TonyBrown

My Partner and I are off to Costa Rica with four other Wildlife/Photography enthusiast friends. The trip will take us to Tortugero, Osa Peninsula/Corcovado, Savegre Reserve, so lots of wildlife spotting and photo opportunities. I have a Nikon D500 and on a recent trip to NZ I paired it with a 16-80 DX, a new version 80-400 and a 35mm prime. I have recently acquired a 300mm f4 PF and a 1.4 TC that together give me just over 420mm, which gives me just over 600mm on a DX. I am really pleased with the 300mm and, probably not surprisingly, from initial tests the results look better than my 80-400 at max zoom. However, my dilemma is that if I leave the 80-400 at home, weight will dictate that I cannot take it as well as the 300, then I have a big focal length gap between the 16-80mm and the 300mm lenses. So in summary, I like the idea of taking the 300mm prime with the 1.4tc both in terms of image quality and weight, but if I just take that lens along with the 16-80mm will I regret not having the extra flexibility offered by the 80-400mm zoom? One final point before anyone suggests a 200-500,I have that lens, but it is just too bulky for this trip.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

If you are looking to save weight look at the Tamron18-400. A good match for the D500. Rent it and try it.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Weight and bulk can be a real issue when you’re moving around. I’m torn, like you. My first thought was to leave the 300 at home, then leaving the 16-80. Tough decision. Enjoy your trip! Thought: do others in the group have the same camera? You might switch off with them...?

TonyBrown

Unfortunately the others are Sony and Canon users.

TonyBrown

My partner has that lens, but it is a bit soft at 400mm. Ive also got a 16-300 that is a good walkabout lens. However, I’m looking for the sharpest possible pics I can get and the 300mm prime scores best in that respect.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

It is a tough decision I think that I would take the 80-400mm unless I was primarily interested in small birds. Maybe you could find a used nikon 55-200mm. This is a rather small and cheap kit lens of good optical quality. It may tuck nicely in between the 16-80mm and 300mm.

I solved the issue by using m4/3. The Panasonic 100-300 and 100-400mm lenses are rather small.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I’m just glad that I have so little gear that I don’t have to struggle with these life wrenching decisions. I would have to do a self-critique and figure out why I have so much unusable gear in the first place. 😉😉

bajadreamer Loc: Baja California Sur

My experience in Costa Rica has been that most of your "wildlife" shots will be birds. Very few large mammals there and most of them are nocturnal so photo ops are few. Some amphibians and reptiles, if you are so inclined. Lots of wonderful plants and flowers, but even they are often at a distance.
That said, the bird photo ops will likely be outstanding, but even at hotel feeders (Savegre is wonderful) I seldom used less than 400 mm. Some relatively large birds, like Guans and Quetzals, but also lots of small birds like hummers and tanagers.
On my last trip I brought a 100-400, a 500, and a 1.4 extender with a FF camera. I seldom used the 100-400 on anything other than frogs.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I've been to Costa Rica twice, last year and then again this year. I love to see the monkeys, they are so much fun to watch. I used my Nikon D500 and my 200-500 (not too big to pack or carry). I mostly hand-held, although a couple of times did use the tripod. I took both tripod and monopod but did not use the monopod at all: I just am not comfortable with it. Got really good shots of animals as small as butterflies and as large as spider monkeys in treetops. In my experience, more range is good. I'd vote for the 200-500 or the fixed lens with the tele...although you could find yourself shooting in very low light jungle situations. You can see some of my shots from last year on my webpage at cassinetto photos.com. My images from this year are on instagram, viathelens53. I also used a macro lens for the frogs and my Z7 with a 24-70 for the frogs, too. I carry on all equipment, using a camera backpack and a large carry-on bag for extra camera gear.

TonyBrown

Thank you. I’m leaning towards the prime plus tc. I can fit a 1.4 to the 80-400 to get more reach, but it’s slow to focus. Understand what you say about the 200-500 it’s a great lens, but it means a lot more bulk for a long haul flight and the 300 is so light to carry around even my partner can use it. She is taking a sigma 105 macro for the frogs. Will look at your pics.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

My approach doesn't offer an immediate solution. Maybe it can be "food for thought" for people trying to equip for wildlife adventures.

Back when there was film and darkrooms, I had an amazing collection of Nikon gear up through 500mm. A few years ago I had an opportunity to start from scratch with digital gear. A major priority was wildlife, so I started with finding a long lens. For more "ordinary" circumstances I added a second lens. Last I picked a body. With a travel tripod, my "kit" weighs about 6 pounds and leaves room in carry on luggage for all my other travel needs. (I don't ever check baggage.) In full frame language I cover 28mm to 800mm.

The lenses are a Panasonic Lumix 100-400 and a 14-140. The body is a Panasonic GX8. The longer one and the body are weather sealed. The shorter lens is not, but the current version is. Current Panasonic bodies could be even better.

Of course there is the argument over what happens to image quality with smaller sensors. But, so far, nobody has looked at my "wall hangers" and said, "You need a bigger sensor!".

TonyBrown

The Panasonic and Olympus 4/3 are great cameras and I really like the 100-400 lens. My only concern with going down this route is action shots and, in terms of wildlife, bif shots. I need to be convinced that the autofocus capabilities are as good as the Nikon D500. The Nikon Z6 and Z7 are also light weight options, but again I need convincing that autofocus is up to fast moving wildlife.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

This suggests a possible solution.

Are you both using Nikon DX cameras?

What other lenses will she be taking?

Any reason you can't share lenses between you?

Does the 1.4X work well on that 105mm macro? If so and if needed, that might serve to fill the "gap" between your 16-80 and 300mm lenses.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Did not use my Z7 for any moving wildlife shots, it just, for me, does not focus fast enough; monkeys are very quick as they almost literally fly around the trees. As for sharing a long lens, this would be difficult as one of you will miss the shot at that point in time. Might work out fine for the frog type of shots, as they are usually set up, at least mine were.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Tony,

Nobody will ever win a "better than Nikon" discussion!

For the BIFs I cheated and bought an Olympus red dot sight that mounts in the hot shoe. Autofocus isn't bad on my GX8. It is better on the more current G9.

It's probably not as good as Nikon. I've read nothing beats Canon's best. Does anyone remember manual focus?

For me, it was getting a complete kit in a 5 or 6 pound package that would fit in carry-on. There is also price issues.