400 mm f/2.8 or 500 mm f/4

No, I don't have a death wish nor do I have 10 grand to spend.

I just got an e-mail about Nikon's 10% off on refurbished stuff through the Labor Day weekend, and I'm just kind of thinking out loud.

They are both 10,000 dollars. If someone was to spend that kind of money, which would they get?

It seems the 400 mm f/2.8 would be a better deal. You could stick a 1.4 TC on it and have almost a 600mm f/4 lens, but if you stick a 1.4TC on the 500mm f/4, you would still get an 720mm f/5.6.

I'm just glad I don't have this problem to try and figure out.:encouragement:

I wouldn't ever get anything that heavy, but if I was in the market for a longer, faster lens, it would be the 400mm f/2.8. With all the telephoto zoom lenses that cover the 500mm range, the speed of an f/2.8 is what would entice me. For anyone with a DX body, they may not need a 1.4 TC, but if they did AND put on the 1.4 TC, it would be pretty darned sweet.

I wish either of these were an option for me. If I had that sort of money lying around I think I'd go with the 400mm f/2.8. For dawn/dusk wildlife photography that 2.8 would be sweet! Wish I had it to get some badger photos at dusk.
I'd imagine it would take a 2X TC pretty well too, making an 800mm f/5.6.

i wish you would stop posting these, because i HAVE to go and look/ yern over them and think what if, and its the 500 for me. :encouragement:

Go ahead and get the 400 mm f/2.8 the speed of the lens will come in handy quite often.

Just do it already Pete!
f2.8 is the clear winner