Jfholly

Looking for advice on the best lens for outdoor sports / action photography such as Football & Soccer using the Nikon D500 DSLR, Thanks, JH

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Nikon 80-400 if you can afford it .

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

ChristianHJensen

The sigma 60-600 is pretty good too - if you are up for the weight

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Nikon 200~500 5.6

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

On the sidelines for the grand kids games, I use a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 with my D500. If you're a little further away, take a 1.4x tele with you, but I haven't needed one. I also take a Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 lens with me for team shots after the game. If your in the stands, check with security as many don't allow longer lenses without a press pass, but the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 G (will set you back about $1300 used) is a great lens if you can get it in.

Jfholly

Thanks all, I know the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 has a great reputation.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

The widest aperture long lens you can afford. It's all about subject isolation if you want your photos to stand out from the others.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Take a look at the 70-300 AF-P models as well, sharp, light and reasonable $$.

Brenda D Loc: Alberta

I just bought a Nikon 18-300 for my D500 after talking to a photographer at a rodeo. I normally use a Nikon 70-200 2.8 but find need wider when action is very close. This will be for outdoor only. Her shots are great. Looking forward to testing it but no rodeo until August.

Michaelgmuth

I am using the new version of Nikon 80-400 and a Tamron 150-600 G2 on a D500 with mostly great results from both lenses. The Tamron is not great in low light however.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

I have a 200-500 for sale if you're interested (PM) I had a great time with it using a mono...

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

For most field sports you will want at least 400mm or 500mm.

Nikon 80-400mm or 200-500mm would be top contenders.

There are also Sigma and Tamron 100-400mm lenses. They each have 150-600s, too... but those are a lot larger. The Sigma 60-600mm is a beast of a lens at around 6 lb. (the earlier 50-500mm was nicknamed "The Bigma"... bring a tripod!). The Nikon 200-500mm is also rather hefty at 5 lb., while the 150-600mm lenses are between 4.5 lb. and 6 lb. each.

The "light weights" are the Nikon 80-400mm at about 3.5 lb. and the Tamron 100-400mm at 3 lb. There is a slightly lighter Sigma 100-400mm too... Personally I prefer the Tamron because it can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring. The Sigma 100-400 can't. All the other lenses here come with a tripod mounting ring.

Unless you have a very large budget you aren't going to get large aperture lenses. There are 120-300mm f/2.8 zooms, but they start around $3500 and go as high as $9500. You'd also probably want a 1.4X teleconverter, since 300mm will come up short at times. If you just won the lottery, Nikon offers a 180-400mm f/4 with a built in 1.4X teleconverter... for a little over $12,000. Or a similar amount of money will get you a Nikon 400mm f/2.8!

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

You can buy a sigma 130-300 mm f2.8 used for about 1500 or a little less. I bought mine from Keh as a companion for my 300-800mm f5.6. I also have the 1.4 teleconverter for the 120-300. Excellent lens