Contemplating a new (used) lens. Advice please (Page 2): One point to note is that most all zooms fall short at the extremes of their ranges...Unless they are optimized for that and...

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

One point to note is that most all zooms fall short at the extremes of their ranges...Unless they are optimized for that and that usually means $$$$.

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

Overthehill1 wrote:

With the season for hummingbirds and butterflies a... (show quote)

The 300 f4 is a great lens. I use it on a FF camera, but I have shot it off the D500. On the D500 that lens would have an angle of view of 450 mm f4 without the converter. If you put the 1.4 converter (something I do not like to do) your angle of view goes to 675 mm at f5.6 on the D7000. That should be more than enough for you. According to the Nikon charts, they they recommend the TC-14E II or TC-14E III version for that lens.
https://cdn-5.nikon-cdn.com/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/EN_Comp_chart.html

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

Screamin Scott wrote:

One point to note is that most all zooms fall short at the extremes of their ranges...Unless they are optimized for that and that usually means $$$$.

Have not noticed that on the Nikon 200-500. In fact, it really seems better at the 500mm extreme. And the 14-24 is sharp at all settings, same with the latest Nikon 70-200 2.8.
So, it appears that not all zooms fall short at the extremes of their ranges.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Seems people aren't accounting for the OP's budgetary concerns still by suggesting gear, that while great, is likely over their budget. What we need is for the OP to let us know their budget....

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

Screamin Scott wrote:

Seems people aren't accounting for the OP's budgetary concerns still by suggesting gear, that while great, is likely over their budget. What we need is for the OP to let us know their budget....

He has stated his budget, and I quote him here "Budgetary reasons have me considering a 300mm F4 Nikkor." So, his budget is $2000.00 because that is what the 300 f4 costs.

Leo_B Loc: Houston suburb

Doesn't 300 x 1.4 = 420? Where are the other numbers coming from?

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

Leo_B wrote:

Doesn't 300 x 1.4 = 420? Where are the other numbers coming from?

Crop factor for lenses on the D7000 is 1.5, so 300mm X 1.5 = 450mm X 1.4E II teleconverter (1.5 actual increase) (so +225mm) = total of 675mm.
Hope this helps
If you want to stay consistent, you could use the 1.4 on the teleconverter so, 450 X1.4 = 630mm or an angle of view of 630mm on the D7000 with the Nikon 300mm f4 lens with the Nikon TC 1.4E II or III teleconverter

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

quixdraw wrote:

Absolute bargain lens - AF Nikkor 75-300 4.5 - 5.6 - an older FX lens. From Bugs to birds, fantastic on my D 7200 rendering a functional 450 top end. Can be had for as little as $75 online. I like it so well I bought an extra - can't tell the difference between the two performance wise. Check Roberts Used Photo Pro or other well thought of dealers.

Another good one (I have one of those), well built too! I'll add the 70-300 AF-S and AF-P models. The little AF-P 70-300 VR DX does a fine job as well, very reasonable used/refurbed <$125 and a 6 month waranty at some of the resellers. The non-VR version can be had for change off Ebay and from resellers. On the AF-P VR - you can't turn off the VR with the D7100, but I've not found that to be a "real" issue.

Another feature of the D7100 is the change from DX image area to 1.3X (in the menu), it crops image from 24mm X 16mm to 18mm X 12mm (15MP) but will allow you to fill the frame (with a 300, it would be like a 585mm on the sensor). I get very good keeper rate either way. As Quixdraw mentioned, UsedPhotPro, MPB, KEH, and of course B&H/Adorama/Cameta/Nikon website, all good sources, as well as private sellers.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

billnikon wrote:

He has stated his budget, and I quote him here "Budgetary reasons have me considering a 300mm F4 Nikkor." So, his budget is $2000.00 because that is what the 300 f4 costs.

There is more than one 300mm F4 lens though and used prices are different than new...I have a 300mm F4 AF that cost me 250 used....

Leo_B Loc: Houston suburb

Ah yes, forgot to include the crop factor. Thanks.

CWGordon

You can’t be too rich or too thin or have too much telephoto reach. Or, so I have been told. Birds require a million mm! Short of that, 500 is a minimum, 600 better, by far. I want 800. 300 will not give you a noticeable difference. Take it from all of us who have tried virtually everything to get closer to the birds we photograph. Shorter lenses can be adequate if a bird cooperates. Few do. Get “all you can get,” whatever lens you purchase. Good luck with your decision.

CWGordon

You can’t be too rich or too thin or have too much telephoto reach. Or, so I have been told. Birds require a million mm! Short of that, 500 is a minimum, 600 better, by far. I want 800. 300 will not give you a noticeable difference. Take it from all of us who have tried virtually everything to get closer to the birds we photograph. Shorter lenses can be adequate if a bird cooperates. Few do. Get “all you can get,” whatever lens you purchase. Good luck with your decision.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Look at the Tamron 18-400. If I still had my Nikon, I’d have this lens in my bag.

Oldnintheway

Something to consider. I bought the Tamron 150-600 a few years ago second hand. It is a great lens but it does gather internal dust. So far it's not affecting my IQ as far as I can tell but it bothers me. So I called Tamron and they quoted me $250. for a cleaning, which would have been covered for free under warranty if I was the original owner. That's just about what I saved buying it second hand. If I had it to do again I'd buy new and have the warranty to fall back on.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Canisdirus wrote:

You mentioned ... If my math is correct, that will give me the equivalent of 570mm at F 5.6 (from 300 f/4).

No, It will be 459mm at f/6.12 ... on your Nikon D7000.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I believe you're both incorrect. It's (300 x 1.4) x 1.5= 610 at the cost of one f=stop, so f5.6. The field of view changes by the multipliers, and that tele-converter should only lose one fstop.