Mark Bski Loc: A sleepy little island not far from Seattle

I've been taking bird and wildlife photos with my Nikon 300mm F4 for a few years now and it's doing a great job. I also use a teleconverter that brings me up to 420mm at 5.6. But, alas, I want more reach. Right now my top two contenders are the Nikon 200-500 or the Tamron 150-600 g2. I love my Nikon glass, but I know I will want more, so I tilt towards the Tamron.

Also, I do like my prime and I get great results with it. I noticed Nikon has a 500mm f5.6 prime out there, but it costs over twice as much as the 2-500. Sigma also has a few long lenses not outrageously over priced, but just quite expensive, like a 300-800mm 5.6, a 500mm 5.6, and an 80mm 5.6.

I was wondering if anyone has experience with any of these lenses, I'd love to get your thoughts.

Oh yea, I upgraded from my D7200 to a Z-6 ~ it's awesome.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, on FF you will want more reach ! I do not have either of these - but have shot both - the experienced consensus is that for fast accurate AF- if that matters- you want the Nikon. Stop down the aperture and CROP for more reach and use pixel enlargement if necessary. Beware, both of their tripod collars are highly compromised.
.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Apparently, you went from a DX to an FX camera. That works against "reach".

I have the Tamron G2 on a Canon APS-C camera. I love it.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I am not a big fan of any of the variable aperture big zooms. I owned the Sigma Sport and have used the first version of the Tamron. I had many issues with the Tamron and a few with the Sigma. I did own the Nikon 200-500/5.6 and I thought it to be the best of the bunch, but the 5.6 aperture had too much in focus for my sports work so I have settled on the 200-400 F4. I have heard nothing but good things about the latest Nikon 500 5.6 PF. I own the 300PF version and absolutely love it. Will that be long enough for you, only you can say. Any 800 is going to be expensive. Best of luck

OLDVIRGINIA

I get good results with the Nikon 200-500. Even with a Nikon 1.4x teleconverter.

Shoot Nikon D300 and D750.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

[quote=cjc2]I am not a big fan of any of the variable aperture big zooms. /quote]

I am not a big fan of f6.3 lenses ....
.

sailfree

I owned the Nikon 200-500mm but recently bought the Tamron 150-600 G2 and use it on an FX body. So far I am happy I made the change. I shoot almost exclusively nature and rarely venture into portrait or landscape so the 150-600mm along with their 1.4X TC, my Nikon 28-300 and Nikon 105mm macro more than satisfy my interests, skill level and bank account. I'm sure many, if not most, of us dream of someday owning a megabucks fast prime lens (and a Ferrari :-) ) but I'm finding the G2 to be everything I want in a non-professional long lens. Good luck with whatever lens you choose!

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Mark, I own and love my Nikon 200-500. I hav tried but always sold my brand X lenses. Does not meet the quality of Nikon Glass.

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

I finally sold my 600mmF4 and am totally pleased with the image quality I get with my Sigma Sport 150-600. Were I to do it again, I would unhesitatingly purchase the G2, which gives me the same level of image quality as the Sport, is 2 lbs lighter, offers an extra stop of stabilization and will focus a bit closer. The Nikkor 200-500 is a very good lens. The G2 and Sport are just optically better, and they go to 600mm. I do not see a difference between the images I was getting with my 600mm F4 and the Sport, and the G2 which I have borrowed on one occasion. In fact, many criticize the variable maximum aperture on these lenses, but with the low noise levels on current cameras, it's become a non-issue. In most cases, I will shoot any long lens at smaller than the max aperture for greater depth of field, so for me the only practical benefit of having an F4 lens vs one that is F6.3 is for slightly faster focus acquisition in poor light. And from experience I can tell you that both the Sigma and the Tamron are more than fine in this respect. I use a D800 and a D810.

I rented a 300-800 and found it to be exceptionally good, and I am sorry I never bought one. I understand from users of the 300-800 and the 800 that the zoom is sharper, though I do not have any direct experience with the prime lens.

Here are a couple of highly cropped shots taken with the Sport and D810

male ruby throated hummingbird

(Download)


(Download)

marsh wren

(Download)

Damselfly

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

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

First, make sure you download the new Eye AF firmware for your Z. It will help in focusing on those moving objects. I also like to use GROUP AUTO FOCUS, makes a real difference for birds in flight.
I own both the Nikon 200-500 and the 500 5.6. Both are excellent and give outstanding results. The 200-500 is heavier but more versatile. YOU MUST LEARN HOW TO GET CLOSE TO YOUR PRAY, THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT, MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR GLASS CHOICE.
Study your bird and learn it's habits, where it will be when, where it feeds, stuff like that.
I see little difference in the lenses unless I am in close and using the D850. I like the light weight of the 500 5.6 and the focusing is quick.
I like the 500 5.6 on both the D500 and D850. In my preserves in Florida the 200-500 is a great choice because distances to pray vary greatly. That said, I found myself most of the time zooming out to max. on the 200-500, that is way I purchased the 500 5.6.
I too like Nikon glass. I will not comment on your other choice because I am trying not to be as negative as I have been toward them. However, my close friend uses THAT LENS on her Canon Mark 5 IV and she likes it. But as for me, I always ride with the brand and that has made all the difference.
Below is a grab shot using the 200-500, Green Heron in flight.

ELNikkor

No matter how long a lens you get, there will always be a bird or other subject out there making you wish for longer. You would have more apparent reach with the D500 than with a Z6, and I'm with those who prefer Nikon glass with Nikon cameras, so the 200-500 would be worth considering...

khorinek

Agreed.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Tony Northrup reviewed the 600mm zooms and the Nikon 200-500 1 week ago and I AGREE 100 % with his conclusions - you would ALL do well to view the video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz3zbpKXF4M
.

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

As far as I know the Nikon 500 F/5.6 is still on backorder throughout the country...I’ve got alerts set up with B&H, Adorama & Nikon for arrival...So tired of the hype...Actually considering the 600 Nikon is supposed to be releasing in September...unless they hype that as well

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

For every review that shows Nikon better than Tamron or Sigma, another will show the opposite.
For me, I am a shooter that displays his work all over my tri-state area. My show prints are either 20X30 ot 30X40. I have gotten good 30X40 prints from my Sony HX99V with a built in 24-720 mm Zeiss lens.
Bottom line, IT IS NOT THE LENS, IT WILL ALWAYS BE THE PHOTOGRAPHER. To hell with all the tests.
And, it will ALWAYS be this way.