200-500 Nikon lens OR 500 prime ?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

AnnetteJane

AnnetteJane

Well-known member
Member's gallery
Which would you get ? Forgetting cost.
200-500 has the zoom( have presently)
500 is smaller, lighter - an important aspect for travel and hiking. I’m thinking of trading in towards a 500.
Am I going to miss the zoom to much ? Would this be a mistake ? Does the 500 take better pictures ? Faster autofocus ? Anyone have both ? Which do you tend to use ?
I presently have a 70-200 mirrorless.
24-70 f 4 and a 50 mirrorless.
No second camera body.
shooting with Z7
Should I wait for a native larger telephoto to come out ?
 
Member's gallery
Assuming you are talking about the 500PF as opposed to one of the 500 f/4's. I have the 500 PF (about a month, got mine 3 weeks before the big discount) as well as the 200-500. I shoot all dslr's so I can only comment on their behavior with those. I've used the 200-500 for years, very good lens and maybe the best bargain in the Nikon lens line-up. I mostly used it at 500mm because that's what I needed. When I did need to zoom out, it was a bit painful as it is an awkward lens to zoom. Lots of rotation and my copy isn't exactly silky when zooming. Enter the 500PF. AF is noticably faster and the lens is very light. There are times I think it is too light as I like heavier lens as they tend to dampen lens shake. I think the 500PF is sharper than the 200-500 @500. Not sure by how much but it is noticable.
You should ask yourself where you shoot the 200-500.......is almost always at 500mm? Or, are you more often in the 300-400mm zone? If the former, I don't think you could go wrong with the PF. I'm using mine more than my 500 EFL and 600EFL and am pleased with the results.
As for the thought of an S mount tele prime I think we'll see one eventually but it will likely be a few years. I'll guess that the rumored 600 PF will not appear in F mount but could be the first S mount tele prime.

171218721.jpg

Nikon D850 with 500PF.
 
Member's gallery
I assume you mean the 500 mm PF lens, since you mention it is lighter and smaller and the 500 mm f4 would be heavier. I have both the 200-500 mm zoom and the 500 mm PF. I have shot them on a D500, D850, Z7 and (less frequently) a Z6.

What do you photograph? I shoot a lot of birds (and other wildlife) and I like to do so walking around a nearby national wildlife refuge and also from a kayak on a lake in northern Minnesota. I also like photo-oriented travel and hiking. Given my shooting, light weight and smaller size is important. When I was considering the 500 mm PF, I looked back at how I used the 200-500 and found that most of my photos were at the long end.

Both are good lenses and you can get excellent pictures from either one. In my experience, the 500 mm PF is faster to focus. I also think it is a bit better optically, especially near the edges and corners of the frame. And light weight has some advantages when you want to follow a moving subject or shoot from closer quarters like a kayak. I like the way the 500 mm PF balances on a Z body. I think the 200-500 is a bit heavy on a Z body (for me anyway) -- when I want to use the 200-500 mm now, I find my self reaching for the D500 or D850.

I have had the 500 mm PF since January, 2019. It is my most used lens and I use it most often on the Z7, followed by the D850 and D500. On a Z7, the 500 mm PF works pretty well with the 1.4x TCIII -- although the combination is f8, all the focus points work on the Z7. On a DSLR, you get only a small subset of focus points near the center of the frame at f8.

I have kept the zoom because it is a good lens and there are times you want the flexibility of a zoom in one lens. That said, I have often found myself bringing the light weight (but good quality) 70-300 mm AF-P FX lens (alone or on my Z6 or D850) when I want to have an alternative covering shorter focal lengths.

I have taken the D850, Z7 and 500 mm PF on trips to Torres Del Paine, Gwaii Hanaas, and the Antarctic Peninsula before Covid shut down my travel. The 500 mm PF is a joy to travel with. I have taken it on jets, regional jets and float planes with no issues.

On my trip to the Antarctic Peninsula in late January, early February, this year, one of the trip leaders (a well known wildlife photographer) brought the 200-500 mm lens as his main long lens. I know he has just about every Nikon telephoto, but he chose the 200-500 as a good combination of size, versatility and quality. So at some level, you probably can't go wrong either way.
 
Member's gallery
FWIW, I sold my 200-500mm after picking up a 500mm PF. I occasionally miss the framing flexibility of the zoom but the 500mm PF is much lighter, shorter than the 200-500mm zoomed all the way out and is sharper across the entire frame. It also has slightly better AF performance and balances much better against my DSLRs and I'd expect it to balance much better against the lighter Z series cameras.

But as posted above, it really depends on how much you need the zoom capability and your budget and also how mobile you are with your photography. If you work close to the car and don't rely on the convenience of zooming then a 500mm or 600mm f/4 prime is really hard to beat for image quality but I suspect you're talking about more portable lenses.
 
Member's gallery
I have both the 500pf and the 500e fl vr f/4 and have owned the 200-500. If you want to shoot wildlife and can afford it, this is an easy choice. While the 200-500 is a great value, the performance of the pf (assuming that is the other option) is far superior except for the zoom flexibility. The 200-500 is fairly sharp across the board, but af is slow...and in anything other than good light the advantage of the faster lens will magnify. Lastly, you can use the 1.4 tc with the pf, but I wouldn't bother trying with the zoom. So if you have the budget, go for the pf.
 
Member's gallery
I have the AF-S 500 F4 along with the 200-500 and 500PF. If your shooting off a tripod it really doesn't matter. If your hand holding then it really does matter. The 500 f4 is out of the question. You need at least a monopod. The 200-500 can definitely be hand held but its heavy when you are on target waiting for the action to happen. Even with the excellent VR to help its still not ideal. Then the 500PF. What a delight to walk around and handhold. It also has an excellent VR which is icing on the cake. I carry 2 bodies with attached lenses when in the field. The other lens is the 300 PF. If your concerned with loosing the zoom then the 300PF will fill the gap. You said forgetting the cost . The image quality you will get with these 2 lenses will help in doing that.
 
Member's gallery
Had the 200-500, heavy, slow to af, and zooming is awkward due to the overly long travel. Went to a 300PF with1.4 tc. My copy of the 200-500 wasnt as sharp as the 300. Then picked up a 500PF. It is my most used lens. Also have a 600G. Used on a D850, D500, Z6, and now a Z6II. I'll say the 500PF is fantastic. Sharp, light and VR is excellent. Cant sing enough praises for the 500PF
 
Member's gallery
I have the 200-500 and love it. The 500 Prime would have caused a divorce! Unlike the others, I do find myself using the different focal lengths, but clearly the most used is 500 mm. I love the lens, especially for the cost but the darn thing is heavy! I take pictures of birds and bugs and the sharpness of the lens is amazing, as long as I use it on a tripod and shoot at least 1/500 of a sec.

From all I have read, if you got the $$ go with the 500 prime. But you won't regret the 200-500.
 
Member's gallery
I have both the lenses the 200-500 & the 500PF. Each lens has its different uses. For BIF I constantly use the the D500 coupled with the 500PF as its AF is very fast compared to the 200-500, plus its light weight, slightly better IQ and easy to handle while tracking birds. But I also regularly go for jungle safari's in India to shoot tigers and other large mammals and my experience is that a zoom is more suitable & versatile in such conditions when the subject comes too close to you. Since I have 2 DSLR's for jungle safari's I use my D850 coupled with the 200-500 and my D500 with the 500PF. Since my last copy of the 200-500 is very sharp (had to exchange 3 times before I got a good copy) I have decided to keep it till I find a suitable equivalent light weight alternative to this lens.

So it finally boils down to your immediate current needs, shooting style / techniques and what subjects do you plan to shoot and under what conditions. Most of us here on this forum are old-timers using DSLR's, heavily invested in F mount lenses and are still very skeptical to move over to mirrorless completely due to various shortcomings on the mirrorless platform for fast action wildlife photography. You on the other hand have started directly on mirrorless system. Nikon eventually will come out with a mirrorless lightweight tele prime / zoom and if I were in your shoes right now, I would wait for it and get the native S lens. That is because if you invest now in a 500PF F mount lens you still will need the FTZ adaptor to use the same on your Z7 adding to the weight. Your current 200-500 is still serving the same purpose on your Z7 but with a slightly slow AF and weight. Finally its your decision depending on your current needs and budget.
 
Member's gallery
I have the 200-500 and it’s great! I just received my 500PF today from B&H. I will be keeping the 200-500 until nikon comes out with the 200-600 for the Z. I will likely use the 500PF more but I bought my 200-500 in January for $750. Not worth selling it. The zoom has its place but if I could choose just one I’d buy the 500 PF.
 
Member's gallery
I’m looking at the 500 PF that is 5.6, the F4 not up for consideration. THAT one is definitely to much for me.
Shooting birds and wildlife. Probably would give my 200-500 to my husband if I get the 500.. wouldn’t want to take it back though. Lol. I love the idea of the 500 f5.6 being lighter and smaller. Hiking mountains and carrying.. plus half the time I’m also carrying my tripod and a monopod. I am just debating. If I do this,I loose that 200-500 range. I should lighten my load though. 70-200 is great for hummingbirds and such.
200-600 native lens would be good but I wonder when and how heavy. The 70-200 wasn’t any lighter but native lenses are preferred. Already using an adapter with the 200-500. It’s a good lens but is the 500 better and the 200-500 good or not, gets heavy carrying it on a monopod up a mountain because I won’t put it away just in case I see something.Camera is useless in pack.
Lots of good points. What I meant about the money being that I don’t need to settle with the 200-500 just because I have it.. wondering which would be the best between 200-500 or 500 f5.6. Should I suck up all the weight or switch it up. I do both mountains, lots of hiking and just parking by a marsh to set up on tripod for swans and such.
my husband suggested that if things get to close, do portraits.. anyhow if I kept the 200-500, I’m not packing both that and the 500.
part of me wonders on quality of such a light 500 but it is Nikon, can’t be to bad ?
 
Member's gallery
Ajodo said:
Lots of good points. What I meant about the money being that I don’t need to settle with the 200-500 just because I have it.. wondering which would be the best between 200-500 or 500 f5.6. Should I suck up all the weight or switch it up. I do both mountains, lots of hiking and just parking by a marsh to set up on tripod for swans and such.
my husband suggested that if things get to close, do portraits.. anyhow if I kept the 200-500, I’m not packing both that and the 500.
part of me wonders on quality of such a light 500 but it is Nikon, can’t be to bad ?
Click to expand...
Lot's wrapped up in that, but in a nutshell:

- The image quality of the 500mm PF is better across the board than the 200-500mm. Both are very good lenses but the 500mm PF is just a bit better.

- The 500mm PF is very well built even with its light weight. Most of the weight savings comes from the PF lens element and removing all the zoom mechanisms including the extra lens elements required in a zoom lens. It's a very well built yet light lens.

I also do a lot of hiking up in the mountains with camera gear and that's a big part of the reason I picked up the 500mm PF, it's really great for longer days on the trail when you still want a long lens. FWIW, my favorite go kit for longer days is the 500mm PF, a 70-200mm zoom(and a TC-14 III to get close to 300mm when needed) and a wide angle zoom with either the D500 or D850. All of that fits with room to spare for some food, water and layers in a Lowepro Flipside 400 AW II pack and makes for a great day hiking wildlife photography setup.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
I also do a lot of hiking up in the mountains with camera gear and that's a big part of the reason I picked up the 500mm PF, it's really great for longer days on the trail when you still want a long lens. FWIW, my favorite go kit for longer days is the 500mm PF, a 70-200mm zoom(and a TC-14 III to get close to 300mm when needed) and a wide angle zoom with either the D500 or D850. All of that fits with room to spare for some food, water and layers in a Lowepro Flipside 400 AW II pack and makes for a great day hiking wildlife photography setup.
Click to expand...

it's nice to see other photographers facing the same challenges. I too use the Lowepro Flipside 400 AW ii to pack the 300 PF (longer hikes) or (200-500mm for shorter hikes), together with 70-200mm and a 11-16mm for occasional Landscapes. I'm waiting for Black Friday to buy the TC-14 iii to get more reach on longer hikes. The 500mm is on my List, but I have to save up for it first.

@Ajodo my recommendation would be to keep both (unless Budget is an issue). The 500 PF is sharper, better weather proofing, and smaller / lighter (but has fixed focal length). The 200-500mm is a great budget lens, sharp enough, very versatile, but is bulky and heavy. Depending on what you shoot and how often you travel, one lens better suits the situation than the other.
I would keep both if I can afford it.. if not, I would go for 500 PF combined with a 70-200 + TC-14 (to keep the flexibility of a zoom).
As for using the FTZ with Z cameras.. as soon as you do that, you lose the element of light weight.. that is why I'm still sticking to DSLRs.
 
Member's gallery
I was shooting the 200-500 mostly at the long end. Since I received 500 PF, it’s not getting a lot of love any more. Typical kit now is 50 f/1.8, 70-200 F/2.8 FL, 300 PF, 500 PF and TC14-III. If I need bigger zoom range I leave 70-200 home and take the 80-400 AF-S.
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for all the input. Think I’m going to get the 500 sounds like it IS a step up in quality, getting the good picture is the prime agenda) and get a teleconverter for my 70-200 ( waffling on that ). Eventually another body. Maybe even a DSLR And just keep the 500 on that. I got mirrorless because it was easier to learn on. I have an atlas athlete backpack. I had a smaller lowpro backpack which I needed to upgrade after getting into larger lenses. I’ll give the 200-500 to my husband, he might have more fun while I sit for hours..he’s typically taking pi tires of me and scenery. That can only entertain for so long..I can sit for hours and hours watching swans or waiting for a bear to MAYBE peek his head out. But for the most part, on the move.
I’m thinking I’ll have an easier time with the 500 PF 5.6 for birds in flight as well so my goal is to get it by spring..next trip is hopefully ( 🤞)in May.
dtibbals said:
I have the 200-500 and it’s great! I just received my 500PF today from B&H. I will be keeping the 200-500 until nikon comes out with the 200-600 for the Z. I will likely use the 500PF more but I bought my 200-500 in January for $750. Not worth selling it. The zoom has its place but if I could choose just one I’d buy the 500 PF.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the size and weight of the 200-600 will be...maybe give the 200-500 to my husband.( his photography passion isnt quite wildlife but he goes with me anyhow :) Get the 500 now and then when the 200-600 comes out, get that for any side of the road tripod stuff...and just not consider it my hiking/travel lens.
 
Member's gallery
Ajodo said:
Thanks for all the input. Think I’m going to get the 500 sounds like it IS a step up in quality, getting the good picture is the prime agenda) and get a teleconverter for my 70-200 ( waffling on that ). Eventually another body. Maybe even a DSLR And just keep the 500 on that. I got mirrorless because it was easier to learn on. I have an atlas athlete backpack. I had a smaller lowpro backpack which I needed to upgrade after getting into larger lenses. I’ll give the 200-500 to my husband, he might have more fun while I sit for hours..he’s typically taking pi tires of me and scenery. That can only entertain for so long..I can sit for hours and hours watching swans or waiting for a bear to MAYBE peek his head out. But for the most part, on the move.
I’m thinking I’ll have an easier time with the 500 PF 5.6 for birds in flight as well so my goal is to get it by spring..next trip is hopefully ( 🤞)in May.

I wonder what the size and weight of the 200-600 will be...maybe give the 200-500 to my husband.( his photography passion isnt quite wildlife but he goes with me anyhow :) Get the 500 now and then when the 200-600 comes out, get that for any side of the road tripod stuff...and just not consider it my hiking/travel lens.
Click to expand...
Yup we are in the same boat. I’m the primary one into taking pictures. When I don’t need the zoom it makes a perfect companion lens to the 500 PF.
 
Member's gallery
You won't regret buying the PF. Had the 200-500 and sold it once I got the PF. I rarely zoomed out with the 200-500 and the PF is just soooo much more convenient, easier to handle and lighter to walk with. If you need to zoom out ... back up (be aware where you are going though ;)).
While the 200-500 was an extremely good lens for the money the 500PF is just much better and still at a reasonable (comparatively) cost. FWIW, I thought the 300pf was an amazing lens but the 500PF blows it away.
 
Member's gallery
I have both Nikon 500mm lenses. And a 300mm f4 pf. Ihave never owned a 200-500mm Nikon. I have not used my Nikon 500mm f4 since I got the 500mm f5.6. I recommend the 500mm f5.6 as it weighs a lot less and ie easier to carry and use. And it costs $7000 less that the Nikon 500mm f4.
 
Member's gallery
Do you ever zoom with your 200-500mm or do you always find yourself at 500mm and sometimes crop? I kept my 200-500mm along with the 500mm PF but rarely use the zoom. There have only been a handful of times I wish I could have zoomed out for a composition, but honestly they probably still wouldn’t have been the best composition anyway. I more commonly have the 70-300mm on one body and the 500mm on another if I think I may need to go wider. I kept the 200-500 for when I want a second lens at 500mm such as for video. Otherwise I don’t miss it with one exception. The 500mm PF minimum focus distance is not as good as the 200-500mm. Other than that, the 500mm PF focuses faster, is sharper, smaller, lighter, easier to handle. I think it will be a while before they release a native Z version.
 
Member's gallery
If you have the Z7 and the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8; I highly recommend you consider the 2x teleconverter. I primarily shoot wildlife and I appreciate the flexibility of the zoom. We had an unexpected Osprey in our desert. I find the 70-200mm f/2.8 autofocus is very responsive, even with the teleconverter. I shoot with a dual strap and keep one camera body with the 500mm f/5.6 and the other with 140-400mm (f/5.6) [70-200mm f/2.8 with 2x teleconverter]. I am looking forward to the 100-400mm S line [similar size as the 70-200 and should be as responsive without the size and weight.]. It is nice have the flexibility of f/2.8 when you want low light or to experiment with bokeh.
 
Member's gallery
Ajodo said:
Which would you get ? Forgetting cost.
200-500 has the zoom( have presently)
500 is smaller, lighter - an important aspect for travel and hiking. I’m thinking of trading in towards a 500.
Am I going to miss the zoom to much ? Would this be a mistake ? Does the 500 take better pictures ? Faster autofocus ? Anyone have both ? Which do you tend to use ?
I presently have a 70-200 mirrorless.
24-70 f 4 and a 50 mirrorless.
No second camera body.
shooting with Z7
Should I wait for a native larger telephoto to come out ?
Click to expand...


In a Nut Shell.

The cost of ones accumulated shooting excursions in time money effort etc well exceeds the cost of any lens, do the numbers.

Money you can always make, time you can’t get back.

Get what’s right, what you want and we shouldn't ponder.

Hers the deal…………

1) Hands down, you will want to reshoot everything you have ever shot, If you have deep pockets or are partial to credit and want to be blown away every time get the 600mm F4 FL version, you only live once and time is precious, you can always sell it later, it’s the pick of the bunch by far, it’s a super light Prime 1x magnification, far better compression, far better DOF, far less ISO required, faster sharper and better colour, also far better focus acquisition, win win win. It will make you forget about weight.

Don’t get that new car, get this lens. Money is so cheap to borrow the interest rate is nothing, later sell it if you wish… Only and opinion LOL.

Oh your wondering do I have one ? well to be honest, I have one lent to me on most occasions when needed, if not I rent one if it’s a 3 or 4 day shoot.


2) For the tighter budget choice, the 500 PF hmmm overpriced for what it is, but if the No 1 choice is of the table this lens is ok. Lighter smaller slightly nippier than the 200-500 and optically marginally better all at the expense of versatility. Again which tool ?
The 500 PF is a fixed aperture and has no or is a 1 x time magnification like the 600 F4.


3) The super budget pack, the awesome versatile 200-500, ok its heavier, shot well it’s an excellent compromise and almost as good as the 500 PF, its plusses are versatility and cost, it’s another tool with different applications, Its magnification ratio is 2.5 to 1
Example……….. a 70 200 is 2.85 to 1, Example a 28-300 is 10.7 -1…………I never really buy or use a lens over 3-1 ratio again the 200-500 has a 2.5-1 ratio.


Myself if I was spending money on trips and excursions it’s the 600 F4 FL every time, borrow it rent it mortgage the house if need be,

NOTE it can handle the 1.4 convertor brilliantly as opposed to fore mentioned lenses…..Only and Opinion as always



OZ Down Under
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top