200-500 Nikon lens OR 500 prime ?

[markymark]

Like a few have already said above, if you own the 200-500 but shoot mainly at the 500 end then if finances allow go for the 500pf for all of the reasons already given.
I have the 200-500 & at times find the zoom helpful for BIF as it allows me to pull back to get the bird in the frame.
I also often use it at between 300-400 so for those reasons I would add the 500pf to my kit but I wouldn’t replace the 200-500 with it.

 

[EarthImages]

I sold my 200-500 three months after I got my 500pf. The 500pf is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever owned.

 

[AnnetteJane]

Rent it.. that’s a good option if needing the 600 if we are driving around..something I hadn’t thought of before..
I am wanting less weight most of time at present so I have decided 500 5.6 for my wish list.

 

[O]

Rent it.. that’s a good option if needing the 600 if we are driving around..something I hadn’t thought of before..
I am wanting less weight most of time at present so I have decided 500 5.6 for my wish list.

Renting, You can do your head in with all the choices and options, I am lucky where if I need for a paid shoot an exotic lens usually I borrow it, if unavailable at the time i rent one.
I have found trying these esoteric lenses (600 F4 FL) often spoils what you have at home. Be careful trying this stuff...........
Enjoy what you have, there will always be better and different but there is one thing you cant buy and that's your Eye for composition and story telling.

 

[crjPO]

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 ?

I don't have the 200-500 but find the 500 PF quite excellent in so many ways over those big bulky lenses - yes you give up some light vs an F4. For the mid range I'd recommend getting a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter for the 70-200 I recently received the new teleconverters and they are an excellent addition to the fabulous z 70-200 and provide all the flexibility you would be giving up.

 

[Snapshot2020]

I have the 200/500 and the 500 PF. The 500 PF focuses faster, lighter, and better IQ. I don’t sell my gear and the 200/500 is now used for Tripod use where the need is for the Zoom Range. The 500 PF is my BIF go to Lens for the D500 which is a very good combination.

 

[Chris B.]

500.......I had the 200-500 and traded it in for the 500, best thing i did like you say its sharper, lighter, Faster and in my opinion does take better images!
I haven't missed the zoom, but then i got the 300pf and 1.4 &1.7 tc's i have 2 bodies so that combination is able to get the shots i require!

Agree: did the same thing!

 

[O]

Agree: did the same thing!

What do you think of the 300 pf

 

[O]

Rent it.. that’s a good option if needing the 600 if we are driving around..something I hadn’t thought of before..
I am wanting less weight most of time at present so I have decided 500 5.6 for my wish list.

Despite everything I feel you wont be disappointed with the 500 PF, also consider the 300 F4 PF with a 1.4 convetror.

Oz Down under

 

[JP Onstwedder]

With all these comments how the 500 PF has better image quality I feel I need to defend the 200-500 a little bit . This is at 500mm on a D500 and yes, you can count the hairs if you're so inclined (at least on the full size image you can...)

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[O]

With all these comments how the 500 PF has better image quality I feel I need to defend the 200-500 a little bit . This is at 500mm on a D500 and yes, you can count the hairs if you're so inclined (at least on the full size image you can...)

View attachment 10320

Agree, 100%, there are some things money just cant buy, rare opportunity's captured and composed well.
The best lens in the world hands down is the one your using at the time in moments like this.
The only advantage the 500 PF has is being light and small (very welcome if needed) with slight difference in sharpness and focus speed also welcome but a very tolerable sacrifice for the invaluable versatility of not missing the shot. A bit like do you want to use a 300 F4 PF plus convertor or a 200-500, versatility versus light small again with tolerable compremises.
Tamron and Sigma with their 150-600 lenses seem to be the most popular lenses in this category, not the primes. Canon 100-400 legendary. Nikon produced the 200-500 released it at an exceptionally low introduction price, with only a 2.5:1 magnification ratio its an excellent performer.
Yes, I would like a 500 PF everyday of the week, only because its light and small, however the cost and compromise in loss of versatility just doesn't sing.
If size weight agility is that critical need a 300 F4 PF with a 1.4 convertor may be even a better option.

Only and opinion
OZ down Under