More Reach
Jul 9, 2020 08:46:30 #
Steve V
Loc: New Jersey
billnikon wrote:
A good wildlife lens for well under a $1000.00 cou... (show quote)
Thanks for you detailed reply and great shots! I looked this up and it is a contender.
Jul 9, 2020 08:50:37 #
Steve V
Loc: New Jersey
MrBumps2U wrote:
You will ALWAYS need more reach. In addition to budget, your decision criteria should include a) how much weight you are willing to carry and/or b) will you be using a tripod, and c) how much zoom range you need (i.e., will this be your only lens)? Decisions on these should help narrow your choices.
Weight not too much a factor, no pod usually on my walk and stalks, and I take only one lens at a time. Thanks for the reply and wisdom about ALWAYS ).
Jul 9, 2020 09:31:41 #
You might look at the Nikon p2000, p3000 if you really want a long reach. I have the 2000 and the results are satisfactory to excellent, depending on your capabilities. IMO
Jul 9, 2020 10:21:29 #
Stick with Nikon lenses. Before buying anything, rent it first and give it a thorough workout for the way you will be using it. Lensrental.com; borrowlens.com
Nikon 200-500mm; Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf. Nikon 1.4x tc. Nikon D500.
Nikon 200-500mm; Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf. Nikon 1.4x tc. Nikon D500.
Jul 9, 2020 12:07:23 #
For the money it is the best choice. Plus, it is 5.6 throughout the zoom range. It focuses fast and can be hand held, at least for me as needed. VR does a great job when needed.
Jul 9, 2020 12:57:57 #
I bought my 200-500 in September, and it’s taken me a while to warm to it. Now it never leaves the camera.
I also own a 70-300, but have hardly ever used it (in 15 years). Sometimes handy, not selling it.
My issue with the 200-500 is that I can barely handhold it. Now you’re talking tripod and mount...and something to carry all this. For me it’s a 15 lb lug.
I also own a 70-300, but have hardly ever used it (in 15 years). Sometimes handy, not selling it.
My issue with the 200-500 is that I can barely handhold it. Now you’re talking tripod and mount...and something to carry all this. For me it’s a 15 lb lug.
Jul 9, 2020 13:34:46 #
ecurb
Loc: Metro Chicago Area
Steve V wrote:
Just a hobbyist here. I own a D750 and like to shoot any wildlife I come across. I have been using a 70-300 4.5 but would like to get a little closer on my walk and stalks. I want to stay under 1K for a lens, well under if I can. New, used, prime, zoom I am thinking about is all so I thought I would throw it out there see what comes back. Not to technical here so keep it simple. Thanks in advance for any replies.
Have you considered Nikons P900, P950 or P1000 ?
Yes the sensor is smaller but they give you the equivalent of 2000 or 3000mm telephotos.
I have a video producer friend who uses a P1000 and gets stunning images.l
The P1000 is just under 1K at B&H and the P950 just under 800. Both will give you jpeg and raw files.
Jul 9, 2020 21:46:18 #
Steve V wrote:
Ok thanks for your detailed reply. Great shots too! I will put the used Signa down as an option. I like the idea of going to 500mm.
Thanks, and thanks!
I would try and find a used Tamron G2 150-600m even though I own the Sigma Sport in the same focal length - it is a lot sharper than the 50-500 Sigma. I just put those images of the 100-300 and the 50-500 in to illustrate that third party lenses can produce great results without fine tuning. As a rule I never fine tune. When I suspect I have a focus issue, I check it with fine tuning to confirm. Then the lens and or the body go in for service. I have almost 2 doz lenses and 4 bodies - and nothing is fine tuned. When you think about it - with that many bodies and lenses, I'd spend half a year fine tuning stuff and never get out to take pictures.
I'm exaggerating of course.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.