jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Your title reminded me of a line from "The Graduate." "Plastics."

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Yes, a tele converter is a good option. I use a Kenko 1.4, and I like the results. I costs a fraction of what a lens costs. Just make sure the TC will work with your camera and lens.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Indeed the Nikon 200-500 may be a good choice. Rent and try.


If you need to go lighter still consider micro 4/3 There is a 300mm Oly, OLY and Panasonic 100-400 and a Panasonic 100-300mm. I have the 100-300mm that is very light - indeed smaller than many Nikon lenses of modest focal lengths.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I shoot a D500 with the 200-500 and also use a monopod with the Wimberly monogimbal and recommend that option.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I have a Panasonic G9 and the Leica 100-400 and is a great lens, but the focus tracking in that combo isn’t up to my D500 with the 200-500. Bird in a tree, the Panasonic is great. BIF and I want the Nikon. Even my Sony RX10MIV has better focus tracking.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Without knowing which 500mm lens you had, it's difficult to suggest.

- Nikkor 500mm f/4 FL is currently the largest of them, at just under 7 lb. (and over $10,000 cost).
- Nikkor 500mm f/5.6 "PF" is a new lens with much reduced weight around 3.25 lb. (and a $3600 price tag).
- Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 is popular, versatile zoom that weighs about 5 lb. (and costs $1257).
- Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 is another popular zoom, shorter but lighter at 3.5 lb. ($2100).

There also are some third party alternatives:

- Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 "contemporary", 4 lb. ($900).
- Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 "sport" (better sealing, more robust), 6.25 lb. ($1850).
- Sigma 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 bigger, heavier, but huge range. 5.95 lb. ($2000).
- Tamron SP 150-600mm f/4.5-6.3 "G2", 4.5 lb. ($1200).

Smaller, lighter, but less "reach" alternatives:

- Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3, no tripod ring, 2.55 lb. ($800).
- Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3, 2.45 lb. ($800, optional tripod ring, sold separately).

In most cases, you should avoid a teleconverter except with very high end, top quality lenses. There's loss of light (stops) and loss of image quality with any teleconverter. How much varies depending upon the particular lens/teleconverter combo. A weaker 1.4X teleconverter loses less light (1 stop) and does less "damage" to images, than a 2X teleconverter (2 stops light lost). Most of the above lenses probably won't be able to autofocus on your camera, with a 2X attached. When it comes to image quality, in very generalized terms, teleconverters typically work the worst with lower cost zooms.

Photomac Loc: The Dalles, Or

I, too, support the 500mmPF as reviewed by Steve Perry. He did a very thorough review after using it exclusively of a extensive trip through several national parks. Look it up on Youtube.

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

I traded in the 400 F/2.8 I used with my 500, & purchased a 200-500...After 2 months of use, I determined overall length when set @ 500 mm was too long. I ended up selling it& purchasing a new 500 mm F/5.6. Weight & length are roughly the same as the Nikon 70/200. I’ve used mine with both 1.4 & 1.7 Tc with razor sharp images.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

Suggest the 500PF. Lightweight and super sharp. Handholdable!

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

Howsa bout camera straps?
Wer'e used to the same pl hang around the neck thangs. Or that wrist strap loop. Loop strap. Whatever.
Size matters! Get a nice wide padded one. Some go cross body- camera on left, strap on right shoulder.
I'm looking at my next one- looks like a "T". Both shoulders hold the camera up. Some- even are suspenders!

SunBeach1962 Loc: Syrscuse, NY

I had the same problem, I found the new Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm 1:5.6E PF ED weight is 3.2Lbs. It is not Cheep, but not out of the question.
Here are a couple of bucks I took with it the other day,

I was at least 2 hundred to 3 hundred yards away shot hand held while sitting on a golf cart.

Rightstuff

Are you too much of a perfectionist to use a Nikon Coolpix P 900 or a P 90-- very light weight, super zoom ability and at 88 years with vision maybe with not as good as when 20 years old would any loss of pixels or anything else make a difference? Just asking--give it a try if you then think you can tell the difference in quality of your photos throw the cameras away. They is very low cost cameras with a special Niche that I think is amazing. I am 84 years old and understand the need for less weight cameras and equipment and I no longer enjoy changing Lenses. These are Point and shoot, bridge cameras. I will probably get lots of berating what I am saying, but let's see.

MG Audet

Which 500 did you give up? A 500mm F/4.0 is a big lens and weighs 6.8 lbs, a 500 mm F/5.6 weighs in at 3.2 and is a very sharp and easily manageable wildlife/birding lens.

marty wild Loc: England

I am afraid you will have to eat all your dinner and get strong! If you want sharp close ups. Your gear will be big and heavy look at the match photographer big lens and tripod .May I suggest too get to the Gym don’t forget your water. Keep clicking tog till ya drop 👍👍

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

If only there was something on the market that would carry the weight of the lens & camera body for you.