kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

First, yes, I did do a "search" on this topic before posting this. However, the few threads I found were 7-10 years old, and were either from people who take photos of fire trucks or campfires.

I do "fire photography". By that, I mean going to the scenes of brush fires, structure fires, "rescue" calls and other assorted situations where firefighters are involved. The purpose is to obtain good photos for possible publication in local newspapers and fire- and EMS-related publications. I'm primarily interested in photographing aerial firefighting helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft ("air tankers") dropping either water or Phos-Chek retardant. So, now to the "photography" question I have.

I shoot with a Nikon D7100 and D7200, with a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 on one, and Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 ED-IF on the other. However, especially when it comes to aircraft, which are often some distance away, sometimes 300mm is not quite enough. Yes, I can crop in and "simulate" the effect of a longer lens that way, but I'm looking at adding a new lens to "reach out" further. I'd like some advice and comments as to which might be the better way to go.

My first choice would be the Nikon 200-500mm f5.6. I would expect most of my use of this lens would be at the 500mm end of its range. The extra 200mm I would get over the lens I already have is significant.

My next option would be either the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm f5-6.3. A little more on the "wide" end, and another 100mm on the "long" end. I don't care so much about the 150mm and the difference in field of view from 500mm to 600mm is also insignificant and could be simulated by cropping.

I would be interested in which lens is the "best bang for the buck". From what I've read, the Nikon gets points for being the sharpest of the three, the constant aperture across the zoom range and for having the fastest and most accurate AF. However, I've read comments about the Sigma and Tamron claiming that those users are also getting sharp photos and feel that the AF response is excellent.

All three are heavy lenses, heavier than anything I've used before. But, I'm not at the point, yet, where the weight of the lens would be an issue.

I'd rather have a 500mm prime, but even the Nikon 500mm f4 PF is a $3500 lens and not exactly within my budget. So, looking for opinions and recommendations between the three mentioned above.

Thank you.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Man, fire ain’t nothing to mess around with. Get a lens that will allow you to stay as far away as possible.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Trust me, I'm not interesting in getting that "up close and personal" with the hot stuff. I'm always in a safe location, well away from the "hot stuff". As I stated, I'm interested in capturing the aerial activity. Not at all interested in the actual fire, itself. Not much different than going to air shows at your local military base. Only here they're flying over brush fires. Again, not just brush fires, but also rescue activity involving helicopters performing "hoist operations" and such, often in areas relatively inaccessible. So, a longer lens that will get me "closer" to the subject is what I'm looking for. I gave the three options in mind, just looking for recommendations and opinions.

As to your initial warning, I appreciate your concern, and although I do have proper protective equipment, including a Nomex fire jacket and goggles, I won't be hiking in with the firefighters and putting myself in harm's way. Not interested in that.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Well I know you are looking for advice on a lens for one of your bodies but for your use a bridge camera might be better. No lens changing, a bit smaller and lighter and if you pick the right one weather sealing and pretty high image quality.
I am thinking of the Sony RX10 III or the IV. The difference is a few hundred dollars less for the III and the main difference in the two is the IV does video better and in longer shoots.
The RX10 III and IV have the same 24-600 equivalent lens and a 1" sensor, much bigger than most cameras like this. So much improved IQ. They are expensive, but you get what you are paying for. Due to the price spikes because of Covid and chip shortages the III is running around $1400 and the IV is $1700-$1800.
I had a man show up at the Senior Photo Club meeting in July with one looking for help understanding the manual and how to set things. Never having seen one before I couldn't help him much. But that was one impressive bridge camera.
For Ken Rockwell's review when it came out look here: https://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/rx10-iv.htm

MrPhotog

Just asking:

Have you considered trying a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter with your current 70-300?

It would ‘cost’ you one or two f/stops, but you would save dollars and weight. The things weigh about 4 ounces.

With a 2x teleconverter you would be working with a 140-600 mm lens with an effective maximum aperture of f/9 - f/11. Not fast, but your subjects are at great distance, so focus is pretty easy, and ISO can be raised a bit to compensate.
With a 1.4x your max. focal length would be 420 mm at f/8.

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

What camera you end up using will be dictated by how it will be used. If you need a long lens that isn't too heavy and has reasonable dust and moisture sealing - the Tamron 150-600 G2 would be my choice. It is sharper than the Nikon, is properly sealed unlike the Nikon, and is a half pound lighter than the Nikon. The Sigma 150-600 Sport is also very good, but almost 2 lbs heavier than the Tamron. Both the Sport and the G2 will provide image quality on par with a prime lens in that focal length range, and the Nikon comes very close - but lacks the build quality and sealing. By the same token, I don't think your current lenses are sealed as well as either the G2 or the Sport.

Nikon makes a 500mmF5.6 PF, but not an F4. There is about a $10,000 difference in price between the two.

whfowle Loc: Tampa first, now Albuquerque

Gene51's advice is going to give you some great reach on a Nikon 7xxx series camera body since these are APS-c sensors. A 150-600 is effectively 225-900 and you don't give up a stop like using a teleconverter.

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

Photographers who did not buy the Nikon 200-500, now have buyers remorse.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You might consider renting a candidate rather than purchasing prior to using. You may find any of your candidate ideas is too large and bulky for the intended purpose, where the 300mm and cropping is the better approach overall.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

It seems the OP is locked into Nikon's great gear.

When I was trying to gear up for "long distance" photography and videography I ran into the Panasonic Lumix stabilized 100-400 lens. Olympus has followed with a similar lens. As they are "micro four thirds" systems you double the numbers for the equivalent field of view. The combination of smaller, lighter and stabilization makes hand holding for 800mm equivalent shots a lot easier. Aiming at airplanes might be a challenge with such a narrow view! Olympus has a "red dot" sight that works on any camera and helps solve that.

Pick the lens first and then the same brand for the body. Although all M4/3 lenses can be used on either brand, the stabilization systems work best if the brand is matched. Panasonic's system joins the work of both lens and in body stabilization.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Just a quick side note on the use of the term superzoom in the title of this thread. I have also seen references in other threads to lenses with 100-400mm, 200-500mm, and 150-600mm focal ranges as being superzooms. While there is no official standard definition of a superzoom lens, as a general case, the term usually refers to zooms lenses that far exceed the 3x, 4x, or 5x focal range of conventional standard zooms, and have a focal range that goes from wide angle to telephoto. Superzooms generally have significant optical limitations due to their extreme focal range. Wikipedia, among other sources, defines superzooms this way. The 22x Tamron 18-400mm would be an example of a superzoom lens. Based on this definition, the 2.5x range of the Nikkor 200-500mm, for example, would not put that lens into the superzoom category.

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

Out of the box thinking but have you considered the bridge camera Nikon Coolpix P1000? Has 125X zoom (24-3000 mm equivalent focal range) and goes for under $1,000.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Nikon 200~500!!

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

For what it's worth.I use a sigma 150-600C for everything from butterflies to eagles and herons and very happy with the results.It's around $1000. My second choice would be the same focal length Tamron G2. I have 4 other Tamrons and they are all very nice.

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

Food for thought...Nikon makes the PX-1000 18mm to 3000mm (yes thousand)..bridge camera... I bought a used one for shooting rockets...16mp is not the latest, however if your pictures are destined for newspapers that may not be an issue....Price point is around $1K new, used, chck MPB.com or KEH.com