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.
There is a lot to consider - BUT the price difference between the two lenses isn't really all that different when you consider that no sane person would buy a 200-400 f4 lens brand new today. There are just WAY, way too many of them available used - and at shockingly low prices compared to what the lens cost brand new.
A bit of history. I've owned 3 copies of the 200-400 f4. I put a deposit down on my first back in 2008 or 2009. Then my business was slow for a while, and I let the deposit sit for a few months, and darn Aden Camera in Toronto sold the lens I had reserved - and when I came up with the cash to pay for the lens a few months later - they SHOCKED me by telling me the price had gone up by $1,300.00!!!!!! Thanks a lot Aden thieves. (last thing I bought there)
I paid over $7,000 (Canadian) for that lens new (VRI) - and sold it for about $5,000 when I got poor again. I bought another VRI copy used that required way, way to much AF correction to be useful and sold it back to my camera store and later bought another used copy of the VR II - this lens was great - until I could afford the lens that now replaces the 200-400 f4 - and that's the new 180-400 f4 with built in TC. Unless your independently wealthy, this lens probably won't be in your budget. It's over $12,000 US.
But back to used prices. The 200-500 5.6 is CHEAP. It's absolutely Nikon's best lens bargain for what you get for the price. It's sharp. VR is exceptional. There aren't tons available used - but it's so cheap that buying it new won't kill your pocketbook. But if you buy it used and hate it - you may lose nothing when you sell it.
And the prices on the 200-400 f4 are shockingly low compared to what they were a few years ago. The 200-500 and 300 PF and 100-400 lenses from Sigma and Tamron and a few other new lens options made the used price of the 200-400 drop like a stone in just a few years. It's a bargain now - used.
And there is a BIG price difference between the VR I and VR II. The REAL difference between the lenses in performance is almost non-existent. You will never use VR for shooting sports - so save yourself up to $1,000 and buy the VR 1.
And the difference between the 200-400 f4 and 200-500 f5.6 have almost all been covered. The f4 is a stop faster. You didn't say whether you shoot during the day - or in the evening, with fading light and artificial lights at the sports fields. The stop of light advantage of the f4 is a BIG deal if you shoot in poor light. It means you can shoot at half the ISO compared to using the 'slow' f5.6 200-500. And you get the great added bonus of better subject isolation with the f4 lens by better blurring the background to make your son stand out from everybody else.
The 200-400 is a professional lens that you can use as a baseball bat if you ever need to. (I'm only half kidding.) The 200-500 isn't nearly as well weather sealed if you ever have some rain come down - and the 200-500 won't take the abuse the 200-400 is built to endure.
The 200-400 focuses fairly considerably faster. 200-500 has much better VR - but you don't need VR for sports.
The question is - with baseball - are you just shooting as far out as the bases? If you want to reach the outfield - 500mm is better - but not much different than 400mm. And another option is the Sigma 60-600 lens. The Sports version is sharper but heavier and more expensive than the Contemporary version. I understand that the very newest Sigma 'superzooms' are better than the seemingly 'mediocre' older versions. The cost, however, is a relatively 'slow' aperture of f/6.3 at the long end.
And I'm surprised that nobody has yet suggested the 300mm f/2.8 prime. You've got two great camera bodies. If the 70-200 is just a BIT too short - pick up a used 300mm 2.8 Nikon lens and put it on either the D4 or D850, and use the 70-200 at the same time on your other body. And if budget is flexible - spend a fair amount more for a 400mm f/2.8. (Used 400mm 2.8's are much cheaper than used - obviously.) Use the 70-200 on the other body - or put a 1.4 x tc on the 70-200 for a reach of up to 280mm on one body, and 400 mm on the other (with the 400mm 2.8 lens) - or get yourself a 300mm 2.8 lens and add a 1.4 x TC for a reach of 420mm at f4, and put a TC on your 70-200 for 105mm to 280mm at f4.
Or just add a 1.4 x TC to your existing 70-200. This might be your simplest option - and you may want to start with this. You lose a stop of light to f4, but the IQ hit is not much, and AF speed and tracking don't take a huge hit.
So - in summary - don't even THINK about buying a 200-400 f4 lens brand new. Used prices are 1/4 to 1/3 of the new price. Used 200-500 lenses are MUCH closer to the new price. No big difference there.
The 200-500 lens is 'OK' if you're only shooting in the bright light of daytime games. AF is slower. Is AF speed slower enough to be an issue? Maybe. The 200-400 AF's significantly faster. And one person has mentioned the 'slow' zoom ring. He means that you have to twist the stupid zoom ring on the stupid 200-500 lens a LONG, long way to go from 200mm to 500mm. You have to twist as far as you can, then let go of the lens and regrasp the zoom ring to zoom some more. The 200-400 is NOT like that. It zooms from 200 to 400mm in only a quarter of a turn.
So do you shoot day only? Or in poor light. Do you just want to cover the infield of baseball? And can you live with ignoring soccer play at the other end of the field (and when that happens - 400mm isn't MUCH different from 600mm.)
--
Bill,
