Switch from 200-500E to 500mm PF?

[Gil Aegerter]

I bought a 200-500 a couple years ago for wildlife and have been generally pleased with it -- except for its size and weight. I find that I use it mostly at 500mm, and the weight makes me think twice about hauling it in my backpack. Sometimes I just stay with my 70-300mm E instead of switching lenses in the field. This has been brought home to me on a trip to Yellowstone that I'm still on. I hauled it on a six-mile hike on Tuesday but left it behind on another snowshoe trip today.

My question: Is it worth losing the versatility of the zoom to go instead with the much lighter (but more expensive) 500mm PF?

This image is with the 200-500mm today near Mammoth Hot Springs.

[Ian Watson]

I do not have an answer but that is a beautiful photograph.

[Akira]

You seem to use D600 and D5300 for the body.

If weight and size are your main concerns, how about switching the current system altogether to, say, Z7II and Z 400mm/f4.5 VRS?  You should be able to use other F-mount lenses via FTZ adapter.  The battery life could be new concern if you work in the cold weather, though.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I bought a 200-500 a couple years ago for wildlife and have been generally pleased with it -- except for its size and weight. I find that I use it mostly at 500mm, and the weight makes me think twice about hauling it in my backpack. Sometimes I just stay with my 70-300mm E instead of switching lenses in the field. This has been brought home to me on a trip to Yellowstone that I'm still on. I hauled it on a six-mile hike on Tuesday but left it behind on another snowshoe trip today.

My question: Is it worth losing the versatility of the zoom to go instead with the much lighter (but more expensive) 500mm PF?

This image is with the 200-500mm today near Mammoth Hot Springs.

Only you can tell how often you need to zoom out with the 200-500. The 500 PF is an excellent lens and in the second-hand market can be affordable. It's a lens that is fun to shoot with as it is so light. You could still pack your shorter telezoom in the bag with the 500. However, I would like to add that the 500 PF and 200-500 have quite different aesthetics of the image and you may want to check which you prefer before committing to a switch. I find the conventional refractive lenses to have gentler image rendering while the 500 PF is extremely sharp but in some cases can appear a bit harsh. I personally eventually sold my 500 PF due to personal preferences about the aesthetics of the image and now, on the Z mount I use the 400/4.5.

[ColinM]

Hi Gil, I only have the 300mm PF but have been really pleased with it
Both performance and portability

The 500mm PF is available to hire from many places
I don't think there's any substitute for actually using a lens.
I'm in the UK and have found quite reasonable rates for (say) a 3 day weekend

That gives you 3 separate chances to try it out under different conditions, plus you can get used to its size, weight and handling.
Plus review images from the 1st two days whilst you still have the lens

Many years ago whilst I still had an old 300mm f4 AFD, I rented the then current 300mm f2.8 behemoth.
That was a real eye opener.
In my case, I struggled to match the results I'd managed of large hawks flying at close range that I'd previously got with the smaller lighter version. I just didn't have the strength to pan and hold it for more than half an hour at a time.
The pic below was taken with the older f4 version



I never had the budget to actually buy the better lens, but renting really helped me focus on real world use.

In your case, you could also use this approach to try Akira's suggestion of a Z body and suitable Z lens

[Gil Aegerter]

Colin, good advice on renting that lens. I will do that before committing. And, Ikka, that would give me a chance to compare side by side.

And thanks Akira for that suggestion. I've tried a couple other mirrorless systems but just can't get used to the viewfinder experience. I'll stick with the D850 and D5500, for the optical viewfinder and battery life -- the idea of carrying the necessary batteries on a long backpacking trip. And I like using older manual lenses without the adapter. I know at some point these bodies will wear out, then I'll be forced into a decision.

[Gil Aegerter]

And Colin, that is a wonderful shot! I can't imagine even trying that with a 200-500mm.

[Akira]

And thanks Akira for that suggestion. I've tried a couple other mirrorless systems but just can't get used to the viewfinder experience. I'll stick with the D850 and D5500, for the optical viewfinder and battery life -- the idea of carrying the necessary batteries on a long backpacking trip. And I like using older manual lenses without the adapter. I know at some point these bodies will wear out, then I'll be forced into a decision.

Having recommended a mirrorless system, I couldn't get used to the EVF either.  So, I hear you.  Also, the designers of mirrorless bodies seem to be less concerned about people who wear glasses, because I've found that the field of view of EVF tend to be narrower.  Nikon, Canon and Panasonic are relatively better in this respect, while Fuji, Sony and Olympus are really annoying.

Honestly, that's why I tend to prefer a mirrorless body without EVF and flat-top design body.  In addition, I realized that the battery life is significantly affected by the big lenses which consume lots of battery power to activate the auto focus motor and the image stabilization system.

[Bruno Schroder]

I’ve had a 200-500 for 4 months to replace the 80-400 and could not get used to its weight and inertia. I bought the 500PF as soon as it was released. It is now the default lens on the D500 and my most used lens for birding and wildlife shots. I can use, and carry, it for a full day without any problem.

[Bruno Schroder]

Great shot, Colin.

[Brute]

Nice bulls in the snow
Have both lens and both on a D500. The 200-500 is great if anything is closer. Use the 500 for longer distances.  The 500 is lighter for carrying longer distances.
Can always use portrait mode  on the 500 if something is to close for the panorama mode.
Thats why I got the 500 because most of the time I was on 500mm on the 200-500.
Would get a PF 600 5.6 if they made one. Don't think they are going to add anything to f mounts anymore though.

[Gil Aegerter]

I carried the 200-500 on a beefy monopod for two snowshoe trips in Yellowstone today. This fellow was beyond Wraith Falls. The second frame is a crop of the first. By the end of the second trip, up Specimen Ridge above the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, I was bushed. I'm getting too old for that -- the 500 PF seems like a solution.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I carried the 200-500 on a beefy monopod for two snowshoe trips in Yellowstone today. This fellow was beyond Wraith Falls. The second frame is a crop of the first. By the end of the second trip, up Specimen Ridge above the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, I was bushed. I'm getting too old for that -- the 500 PF seems like a solution.

Very beautiful images.

[armando_m]

Before covid I bought the 200-500 as was going on a trip to costa rica .... but plans got cancelled
I used the 200-500 a couple of times and found the size and weight unpractical for me and eventually sold it
Currently I do not do enough wild life photography to justify buying another telephoto lens.

Beautiful shots of the deer (?)

[Snoogly]

Also, the 300mm PF plays well with a TC, so that might be lighter, cheaper, and more versatile alternative.