Lens for wildlife photography -camera Nikon D7200 (Page 2): For a DX lens to suit your purpose look at the Tamron 18-400 mm Excellent images...

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

SODEB wrote:

Planning to go on a jungle safari in India. I am not a keen bird watcher. My camera is Nikon D7200. I have tried the 200-500mm lens,it is really big and difficult for me to use it handheld. Will the new Nikon 70-300 mm AF P 4.5-6.3 E be a good option ? Is it sharper than its predecessors ? I know that it is an FX lens.

For a DX lens to suit your purpose look at the Tamron 18-400 mm Excellent images

(Download)

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

mborn wrote:

For a DX lens to suit your purpose look at the Tamron 18-400 mm Excellent images

Tamron has the lens right now with a $50 rebate http://www.tamron-usa.com/product/lenses/b028.html

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

You might also consider how far away from your subjects you might be. A calculator like that found at http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm can help you visualize how much your subject will fill the viewing field. A 24" bird can fill the sensor field at a given distance and given focal length. It gives you an idea of how close you might want to try to get to your subject. For example, at 300mm on your camera, the field of view would be 6" x 9" at a distance of 10', so a small to medium sized bird could fill the frame.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Tamron or Sigma 100-400

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

Both Sigma and Tamron have a new versions of their 150-600mm lenses

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

SODEB wrote:

Planning to go on a jungle safari in India. I am not a keen bird watcher. My camera is Nikon D7200. I have tried the 200-500mm lens,it is really big and difficult for me to use it handheld. Will the new Nikon 70-300 mm AF P 4.5-6.3 E be a good option ? Is it sharper than its predecessors ? I know that it is an FX lens.

The Nikon 200-500 was a break through lens for Nikon. Exceptional quality at a reasonable price. I used to shoot with the Nikon 300 2.8 and 200-400 f4. I ordered the 200-500 when it first came out and after using it on birding for two solid weeks I sold my 300 and 200-400 because of the exceptional image quality of this lens.
This lens had just been on sale for $200.00 off but that sale is done. BUT, if you order it from Adorama you will receive a free Manfrotto tripod.
https://www.adorama.com/nk200500tr.html

Trust me, this lens is so good I now own two of them. I shoot sports and birds, it is a great lens for both. I shoot it off my Nikon D500 but just recently I got the D850 and really like the results I am getting with that combo. Below is two examples of the quality you can expect. The Green Heron gave me no warning and only had a second to put the lens on the bird and shoot. The ball player is my grand nephew and was taken at the Field of Dreams in Cooperstown, Pennsylvania. On the 20X30 print you can count the stitches on the baseball. Nikon D500, 200-500 5.6, cropped.
You will not be disappointed. I was not, twice.

SODEB

Thanks for an overwhelming response from the fraternity.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The Nikon 70-300 AF-P is a DX lens. It is slow for low light.
The ideal lens would be the 200-500 VR but it seems you are not comfortable with it.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

The Nikon 28-300 is an FX lens. Not your best choice and relatively pricey.

The Nikon 18-300 is a better choice for your DX camera. There are two versions. The older 5.6 is better.

The new AF-P 70-300 is sharper, lighter, and cheaper.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

camerapapi wrote:

The Nikon 70-300 AF-P is a DX lens. It is slow for low light.
The ideal lens would be the 200-500 VR but it seems you are not comfortable with it.

I believe there is now also an FX one. More expensive and not what the OP wants.

Cracker-barrel Philosopher Loc: Duluth, MN

I think your reply could be confusing to a novice. To say that with the Nikon 7200 (apparently with APS-C sensor with a crop factor of 1.5) "has a crop factor of 750mm" might lead some to believe you might be suggesting that the Nikon 7200 will change the Nikon 500mm lens that covers "full frame" to a 750mm lens resulting in a change in magnification from 500mm to 750mm, which would, of course, be incorrect. I suspect you are meaning to convey that putting the 500 lens on 7200 will give you an angle of view "as though" you were using a 750mm lens on a full frame camera. I've seen confusion on this even printed in articles in Shutterbug Magazine that the editors didn't catch and clarify.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Cracker-barrel Philosopher wrote:

I think your reply could be confusing to a novice.... (show quote)

And yours is confusing because we can’t tell who “your” is. You should use quote reply.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

To Answer your question, the AF-S 70-300mm VR lens is lite weight and should work fine, I've taken hundreds of shots of Birds in Flight with the lens.. Tracks much faster than the 28-300mm lens. The 70-300mm was Made for wildlife photography

IDguy Loc: Idaho

martinfisherphoto wrote:

To Answer your question, the AF-S 70-300mm VR lens is lite weight and should work fine, I've taken hundreds of shots of Birds in Flight with the lens.. Tracks much faster than the 28-300mm lens. The 70-300mm was Made for wildlife photography

I can’t find an AF-S 70-300. But the AF-P 70-300 is light, cheap, and has great image quality. Be sure to get the VR one. It is $50 more than the non-VR.

And note you want the DX one. There is an FX one too.