Dickwood33 Loc: Alberta, Canada

There are Big Blue Herons nesting very close to my home. Access is about 150' away. I would like to have more "reach" to photograph them and other birds in our area. I have D7100 with Tamron 18-275 as my walk around lens plus a Nikon 70-300. My friend has a Canon 100-400 which gives him excellent results, so I have been looking at Nikon 80-400 used lenses on eBay which are selling at around $500. This plus an extender would give great reach. Have there been many iterations of that lens. And are there any that should be avoided?

Another option might be one of the 150-600 lenses that are out there. My budget would fit say the Tamron a011.

I would appreciate my fellow hoggers comments.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I got the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 about a year ago. I find it nice and sharp. In addition, the VR is excellent, and allows hand holding of the lens at 500mm at speeds down to 1/25. It's about $1400 or thereabouts (or at least that's what it was last year). You can put a TC onto it, but you run the aperture down if you do that and you may have trouble with autofocus when you get past f/8. You can still manually focus if that's a problem.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

If you establish a Koi or goldfish pond, you won't need a long lens - you'll get to see them "up close and personal" 😀.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The new 100-400 is pretty good, better than the previous model. The Nikkor 80-400 you see for $500 is nothing special, it is especially weak at 400mm - and with a F5.6 max aperture, at 400, there you have 2 reasons that would make it a terrible candidate for an extender.

What you need is patience. Getting closer takes lots of it. And you'll need a lot of time. I use a 600mm on a full frame, which has the same field of view as a 400 on a cropped camera. I find it more than enough "reach."

You can see some of my work here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

That's the old version of the 80-400 and it's slow and very unimpressive from a sharpness standpoint. I'd pass and snag a 200-500 if you can. It's more money, but worth it.

CO

The original Nikon 80-400mm lens introduced in 2000 had the screw type autofocus that relies on the focusing motor in the camera. The AF-S version introduced in 2013 has the silent wave ultrasonic motor built into the lens. I have that lens. It's sharp throughout the entire zoom range and the autofocus is very fast. It's an expensive lens.

The Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 lens is a great buy at $1400. You might try renting first. I've rented from LensRentals.com from time to time. They're very good.

Haydon

As a short term/long term solution, consider building your own bird studio if you have a backyard. With a blind you will be able to photograph close to minimum focusing distance. It won't require a long reach and a 300 mm will be more than adequate in this situtation. This should give you food for thought.

Watch Season 5 Episode 8 (Photographing Songbirds) from Wild Photo Adventures.

http://totallyoutdoorsimaging.com/portfolio_page/wild-photo-adventures-season-5/

firtree Loc: Florida, USA

LOL! Had that happen and I can attest to the accuracy of this plan.

CLF Loc: Raleigh, NC

Dick, you have some very good responses here. I have a Tamron 150-600mm as my long lens and as stated on a Canon APS camera the equivalent length is 1.6 longer which would be 960mm. Building a blind is also great. I have one for my bird photos and use it as a norm when taking photos of the birds, and in addition to get the birds where I want them I feeders set up with up to 5 different types of feed during the summer, three types currently during the winter.

Greg

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Here is a gallery of the types of images I think you are looking for:

https://untamednewyork.smugmug.com/Birds

She is a good photographer and uses a 400mm F5.6, no TC, on a 5dMkIII for most of her bird shots, so no "extra reach" from a cropped sensor. With a 70-300, your "reach" is 50mm greater on your D7100. Reach means bigger,heavier and more expensive lens, and won't necessarily result in better bird shots. Her approach is to learn her subjects habits and behavior, stay at a location long enough to get lots of shots, and spend a bit of time refining her images in Lightroom, Photoshop and Nik. I recently introduced her to On1 and she likes it a lot. Her other camera, which she hardly ever takes out anymore is a 7D Mk II.

If all you want to do is take pictures of the heron rookery, then rent a lens for a weekend and do that. If you can, rent the Sigma Sport 150-600 - it is noticeably sharper than the Nikkor 80-400 AFS, all the other 150-600s and the Nikkor 200-500. Another way to do this while still maintaining image quality would be to get a 300mm F2.8 and a 1.4 TC. Not cheap, but really good, and you have a 420mm F4 which you can use wide open.

This is a comparative review of the popular lenses I mentioned above:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

whitewolfowner

Tamron's first version of the 150-600mm lens is $889 right now at B & H and they have one used in condition 9 for $749. It is an excellent lens and a steal at that price. The second generation one is $1400 or for about the same price you could get the Nikon 200-500.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

First of all, I also have a Nikkor 70-300mm lens. I also have a Nikon D7100 and a D610. Before I got my Nikkor 80-400mm lens, I used the 70-300 all of the time. However, it is a VERY light weight (I would call it a kit) lens. In order to get really good shots, I had to keep my aperture small in order to get a good solid depth of field. The birds don't really want to hold still while you take photos. My 80-400mm Nikkor is much heavier, it has vibration reduction that can be turned off and on and I get extremely sharp images at great distance. NOTE: my 80-400 is the older version that uses the focus motor in the camera. It sometimes seeks or loses and has to refind focus as you shoot so it can be slow. The newest version has great reviews (especially when compared to the old one) but the cost is, well OUCH!. I got my 80-400mm Nikkor from KEH for about $450 or so and a new lens is about $1850 or the faster better (with silent wave motor in the lens) is about $2300. I have lost very few shots with my older version but I sometimes wish I had the faster focusing lens. It is a huge difference than the 70-300 (which I have turned over to my wife) She hates the 80-400 because it is "too heavy". I can get 10 times the look of the shot with the 80-400 as she can with the 70-300.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I have both the new 80-400 and the 200-500. One of these days I shall sell the 80-400. Clarity is arguable,but the 200-500 acquires focus with noticeably less hunting.

If I did it again, I would rent the Sig 150-600 and the Nikon 200-500 or skip right to a 300 2.8 with teleconverters.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Yes, buying older lenses can be confusing because Nikon keeps the same focal length but makes improvements. I once bought a lens I didn't want on ebay, but the buyer accepted a return. The G version of that lens is newer than the D. I'm surprised the ebay prices are so low for a lens that sells new for $1,850.

https://photographylife.com/nikon-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6g-vs-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6d
http://myimagez.com/blog/2014/5/new-nikon-80-400-lens-comparison

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

My go to lens is the Nikon 200-500 mm f/5.6 because the f/stop is constant and with my cameras D810 & D500 with focus at f/4 with the 1.4x TC