I currently shoot with a 400mm f/2.8 VR, and most often have the TC-14II on the lens. This gives me a reported 550mm at f/4, but I usually stop down to about 5.6 to get images tack sharp on the D800.I am thinking about selling the 400mm to purchase the 500mm f/4. I've seen images at f/4 and they are stunning. Basically, I'd be loosing 50mm, but gaining a stop. Of course, I'd also be loosing the option of shooting 400mm at f/2.8, which does come in handy in the early dawn hours.Of course, I would also have the option of purchasing the 300mm f/2.8 VR to augment the 500mm f/4. I've held off on the 300mm f/2.8 because I'd almost always go for the 400mm over it, but I think the 300mm and 500mm would really compliment each other.Weight is not of concern because I shoot with a monopod or tripod, and have gotten quite used to lugging the 400mm around in the field.It's hard to find any lens comparisons between the 400mm and 500mm. The Digital Picture does not have the 400mm in their lens database, and DXO does not even have lens data for it.If anyone has worked with both these lenses for wildlife, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Thom Hogan has written on the subject, and it sounds like he prefers the 400F2.8 in general, but praises the 500f4 as much more practical for travel (when airplanes are involved).

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:Thom Hogan has written on the subject, and it sounds like he prefers the 400F2.8 in general, but praises the 500f4 as much more practical for travel (when airplanes are involved).Yes, I read Thom's comparison, but he is definitely shooting larger things than I am. I'm more of a birder, although I do sometimes shoot larger birds such as Eagles, Osprey, Heron's, etc.I actually can fit the 400mm f/2.8 with both lens hoods, plus a camera body and some accessories in the ThinkTank Airport Express, which meets international flight size requirements, so I am not worried about that.The 500mm f/4 seems to be the goto birding lens. I guess the best thing may be just to rent one and compare them myself.

Joe Porto wrote:PHXAZCRAIG wrote:Thom Hogan has written on the subject, and it sounds like he prefers the 400F2.8 in general, but praises the 500f4 as much more practical for travel (when airplanes are involved).Yes, I read Thom's comparison, but he is definitely shooting larger things than I am. I'm more of a birder, although I do sometimes shoot larger birds such as Eagles, Osprey, Heron's, etc.I actually can fit the 400mm f/2.8 with both lens hoods, plus a camera body and some accessories in the ThinkTank Airport Express, which meets international flight size requirements, so I am not worried about that.The 500mm f/4 seems to be the goto birding lens. I guess the best thing may be just to rent one and compare them myself.Hi!Renting a 500VR sounds like a great idea.I tend to think of the 400VR and 600VR as more specialized lenses than the 500VR, but that's just me.I have the 500vr and am very happy with it.Works well with the 1.4 TC, and on a D4 I get better results using the TC 20  E III, than cropping the equivalent amount without a TC (assuming that I have enough light and/or decent technique ).Of course if I had unlimited money (and no fiscal restraint!) I'd have all of the super telesAs it is, I'm pretty happy with the 200VR, 500VR, and the 1.4 & 2 x TCsRB

The 500 is great because it is manageable (weight, diameter of front element) and is the most "affordable" (you know what I mean!) of the long superteles, but I wouldn't exchange the 400 for the 500 if I were in your position. The 600mm would be a better option IMHO, especially if you're specialized in birding. It's heavier and quite a bit larger, but if you can handle the 400mm then you'll handle the 600mm too. Keeping both would of course be ideal.

If it's reach you want...  (crop reach, that is) try a Nikon V1 with FT1 adaptor.   2.7x crop factor, 10mp.   Want a 1080mm F2.8 lens?   Stick that on the end of your 400F2.8.It's not much for stuff that moves, but boy can you zoom in on stuff that sits reasonably still!   Great for videos.

My choice as well +1.7 extndr.

the cheapest way to solve your problem is a D600 or D800.  Keep your 400mm f2.8

I have the 300mm f2.8 VRII and the 500 f4 VR and this is a good combo for me as it is a good balance as I have a 300mm f2.8, a 420mm at f4 with the 1.4x TC, a 500mm f4 and a 700mm + 1.4x TC. I can even eschew the 500mm f4 and use my 300mm + 1.7x TCII for 510mm or a 2x TCIII for 600mm.However, if I could only have one tele, it would be a toss up between the 300mm f2.8 VRII for lightness and compactness and use TC's or the 400mm f2.8 VRII, much larger and heavier but can still be used with TC's. I would probably miss the 300mm focal length if I only went the 400 route, though. The 300 f2.8 is really a great general purpose tele lens as it is relatively light and compact and fits in my backpack with all my other lenses.If weight and size are your concern, then that would be my only reason for saying swap the 400 f2.8 for the 500 f4, otherwise stick with the 400 f2.8 as I think it takes TC's better than the 500 f4. You have a 400 f2.8, a 560mm f4, a 680 f5 and a 800 f5.6. What more could you want other than a weight reduction? The 500 f4 works well with the 1.4x TCII but does struggle a little with the 1.7 and 2x TC's.

Have you tried the D800 on 1.2X? You will also get 5fps and 24mp.

i shoot em both, do it, sell the 400, it's a sports lens, the 500 rocks for wildlifeor sell the 400 2.8 and get the new 80-400afs

I've owned two copies of the 400/2.8 VR.The first one I sold and bought a 500/4 AFS II. As far as I could tell the 400/2.8 VR with 1.4x was just as sharp as the bare 500/4, but the 500/4 with 1.4 TC did beat out the 400/2.8 with 1.7x. I ended up selling the 500/4 and repurchasing the 400/2.8 VR  again.I freelance shooting H.S. Sports for the local paper and shoot Nature, mostly Birds as a hobby. A 2.8 tele is pretty much needed for evening games on poorly lit fields. So I've sold the second 400/2.8 VR and picked up a 300/2.8 VR for sports and am looking to buy a 500/4 or 600/4 for Birding.I think if you can only justify one super tele, the 400/2.8 is probally the best choise, but for handling and reach I think the 500/4 is a better choise if the extra stop of the 400/2.8 isn't important to you.Scott

I'm with Rob, but with a 300 f2.8, 500 f4 combo.I have my 500 F4 on a lightweight Carbon tripod (Gitzo 2000 series equivalent) and a Jobu gimbal head (the middle one in their line up) and the kit travels well and carries over the shoulder well.  I also use the 1.4 and 2x TCs.  On a D7100 or a D4.D300 + 500 F4 + TC-20EII below.  Full frame, no cropping.

Interesting, my 500 F4 does not struggle with the TC-20E III.Yes, with the 1.4 TC - it is sharp wide open at f/5.6.  With the 2X TC, I stop down 2/3,but great images.

Wow, you sure have been around the block on super telephotos!I think the 300 f2.8 (or even an F4) with a 500 F4 and TCs is perfect if you travel.  Those plus two cameras fit well and carry on well for panes using a Think Tank Airport Accelerator bag.

Minnesota_Steve wrote:Wow, you sure have been around the block on super telephotos!I think the 300 f2.8 (or even an F4) with a 500 F4 and TCs is perfect if you travel.  Those plus two cameras fit well and carry on well for panes using a Think Tank Airport Accelerator bag.Yup, and I still am debating whether to buy the 400/2.8 again. I didn't really want to get rid of it this last time but needed some cash for bills. I actually traded it for the 300/2.8 VR plus cash to another  photographer I know.The 400/2.8 VR is a great one lens solution for Sports and wildlife because how well it takes the TC's. I never owned or tried the new 2x III TC, but from what I've heard from others, it is quite useable with the 400. If you don't mind the weight, I believe it is the best compromise for what I shoot.Scott

Joe Porto wrote:I currently shoot with a 400mm f/2.8 VR, and most often have the TC-14II on the lens. This gives me a reported 550mm at f/4, but I usually stop down to about 5.6 to get images tack sharp on the D800.I am thinking about selling the 400mm to purchase the 500mm f/4. I've seen images at f/4 and they are stunning. Basically, I'd be loosing 50mm, but gaining a stop. Of course, I'd also be loosing the option of shooting 400mm at f/2.8, which does come in handy in the early dawn hours.Of course, I would also have the option of purchasing the 300mm f/2.8 VR to augment the 500mm f/4. I've held off on the 300mm f/2.8 because I'd almost always go for the 400mm over it, but I think the 300mm and 500mm would really compliment each other.Weight is not of concern because I shoot with a monopod or tripod, and have gotten quite used to lugging the 400mm around in the field.It's hard to find any lens comparisons between the 400mm and 500mm. The Digital Picture does not have the 400mm in their lens database, and DXO does not even have lens data for it.If anyone has worked with both these lenses for wildlife, I'd love to hear your thoughts.If you decide to sell the 400/2.8 VR for the 500/4, contact me, as I may be interested in this lens again.Scott

I had a Nikon 300mm f2.8 vrIII lens and sold it and got the Nikon 500mm F4.0 vrII lens.  I looked at the Nikon 400 F2.8 lens but decided on the 500 from the weight standpoint.  I use the 500 lens mostly with the tc 1.4EII for birds and also to a lesser extent the tc 1.7EII.  I have found the tc 1.7EII slows down the af and misses focus a lot more then the tc 1.4EII.  I tend to stay away from the tc 1.7 using the tc 1.4EII most of the time with the Nikon 500, don't use the 500 bare very much, always seem to need a little more focal length.I use to have an older Nikon 600mm f4.0 afs lens and it was around 12+ lbs., was a beautiful lens but was too heavy to lug very far so I sold it.Larry

Some great info provided here....thank you to all who took the time to reply.I do have the TC-14II, 17II, and 20III. I find that on the D800, to get the best out of those 3 TCs, I need to stop down to f/4.5, f/5.6, and f/8 respectively.It seems the general consensus is that weight aside, I'm not gaining much, being that I do have the TCs. So for now, I think I will keep it, but may get a smaller, lighter lens to compliment it. I think the 300mm f/2.8 is a bit too similar....basically only brings portability to the table, at the cost of reach.I'm thinking the 200mm f/2 may be more of a compliment. Great for handheld work in the early morning or late evening, seems to take TCs well, plus I will have an amazing f/2 portrait telephoto.

Joe Porto wrote:Some great info provided here....thank you to all who took the time to reply.I do have the TC-14II, 17II, and 20III. I find that on the D800, to get the best out of those 3 TCs, I need to stop down to f/4.5, f/5.6, and f/8 respectively.It seems the general consensus is that weight aside, I'm not gaining much, being that I do have the TCs. So for now, I think I will keep it, but may get a smaller, lighter lens to compliment it. I think the 300mm f/2.8 is a bit too similar....basically only brings portability to the table, at the cost of reach.I'm thinking the 200mm f/2 may be more of a compliment. Great for handheld work in the early morning or late evening, seems to take TCs well, plus I will have an amazing f/2 portrait telephoto.Hi!Agree with your considering the 200VR to compliment your 400VR (unless your burning need is for more/better/faster reach; then there's the new 800 f/4.6 and its 1.25 TC)Below are links to some of the reasons I really like the 200VR!:A bunch of shots at a Renaissance Fair, almost all taken with a 200VR:Ren Faire 200VR ShotsAnd another gallery  that includes some of the above shots, but many others as well:Select 200VR ShotsAs you've probably surmised,, on occasions where you don't need the f/2.8 of the 400VR (speed, subject isolation, peak IQ), the 200VR/TC 20 E III makes a pretty decent, and more portable 400mm (f/4) lens!:For this night game, the 400VR, shooting at f/2.8 would have been significantly better. But the 200VR/2xTC worked reasonably well...:Nikon D4,Nikkor 200mm f/2G IF-ED AF-S VR,TC 20 E III 1/1600s f/4.0 at 400.0mm iso6400But of course when there is more light, the results are better with lower ISO'sNikon D3,Nikkor 200mm f/2G IF-ED AF-S VR,TC 20 E-III 1/1250s f/4.0 at 400.0mm iso200CROP:(Yes, unfortunately, I can tell the difference between 400mm with the 400VR and with the 2xTC and 200VR, so maybe some day when I'm in the right mood and have cash to burn....)Best Regards,RB