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

PerfectPoms · Jun 29, 2019

As I mentioned, I've owned 3 copies of the 200-400 f4 - and I'm not sure you'll really see any difference between the VR 1 and VR II - except the VR II is almost $1,000 more expensive on the used market. The VR 1 is SUPER deal.

kayaker353 · Jun 29, 2019

I have a 6 year old grandson that plays T-ball and soccer. He is small for his age. As for lenses, I have the 200 to 400 and the 80 to 400. When shooting sports he plays, it is always the 80 to 400. The image quality is good, AF very fast and the zoom range is great. No plans to change. Since acquiring the 80 to 400, the 200 to 400 gets little useage.

Leonard Shepherd · Jun 30, 2019

"Dad" seems to have already clarified his preference.

Son might get some kudos from Dad having the biggest lens among the parents :-D

With both lenses at the telephoto end the 200-500 is only half an inch shorter though.

For inconvenience it is near impossible to zoom the 170 degrees from 200 to 500 with one turn of the hand with the 200-500. It is an easy 80 degrees on the pro built lens.

Not often needed but for manual focus the 200-400 focus ring turns through over 12 inches - making it probably the most accurate Nikon lens there is for manual focus.

T O Shooter · Jun 30, 2019

kayaker353 said:
I have a 6 year old grandson that plays T-ball and soccer. He is small for his age. As for lenses, I have the 200 to 400 and the 80 to 400. When shooting sports he plays, it is always the 80 to 400. The image quality is good, AF very fast and the zoom range is great. No plans to change. Since acquiring the 80 to 400, the 200 to 400 gets little useage.

Same recommendation I made. In 2019, in the age of smart phones, not something I'd want to be doing in showing up at kids' sports with a lenses that looks like you're on safari. A bit overkill.

I think Leonard nailed it in the post following yours.

I've replied to several of these "which lens?" or "which body?" threads with a "tell me which one you're leaning towards, I'll agree with you, and we'll cut out a lot of bs" That's what my reply should have been in this thread, as the OP came in decided. IMO

CptAmerica · Jun 30, 2019

T O Shooter said:
kayaker353 said:

I have a 6 year old grandson that plays T-ball and soccer. He is small for his age. As for lenses, I have the 200 to 400 and the 80 to 400. When shooting sports he plays, it is always the 80 to 400. The image quality is good, AF very fast and the zoom range is great. No plans to change. Since acquiring the 80 to 400, the 200 to 400 gets little useage.

Click to expand...

Same recommendation I made. In 2019, in the age of smart phones, not something I'd want to be doing in showing up at kids' sports with a lenses that looks like you're on safari. A bit overkill.

I think Leonard nailed it in the post following yours.

I've replied to several of these "which lens?" or "which body?" threads with a "tell me which one you're leaning towards, I'll agree with you, and we'll cut out a lot of bs" That's what my reply should have been in this thread, as the OP came in decided. IMO

Nikon33 · Jun 30, 2019

CptAmerica said:
T O Shooter said:

kayaker353 said:

I have a 6 year old grandson that plays T-ball and soccer. He is small for his age. As for lenses, I have the 200 to 400 and the 80 to 400. When shooting sports he plays, it is always the 80 to 400. The image quality is good, AF very fast and the zoom range is great. No plans to change. Since acquiring the 80 to 400, the 200 to 400 gets little useage.

Click to expand...

Same recommendation I made. In 2019, in the age of smart phones, not something I'd want to be doing in showing up at kids' sports with a lenses that looks like you're on safari. A bit overkill.

I think Leonard nailed it in the post following yours.

I've replied to several of these "which lens?" or "which body?" threads with a "tell me which one you're leaning towards, I'll agree with you, and we'll cut out a lot of bs" That's what my reply should have been in this thread, as the OP came in decided. IMO

Click to expand...

I certainly did not come in decided, at all. I made my decisions based on clarifications on exactly what the 200-500 wasnt. I was hoping the differences were a bit closer, but decided I think in would eventually be underwhelmed with the 500.

No need to chime in at all if you're so emotionally wrapped up in your personal recommendation. I also find it very strange that you would feel strange about how you "look" in regards to your gear... this is a strange phenomenon I see on these forums quite a bit. Just go out and shoot. Stop worrying about what others think.

To the rest that provided input, thanks for your time. I did not start this thread pre-decided.

I agree. When I shoot, I want to bring the equipment that will get the job done. One time, I even used a kit 18-55mm lens on a D850 during a paid shoot. Well, I don't care how silly of a combo it seemed. It more than adequately got the job done.

T O Shooter · Jun 30, 2019

CptAmerica said:
T O Shooter said:

kayaker353 said:

I have a 6 year old grandson that plays T-ball and soccer. He is small for his age. As for lenses, I have the 200 to 400 and the 80 to 400. When shooting sports he plays, it is always the 80 to 400. The image quality is good, AF very fast and the zoom range is great. No plans to change. Since acquiring the 80 to 400, the 200 to 400 gets little useage.

Click to expand...

Same recommendation I made. In 2019, in the age of smart phones, not something I'd want to be doing in showing up at kids' sports with a lenses that looks like you're on safari. A bit overkill.

I think Leonard nailed it in the post following yours.

I've replied to several of these "which lens?" or "which body?" threads with a "tell me which one you're leaning towards, I'll agree with you, and we'll cut out a lot of bs" That's what my reply should have been in this thread, as the OP came in decided. IMO

Click to expand...

I certainly did not come in decided, at all.

I don't agree with you but it doesn't matter. After a couple of posts I was fairly certainly you were going to buy the 200-400. I stand by what I said. I have the 200-400VRII and the 200-500, which I dismissed on an early rental. But I bought a used 200-500 from a fellow that was using two of them professional, but decided he wanted one prime + one zoom. Figured I'd get a "good" copy that way, if there's any such thing as a "bad" copy. Far, far from my favorite lens, but under good lighting conditions it is exceptional, and the comments on the auto focus are just not correct on a D850, D4, D4s, D5.

CptAmerica said:
I made my decisions based on clarifications on exactly what the 200-500 wasn't.

You got bad and false advice. Quite a few fellows on FM ditched their 200-400 for the 200-500. I would not ditch mine. I did ditch my 80-400 VR G as I felt I was sacrificing 70-200 IQ for 80-400 convenience. But I didn't recommend the 80-400 to you because it fit my situation, but that I thought it would be a better lens for you. I couldn't care less what you actually buy, you can buy nothing and I'm fine.

CptAmerica said:
I was hoping the differences were a bit closer, but decided I think in would eventually be underwhelmed with the 500.

Some are, many are not.

CptAmerica said:
No need to chime in at all if you're so emotionally wrapped up in your personal recommendation.

Well, I'm not, but I chime in as I feel like it anyway. I bought the premium DPR membership, while you're likely running on the free one.

CptAmerica said:
I also find it very strange that you would feel strange about how you "look" in regards to your gear...

You're obviously a man who doesn't mind standing out like this.

Luckily for me, I don't have to go with you. It's kids sports - you could use a Coke bottle for a lens, and for what you're shooting it would be good enough.

CptAmerica said:
this is a strange phenomenon I see on these forums quite a bit. Just go out and shoot. Stop worrying about what others think.

To the rest that provided input, thanks for your time. I did not start this thread pre-decided.

Maybe you're a fellow who likes to be judge by how much money he spends. If I'm mistaken my apologies in advance.

On the other hand, lighten up. :-D

--
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

T O Shooter · Jun 30, 2019

Nikon33 said:
CptAmerica said:

T O Shooter said:

kayaker353 said:

I have a 6 year old grandson that plays T-ball and soccer. He is small for his age. As for lenses, I have the 200 to 400 and the 80 to 400. When shooting sports he plays, it is always the 80 to 400. The image quality is good, AF very fast and the zoom range is great. No plans to change. Since acquiring the 80 to 400, the 200 to 400 gets little useage.

Click to expand...

Same recommendation I made. In 2019, in the age of smart phones, not something I'd want to be doing in showing up at kids' sports with a lenses that looks like you're on safari. A bit overkill.

I think Leonard nailed it in the post following yours.

I've replied to several of these "which lens?" or "which body?" threads with a "tell me which one you're leaning towards, I'll agree with you, and we'll cut out a lot of bs" That's what my reply should have been in this thread, as the OP came in decided. IMO

Click to expand...

I certainly did not come in decided, at all. I made my decisions based on clarifications on exactly what the 200-500 wasnt. I was hoping the differences were a bit closer, but decided I think in would eventually be underwhelmed with the 500.

No need to chime in at all if you're so emotionally wrapped up in your personal recommendation. I also find it very strange that you would feel strange about how you "look" in regards to your gear... this is a strange phenomenon I see on these forums quite a bit. Just go out and shoot. Stop worrying about what others think.

To the rest that provided input, thanks for your time. I did not start this thread pre-decided.

Click to expand...

I agree. When I shoot, I want to bring the equipment that will get the job done. One time, I even used a kit 18-55mm lens on a D850 during a paid shoot. Well, I don't care how silly of a combo it seemed. It more than adequately got the job done.

Do you think no one has seen your past posts? The only lenses you had were stuff rescued from the recycling bin.

If I recall correctly you only bought a long lens recently, a la above, you were shooting a D3300 or something.

CptAmerica · Jun 30, 2019

I'm not reading all that, but thanks for contributing. I'm going to go out and go shooting... you can sit around and worry what people look like with their equipment.

Good luck to ya.

T O Shooter · Jun 30, 2019

CptAmerica said:
I'm not reading all that

My point confirmed. Came in with decision made. Bet you saw the picture

CptAmerica said:
, but thanks for contributing. I'm going to go out and go shooting... you can sit around and worry what people look like with their equipment.

Good luck to ya.

--
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

Nikon33 · Jun 30, 2019

T O Shooter said:
Nikon33 said:

CptAmerica said:

T O Shooter said:

kayaker353 said:

I have a 6 year old grandson that plays T-ball and soccer. He is small for his age. As for lenses, I have the 200 to 400 and the 80 to 400. When shooting sports he plays, it is always the 80 to 400. The image quality is good, AF very fast and the zoom range is great. No plans to change. Since acquiring the 80 to 400, the 200 to 400 gets little useage.

Click to expand...

Same recommendation I made. In 2019, in the age of smart phones, not something I'd want to be doing in showing up at kids' sports with a lenses that looks like you're on safari. A bit overkill.

I think Leonard nailed it in the post following yours.

I've replied to several of these "which lens?" or "which body?" threads with a "tell me which one you're leaning towards, I'll agree with you, and we'll cut out a lot of bs" That's what my reply should have been in this thread, as the OP came in decided. IMO

Click to expand...

I certainly did not come in decided, at all. I made my decisions based on clarifications on exactly what the 200-500 wasnt. I was hoping the differences were a bit closer, but decided I think in would eventually be underwhelmed with the 500.

No need to chime in at all if you're so emotionally wrapped up in your personal recommendation. I also find it very strange that you would feel strange about how you "look" in regards to your gear... this is a strange phenomenon I see on these forums quite a bit. Just go out and shoot. Stop worrying about what others think.

To the rest that provided input, thanks for your time. I did not start this thread pre-decided.

Click to expand...

I agree. When I shoot, I want to bring the equipment that will get the job done. One time, I even used a kit 18-55mm lens on a D850 during a paid shoot. Well, I don't care how silly of a combo it seemed. It more than adequately got the job done.

Click to expand...

Do you think no one has seen your past posts? The only lenses you had were stuff rescued from the recycling bin.

If I recall correctly you only bought a long lens recently, a la above, you were shooting a D3300 or something.

It's been quite a while since I've had a long lens. That D3300 is long gone.

Zander Blaze · Mar 20, 2023

What did you decide? I’m obviously very late to this discussion but I’d have told you to go with the 200-400. After reading most of this thread I found it odd no one talked about the pro-level build quality as an advantage over the (IMO) very cheap feeling 200-500. The whole external zoom of the 200-500 is also a major turnoff for me,

Ricardo00 · Mar 20, 2023

Zander Blaze said:
What did you decide? I’m obviously very late to this discussion but I’d have told you to go with the 200-400. After reading most of this thread I found it odd no one talked about the pro-level build quality as an advantage over the (IMO) very cheap feeling 200-500. The whole external zoom of the 200-500 is also a major turnoff for me,

I too am always curious about threads like these to hear what the OP decided and their subsequent thoughts.

PS. Either they didn't update their equipment list or didn't buy either.

GarysInSoCal · Mar 20, 2023

The 200-400 is about an inch longer... about a pound heavier... and well over $5000 more expensive than the 200-500. Granted... it's a stop faster and will probably focus a tad quicker... but you gotta ask yourself this SERIOUS question... is that extra $5000 really worth it?

I'm a very happy owner of the 200-500...

Shot with the 200-500... open shade... Select Models photoshoot in Riverside CA.

PerfectPoms · Mar 20, 2023

$5,000 more expensive? That's very disingenous. Almost NOBODY will be buying a 200-400 f4 new these days. Please compare the USED prices of these lenses, and the difference is not huge. Especially given the HUGE difference in build quality of the two lenses.

Used prices on the 200-400 f4 are a deal - for what you get - and the version I of this lens is an even better deal than the VR II. (which is so very similar to the VR I)

That being said, the 200-500 was the best deal on any Nikon lens you could buy - for reach, and sharpness, etc. But the 200-500 was not just a TAD slower to AF !!

Have you actually USED a 200-400 f4? The AF was relatively close to instant. The 200-500 was NOT. And the 200-500 had a very long zoom throw distance, requiring you to rotate the zoom ring as far as you could, and then take your hand off the lens and regrip and rotate the zoom ring again to go from 200 to 500mm. This was not the case with the 200-400 f4, which went from 200 to 400 mm in about a quarter turn.

I used the 200-500 ONCE - and then sold it as used, not returning it to the camera store for a refund. I've owned 3 copies of the 200-400 and replaced my last copy with the 180-400 f4 lens with a built in TC - which costs about 8 or 9 times as much as the 200-500.

I agree with the person who just noted - that the 200-400 is a TANK - and will last forever - in tough abusive situations. The 200-500? No. That lens is 'plastic.'

But - the 200-400 f4 is very front heavy - and a pain to hand hold. Some of you probably remember me complaining about taking 18,000 photos in one day with that lens - hand held - and then I couldn't LIFT my left arm for a week after that - and that experience let me to buying a tripod for the first time in my life - but now I'm back to no tripod or monopod and hand holding my 400 f2.8 and 500 f4 and 120-300 2.8.

So - yes, the 200-500 is much easier to hand hold than the much more solid 200-400. But I'd much rather have the 200-400 in my hands if I ever had to bash a bear in the nose with a lens - if it ever came to that. (I just listened to the tape of a guy and his gf/wife who were eaten by bears - the guy who said he preferred being out with the bears - than with people. He recorded his death while being eaten by one or more bears - and it went on for a LONG time - as he screamed in terrible pain. .....)

LensWizard · Mar 21, 2023

Mine is still like BNIB and with me here now in Sunny SriLanka.. The build quality is far better then the 200-500 and price difference is well worth it to me....

--
Canon XLH1 Video, Profoto AcuteR2400, Eizo 27Inch CG277 Monitor, MSI GT80S Laptop, MSI Vortex G-65 Desktop, Wimberly Mk2 Head, Gitzo 5540LS Tripods (2), Arca Swiss Monoball Head, Macbook Pro 15inch Retna Display,Arca Swiss C1 Cube Head, Apple Mac Pro (6) Core 3.5GHZ Dual AMD700's

David5833 · Mar 21, 2023

PerfectPoms said:
...So - yes, the 200-500 is much easier to hand hold than the much more solid 200-400. But I'd much rather have the 200-400 in my hands if I ever had to bash a bear in the nose with a lens - if it ever came to that.

While you may be correct about relative build quality and focus speed, the 200-500 is still an excellent, well-made, and very usable lens and does not feel flimsy in any way. I dropped mine from shoulder height onto concrete and the only damage was a cracked lens hood. Meanwhile, the D7200 it was mounted on had unrepairable damage to its metal frame.

Neither lens is fun to hand hold for any length of time, but the 200-500 is less onerous, less expensive, optically at least as good or better albeit a stop slower, and if you are bashing bears noses, it probably would be just as effective.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/143821723@N06/

PerfectPoms · Mar 21, 2023

Agreed that the 200-500 is sharp, and easier to hand hold. RIP to your 7200. That is an awful feeling you experience in the pit of your stomach at the moment you watch your camera equipment hit the ground.

I once had a 18-200 lens attached to a camera roll 60 yards down a very steep hill - and fly into several pieces when it hit a gravel path at the bottom of the hill. I had the lens fully extended at the time, thinking doing so made it more stable on the ground at my feet, while I was using the 70-200 on another body in my hands - but one of my puppies ran into the camera/lens and knocked it down the hill. I just missed the chance to swing the camera in my hand around in time to take photos of the camera rolling down the hill. That would have been a bittersweet series of photos - at 12 fps, or 10.

Oh - and one thing to remember about the 200-400 f4 - is it is less sharp at the long end of the zoom range - probably from somewhere near 350mm to 400mm. Although I think stopping down half a stop or a full stop when you are at that end of the zoom range might sharpen up your photos. I don't know that the 200-500 exibits this problem. Probably not - and Nikon probably knows that most people will take most shots with this lens at 500mm.

--
Bill,
https://pbase.com/billmcintyre

Zander Blaze · Mar 21, 2023

I’m very surprised your 200-500 didn’t break into 2 pieces when you dropped it onto concrete at that height. I don’t own either but I’ve held both and the 200-400 seems so much more solid in its construction. One would think the barrel extending out so far when zoomed to 500mm would eventually lead to significant internal moisture and dirt accumulation. I’ve also read in many places online where the 200-500 is fairly soft at the 500mm end where I would think many owners tend to use this lens.

Nikon intended the 200-400 as the final piece in their pro-line series of zooms, re: 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. Knowing the great reputation of the other lenses in that lineup, it only stands to reason the 200-400 was built to be optically and mechanically as great as the others.

Personally, I think I’m going to pass over both and buy the painfully-expensive latest version of either the 400mm 2.8 or the 500mm f4. (Any thoughts?)

Zander Blaze · Mar 21, 2023

PerfectPoms said:
Oh - and one thing to remember about the 200-400 f4 - is it is less sharp at the long end of the zoom range - probably from somewhere near 350mm to 400mm. Although I think stopping down half a stop or a full stop when you are at that end of the zoom range might sharpen up your photos. I don't know that the 200-500 exibits this problem. Probably not - and Nikon probably knows that most people will take most shots with this lens at 500mm.

From what I’ve read the 200-500 is weaker at 500mm than the 200-400 is at 400mm.
I read a lot of reviews about the 200-500 that always seem to include the same remark that photogrpahyLife did in it’s review of the 200-500:

“the lens starts out pretty strong at 200mm and its performance degrades towards the long end of the zoom range, which means that at 500mm, the lens suffers the most optically”

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

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

New member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

New member

New member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts