200-500mm vs 500mm PF ED f5.6

[Kenny88]

I own the 200-500mm and use it at 500mm most of the time if not all the time. I'm pondering about picking up the 500mm PF as a result.

Question is, how much better is the image quality between the 2 lenses - is the difference to the point of night vs day to that extreme? Or should I just stick with the 200-500mm, and rely more on post processing.

Thanks

 

[Warren D]

I have both and other than the need to zoom, the 500 pf is the winner hands down. AF is snappier and I think the IQ is noticably better on the pf than the zoom at 500mm. I've had some sharp shots form the 200-500 as have others so it's really a capable lens and IMHO one of if not the best value lenses Nikon has ever released. The 500 pf is just in a different league.

 

[FB101]

Think about it this way - the 200-500, or Tamron G2 or Sigma 150/600c are a superb balance of compromises to get the benefit of zooming. That's the ONE thing they do that is not a compromise. If you don't have value for that one thing, then the 500pf is better across the board (I removed cost from that equation because if you are asking you have already assessed you are OK with the cost of a 500pf assuming it gives you more). So it really depends on what and how you shoot - if you do a lot of large BIF that come near you, a zoom is actually very valuable (like shooting pelicans off bridges, herons at rookeries, sandhill cranes at nesting sites etc...) but otherwise the 500pf is a class above. I don't have the nikon zoom but I have the tamron G2 and the 500pf is optically quite superior - and not just resolution, but I see it even more in the smoothness of OOF areas (probably also from the fact that I shoot the PF wide open while I have to shoot the G2 at f:8). The PF is also faster with AF acquisition. So all in all, unless I know I will need to zoom, the PF is now my go-to lens (and it is lighter so my back is happy about that too).

 

[PhilcTx]

I also have a 200-500mm and just before Christmas I managed to score a 500 pf. Over the holiday I've not had a chance to really use the 500 pf all that much. What I have noticed in my brief use is the reduced size & weight and better AF. Without a TC AF is noticeably more responsive - but with my 1.4E III teleconverter and at f/8 it has considerably quicker & more positive AF lock than with my 200-500mm.

 

[Jbear]

I may be lucky, but the 200-500 that I shoot is ridiculous at 5.6 and focuses fast. I sold my 500f4 VR, but when I was shooting both...it was closer than it had any right to be. Now tc's...whole different story. I don't have a PF, but is it safe to say that the f4 VR is sharper at 5.6 than the PF and sharper with tc's? I imagine (worthless speculation...I know...I hate that too) the prime is much faster to focus than the zoom, but then the zoom...zooms.
Night and day...probably not on a print. PF owners...tell me if I'm wrong. I am trying to decide about adding another 500 f4 or the PF myself. I shoot the 200-500VR from a kayak much of the time...it is my go-to, but I'd love another f4 for when I'm on land...for the tc use mostly.

 

[CharlieR]

I just switched to the 500 PF from the 200-500 at the beginning of December. The 200-500 is/was a very capable lens but it was starting to wear on me carrying it for extended periods and trying to handhold it for extended periods with BIF. The 500 PF is so much lighter, more responsive (on my D500 and, surprisingly, on my Z6), and there's no question the IQ is better. I've gotten some great shots already that I know I probably would've missed with the 200-500 just because of the faster focus and better IQ.

 

[Strodav]

At one time or another, most of us have tried to justify the next big purchase with the IQ argument, usually sharpness. Here in my lightroom I'm looking at a Tamron 15-600mm f/5-6.3 G2, Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6, and Nikon 600mm f/4G because of it. Along the way I came to realize somewhere around 75% of IQ is technique especially when and where under what light to shoot, planning and patience for the right subjects and composition, using the best metering, AF, DOF, and exposure settings, avoiding camera shake, ... , and how much time you spend in the field. Another 15% comes in at post processing where you can have a big impact on composition, exposure, color, and sharpness / detail. The last 10% is your gear, as long as it meets a minimum threshold for quality, and the 200-500mm f/5.6 does that.

Yes, I can see a bit more detail in my keeper images taken with the Nikon 600mm compared to the Tamron G2, but the subject, composition, and story are much more important. So the question I now ask myself is in order to produce better images should I spend my money on more expensive gear (%10 impact), studying PP techniques (%15 impact), or improving my knowledge of photography, shooting technique and spending more time in the field (75% impact)? Only you can answer that question for yourself, but don't get lured into thinking that spending $3600 on a new lens will get you significantly better images and using the feedback on a forum to justify the purchase.

The best advice I got from a pro when I asked about better gear was to rent it first to see how much of a difference it makes.

 

[Kenny88]

Thanks for all the input - the better weather sealing as well is a selling point for me as well. As for image quality, I'm more concerned about center sharpness than on the edges - the 200-500mm seems sharp centrally as is, but then not having a 500pf to compare to I wouldn't be able to tell.

 

[Warren D]

I tried a 1.4 tc on my pf and quickly took it off. Even my D6 had trouble grabbing af in midday sun so I figure it's the native 500pf or something else. If you go for another 500 f4 go for the EFL, it's lighter and takes a tc1.4EIII very well.

 

[Fishboy1952]

I have been using the Nikon 200-500mm zoom for about 2 years, used mostly at 500mm. About 3 months ago, I was able to get the 500mm PF. The zoom hasn’t been used since. The IQ is consistently sharper and the focus acquisition is faster with the 500 PF. It is also a little more manageable hand holding. Don’t get me wrong, the 200-500 will stay in my bag, especially for those situations where 500mm is too much. But I’ve been extremely happy with the prime.

 

[EarthImages]

I sold my 200-500mm a month after my 500mm PF arrived. The 500mm PF is so much sharper. Focus with the 1.4 tc works only with the center focus point on a bright, high contrast subject - still, better than the 200-500mm with the tc.

 

[Roaring 40s]

Thanks for all the input - the better weather sealing as well is a selling point for me as well. As for image quality, I'm more concerned about center sharpness than on the edges - the 200-500mm seems sharp centrally as is, but then not having a 500pf to compare to I wouldn't be able to tell.

I don't think Nikon quote an Ingress Protection rating for any of its gear so we don't really know how they perform. It's a lottery.

Some reviewers get their gear splashed and say it was fine. Well, water damage takes a bit of time to show, and these aren't controlled tests so AFAIC it's a game of chance and I don't rely on any claims about 'sealing' or 'resistance'.

The only maker I'm aware of to quote an IP rating is Olympus: IPx1, which means a vertical camera will resist vertical droplets for 10 minutes.

...

Strodav makes a good point. A photo has impact when it's good on lighting, composition and 'moment'. A boring photo that's as sharp as a tack is still a boring photo.

I won a national photo competition with a 200-500mm because the image had impact. It was up against a whole lot of shots with better contrast and detail.

Ask yourself how can I get sharper and more engaging images with my current gear. There's lots to work on.

 

[abc123brian]

I am very happy with the image quality I get from my 200-500mm. Maybe I got one of the better samples of it. My 500mm PF is sharper, but I would not say you would notice unless pixel peeping or printing really large. What I noticed right away is the weight difference, the AF acquisition speed, and just how much easier it is to handle when tracking something like a bird or running dear. To me, it is worth it for those reasons.

 

[Charles Loy]

I use both, 200-500 usually on a D500, 500 PF on D5. Image sharpness in neck and neck (with my 2nd copy of the big zoom, first was so-so) the D5 focuses and tracks with the 500 PF so so very well, love it.
Just this past Sunday my zoom locked up at 450mm. This is a known problem with the lens, a screw comes loose and kills the zooming.
You did not mention your camera-

 

[Venkatesh VT]

I have 500 PF & Tamron 150-600 G2.We (self & wife) both shoot.After testing our PF for an year or so & comparing my shots from both the lenses .i am buying a second 500 PF for my wife & planning even a 300 PF since we am done with zooms
I also considered 500 F4.How ever i find 500 PF & 300 PF more suitable for our kind of bird photography where we hike a lot

 

[Steve]

I have a review here for the 500 PF where I also talk a bit about it compared to the 200-500. In addition, I have some sharpness comparison shots between the zoom and the prime:

Nikon 500 PF Review - Backcountry Gallery

It’s finally here – my Nikon 500 PF review and full field report! And let me tell you, it’s a doozy! In fact, I may have to apologize for the length. This review is really detailed and goes on for a bit longer than I wanted. I’ve had so many questions about this lens and […]

backcountrygallery.com

 

[arbitrage]

The D500 and 200-500 was my gateway setup into Nikon. I was very happy with that combination but most of that I attribute to the D500 AF being so much better than my previous 7D2.
My copy of the 200-500 really liked to be at f/6.3 or even better at f/7.1 in order to have really good centre sharpness. Shooting birds I rarely care about corner IQ.
Once I got my 500PF, I never once grabbed the 200-500 and shortly sold it.

The two main benefits I found with the 500PF were the much lightweight and smaller size that allowed me to track BIF easier and much quicker AF. I always found the 200-500 with my D500/D850 could provide accurate and consistent results but the AF drive speed was slow.

The 500PF has better IQ but I don't feel it should be the main driver to switch from the 2-5 to the PF. The 500PF could be shot wide open with excellent sharpness unlike my 200-500. The 500PF can work with a 1.4TC and give good results on a Z camera or on a DSLR with careful attention to AFMA.

 

[kbrkr]

I have the 200-500, but wanted something a bit Sharper and faster focusing. I thought about the 500 f5.6 PF, but I just wanted more background separation. I instead purchased a used 400mm F2.8 AF-I for a bit lower price than the 500 F5.6 PF. It is just a crazy sharp lens. Yes, I need a hand truck to cart it around, but to be honest, I need to fine tune my process first. I went for the 2.8 because it is so versatile. I can add a TC 1.4 or 1.7 and get sharp photos at F5.6 or I can shoot at 400 for very sharp photos. My 200-500 could NEVER duplicate the quality of this lens. Here are some examples from the 400mm taken during last week's nature walk at Circle B in Lakeland Fl.

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

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

 

[Ralph]

I have the 200-500, but wanted something a bit Sharper and faster focusing. I thought about the 500 f5.6 PF, but I just wanted more background separation. I instead purchased a used 400mm F2.8 AF-I for a bit lower price than the 500 F5.6 PF. It is just a crazy sharp lens. Yes, I need a hand truck to cart it around, but to be honest, I need to fine tune my process first. I went for the 2.8 because it is so versatile. I can add a TC 1.4 or 1.7 and get sharp photos at F5.6 or I can shoot at 400 for very sharp photos. My 200-500 could NEVER duplicate the quality of this lens. Here are some examples from the 400mm taken during last week's nature walk at Circle B in Lakeland Fl. View attachment 12505
View attachment 12507

Beautiful! Razor sharp!

 

[Wapiti]

OK, here's my take. Of course, I would love the finest of all Nikon lenses. Most of my Nikon equipment has been purchased used. I don't make a penny from my photos. My photos need only to satisfy my needs, which are to post a few images on social media and place a few 16x20 canvas images on my wall at home. The 200-500 satisfy these needs. The difference of $2000+ between the 200-500 and the 500pf is not justified. I rarely use my 200-500 at 500mm. I do have an old Nikon 500f4.0 AFS which I purchased used 20years ago that does just fine, if needed. Yea, both of these lenses are heavy, but I don't have to carry them very far to do my kind of wildlife photography. Here is an image that I took recently with the 200-500. 500mm, 1/320, f8.0, ISO180. Full sun.

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

180

 

[PAUL50]

I had the 200-500 and found it reasonably sharp but bulky and clumsy. I traded it in for the 500PF and for me it was a game changer. The 500PF is light, easy to handle, and amazingly sharp. I seem to have had better luck than some with the 1.4 teleconverter so long as I'm center focusing in good light, but once the light begins to fade my D5 and D850 can't get focus. Also, as mentioned, the 500PF is weather sealed and the 200-500, I believe, is not. In my opinion, there is no comparison between the two and the 500PF wins hands down.

 

[bjanes]

One thing to keep in mind is that the consumer grade Nikkors such as the 200-500 may have a lot of sample variation. For some information on this see this review on PhotographyLife. The same applies to many third party lenses. Even the gold ring Nikkors and Canon L lenses have sample variation. Thus, it is advisable to check a new lens.

Jim Kasson has posted a simple test for detecting lens decentering and tilt, but it has to be done outside and this could be problematic in the winter in northern locales. Another testing modality is Reikan Focal. It is primarily a tool for lens fine tuning calibration, but it also compares the sharpness of your lens to those in its database. I had an 80-400 lens that suffered impact damage and was repaired by a local Nikon authorized service center. On calibration with Focal, astigmatism was off the chart. I sent the lens to Nikon in New York and the lens came back markedly improved (after another $600). When I got my 500 PF I calibrated it and its quality factor was average, which is pretty good for this very sharp lens.

Cheers,

Bill

 

[Calson]

When I owned the 200-500mm lens I found myself using the 80-400mm instead a great deal of the time. Now with the 500mm PF lens I still always have the 80-400mm lens with me as well. To me this is a great combination that works well on land and also when out on a boat. The problem I experienced with the 200-500mm lens is that 200mm was at times it would provide much too narrow a field of view and too tightly crop the subject in the scene. For example when photographing bison or elk in Yellowstone the 80-400mm lens is what I would grab 100% of the time.

 

[tjphxaz]

I have had both and depending on how much you value having the zoom capability the 500 PF is better all around I believe. You say you shoot the 200-500 mostly at the long end so if that is really true (use your metadata to search the focal lengths of your images) then make the switch. But don't unload the 200-500 until you have the 500 in hand as it may take several months to get the lens. I sold the 200-500 but primarily because I also have the Nikon 80-400 that I can get by with when I want zoom capability.

 

[OldFart]

I have had the 200-400 f4 Vr for many years. It has always produced spectacular images. A month ago I was notified that B&H had the 500 PF in stock. I loaded it in my cart but didn’t pull the trigger for 10 days. It took some getting used to, small learning curve, but I love it on the D7500 & D850. Close bokeh behind a subject produced z shaped horizontal lines on ocassion. Can’t beat it for the money, quality, and convenience. VR is spectacular. I’ve never used VR on older lenses due to image degradation. Not the case with this lens. Very satisfied with results.