Nikon d850 + 200-500mm vs Canon 5DS R + 100-400mm II

[EinstStein]

I am considering a DSLR + super tele Lens to complement my 24-90mm set. The super tele is for wild life, birding, etc. The two choices come to my mind are Canon 5DS R + 100-400mm II vs. Nikon d850 + 200-500mm.

The focal length difference (100-200mm in Canon and 400-500mm in Nikon) and the closest shooting difference (about 1M in Canon and about 2 M in Nikon) are not important for my purpose.  Both are heavy and bulky. The Nikon set may be a little worse, but I don’t see that makes Canon really stands out. Price-wise they are similar, but Nikon set is about $600 cheaper if buy from oversea. IQ-wise, it seems Canon 100-400mm II leads Nikon 200-500mm but Nikon D850 leads Canon 5DS R, but those are based on image samples of the two lenses on other camera models. I have not found the comparisons based on these two combination yet.

What I am looking for is the IQ of the two combinations working in the focal length range between 200-400mm, shooting distance about 3M or farther away.

Anyone has the first hand experiences on both? Or knowing where to find such comparison?

[David Eckels]

Have you considered the 850/80-400 combo?

[EinstStein]

Have you considered the 850/80-400 combo?

You have first hand experience? Better than the Canon set?

[David Eckels]

I do. I have both the 200-500 and the 80-400. Both good lenses, but the 80-400 is much lighter and has greater versatility for me. A friend has the Canon 100-400 and my impression is that it is somewhat heavier and bulky. Subjective. Great IQ and all are great lenses. I use two 850 bodies with 24-120 on one, and 80-400 on the second. If I need more telephoto, Super Resolution or Gigapixel AI are more than adequate.

[EinstStein]

I do. I have both the 200-500 and the 80-400. Both good lenses, but the 80-400 is much lighter and has greater versatility for me. A friend has the Canon 100-400 and my impression is that it is somewhat heavier and bulky. Subjective. Great IQ and all are great lenses. I use two 850 bodies with 24-120 on one, and 80-400 on the second. If I need more telephoto, Super Resolution or Gigapixel AI are more than adequate.

I don’t believe that.
There are many reviews claiming 80-400 is inferior to 200-500 starting from somewhere 300-350mm,
depends on the copy variation. It’s strength is really the 80-200mm. You mean you see the opposite?

[David Eckels]

You mean you see the opposite?

No test patterns and no wildlife shooting.

[StephaneB]

I don’t believe that.
There are many reviews claiming 80-400 is inferior to 200-500 starting from somewhere 300-350mm,
depends on the copy variation. It’s strength is really the 80-200mm. You mean you see the opposite?

I have learned to actually trust the manufacturers and the pressure of competition more than the so-called tests once can find on the web. I mean the ones with test charts. Invariably, those test charts are held at very short focusing distances like 40 times the focal length. This represents one use case, at best, and in the case of wide angle lenses is ludicrous.