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

Started Aug 17, 2019 | Discussions thread
owlseye Regular Member • Posts: 234
Re: 200-500 and 200-400 moving forward, e.g., Z.

olindacat wrote:

owlseye wrote:

Tamy's images are uncrossed (other than for leveling).

Bruce, I will probably buy the 200-500. That additional 100mm is very useful, and I haven't read too may complaints about distance being a problem with that ens, versus the 200-400. I had begin my search looking for cheap reach on a thread of that name (I know there is a way to link it, sorry), but had always lusted after that 200-400. In honestly evaluating my ability, needs, budget... it seems to me I would do well to practice with the cheaper glass and if/when I get myself accustomed to such FLs, then I cold always move up to your level. I shoot far less wildlife than you!

Either the D7200 or D7500 would be a nice way to get the most out of either lens. Both bodies are very nice with good AF. As I said previously, we both use D500's for our wildlife work... this camera is a nice match to either lens as well. In some ways, you might enjoy using a D500 w/ the 200-500mm f/5.6 more than the D7500 w/ a 200-400VR... not sure

I rented the 7500 and it was fine. Used to own a 7000. Thought about the 500 but got a used 810 for $1100, and needed MPs for landscapes, etc. The speed of the D500 is really good, right?

The D7500 is a great value and more than capable of producing professional quality images. If you are constrained by budget, then it is a great option. However, just to be clear, the D500 is a better camera. It has a more robust build, faster frame rate, better AF performance, and some intangibles like matching ergonomics of the D850.

Thanks for all of your input, Bruce. Most helpful to me. I am still completely lost ha ha.

Sorry about that... I hesitate to say that one is superior to the other because both can produce amazing images... more often than not, the lens has a lot less to do with the quality of an image than does the light and subject.

And the user. It's the indian not the arrow This indian can never stop learning. Very much appreciate your time on this, Bruce. I had a 1750 opportunity to buy the 200-400, rebuilt, but think I might go with either the 200-500 or the 80-400 depending on a number of things, money being chief among them.

If your goal is to buy the best "wildlife" lens for the money, then the 200-500 is best in class w/ the Sigma 150-600 Sport being a touch better if weather sealing and 600mm is important. Of course, the Sigma is more expensive than the Nikon. If you want an all around lens for travel and wildlife, then the 80-400 AFSG may be a better choice.

-- hide signature --


 owlseye's gear list:owlseye's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon 500mm F5.6E PF Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 Nikon Z6 II +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow