Which would be better the 70-200mm f/ 2.8 or the 300mm Nikon prime? I'm looking for a lens I can use in low light. Many of my shots are taken from a blind. Birds are about 20-25' away...

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

I'm looking for a lens I can use in low light. Many of my shots are taken from a blind. Birds are about 20-25' away using a gimbal. Now my lens of choice is the Sigma 150-500mm on a Nikon D7100 but it is only good with plenty of light. If I use a 70-200mm f/2.8 in cloudy conditions will I have just as good a picture enlarging to the size of the Sigma 500mm? Is the Nikon 300 prime a better choice? Would a FX camera be better in low light? The Tamaron 200mm f/2.8 looks as good as the Nikon f/2.8 and a lot less money or would the Nikon 300 prime be better for what I want to use it for. I don't need VR on a gimbal. Maybe there is a lens I don't know about.

Thank you for your help.
Bill

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

A 200mm f2.8 with a 2X TC will give you 400mm at F5.6, pretty much exactly what you get with the Sigma, you would really gain nothing. As for cropping, to get the same angle of view at 200mm as you get with the 500mm, you would have to discard 60% of the images data, severely limiting your printing abilities.
If you want to gain seriously over the Sigma 150-500mm, then you would pretty much have to go to a 600mm F4 prime lens, at big bucks. Another decent choice might be the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8, that would give you up to 420mm at F4 with a 1.4X and 600mm F5.6 with a 2X TC. But that lens runs $3500 itself.
Its REALLY hard to beat the results of the Sigma without spending a WHOLE LOT MORE of those hard earned dollars.
Switching to FX would gain you very little, and may even set you back some as you would lose the crop factor in doing so, making you long for a Sigma 800mm F5.6, a monster of a lens.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

MT Shooter wrote:

A 200mm f2.8 with a 2X TC will give you 400mm at F... (show quote)

Thank you MT. Have you ever used this lens? Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Autofocus Lens. Its an f4 but I can't find it on DXO.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

if your camera handles noise well, then up the iso to 400 .your 150-500mm will take care of business.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

bull drink water wrote:

if your camera handles noise well, then up the iso to 400 .your 150-500mm will take care of business.

Yes that may be the best solution. Thank you.

amehta Loc: Boston

MT Shooter wrote:

A 200mm f2.8 with a 2X TC will give you 400mm at F... (show quote)

To make the effect of cropping even worse, you would throw out 84% of the data, leaving a 4mp image.

I am very surprised the Nikon 300mm f/4 is not reviewed by DxOMark.

chuck11 Loc: Des Moines, Iowa

While on a Canon, I use a Sigma 70/200 2.8 and can't say enough about it. I generally use it for sprint car races and the detail is awesome at speed. I also use the Sigma 17/70 2.8 for closeups and flowers and such. Doubt I'll every buy any other brand of lenses.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

chuck11 wrote:

While on a Canon, I use a Sigma 70/200 2.8 and can't say enough about it. I generally use it for sprint car races and the detail is awesome at speed. I also use the Sigma 17/70 2.8 for closeups and flowers and such. Doubt I'll every buy any other brand of lenses.

Tamron gets higher marks with DSO tests at least with a Nikon and Canon should test about the same if cameras are similar.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

MT Shooter wrote:

A 200mm f2.8 with a 2X TC will give you 400mm at F... (show quote)

I am in full agreement. Your D7100 is a very good low light performer so do not be afraid to go to ISO 1600 if you need to and to open the lens to maximum lens opening. Modern lenses are very good and their central image quality is excellent. Softer on the corners at maximum lens opening many times enhances the quality of the central area.
Learn your tools, it is better than to spend more money and then be frustrated.
In regard to which one is better, the 70-200 or the 300 prime keep in mind that you are comparing apples to avocados.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The Nikon 300mm F4 is the premier performer at it's focal length and with 1.4X - but it would seem to me for what you are doing - you really need a zoom. I will tell you that the Sigma 100-300 F4 EX is a great lens ! - I have never shot it without a Tamron SP 1.4X (420mm) - but with the TC -it is as good as my Canon L lenses ! As MT mentioned, the Sigma 120-300 2.8 is probably the ultimate lens for you. Keep in mind if shooting small birds close up - you will need to be shooting at F8 or smaller for DOF anyway ....

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

camerapapi wrote:

I am in full agreement. Your D7100 is a very good ... (show quote)

Thank you I will be trying higher ISO. So what happened to the oranges. I don't like avocados. :-D

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

imagemeister wrote:

The Nikon 300mm F4 is the premier performer at it'... (show quote)

So you think I should be shooting F8 or the higher numbers with the closer birds. I can do that and should have remembered that myself, thanks.

I ordered a good gimbal with top and bottom bearings from MT so I should have that in a few days. You also gave me an idea from a few days ago when we were on the gimbal subject. I have an Induro and Benro monopod head. I'm going to mount that on a aluminum or steel plate so it sets closer to the counter for birds on the ground. Haven't figured out the swivel part yet to keep it low. Being I use a Nikon I'm waiting for someone to give reports on the Tamron 600mm with a Nikon. Regis sure had some excellent photos with a Canon and Tamron 600mm.

Are you using a Sigma 100-300 F4 EX with a "Tamron" SP 1.4X converter?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Bill MN wrote:

So you think I should be shooting F8 or the higher numbers with the closer birds. I can do that and should have remembered that myself, thanks.

I ordered a good gimbal with top and bottom bearings from MT so I should have that in a few days.

And I thank you Bill, it shipped today.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Bill MN wrote:

So you think I should be shooting F8 or the higher... (show quote)

Yes ....

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

imagemeister wrote:

Yes ....

Can't find a 100-300.