Nikon 80-400mm vs 200-500mm

Canaryboy

Canaryboy

Messages
30
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have a Sigma 100-300mm f4 which I use to shoot some sport and wildlife. I am thinking of getting something with a little more reach and I wondered if anyone had any experience with both the Nikon 80-400mm f4.5/5.6 and the Nikon 200-500mm f5.6. The 80-400mm is available used at around £300 which is significantly less than the 200-500mm. Is the 200-500mm worth the extra cost?

The 80-400mm is much smaller/lighter and the focal range would be great for sport as it covers such a broad range.
 
I have the Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens and it is quite a heavy lump to carry around @ 3,5 lb (1560 grams). I only use it on a tripod
 
realspeed said:
I have the Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens and it is quite a heavy lump to carry around @ 3,5 lb (1560 grams). I only use it on a tripod
Click to expand...
Still lighter than the Nikon 200-500mm though. I am drawn to the versatility of the 80-400mm as this would cover probably 90% of my shots when shooting American Football.
 
I have a 200-500 Nikon and it is indeed a heavy bit of kit especially if you stick one of their Pro bodies on the back like D2/D3 and others.

On the 80-400, I would read around because I think there were two version and one is noticeably slower AF than the other.
 
Does the 80-400 work with (or even fit!) a teleconverter? If so, would it still allow fast enough shutter speeds at useable ISO values should the extra reach be needed?
 
I basically have given up lugging heavy camera equipment around when a camcoder generally is lighter has more mm range ( My Panasonic HC-X1500 goes to the equivilant of 600mm) and is easier to carry. that together with a small compact camera is what you would generally find me with. Having a "frozen" shoulder doesn't help

n
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
I basically have given up lugging heavy camera equipment around when a camcoder generally is lighter has more mm range ( My Panasonic HC-X1500 goes to the equivilant of 600mm) and is easier to carry. that together with a small compact camera is what you would generally find me with. Having a "frozen" shoulder doesn't help

n
Click to expand...
Off topic (sorry) but sympathies re-frozen shoulder. Mine was cured by hydro distension. Painless, virtually instant restoration of movement, though physio required afterwards.
 
Had the later 80-400mm G series for a while but didn't get on with it, found the AF acquisition slow. Find the 200-500mm much better. Was using both on either a D5 or D500 handheld.
 
They are quite similar in IQ where the FL's overlap. The 80-400 is a slower focusing lens, with the later G version being the best of them.

I've never owned/used the Sigma 100-300, but none of the ones I have owned have/had what I would consider particularly fast AF (60-600/4-6.3, 120-300/2.8, 500/4, 150/2.8, 150-500/5-6.3)... I don't think you will find the 80-400G slow coming from an older Sigma lens like that.
 
When I was entering the Nikon system I was told in no uncertain terms not to buy the D variant of the 80-400, get the 70-200 VR2 plus 2TC as it is better. Given what people say about using Nikon TC on zooms you can see how low the old D is rated.

I have since bought the G, it needed some work by Nikon, and also got a 200-500E. For what I do, the 200-500 I feel is better - wildlife and birds. Motorsport and sport I use my 70-200 VR2 on the D500 more or less all the time. Now that I have the 500/4 E FL one of them has to go as I have lots of overlap so I will be evaluating both lenses in order to decide which one to keep.

If you are going to go for the 80-400 get the later version, otherwise keep the Sigma. If you get the 200-500, I'd still suggest keeping the Sigma as that f4 does have its' advantages (hence why I went for the prime in the end).

BTW which body do you have? without knowing I'd suggest that if you had one of the older bodies the 200-500 might not work.
 
Just P/x my afs 80-400mm G lens for a Pansaonic G9 with cash added to payment. I hardly ever used it and the weight was quite heavy,
 
welshwizard645 said:
When I was entering the Nikon system I was told in no uncertain terms not to buy the D variant of the 80-400, get the 70-200 VR2 plus 2TC as it is better. Given what people say about using Nikon TC on zooms you can see how low the old D is rated.

I have since bought the G, it needed some work by Nikon, and also got a 200-500E. For what I do, the 200-500 I feel is better - wildlife and birds. Motorsport and sport I use my 70-200 VR2 on the D500 more or less all the time. Now that I have the 500/4 E FL one of them has to go as I have lots of overlap so I will be evaluating both lenses in order to decide which one to keep.

If you are going to go for the 80-400 get the later version, otherwise keep the Sigma. If you get the 200-500, I'd still suggest keeping the Sigma as that f4 does have its' advantages (hence why I went for the prime in the end).

BTW which body do you have? without knowing I'd suggest that if you had one of the older bodies the 200-500 might not work.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this, really useful info. I currently shoot sport with a pair of D750s.
 
You'll be fine with the D750, with both lenses, sport with a 200-500 on a crop body (eg D7*00 or D500) will be limiting, less so on an FX body and given the 80-400G lens is a higher spec lens than the 200-500 I'd be inclined to recommend the 80-400.
 
welshwizard645 said:
You'll be fine with the D750, with both lenses, sport with a 200-500 on a crop body (eg D7*00 or D500) will be limiting, less so on an FX body and given the 80-400G lens is a higher spec lens than the 200-500 I'd be inclined to recommend the 80-400.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. Yeah, the more I think about it the more I am leaning towards the 80-400mm. I shoot quite a lot of American Football and this lens would allow me to capture 'the snap' and the quarterback at the long end but still go wide enough for me to capture the play as it gets nearer to me.
 
Nod said:
Does the 80-400 work with (or even fit!) a teleconverter? If so, would it still allow fast enough shutter speeds at useable ISO values should the extra reach be needed?
Click to expand...

Yes, the 1.4, on Nikon bodies that allow AF at F8. With 1.7x and 2.0x AF (even though TCs will fit) AF performance is severely limited. Lots of people do not recommend TCs on Nikon zooms.
 
Okay, so now someone has thrown a spanner in the works and suggested I look at the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. Any thoughts?
 
Canaryboy said:
Okay, so now someone has thrown a spanner in the works and suggested I look at the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
It's a beast. And depends which version you have, I had a Sigma 180mm Macro f3.5 (EX version) which stopped working on my D810 after a firmware upgrade, as it was not a newer lens Sigma were not interested in modifying the lens (it was fine on the D500).

mind you, I have only heard good comments about it.... but if you are considering that, think about the Nikkor 300mm f2.8.
 
The 120-300 is a great lens on it's own, but it is a bit short for a lot of uses. And it doesn't perform particularly well with TC's; especially the 2x (at least my copies). Also be aware that Nikon and Sigma TC's do not interchange... I have no idea why not.

When I got the Sigma 60-600 I tested it against my 120-300 +2x; the 60-600 was/is notably better. It also tests as being sharper than either the 80-400 or 200-500. It is only a little less heavy than the 120-300, a little heavier than the 200-500; all are significantly heavier than the 80-400.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top