I have the current 80-400 and it is crazy sharp at all focal lengths. I was not expecting it to perform so well. I would not part with it. I use it a lot and all throughout its range. When I need that little bit of extra zoom I just crop into the photo a little. I've had great results and I am very happy with it.
I have both lenses. Use them to photograph birds. In my opinion the 200-500mm is a better lens for bird photography with the 80-400mm not far behind. As an all purpose the 80-400mm is better suited for me because it is so much smaller. Enjoy your videos.
Have both. In fact i have had 3 of the 80mm-400mm. The older version my wife is now using. It's too slow in focusing etc. Had 2of the newer version. Sold one (A long story) and have used it for several years. Agree it is a great lens. When I got the 200mm-500mm the 80-400 stayed in the case until just recently. I found for certain situations the 80-400 more mobile and I like the wider zoom range. This year I have about 6500 images with the 200-500 and 650 with the 80-400 most of those in situation where a slightly smaller lens is advantageous. I find image quality quite similar. I like the 80-400 because it will hang from my Black Rapid strap easily, making it easier to walk around. Both take the teleconverter. They both work well on the D500 and D750 though I don't use either on the full frame very often. The 80-400 is easier to travel with though I usually take both. Generally, I need the 500 mm. Also the build of the 80-400mm is slightly better. Better locking hood. Ridiculous tripod mount.
I know the 80mm - 400mm lens and its a brilliant bit of kit I did bye the Sigma 150mm to 500mm and heated the lens and gave it away. The got the Nikon 80mm to 400mm lens and love it. It works well with the 1.4 teleconverter and the 1.7 so I am not thinking about the 200mm to 500mm but that been said it the 200mm to 500mm had been around about six months early are I think that the one I would of got. But I am so happy with my 80-400mm lens thanks Nikon for the great glass. Thanks to Matt for some interesting thoughts and videos.
I had the 80-400 and just traded it in for the 200-500. I took a hit on the trade-in but my keeper rate with the new lens is higher. Very happy with my move and now getting a much higher percentage of keepers.
Diego Villavicencio I compared the newest version of the 80 - 400 to the 200 - 500 today. The focusing with the 80 - 400 on my D7200 is much faster than the 200 - 500. The speed of focus made the decision for me.
If you already own a 70 - 200 then going for the 200 - 500 makes sense. The VR in the 200 to 500 is amazing and it's very sharp with excellent AF. Amazing value lens for sports/wildlife shooters :-)
Agreed, incredibly limited knowledge being shared here. I had all of these thoughts before even reading the specs. So that's at least 3-4 layers removed from actual experience/performance, and even comparison to anything else.
@ValentinoLuggenEach of us has our own opinion and need that the product can satisfies or less satisfies considering the price and quality. These lenses are good in skilled hands if you know when and how to use them. Everyone only talks about expensive lenses he was being honest, and cheaper ones can be good for many of us. I wish he was still with us today. I wish him great glory.
I had the old Nikon 80-400. I sold it and another lens to buy the 200-500. To me it doesn't make sense to have the range of the 80-400. I never used it anywhere near the short end. For under 200mm, I'll use my 70-200.
I was all set to buy a 200 - 500 until I borrowed one from a friend. His had been used a lot and looked like it. He'd set the zoom "permanently" at 500 with electrical tape around the slider. He said he was getting moisture in the lens from shooting on foggy mornings. It was also really long. (Mind you, not everyone is going to use electrical tape on their lens.) I shoot D500s, and ultimately decided I didn't need a 750. I just picked up the 80 - 400 (gently used) and so far, I'm glad I did. It "feels" much more solid to me and it's certainly more compact. I'll be using this mainly on boats shooting whales, sea otters, birds etc., so have a shorter lens to heft around is appealing. I agree though, both seem like great lenses, electrical tape or not.
I have the 200-500 which is a great wildlife and sports lens. I just purchased the new compact Sigma 100-400 zoom for travel. The autofocus is decent and the image quality is excellent! For daylight photography this lens is a good deal. For fast autofocus for sports and wildlife the 200-500 rules.
Hi I'm also interested in this Sigma 17-50 F2.8 stabilized, which you were asking about years earlier. I would like to know how is it doing with Nikon DX, and if there are any issues. Thanks
Agree with you Matt. Also the 80-400mm is about $1000 more. 80-400mm is not a walk around lens - so you need to think where and when you would use such a lens. I prefer a set of lenses with little overlap in focal length - avoid duplication. A Nifty 50mm (1.4 or 1.8) then a 18-200mm finally the 200-500mm - pretty much covers it with these 3 for most situations if you want to stick with OEM lens rather than SIGMA or Tamron equivalents. Ok you could make a case for a super wide 10-18mm if you do a lot of landscapes or need that much wide angle.
Same thing as bassangler .... the 200-500 is about the best lens I have seen in terms of sharpness only thing better and very slightly the 500 f4.... but I also will say I wish they would have made a 500 5.6 prime and priced it at 1700-1999.99 !! I just don't find the 200 end all that pleasing for me ( not in terms of quality but just that focal length for its intended purpose )!!!
Ich besitze beide Objektive und nutze sie regelmäßig. Ich schätze beide sehr. Mein Eindruck: Bei Offenblende ist das 80-400mm etwas schärfer, ab Blende 8 ist das 200-500 mm in der Schärfe nicht mehr zu unterscheiden. Beides ganz ausgezeichnete Teile, die ich aus dem Stand wieder kaufen würde.
I want a decent wildlife lens, i already have the 18-140 kit lens and the 55-300 as well as the f2.8 105mm micro nikkor . I was unsure what lens to go with for wildlife and had looked at third party lenses, but after listening to you and seeing the price range of the 200-500 i think that is the lens i will save up for, cheers
I agree with La Rata, where are the comparing pics, and twice the price for an extra 20mm in range, definitely the 200-500mm. Plus there's a lot more to choose from in the under 200mm range so even if the price was comparable, I think the 200-500mm is a better deal. I'd pair it with the 70-200mm f2.8 lens
Thanks for the video reply. I ended up going with the 200-500 due to mostly shooting birds in Florida with my D500. I traded in my Nikon 28-200 for the Tamron 18-400. I appreciate your explanation on why the 80-400 costs more. That said I have gotten some great shots using the 200-500 in wildlife in Florida.
How does the 18-400mm perform? I am looking to get one but am wondering how close to 400mm you can get before quality reduces too much. I have a Tamron 70-300mm and can use 240-250mm and still get sharp images but after that it becomes very soft.
Mike Cunningham for me works great from 18 to 400. I’ve owned Nikon 18-200 and Tamron 18-270. Much better then the Tamron and with the reach and clean images I prefer it to the Nikon 18-200. Very well construction and simple to use. Happy camper so far.
@@mf7174 Hi, I have the Tamron 18-400 and it's the best lens I have used on my Nikon D500. All the Nikkor lenses seem soft by comparison. For the price I reckon the 18-400 is unbeatable.
80-400 is harder to make then 200-500? What about the old Sigma 50-500 I had for a few years, and new Sigma 60-600 that I tested in a shop recently? And what about the Tamron 18-400? Talking about extreme zoom. The 60-600 Sports is an incredible performer on both ends. I'm an allrounder and the 60-600 would be the best way to go. But in the shop I choose the 200-500 because it weigs 400gram less and cost 200-250 Euro cheaper then the 60-600. I'm watching this video purely for learning. The 80-400 is a very interesting lens but it has less tele and is so incredibly more expensive I'd never buy it. The Tamron 18-400 is a cheap thing, and I think best used for vacation/travelling where you can't take too much stuff with you. Thx for the video.
If two lense then 70-200mm & 200-500mm my choices and I have & prefer them
4 года назад+1
So you never took a picture with the 80-400 and yet you pretend to know it's worse? One look at Nikon's MTF's could have taught otherwise. I tested both and now I own the 80-400 AFS and they are both great.
Having a Canon body, was thinking about the 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS II, but it didn’t make much sense having the 70-200 2.8L IS II. I went to a store and I saw the 200-500 5.6E VR, and for the price difference I could also buy a mint Nikon DF so I bought a DF (I really could have bought an used D810 or D750 in the same range). From there I think I will buy some F lenses that are better, newer or less expensive than their Canon counterpart, including the 200-500mm. Using the 100-200 range of the 100-400 II can’t compare to the same range of the 70-200 II, in terms of shutter speed or sharpness. The lens is nice and focusing to 1m it has macro capabilities, but it’s just too expensive.
I have one. It's a great little lens, the only downside for me being its maximum aperture. Not that you need to shoot at a wider aperture but the viewfinder is not as bright as I'd like in darker environments.
Hey Matt/ his subscribers! I'm looking for a midranged zoom lens for nikon d7100 Suggestions? Sigma 17-50 and Nikon 17-55 are appealing to me. Nikon is double the price, but is it worth? Or other suggestions?
It's not just the weather sealing or range, the newer AF-S 80-400mm is slightly faster to focus than the 200-500mm and is built much better on top of it's weather sealing. The 80-400mm is a professional lens made in Japan that uses ED and Super ED glass. It's extremely well built just like the 70-200mm f2.8 VR II is made. So there is much more to the equation than range or weather sealing although you made a good point. Like was said in the video you really need to decide what range is better for you and most people should buy the 200-500mm. It was really tough for me as have the 400mm f2.8 VR already and just wanted a lighter long lens, but I also had the 70-200mm f2.8 so for me I chose a 200-500mm. However I kinda regret my decision and wish I had bought the 80-400mm as I hate the build quality of the 200-500mm. Other than it being heavy which misleads you into think it's well built, the 200-500mm is a Chinese made plastic lens. It has good image quality and great VR, but it's not made anywhere near as well as the professional Nikon lenses like the 70-200mm or 80-400mm!
200-500 for sure. I have owned both and the VR in the 200-500 seems to be better. At least that is my experience. I like the 80-400 but it is just not a good fit for me. I use the 80-200 F2.8 ED D for a wider range and fast glass. It is not 400, but I have the 200-500 for that. Granted, the 80-400 is more convenient, but not for the cost.
It's pretty safe as long you can test it before buying,i bought a lot of used gear,a D7100,a 50 1.8D, a 80-200 AF-D which is a tank,a amazing lens,optically just as good as the 70-200 VR II but with no focus breathing issues,the 80-200 is a true 200 mm lens even at the closest focus,I know it lacks VR but it will not help you that much,maybe if you want to shoot only portraiture,buy even then,the D7100 performs very well at iso 100 to 3200,even better than the D7200,from what I know is the best APS-C sensor in that range. And all of them are working properly,with no problem. When you want to buy a camera take a look at the shutter count, my D7100 had around 20k photos taken,so it was new,in an amazing shape,I took some lenses with me and I tested the focusing,i took a look at the image quallity and I bought it for about 500$,cheaper than a D5300! And belive me,you will save a lot of moneys by buying a D7100 because of that focusing motor,a 50 1.8D is two times ceapar than a 1.8G,the 80-200 also two times cheaper than the cheapest 70-200,the push pull version is even cheaper and the image quallity is awesome! And you can also use old AI-S or AI lenses with it which is an amazing thing,it makes photography a very peacefull thing! I'm not a pro photographer but I consider myself an enthusiast and I want to buy the best I can afford and I recomand you doing the same,i know how you feel about buying used stuff,I was the same when I started buying used gear but belive me,it's way more affordable and if you can test the gear before paying you are going to have a lot of pro gear for the money you will pay for new entry-level gear.
You can't compare the old 80-400 to anything, it was the softest, worst focusing lens I've ever seen, and I owned two copies, thank God I was able to dump those and get most of my money back, the newer one is whole different story so I've heard, and I'm really curious how it would compare to my 200-500. You should really have both lenses before you make a click bait post about a lens you've apparently never had any experience with (the new 80-400)
Not necessarily. In some cases, the 80-400 is better for wildlife due to the range. In my experience, whales and snow monkeys are definitely better with the 80-400 as both can come in relatively close or be a bit further out.
I have the current 80-400 and it is crazy sharp at all focal lengths. I was not expecting it to perform so well. I would not part with it. I use it a lot and all throughout its range. When I need that little bit of extra zoom I just crop into the photo a little. I've had great results and I am very happy with it.
Hi Tech, do you have the D or the G version of the 80-400?
@@lonnieclemens8028 im sure its the G version because i sold my D for the G , big leap
I have both lenses. Use them to photograph birds. In my opinion the 200-500mm is a better lens for bird photography with the 80-400mm not far behind. As an all purpose the 80-400mm is better suited for me because it is so much smaller. Enjoy your videos.
My real question is which one is the fastest in autofocusing? The latest 80-400 or the 200-500?
Have both. In fact i have had 3 of the 80mm-400mm. The older version my wife is now using. It's too slow in focusing etc. Had 2of the newer version. Sold one (A long story) and have used it for several years. Agree it is a great lens. When I got the 200mm-500mm the 80-400 stayed in the case until just recently. I found for certain situations the 80-400 more mobile and I like the wider zoom range. This year I have about 6500 images with the 200-500 and 650 with the 80-400 most of those in situation where a slightly smaller lens is advantageous. I find image quality quite similar. I like the 80-400 because it will hang from my Black Rapid strap easily, making it easier to walk around. Both take the teleconverter. They both work well on the D500 and D750 though I don't use either on the full frame very often. The 80-400 is easier to travel with though I usually take both. Generally, I need the 500 mm. Also the build of the 80-400mm is slightly better. Better locking hood. Ridiculous tripod mount.
My real question is which one is the fastest in autofocusing? The latest 80-400 or the 200-500?
Can you speak to af performance??
I know the 80mm - 400mm lens and its a brilliant bit of kit I did bye the Sigma 150mm to 500mm and heated the lens and gave it away. The got the Nikon 80mm to 400mm lens and love it. It works well with the 1.4 teleconverter and the 1.7 so I am not thinking about the 200mm to 500mm but that been said it the 200mm to 500mm had been around about six months early are I think that the one I would of got. But I am so happy with my 80-400mm lens thanks Nikon for the great glass. Thanks to Matt for some interesting thoughts and videos.
I had the 80-400 and just traded it in for the 200-500. I took a hit on the trade-in but my keeper rate with the new lens is higher. Very happy with my move and now getting a much higher percentage of keepers.
My real question is which one is the fastest in autofocusing? The latest 80-400 or the 200-500?
Diego Villavicencio I compared the newest version of the 80 - 400 to the 200 - 500 today. The focusing with the 80 - 400 on my D7200 is much faster than the 200 - 500. The speed of focus made the decision for me.
If you already own a 70 - 200 then going for the 200 - 500 makes sense. The VR in the 200 to 500 is amazing and it's very sharp with excellent AF. Amazing value lens for sports/wildlife shooters :-)
dude with respect, put more images and make the video better, you should show images that you take with the lens etc ..
Agreed, incredibly limited knowledge being shared here. I had all of these thoughts before even reading the specs. So that's at least 3-4 layers removed from actual experience/performance, and even comparison to anything else.
I think all his videos were perfect.
@ValentinoLuggenEach of us has our own opinion and need that the product can satisfies or less satisfies considering the price and quality. These lenses are good in skilled hands if you know when and how to use them. Everyone only talks about expensive lenses he was being honest, and cheaper ones can be good for many of us. I wish he was still with us today. I wish him great glory.
If you think you would do it better, do it yourself or follow the comments from someone else. He was good, i wish him great glory.
@@woodlandsofcanadaI wish he was still among us, he was modest.
I had the old Nikon 80-400. I sold it and another lens to buy the 200-500. To me it doesn't make sense to have the range of the 80-400. I never used it anywhere near the short end. For under 200mm, I'll use my 70-200.
But the form factor is also in favor of the 80-400
sports photography , to zoom out and acquire a target at 80mm is awesome
So, my big question is which acquires focus faster??
I was all set to buy a 200 - 500 until I borrowed one from a friend. His had been used a lot and looked like it. He'd set the zoom "permanently" at 500 with electrical tape around the slider. He said he was getting moisture in the lens from shooting on foggy mornings. It was also really long. (Mind you, not everyone is going to use electrical tape on their lens.) I shoot D500s, and ultimately decided I didn't need a 750. I just picked up the 80 - 400 (gently used) and so far, I'm glad I did. It "feels" much more solid to me and it's certainly more compact. I'll be using this mainly on boats shooting whales, sea otters, birds etc., so have a shorter lens to heft around is appealing. I agree though, both seem like great lenses, electrical tape or not.
The 80-400mm is the perfect complement to my 16-80mm.
I have the 200-500 which is a great wildlife and sports lens. I just purchased the new compact Sigma 100-400 zoom for travel. The autofocus is decent and the image quality is excellent! For daylight photography this lens is a good deal. For fast autofocus for sports and wildlife the 200-500 rules.
Hi
I'm also interested in this Sigma 17-50 F2.8 stabilized, which you were asking about years earlier. I would like to know how is it doing with Nikon DX, and if there are any issues. Thanks
I can't say anything about the 80-400 but the 200-500 is awesome and the VR is among the best out there
I tried the 200-500 for equestrian eventing , I found it too unwieldy , heavy and zoom was too slow. Im sure its great for wildlife standing still
Agree with you Matt. Also the 80-400mm is about $1000 more. 80-400mm is not a walk around lens - so you need to think where and when you would use such a lens. I prefer a set of lenses with little overlap in focal length - avoid duplication. A Nifty 50mm (1.4 or 1.8) then a 18-200mm finally the 200-500mm - pretty much covers it with these 3 for most situations if you want to stick with OEM lens rather than SIGMA or Tamron equivalents. Ok you could make a case for a super wide 10-18mm if you do a lot of landscapes or need that much wide angle.
Same thing as bassangler .... the 200-500 is about the best lens I have seen in terms of sharpness only thing better and very slightly the 500 f4.... but I also will say I wish they would have made a 500 5.6 prime and priced it at 1700-1999.99 !! I just don't find the 200 end all that pleasing for me ( not in terms of quality but just that focal length for its intended purpose )!!!
Ich besitze beide Objektive und nutze sie regelmäßig. Ich schätze beide sehr.
Mein Eindruck: Bei Offenblende ist das 80-400mm etwas schärfer, ab Blende 8 ist das 200-500 mm in der Schärfe nicht mehr zu unterscheiden. Beides ganz ausgezeichnete Teile, die ich aus dem Stand wieder kaufen würde.
I want a decent wildlife lens, i already have the 18-140 kit lens and the 55-300 as well as the f2.8 105mm micro nikkor . I was unsure what lens to go with for wildlife and had looked at third party lenses, but after listening to you and seeing the price range of the 200-500 i think that is the lens i will save up for, cheers
I agree with La Rata, where are the comparing pics, and twice the price for an extra 20mm in range, definitely the 200-500mm. Plus there's a lot more to choose from in the under 200mm range so even if the price was comparable, I think the 200-500mm is a better deal. I'd pair it with the 70-200mm f2.8 lens
Could you explain how to use the focus limiter? Thank you enjoy your videos.
Thanks for the video reply. I ended up going with the 200-500 due to mostly shooting birds in Florida with my D500.
I traded in my Nikon 28-200 for the Tamron 18-400.
I appreciate your explanation on why the 80-400 costs more.
That said I have gotten some great shots using the 200-500 in wildlife in Florida.
How does the 18-400mm perform? I am looking to get one but am wondering how close to 400mm you can get before quality reduces too much. I have a Tamron 70-300mm and can use 240-250mm and still get sharp images but after that it becomes very soft.
Mike Cunningham for me works great from 18 to 400. I’ve owned Nikon 18-200 and Tamron 18-270. Much better then the Tamron and with the reach and clean images I prefer it to the Nikon 18-200. Very well construction and simple to use. Happy camper so far.
@@jc32750 Hi I'm thinking to buy 18-400 i have already 70-200 but need wider and more zoom what do you think about 18-400
@@mf7174 Hi, I have the Tamron 18-400 and it's the best lens I have used on my Nikon D500. All the Nikkor lenses seem soft by comparison. For the price I reckon the 18-400 is unbeatable.
80-400 is harder to make then 200-500? What about the old Sigma 50-500 I had for a few years, and new Sigma 60-600 that I tested in a shop recently? And what about the Tamron 18-400? Talking about extreme zoom. The 60-600 Sports is an incredible performer on both ends. I'm an allrounder and the 60-600 would be the best way to go. But in the shop I choose the 200-500 because it weigs 400gram less and cost 200-250 Euro cheaper then the 60-600. I'm watching this video purely for learning. The 80-400 is a very interesting lens but it has less tele and is so incredibly more expensive I'd never buy it. The Tamron 18-400 is a cheap thing, and I think best used for vacation/travelling where you can't take too much stuff with you. Thx for the video.
If two lense then 70-200mm & 200-500mm my choices and I have & prefer them
So you never took a picture with the 80-400 and yet you pretend to know it's worse? One look at Nikon's MTF's could have taught otherwise. I tested both and now I own the 80-400 AFS and they are both great.
Having a Canon body, was thinking about the 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS II, but it didn’t make much sense having the 70-200 2.8L IS II. I went to a store and I saw the 200-500 5.6E VR, and for the price difference I could also buy a mint Nikon DF so I bought a DF (I really could have bought an used D810 or D750 in the same range). From there I think I will buy some F lenses that are better, newer or less expensive than their Canon counterpart, including the 200-500mm.
Using the 100-200 range of the 100-400 II can’t compare to the same range of the 70-200 II, in terms of shutter speed or sharpness. The lens is nice and focusing to 1m it has macro capabilities, but it’s just too expensive.
Wonder if you could review the af-p dx nikkor 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6g vr seems like an affordable wide angle
I have one. It's a great little lens, the only downside for me being its maximum aperture. Not that you need to shoot at a wider aperture but the viewfinder is not as bright as I'd like in darker environments.
Hey Matt/ his subscribers!
I'm looking for a midranged zoom lens for nikon d7100
Suggestions?
Sigma 17-50 and Nikon 17-55 are appealing to me. Nikon is double the price, but is it worth?
Or other suggestions?
Nobody mentions about the 80-400 Weather Sealing. (?)
It's not just the weather sealing or range, the newer AF-S 80-400mm is slightly faster to focus than the 200-500mm and is built much better on top of it's weather sealing. The 80-400mm is a professional lens made in Japan that uses ED and Super ED glass. It's extremely well built just like the 70-200mm f2.8 VR II is made. So there is much more to the equation than range or weather sealing although you made a good point. Like was said in the video you really need to decide what range is better for you and most people should buy the 200-500mm. It was really tough for me as have the 400mm f2.8 VR already and just wanted a lighter long lens, but I also had the 70-200mm f2.8 so for me I chose a 200-500mm. However I kinda regret my decision and wish I had bought the 80-400mm as I hate the build quality of the 200-500mm. Other than it being heavy which misleads you into think it's well built, the 200-500mm is a Chinese made plastic lens. It has good image quality and great VR, but it's not made anywhere near as well as the professional Nikon lenses like the 70-200mm or 80-400mm!
Can i use 200-500 f5.6 on nikon Z7
200-500 is a cheap lens not Sharp at all at 500 on my D4 , on tripod, in my opinion the 80-400 G ED is far more superior
Now what about Tamron 100-400 vs Nikon 200-500 or Tamron 150-600. 100-400 weight only 1135 grams.
200-500 for sure. I have owned both and the VR in the 200-500 seems to be better. At least that is my experience. I like the 80-400 but it is just not a good fit for me. I use the 80-200 F2.8 ED D for a wider range and fast glass. It is not 400, but I have the 200-500 for that. Granted, the 80-400 is more convenient, but not for the cost.
D5300 or d3400 which to buy today?
D5300,or you can get a used D7100 which is WAAAAYYYYYYYY better than any of those cheap.plastic,entry-level DSLRs
Darius Daniel used gear is safe?
How many photos taken by a DSLR in whole life?
It's pretty safe as long you can test it before buying,i bought a lot of used gear,a D7100,a 50 1.8D, a 80-200 AF-D which is a tank,a amazing lens,optically just as good as the 70-200 VR II but with no focus breathing issues,the 80-200 is a true 200 mm lens even at the closest focus,I know it lacks VR but it will not help you that much,maybe if you want to shoot only portraiture,buy even then,the D7100 performs very well at iso 100 to 3200,even better than the D7200,from what I know is the best APS-C sensor in that range. And all of them are working properly,with no problem. When you want to buy a camera take a look at the shutter count, my D7100 had around 20k photos taken,so it was new,in an amazing shape,I took some lenses with me and I tested the focusing,i took a look at the image quallity and I bought it for about 500$,cheaper than a D5300! And belive me,you will save a lot of moneys by buying a D7100 because of that focusing motor,a 50 1.8D is two times ceapar than a 1.8G,the 80-200 also two times cheaper than the cheapest 70-200,the push pull version is even cheaper and the image quallity is awesome! And you can also use old AI-S or AI lenses with it which is an amazing thing,it makes photography a very peacefull thing! I'm not a pro photographer but I consider myself an enthusiast and I want to buy the best I can afford and I recomand you doing the same,i know how you feel about buying used stuff,I was the same when I started buying used gear but belive me,it's way more affordable and if you can test the gear before paying you are going to have a lot of pro gear for the money you will pay for new entry-level gear.
Darius Daniel thank you so much sir
Darius Daniel how much is shutter count and how to know that?
थॅन्क्स सर....
Thank You!
Did'nt learn anythings with this presentation. It's a basic info only without any pics ?
You can't compare the old 80-400 to anything, it was the softest, worst focusing lens I've ever seen, and I owned two copies, thank God I was able to dump those and get most of my money back, the newer one is whole different story so I've heard, and I'm really curious how it would compare to my 200-500.
You should really have both lenses before you make a click bait post about a lens you've apparently never had any experience with (the new 80-400)
200-500 is for wildlife and 80-400 is for landscape.
Not necessarily. In some cases, the 80-400 is better for wildlife due to the range. In my experience, whales and snow monkeys are definitely better with the 80-400 as both can come in relatively close or be a bit further out.
You think to much
80-400mm sucks up more dust and has more plastic in its build.