Nikon 200-500mm or 300mm prime + teleconverter

I have been getting more into photography and want to get a lens with more reach. This is mostly for wildlife. I also shoot sports, but I'm too close to need a zoom although that could change as I branch out. I was planning on the Nikon 200-500mm (new), but am debating the 300mm prime with a teleconverter (used). Even with the new vs. used, the 300 option will be a lot more expensive. I'm still planning on at least VR AF-S options. I have the budget but I'm not sure if I'm going to be much better on the long end. I have not been able to find anything comparing these directly. I think this is because they are quite different options. Thanks for any feedback.

Its going to be down to your picture taking situations and subjects,all i can say is for my birding a fixed focal length would drive me spare,i would never have time to fit or remove the TC and the chances are if i did i still wouldn't have the right focal length.

To give you an idea the last time i was out using my 100-400 on m4/3 i did a swan in flight, started with it coming towards me at 400mm, kept zooming back as it got closer and the last shot was at 137mm.

I love my Nikon 200-500. It is a great lens and is quick to focus. I like the fixed aperture as well. In the summer I would sit out on my porch with a tripod and Gimbal head and got a lot of bird shots. I use it on a D7200 with auto ISO and 1/1000 to 1/1200 shutter and f/7.1 and I really enjoyed it.

It is heavy and that is part of the reason I use it there mostly unless I have help. I have a few health issues... a lot of guys do carry them and shoot hand held, but that is not me . I even used it for my nieces softball games on a monopod from the bleachers. It worked well. I think it would work well on the D500.

I cannot speak for the 300 prime, but it is hard to beat the clarity and flexibility of the 200-500. Just my 2 cents.

Flexibility is something I hadn't thought of that is important to me. The 200-500 is probably a better lens to start with. I have definitely seen some great images taken with this lens. I feel like the 300mm gives me the most benefit without the TC where I can shoot 2 stops faster. If I find I need the faster lens, I can get that some day in the future. I just have the money right now. It's burning a hole in my pocket I guess . My wife & I just downsized into a condo closer in to the city and are selling our second car today. We're going to one car so the money is not needed for anything specific.

I decided on the 200-500. I just picked it up from Best Buy. Hope to get out there soon. I actually need it the 25th, but the stores are closed that day. Thanks for the feedback.

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk

Here is a good article to read.

Nikon VR explained

Happy shooting.

Looks like a good article. I read about half and will finish it later. I have learned to keep VR off unless I need it. When I need it, there is time to turn it on. When I don't, I usually need to shoot fast, such as BIF. Mostly I use it for low-light wildlife portraits. The 500mm really amplifies issues which has helped me learn a lot in this last week. I'm on vacation in the Everglades shooting a lot of wildlife action. I love this lens. I am getting some incredibly sharp fast action shots.

Friggs said:

Here is a good article to read.

Nikon VR explained

Happy shooting.

Click to expand...