matches how I was already leaning, more or less... For a bulky heavy lens, I dont consider it an issue. Not only am i a bigger guy at 6'1" and 220lb, when it comes to hauling the kids to the games, the wife is able to do lot of the chores of corralling children, and she let's me focus on watching and taking pictures. She loves having great photos of our kids, so she compromises completely to help me get them.... which includes to cost of the gear!

For those worried a little about 200 being too tight in some scenarios... there tends to be quite a bit of room to move back... and I can also toss a 50 prime on my 850 and have it on the other shoulder... haha... talk about camera bulk. That would be a lot.

On a side note, I do also shoot for other parents on the side, where i have no babysitting duties at all... so gear weight or bulk is certainly of no concern there either.

I'm still internally debating.

Soccer photo 3




Soccer Photo 2



Like you I used my 70-200mm for my grandsons soccer games when they played on small fields and had great success, but as the fields played on got larger the 200mm wasn’t enough. I shoot with a D850 and purchased a refurb 80-400mm from one of the Nikon sales. I have posted three pics at different focal lengths with this lens and am very well pleased with image quality and the ability to zoom from 80 to 400mm. AF is very fast and the lens is easily hand held. Soccer photo 1 @ 400mm, 2 @ 390mm, 3 @ 85mm.




Soccer photo 1



--
Rswanny

I've used both lenses, but don't currently own either. The 200-400 will focus faster, a distinct advantage for sports, but it is, as already said, a beast - the heaviest lens I've ever used. That said, a monopod, even a cheap one, can make the weight a non-issue.

If hand holding is you plan, the VR in the 200-500 is extraordinary. I've been unable to hand hold my shots for years because of arthritis, but when I got to shoot a 200-500, I got sharp (un-shakey) images hand held even at 500 mm - I was amazed.

The advantages each has to offer makes the choice more complicated. But for my nickel, a 2-body system, one with a 70-200 and the other with a 200-500, would cover anything and everything you might encounter for a long time to come.

CptAmerica said:

Thank you for the suggestions so far, everybody. I genuinely appreciate your time.

The general lean of the suggestions kinda matches how I was already leaning, more or less... For a bulky heavy lens, I dont consider it an issue. Not only am i a bigger guy at 6'1" and 220lb, when it comes to hauling the kids to the games, the wife is able to do lot of the chores of corralling children, and she let's me focus on watching and taking pictures. She loves having great photos of our kids, so she compromises completely to help me get them.... which includes to cost of the gear!

For those worried a little about 200 being too tight in some scenarios... there tends to be quite a bit of room to move back... and I can also toss a 50 prime on my 850 and have it on the other shoulder... haha... talk about camera bulk. That would be a lot.

On a side note, I do also shoot for other parents on the side, where i have no babysitting duties at all... so gear weight or bulk is certainly of no concern there either.

I'm still internally debating.

Click to expand...

Well, if weight and price are truly not an issue, go for the 200-400 then! And have the 70-200 when you need wider. Perfect combo to me for sports.

bflood said:

I've used both lenses, but don't currently own either. The 200-400 will focus faster, a distinct advantage for sports, but it is, as already said, a beast - the heaviest lens I've ever used. That said, a monopod, even a cheap one, can make the weight a non-issue.

If hand holding is you plan, the VR in the 200-500 is extraordinary. I've been unable to hand hold my shots for years because of arthritis, but when I got to shoot a 200-500, I got sharp (un-shakey) images hand held even at 500 mm - I was amazed.

The advantages each has to offer makes the choice more complicated. But for my nickel, a 2-body system, one with a 70-200 and the other with a 200-500, would cover anything and everything you might encounter for a long time to come.

Click to expand...

Thank you... I have a decent CF monopod I would certainly bring with me.

I am nowhere near arthritis, so I'm good there. I really really don't want to compromise on image quality. From the sample images I have seen, the 200-400 f4 produces very similar looking images to my new 70-200 f2.8. Same feel, same stunning sharpness, same amazingly soft bokeh.

I guess really the question is, is the image quality of the 200-500 equally as good? I was GUESSING that it isn't quite up to par with the 400... But if a bunch of people here chimed in and had said "Image quality is actually better on the 200-500!" Then my choice would easily lean that way.

I hope that makes some sense.

CptAmerica said:

CptAmerica said:

[...]the 200-400 f4 produces very similar looking images to my new 70-200 f2.8. Same feel, same stunning sharpness, same amazingly soft bokeh.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I really like the bokeh of the 200-400mm f/4, you can see examples of it in many of the sample images here and elsewhere.

CptAmerica said:

I guess really the question is, is the image quality of the 200-500 equally as good?

Click to expand...

In addition to feedback here:

https://nikonrumors.com/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vs-200-400mm-f4g-vs-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6g/

All the MTF charts together. At the long end, the f/4 is very good and slightly better than the 200-500mm.

I'll have my 200-400 f/4 at a drag race this weekend.

Having said all of that, when the 200-500mm appeared, I had the impression that a lot of people sold their 200-400's for weight and bulk reasons, and continued to produce great images.

CptAmerica said:

bflood said:

I've used both lenses, but don't currently own either. The 200-400 will focus faster, a distinct advantage for sports, but it is, as already said, a beast - the heaviest lens I've ever used. That said, a monopod, even a cheap one, can make the weight a non-issue.

If hand holding is you plan, the VR in the 200-500 is extraordinary. I've been unable to hand hold my shots for years because of arthritis, but when I got to shoot a 200-500, I got sharp (un-shakey) images hand held even at 500 mm - I was amazed.

The advantages each has to offer makes the choice more complicated. But for my nickel, a 2-body system, one with a 70-200 and the other with a 200-500, would cover anything and everything you might encounter for a long time to come.

Click to expand...

Thank you... I have a decent CF monopod I would certainly bring with me.

I am nowhere near arthritis, so I'm good there. I really really don't want to compromise on image quality. From the sample images I have seen, the 200-400 f4 produces very similar looking images to my new 70-200 f2.8. Same feel, same stunning sharpness, same amazingly soft bokeh.
I guess really the question is, is the image quality of the 200-500 equally as good? I was GUESSING that it isn't quite up to par with the 400... But if a bunch of people here chimed in and had said "Image quality is actually better on the 200-500!" Then my choice would easily lean that way.

I hope that makes some sense.

Click to expand...

Well, it really depends on settings. I think the biggest advantage of the 200-400mm as I said over the 200-500mm f/5.6 and the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G is the extra stop. Knowing your ISO will double when using the 200-500mm, I cannot say that the 200-500 will be up to par with the 200-400mm. Also, weight to me isn't so bad on the 200-400mm. It's only 2 lbs heavier. I used the 200-400mm easily with a cheap $40 monopod I ordered off Amazon.

rumple said:

Having said all of that, when the 200-500mm appeared, I had the impression that a lot of people sold their 200-400's for weight and bulk reasons, and continued to produce great images.

Click to expand...

... yeah, that's the dilemma, right? In my brain, it goes like this...


- The 200-500 produces 99% the same overall image quality? No brainer... 500 it is
- The 200-500 produces 98% the same overall image quality? Ok.. 500 is good considering the price difference
- The 200-500 produces 97% the same overall image quality? Hhmm.. not so sure
- The 200-500 produces 96% the same overall image quality? Nah, forget it... ill deal with the price, heft, etc... to get the IQ i want.


In my brain, it only takes that small noticeable difference to make me regret getting a cheaper lens. I am the same with my other tools too.. buy once, cry once.

CptAmerica said:

rumple said:

Having said all of that, when the 200-500mm appeared, I had the impression that a lot of people sold their 200-400's for weight and bulk reasons, and continued to produce great images.

Click to expand...

... yeah, that's the dilemma, right? In my brain, it goes like this...

- The 200-500 produces 99% the same overall image quality? No brainer... 500 it is
- The 200-500 produces 98% the same overall image quality? Ok.. 500 is good considering the price difference
- The 200-500 produces 97% the same overall image quality? Hhmm.. not so sure
- The 200-500 produces 96% the same overall image quality? Nah, forget it... ill deal with the price, heft, etc... to get the IQ i want.

In my brain, it only takes that small noticeable difference to make me regret getting a cheaper lens. I am the same with my other tools too.. buy once, cry once.

Click to expand...

I really think that the difference from doubling that ISO will account for at least that 4% reduction. I've had a 300mm f/4E lens and a 300mm f/2.8G lens. The 300mm f/2.8G lens is always cleaner (unless it is super bright) because I can cut the ISO down. The only reason I don't own the 300mm f/2.8 is because I chose to buy a 400mm f/2.8 instead.

Nikon33 said:

CptAmerica said:

rumple said:

Having said all of that, when the 200-500mm appeared, I had the impression that a lot of people sold their 200-400's for weight and bulk reasons, and continued to produce great images.

Click to expand...

... yeah, that's the dilemma, right? In my brain, it goes like this...

- The 200-500 produces 99% the same overall image quality? No brainer... 500 it is
- The 200-500 produces 98% the same overall image quality? Ok.. 500 is good considering the price difference
- The 200-500 produces 97% the same overall image quality? Hhmm.. not so sure
- The 200-500 produces 96% the same overall image quality? Nah, forget it... ill deal with the price, heft, etc... to get the IQ i want.

In my brain, it only takes that small noticeable difference to make me regret getting a cheaper lens. I am the same with my other tools too.. buy once, cry once.

Click to expand...

I really think that the difference from doubling that ISO will account for at least that 4% reduction. I've had a 300mm f/4E lens and a 300mm f/2.8G lens. The 300mm f/2.8G lens is always cleaner (unless it is super bright) because I can cut the ISO down. The only reason I don't own the 300mm f/2.8 is because I chose to buy a 400mm f/2.8 instead.

Click to expand...

And you think that's the difference between the 300 Pf and a 300 2.8G? That the one stop difference is what's giving you the better IQ?? Really???

CptAmerica said:

rumple said:

Having said all of that, when the 200-500mm appeared, I had the impression that a lot of people sold their 200-400's for weight and bulk reasons, and continued to produce great images.

Click to expand...

... yeah, that's the dilemma, right? In my brain, it goes like this...

- The 200-500 produces 99% the same overall image quality? No brainer... 500 it is
- The 200-500 produces 98% the same overall image quality? Ok.. 500 is good considering the price difference
- The 200-500 produces 97% the same overall image quality? Hhmm.. not so sure
- The 200-500 produces 96% the same overall image quality? Nah, forget it... ill deal with the price, heft, etc... to get the IQ i want.

In my brain, it only takes that small noticeable difference to make me regret getting a cheaper lens. I am the same with my other tools too.. buy once, cry once.

Click to expand...

Part of image quality is focus and subject isolation. On your bodies - D4 and D850 - the focus on the 200-400 should be near-telepathic and near-instantaneous - the lens is designed for sports, and for field sports like you're doing. Subject isolation is a stop better too, if that matters.

Truly, in your shoes I'd rent both. Since you can't rent where you are, buy both used. Then sell the one you don't want to keep. It's a form of rental, and if you buy smart it costs you only shipping in the end. Both lenses are relatively available on the used market, and sell relatively quickly also. Worst case you've got some cash tied up longer than you would like, but you'll get it back.

CptAmerica said:

[...]if the IQ and VR (and maybe even focus accuracy) is notably better on the 200-400.

Click to expand...

PS: for what you're doing, I don't see VR as even useful. Mostly you'll have a high shutter speed to freeze the action. I don't use VR when shooting field sports, and when I look at working pros on the sidelines of football games, they mostly don't either.

CptAmerica said:

I'm having a bit of a tough time figuring out which lens is the right lens for me. 90% of my shooting is done using my 70-200 f2.8, which is just a fantastic lens, but now that my boy is of baseball and soccer age, I am shooting a lot more of his sports and find that 200mm on my D4 is JUST out of reach, and I end up cropping more than I want from my images.
So from my research, a used 200-400 F4 VRII, or a new 200-500 F5.6 are my two likely candidates. My budget is not THAT tight, so I can spring for either one. My primary attribute is image quality. I love really sharp lenses and I would lean that direction if there were a clear difference between these two. Also how good the VR is, is important too which is why am looking at the VRII over the VR in the 400. I am not sure if the extra stop of the 400 more beneficial, or the extra 100mm on the 500 is more beneficial for what I shoot, that is of course only if the IQ and VR are equal.
So I guess the real question is how does the image quality and VR really compare between these two lenses? The price difference is staggering, but I will certainly take the bigger hit to the pocketbook if the IQ and VR (and maybe even focus accuracy) is notably better on the 200-400.
What say you? Recommendations? I am very rural and don't have access to a lens rental.

Click to expand...

Had you thought about using your D850 with the 70-200 instead of the D4? While it’s not quite as fast as the D4, it's still a very capable camera and will just about triple your reach going from 16 to 45 MP. Get a third party grip for under $200 and you’ve got 9 fps.

Alan