Wrench wrote:
Looking for input. I cannot justify all the money for a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens. I’m not a pro nor close to that level however I am fussy if you will over quality. I also push myself to produce the best I am capable of regardless of whether it’s work or fun. Also after 40 years in the automotive industry I also have a tendency to favor OEM products. That said, because of what I like to photograph, nature or birds etc., I find myself out in early morning or late evening hours when light is hard to come by. So, I have been watching reviews for Sigma’s new 70-200 sport lens but also really like the older Nikon 80-200 af-d. I also would like to hear from anyone who has used the Nikon f4 version of 70-200 range. I am currently shooting with a D7200 but also watching the prices for an upgrade, possibly a D500 or even a D750 replacement. I’m concentrating on glass as it will be useable with or when I upgrade the body.
Looking for input. I cannot justify all the money ... (
show quote)
Use the process of elimination:
D750 is a great camera, but in a nutshell it makes no sense for someone who "likes to shoot birds". A DX camera is a better choice for that.... UNLESS you have the budget for VERY big, fast, expensive lenses AND need to make very large prints. Very few people actually NEED full frame... they just think it will somehow improve their photography. Actually, the images from the FX camera might look better to them, when compared at ridiculously high magnification on their computer monitors. At native resolution, a 24MP camera's image "at 100%" will be roughly equivalent to making a 5 foot wide by 3.5 foot high print... and then viewing it from 18 to 20 inches away. That's silly. By the time they have re-sized their images for actual use, much of the "goodness" of FX is gone and there's little difference between an up-to-date DX camera like your 24MP D7200 and a 24MP FX camera like the D750. The ONLY real advantage to a moderate resolution FX camera that you might see is somewhat higher usable ISO, for those low light situations. Currently the D750 is selling for $800 more than the D7200. It will cost you $1500 (less whatever you get selling your D7200, if you decide to do that).
D500 is also a great camera, IF you need a faster frame rate (10 fps vs 6 fps), fancier AF system (153 points vs 53 points), an articulated Touch Screen LCD and a more durable camera (200K "clicks" vs 150K). HOWEVER, like your D7200, the D500 is a DX camera. AND, it's lower resolution than your D7200... 21MP versus 24MP. AND, it has slightly lower high ISO capabilities (although it has a much wider settable range)... AND it has slightly lower color bit depth and slightly less dynamic range than the D7200. AND, the D500 is currently $1100 more expensive than a D7200... $1800 (less whatever you get selling your D7200, should you do so).
Frankly, instead of a camera upgrade that will make little difference and might even force you to spend A LOT more on lenses, you'd be much better putting the $1500 to $1800 cost of that camera upgrade into a quality lens instead.
I understand your preference for OEM lenses. For that large part, I try to stick with those, too. I've made a couple exceptions where my camera maker didn't offer a lens with features I needed or wanted. But 90% of my lenses are OEM.
The Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 "FL" is a wonderful lens, but at $2800 it's quite pricey (comparable Canon are $600 to $1000 less).
The Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR that preceded the FL version is still widely available and is an excellent lens that costs $940 less... $1860.
I am not personally familiar with the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR that sells for $1400 (note that it doesn't come with the matched tripod mounting ring... which I recommend. That's sold separately for $155, adding to the cost of the lens.)
70-200mm f/4 lenses certainly are an option, too. In fact I use one a lot, primarily to "lighten my load". It's about 2/3 the size and weight of the f/2.8 lenses. (Similarly, I also often use a hand-holdable, $1300, 3 lb. 300mm f/4 lens and, unless I REALLY need it, leave at home my $6000, 6 lb. 300mm f/2.8, as well as the tripod or monopod it requires for shooting longer than a few minutes.)
I've found myself stopping down the f/2.8 lenses to f/4 or smaller much of the time anyway... in search of sufficient depth of field. Plus, f/4 is more than a stop faster than many of the alternatives, variable aperture zooms that start out around f/4.5 or so, but end up at f/5.6 or even smaller at their middle to longest focal lengths.
Personally, I do not use my 70-200mm much for birding. I use the 300mm f/4 lens mentioned above or a 100-400mm, both sometimes with 1.4X teleconverter... or even longer (and much bigger, heavier, more expensive) 500mm f/4, also sometimes with 1.4X. There's a saying among birders, "You'll never have 'enough' lens." Essentially that just means if you have 300mm, you'll want 400mm. Once you have 400mm, you'll find it's too short too and will want 500mm.... etc., etc., on and on, ad infinitum. Of course, there's are practical limits of size, weight, price... plus at some point the subjects are just too far away, there's too much atmospheric interference to make it worth taking a shot. But, 200mm really isn't "enough" lens for birding. At a very minimum, you'll need to use a 1.4X teleconverter on it... and, in many cases, there goes your image quality along with it (there are exceptions, but teleconverters generally work much better with prime lenses, than they do with zooms).
Your best bets for "birding" lenses are:
- Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR... 3.5 lb, $2300.
- Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR... 5 lb., $1400.
Third party options are:
- Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM... 2.5 lb, $670
- Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD... 2.5 lb, $700
- Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD "G2"... 4.5 lb., $1300
- Sigma "Contemporary" 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM... 4.3 lb., $940
- Sigma "Sports" 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM... 6.3 lb., $1800
Notes:
- The Sigma 100-400mm doesn't include or have any means of attaching a tripod mounting collar. There is an optional tripod mounting collar available for the Tamron 100-400mm, which costs $129.
- The variable aperture designations of these lenses can be a bit misleading unless you compare them closely. For example, over much of it's range the Nikon 80-400mm is 2/3 stop faster than the third party lenses. The 80-400mm doesn't stop down to f/5.6 until about 250mm. In comparison, the Tamron 100-400mm only maintains larger than f/5.6 through about 180mm and the Sigma 100-400mm stops down to f/5.6 or smaller at just 112mm! The Tamron 150-600mm G2 stops down to f/5.6 or smaller at 213mm. And, the Sigma 150-600mm lenses stop down to f/5.6 or smaller at 180mm (C) or 185mm (S). As a result, rather than what appears at first glance as a 1/3 stop difference, there is actually the third party lenses are actually 2/3 stop "slower" through much of their focal length range.
None of these lenses are going to solve your low light concerns. In order to achieve that with a lens that's truly long enough for "birding" will require a much greater expenditure and mean hauling around a much larger lens, as well as a sturdy tripod to sit it upon.
Instead I would suggest you experiment with post-processing and noise reduction techniques that might allow you to use higher ISOs with your D7200. That's a much more practical solution for most people. Part of this is being realistic about your image evaluation, too. As noted above, many people are vastly overly critical of their images by viewing them "at 100%". This is much larger than they will ever actually use their images and many of the "flaws" they see at that magnification - such as high ISO noise, slight loss of sharpness, etc. - will never actually be seen by anyone else after they've re-sized the image for real world uses. The ease with which we can be seriously overly critical of our images is one of the "problems" with digital. The camera manufacturers love it, though, because it keeps people coming back and buying new cameras and full frame "upgrades" in a never-ending search for "perfect" images. It's fine... even useful to be able to zoom in to 100% or higher when retouching images, doing sharpening, correcting chromatic aberrations, etc. But off to 25% or 33% when evaluating your images for focus accuracy, noise, sharpness, etc... I bet you'll find them a lot better than you think.
P.S. The image processing workflow and work-station are often overlooked in the search for imageperfection. Among other things, a new/better computer monitor, proper calibration and more advanced software... along with classes and/or books how to better use them... might actually be the best place for many people to spend their money.
Hope this helps!