200-500 and 200-400 moving forward, e.g., Z.

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
olindacat Regular Member • Posts: 408
200-500 and 200-400 moving forward, e.g., Z.

I've been lurking, asking, for months about cheap reach, as I need length for golf action and some landscapes. Many good suggestions offered, and a lot of wisdom here from owners of the above two lenses. My takeaway is the 200-500 has a slower SWM but works and there are news shooters using it all day long for sideline action, and it if its good enough for them.....

Now, focus hunting is a scary thing if you are shooting a golfer. Sometimes you may not have that second chance. (I guess we all feel that way.) The SWM in the 200-400 I hear is faster, but inevitably will die and need replacing, for about $500-600.

The VR vs VRII on that lens is similar, and not substantially better, some say.

Does the newer 200-500 have better coating than the VR1 200-400? Is there anything else internally or mechanically or electronically that might not play better with the adapter on a mirrorless if the 200-400 option is used, vs the 200-500?

The 200-400 is buyable used for maybe 500-700 more than the 200-500, I hear it is better built, but it is old. I want the glass to last me 15+ years, so appreciate any thoughts from owners who are wondering about the future. I posted something about that future in a the body section as well, but see an copy of the 200-400 on eBay going pretty cheap, and it ends soon, so thought I'd give this question a whirl and see if anyone has any preferences between the two and why, for future use, 10-15 years from now.

ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow