Reconvic Loc: clermont Fl

My wife and I both have the Tamron 600 G2 and the Nikon D850. My wife is a svelte 5'4" and weighs in at a whopping 120 lbs. She Handholds these two with no problem (sometimes with the aid of a over the shoulder harness). We have numerous posts on here with the proof of the cropping ability of our gear. If you are shooting wildlife/birds you are going to be cropping and the "extra reach" is a priority. Of course we are shooting with a D850 that is 45 mps and crops at 20. Before we purchased the Tamrons I watched every video and researched blah blah blah...The 2 best lenses for wildlife are the nikkor 500 and the Tamron 600 G2 but maybe you should rent them first. (I have recent posted topics on UHH backing up what I say).

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

I remember seeing this YouTube video about this lens which didn't fare well as I recall in her test. As I recall, it was so bad she returned it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDtvBDXaEnk

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

I get the weight issue, but the minor exercise suggestion is spot on, and this will help you more than any lens change "down the road" - weight issues and muscle strength issues get worse as we age, and exercise doesn't cost anything other than a litle time. You will feel better too.

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

...or 3) transition to the Sony RX10M4 bridge, 600mm, complete camera and lens under 3 lb.

photoman43

I used to own that same 400mm tele lens you use and love. I agree that it produces images with great image quality that are very sharp. I doubt if there is any zoom made that will match its image sharpness. That being said, only you can decide if the zoom will be satisfactory for you. Before I would buy any new expensive lens, I would rent it first and try it out at all focal lengths hand held and on a tripod. Then make your decsiion.

beeyul69

Weight is starting to become an issue with me also (72) I used the Sigma Sport 150-600 for a couple years and was lucky enough to get the Nikon 500PF to replace it. The image quality is superior and it feels lighter than my 70-200 2.8. Miss the versatility of the zoom but was usually at the far end of the 150-600 anyway.

jcboy3

I used to have the Nikon 400mm f/3.5. Marvelous lens, but it does not auto-focus. Put it on a mirrorless camera with focus peaking and image magnification, and it is usable with moving subjects (as long as they don't move too fast or erratically). I swapped it for an 300mm f/2.8 and set of TC's (plus a lot of cash!). Bought the 200-500 f/5.6 when it came out, and that lens gets more use due to flexibility and weight. My knees appreciate the difference in weight when I have to ski out to a spot on a ski or snowboard course.

I shot a safari with the Tamron G2; it's also a very nice lens. It is weather sealed, so if you are shooting in a wetter environment that is something to consider (the Nikon is not WS).

The zooms are slower, so you will need higher ISO if you aren't stopping down for DOF.

My advice would be to sell the 400 and 7100, and buy the 150-600 and a D500. You won't need (or want) a TC with that setup. I only use a TC on my 200-500 if it's on my D750, which is usually not the case.

Bill P

I was hoping to get some of your marvelous opinions about whether I should sell the 400 and go for the G2. Maybe I should mention that I shoot with a D7100. I look forward to your comments. Thanks[/quote]

This question is one that comes up time and time again. You will get all kinds of answers, but most of them are speaking from lack of experience or are digging down into small details. Here's the straight poop.

Everything in life has trade offs. Everything, women, cigars, single malt, even photography. It is highly likely that you will get a "better" image with the prime, but at the cost of having to walk forward or back. And of course it's highly likely that the zoom will be much heavier, as it has lots more glass in it.

No one of us can tell you what's best for you,only what's best for each one of us individually. You must consider this decision thoroughly. You today don't have the knowledge you need. You should at a minimum go to a camera store (remember them?) where you can handle one and maybe shoot a few shots with it. then you will know.

I was planning an african safari, and like mony of you I got the incorrect idea that I would need a really long lens. I had a friend who owned a Nikon zoom, 200-400 I think. It was a beast. I didn't even need to take a single frame, all I had to do was to pick it up. I settled for a Sigma, 150-600 I think. As things turned out I didn't need anything longer than my 70-200! Got home and sold the Sgma, it was soft and useless for me.

jcboy3

It is not likely that the zoom weighs more than the prime lens.

The Nikon 400mm f/3.5 weighs 4.3kg.

The Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 weighs 2.3kg.

Original Sigma and Tamron telephoto zooms were soft; the newer ones (including the Tamron G2) are much better, especially at 400mm which is very useful for safari.

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

I was in the same situation u were. Shooting a 400 2.8 weight on tripod about 14 lbs. I sold it and went to the Nikon 200-500, Dissapointed with clarity at 500, so I sold it privately & bought the new 500 5.6....totally higher quality shot than the 400 & only weighs 3.5 lb...even lighter than the 200-500...use with a set of D-500s

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Nikon's 500/5.6 is a wonderful lens, but it is NO MATCH for a Nikon 400/2.8, not even close. Let's start with the lens speed and end up with the optical performance. There are reasons Nikon gets $ 11,300 for the latest 400/2.8. One can't make good, fast lenses without putting some BIG glass in them. Best of luck.

Silverrails

Is there Really a "Prime" Telephoto lens?
I always understood a "Prime" lens to be a "Fixed Aperture" lens, like 35mm 1.8g or a 50mm 1.8g which I have for my Nikon D3300 DSLR Camera.
Ok, my error, yes a 24-70 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8 are ex. Of Prime Telephoto lens.
Sorry, I forgot,.. A Beginner mistake

Bill P

I have never seen your definition of prime anywhere but online forums. For eons, prime has meant lenses of a single focal length, with aperture of any kind. But definitions have changed with the onset of online forums, populated by guys with little experience and less education. I have actually seen posts on online forums that indicate that a circular polarizer is so named because it can be turned around and around.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida