francesca3 Loc: Sausalito, CA

I have both of the above. Would like recommendations about which to take when shooting wildlife, and birds in particular, lately.

Seems I can hand-hold the 70-220 with the teleconverter, but probably shouldn't expect the Tamron 200-500 to be able to do that, huh?

It's just that, with the 500mm I can get so much closer to the animals.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

First, what camera body are you using?? If it is a DX camera you get that 1.5 crop factor to work for you.

As for the lens issue. For me it is all about the glass. That 70-200 nikon lens is one of the very best that they make and the 1.4 TC really does not hurt it at all. Every shooter that I know really values their Nikon glass. When you have good glass there is a very clear difference in the quality of the photos. Second tier lenses are simply not as good as Nikon glass.

As I see it the Nikon 70-200 and tc1.4 is a bit shot for birding (heck, my 400mm with the 1.4 is still short) but you will get sharper and more contrasty results. The Tamron will give you reach, but at a drastically reduced clarity. I'd rather have the clear, crisp, sharp shot than the larger lower quality shot.

All that said---birding with a camera is an expensive hobby. No one I know ever has enough reach and everyone lusts for longer glass. I shot for many years with the Nikon 300mm f4 lens with the tc 1.4 and 1.7 with good results. The issue was in low light when the TCs turned the lens into a 5.6 or 6.7 and it was just too dark. But in good light it was great.

Some day, you will lust for the Nikon 300mm 2.8 or the Nikon 400mm or 500mm lens. Then you will get the results you are looking for. Sorry to burst the bubble.

Larry
Proud Owner of the Nikon 200-400 f4 VR lens
I just love using it.

francesca3 Loc: Sausalito, CA

Larry,
Yes, I understand what you've said.
I have a D90
My photos with the Nikon glass are definitely better, and yes, I yearn for more reach.
Nothing like Zeiss glass, huh?
Thanks for responding.

mawyatt Loc: Clearwater, Florida

I have the 70-200 VR1 and 1.7TC. These work well together but I got the Bigma 50-500mm OS for the long reach. I believe the Bigma is a little better (sharper) than the 70-200 with 1.7TC but not as good as the 70-200 alone.

francesca3 Loc: Sausalito, CA

What the heck is a Bigma? Never heard of it before. Is it like a Tamron? (I bought it after I saw an amazing photo of a bird in flight...now I wish I'd saved my money.)

treadwl Loc: South Florida

I thought about the Bigma by Sigma before I bought my Nikon 200-400. But I figured there must be a reason why Nikon sells the glass that they do. I've met a shooter who has the Bigma---we have shot side by side---even with the tc attached to my 200-400 the sharpness is better with my Nikon. With long glass----you get what you pay for.

Larry

mlj Loc: Anderson, SC

Treadwl is absolutely correct. If you want to take "telephoto" your main concern should be the "glass." Nikon has the best!

mawyatt Loc: Clearwater, Florida

The Nikon 200-400mm is certainly better at a cost of $6750. The Sigma 50-500mm OS is called a Bigma and costs $1660. Is the Nikon a better lens, no doubt, is it worth 5 grand more than the Sigma? You must decide this. In my case I am not a pro, and could not justify the extra 5 grand.

I used the Bigma at the Sebring ALMS Races in March and was delighted with the results. With the extra 5 grand I have on order a D800 (on order since March, so maybe I'll see it in 2012!) and Nikon 24-70 F2.8 to go along with my Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR.

BTW if you do some research on the Tamron vs. Sigma long lens, the general opinion is the new Sigmas are better. Sigma also has the 150-500mm OS for about $900 after a $100 discount, this is a very good value. MT Shooter here has this lens and has some very good results

francesca3 Loc: Sausalito, CA

Yeppers, wish I had that kind of money. All of my lenses but one (the Tamron) are Nikkor because of the Zeiss glass, superb.
Thanks for the advice.

buckwheat Loc: Clarkdale, AZ and Belen NM

Did I miss something. When did Zeiss start making Nikon lenses?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I am a Canon shooter - from my experince with Canon , I would say try a 2X behind the 70-200. If you like it, you can get rid of the other two converters. The 70-200 with 2X is much more ergonomic than the 200-500. The photo below was shot with the 80-200 Canon L with Tamron 2X. If you are serious about birds, I recommend a 300mm 2.8 with 2X - it's what I use. Used ones can be had for around $2K and it is the cheapest most ergonomic way to get to 600mm with AF. For me it's all about the glass AND focusing.