billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Erp1938 wrote:
I have a Nikon Camera now, ready to upgrade my zoom lens to a Sigma 150-600 or Nikon 200-500. What would work best when in Estes Park Co. shooting photos of the Elk and other wildlife at a good distance. I have a Tamron 18 -400 now, Would like some opinions to think about.
You have a Nikon Camera, which one? The D5, D850, and D500 have the best focusing systems, I would further suggest Group Auto Focus.
And yes, the 200-500 is a world ahead in focusing, creating sharp images, and sharper throughout it's zoom range, especially at 500, than the Sigma.
I would also look into getting as close as you can to any wildlife, for wildlife photography, it is all about how to get close, not the length of your lens.
PixelStan77 wrote:
Go with Nikon 200-500. Super sharp lens through the range.
I really love my Sigma 150-600. You'll wish you had the extra reach when you really need it.
I like my Tameron 150-600 and my 1.4 TC.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
Erp1938 wrote:
I have a Nikon Camera now, ready to upgrade my zoom lens to a Sigma 150-600 or Nikon 200-500. What would work best when in Estes Park Co. shooting photos of the Elk and other wildlife at a good distance. I have a Tamron 18 -400 now, Would like some opinions to think about.
Looked at both, borrowed 200-500 from Nikon twice. I really wanted to love that lens. When I borrowed a 150-600mm Sport, I totally found what I was looking for - a hand-holdable 600mm lens that produced images as sharp and detailed as my 600mm F4. The 200-500 was very close - I rejected it because it was not a lens that could be used in damp weather, it lacked the superior lens coatings on the front and rear elements, It was not 600mm without an extender, and overall, it felt less substantial than the Sigma. Also, even at 500mm, the Sigma was indisputably sharper on my D800 and D810, especially at the apertures that I normally shoot at- F7.1 - F9, for depth of field considerations. So I bought it. FWIW, the 600mm F4 was sharpest at F4, but was really good to excellent at F7.1-F8.
There is no right or wrong decision. And I am not suggesting that the 200-500 is a bad lens. It is actually quite good. It's just that for me, the Sigma ticked more boxes. My criteria and expectations may be different from yours.
This article supports my own conclusions. There are a few direct comparisons between the Nikon and the Sigma, and some comments that reflect that none of the other candidates came as close to expensive prime-lens performance. I don't care for the AF performance or loss of image quality that happens when you use ANY of these comparatively low-cost zoom lenses with a teleconverter. However, when the distances were great and the light levels were low (twilight, under forest canopy, etc), the 600mmF4 with a 1.4X TC III was really hard to beat. But it did require a tripod, which the Sigmas the Nikon and the Tamrons do not for the most part.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vrAs does the set of 5 images on this page:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-708995-1.html
With my 1.4 tc auto focus mostly works. Birds in tree and shadows screw it up sometimes
Probably not in your price range but my choice is the Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF sharper than the 200-500mm or the Sigma 150-600mm S. I own all 3 and my preference for wildlife is the PF mounted on the D850 or D500 and will take a 1.4 telly extender without a problem.
The Nikon 200-500 is far superior to the Sigma 150-500 that I owned before. I am constant pleased with the image the Nikon gives me. I will admit the Sigma 150-600 has excellent reviews but I am sticking with the Nikon, the extra 100mm doesn't make a difference for me.
Hi, I have the Nikon 200-500mm F5.6 Lens very sharp and of great color. It is always best to stay with a native lens with a camera. I took that lens and got great photos.
James May wrote:
Hi, I have the Nikon 200-500mm F5.6 Lens very sharp and of great color. It is always best to stay with a native lens with a camera. I took that lens and got great photos.
Guess everyone who buy 3rd party lens isn't doing photography as good as you. Surprisingly Tameron sigma still in business
rbtree
Loc: Shoreline, WA, United States
nervous2 wrote:
Just to muddy the waters a bit; after a lot of researching and soul searching, I opted for the Tamron 150-600 G2 and I have been very pleased with it. But, you will not go wrong with the Nikon 200-500.
Good choice. I've owned my Tammy G2 for years. Lighter, cheaper than the Siggy Sport and every bit as good. Canon EF mount.
Sidwalkastronomy wrote:
Guess everyone who buy 3rd party lens isn't doing photography as good as you. Surprisingly Tameron sigma still in business
I normally don’t nitpick little things like typos, but after seeing it in multiple posts by you I’ve determined it’s not a typo. There is no such company as “Tameron”. It’s just simply “Tamron” with no “e”.
rbtree
Loc: Shoreline, WA, United States
James May wrote:
Hi, I have the Nikon 200-500mm F5.6 Lens very sharp and of great color. It is always best to stay with a native lens with a camera. I took that lens and got great photos.
Third party lenses are always worth considering. Quality is often very good. Personally, I own the Tamron G2 24-70 and 150-600. Both are very very good.
cjc2
Loc: Hellertown PA
Erp1938 wrote:
I have a Nikon Camera now, ready to upgrade my zoom lens to a Sigma 150-600 or Nikon 200-500. What would work best when in Estes Park Co. shooting photos of the Elk and other wildlife at a good distance. I have a Tamron 18 -400 now, Would like some opinions to think about.
One of the lenses I would consider is the Nikon 500/5.6 PF. Light, but higher cost. I absolutely love mine! Best of luck.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.