Not because it's an amazing photo, but because with something closer to 500mm it might have been (technique permitting). The Bald Eagle was flying towards me (for a change) which was great, but even with a 1.4X teleconverter on my Nikon 80-200mm zoom, this is quite a severe crop which means the 16x20" metal print looks pretty good, but you can tell that the resolution isn't quite what it could be.
Ever since I took this, plus a couple of other wildlife images (I'm generally a landscape / cityscape kind of guy) I've been trying to justify something like the Nikkor 500mm PF 5.6 - although thankfully it seems to be on back order pretty much everywhere which makes the (lack of a) decision somewhat easier right now!
Anyone here using the 500mm PF lens? Is it worth saving for?
This is the original raw without edits for reference.
I understand what you are saying about selling longer zooms .... but I think that images such as this actually tend to sell more long primes than long zooms. In fact, you yourself even mention interest in a prime, not a zoom, in your caption of this image!
That's a good (and fair) point! Whilst at first thought a 200 - 500 zoom seems tempting, I suspect I'd use it at the long end 99% of the time - just like my 80-200 is 99% at 200mm. Having a lighter prime means I can shoot hand-held for longer, hike further and for the 1% ... well there's always next time!