ob1sage Loc: New Jersey

Need some suggestions. I am getting a present of a new tele/zoom lens for my D750. I already have a 35mm prime and a 24-120. I am looking for more reach for birding, animals, creatures. Need not be a Nikkor lens. Sigma?
Should I look at a 300 mm zoom or a 400? So many choices but don't want to break the wife's bank.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

For birds - 400mm.
For birding, especially small ones, you can almost never have too much reach.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Sounds reasonable. It is probably safe to say that no longer how "long" a lens we get,it would usually be be nicer to have a little longer. In my opinion,having said that, I have an 80-400 and that is going to suffice! I think about longer and know I'll never be satisfied,so,enough is enough for me. :lol:

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

B&H has a 1200mm lens they are selling. you should be able to get close to most birds with it.

Tigger1 Loc: Surrey, BC Canada

The last sentence of your post is the clue for me. Start with the maximum amount in your wife's budget and create a short list of your lens choices. Then do some research on each of your choices and that should shorten your "short list" further. Once you have your short list reduced to your favourite choices, consider renting the one or two top choices and shoot lots of photos of the types of birds, animals and creatures that interest you. If you can follow this procedure of analysis without too much emotion or bias to a specific brand, you should end up with the best choice given the budget constrain you must live with.
As has already been said, you can never have enough reach, so don't chase that specification as you will always be "reaching", be satisfied to work with the best tool (lens) you can afford and work at improving your technique with the kit you have.
Good luck with your search, lets us know what you choose to buy.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

The Sigma 150-600 Sport has received very good reviews from birders, if you have the budget for it. You might PM MTShooter for his advice. He is familiar with just about all of them.

jcboy3

With the D750, 300mm is not much reach for wildlife. Even 400mm is a bit short; you can easily get beyond that with current zooms.

The Nikon 70-300mm VR is $500.

The Tamron or Sigma Contemporary 150-600 are about $1000.

Or Nikon 200-500 at $1400

Or Sigma Sport 150-600 at $1800

Personally, I use a Nikon 200-500 f/5.6, which also works well on the D750 with the TC-14e teleconverter.

Beyond these, you are looking at thousands of dollars. The 300mm f/2.8 is a great lens, and will give excellent results with the 1.4x, 1.7x or 2.0x teleconverters. I know others that use the 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4. But if these are within your wife's budget, then I am truly jealous.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I highly recommend the Nikon AF-S 200-500mm F5.6G VR lens, its amazing and the shots from it are wonderful. The VR system itself is well worth the $1399 asking price of the lens.

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

I'd definitely have to agree with 200-500. Another thing I like about this lens is no creeping...just plant the thing and it stays put.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

That would be my choice as well.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I use the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6G

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I recently purchased the 80-400 f4.5-5.6G. Very nice lens.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

if you get a 300mm with a 1.7 teleconverter it would be lighter and easier to hand hold and would give you a little over 450mm reach. it would also leave you with a 300mm lens when you do not need the extra reach. I have this setup and the autofocus and vr works great.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

Since I recently went through the process of researching a bigger tele for wildlife, birding and whatever else a big zoom would come in handy for, I will share what I decided on and a few reasons why.

First of all, I narrowed it down to the Nikon 200-500 or the Sigma 150-600 Sport. From everything I could find on these two lenses, it seemed that they came out fairly even in the IQ department. The Sigma was sharper or equal at certain focal lengths and the Nikon was sharper at others. The differences were minute. The Sigma had a tendency to be shaper to the edges/corners. So, IQ wise, the two were virtually tied. However, the Sigma goes to 600mm so, the comparisons only went to 500mm.

The extra weight of the Sport is a deal breaker for some but, since I have physical limitations, I need to use a tripod/gimbal even for the lighter ones so, to me weight didn't matter a lot.

I also liked the programmability of the Sport.
I liked the weather sealing, especially since my camera is sealed too.
The stabilization is outstanding too.
And what made it a done deal, was that the sport was only $1,500 shipped from Sigma for a like new refurb, only $100 more than the Nikon. Even at $1,800, I still would have chosen the Sport.

I think that if you get anything shorter than 500mm, it will soon leave you wanting....... What I suggest is, to take a very close look at the Nikon 200-500 and the Sigma 150-600 Sport. If you are not OCD with IQ, consider the Tamron or Contemporary, which are way beyond good enough for most people.

I read reviews, listened, researched, ask questions, viewed images, etc. for over six months before I decided. Try not to be in a hurry...do your homework :wink: :-)

Let us know what you decide 8-)

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I shoot the Nikon 200-500 on my D750. I love it. I use group auto focus and use the center focusing point. My keep rate is close to 97%. Not bad. I will include the following comparisons which I found on line, so it must be true.

Compared to Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VRii

The new lens surpasses the image quality of the 80-400mm at every focal length and gives you an additional 100mm on the long end. It also has the benefit of being comfortable cheaper. But the Nikon 200-500/5.6 is much heavier and larger than the 80-400mm and also needs 95mm filters. But its largest minus point may be the missing zoom range from 80-200mm: You need to take another lens (for example a 70-200mm) with you or run the risk of cropping to much into a scene that is closer or larger than you anticipated.

See my Nikon AF-S 80-400mm II review for more details.



Compared to Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM "Sports"

The Sigma "Sports" is an even larger and heavier lens than the Nikon. But that comes with a very solid build with lots of metal parts. Add the metal lens-hood that weighs almost 300g alone and the Nikon suddenly seems "light-weight". Price-wise both lenses are on a par. The performance of the Sigma "Sports" is good and in some cases comes close to the performance of the Nikon. The Sigma offers a 4x zoom-range starting 25% wider and reaching 20% longer than the Nikon which might be the deciding factor for you. The Nikon has the benefit of a constant f5.6 aperture and can use a 1.4x teleconverter and still manage to auto-focus on many modern Nikon bodies. But other than that I wouldn't give the Sigma much grief over its f5.0-6.3 aperture. The Sigma is also compatible with Sigma's USB dock for fine-tuning or firmware updates, and if you change bodies, you can pay to have the mount swapped for your new system. So the Sigma "Sports" has a lot going for it. Personally I'd still prefer the Nikon over the Sigma "Sports" because I love its image quality and am simply put off by the sheer weight of the Sigma.

See my Sigma 150-600mm Sport review for more details.



Compared to Sigma 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 DG OS HSM "Contemporary"

Much of what was said in the comparison with the Sigma "Sport" holds true for the Sigma "C" too. But there are two major differences: The Sigma "C" is much lighter and also cheaper than its bigger brother. Compared to the Nikon you can save almost 600 EUR and 400g. The image quality of the Sigma "C" is also quite good but you can see clear differences compared to the Nikon. But if you need the larger zoom range and prefer it lighter and cheaper, the Sigma "C" is certainly an option to consider.



Compared to Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 Di VC USD

As the Sigma "C" and the Tamron are almost twins both lenses compare similarly to the Nikon. The Tamron increases the advantage regarding price by another 100 EUR and thus is the cheapest way to get a 150-600mm zoom. And "cheap" does not mean that its image quality is compromised. It even surpasses the performance of the Sigma "C" in some instances.



Nikon AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR final verdict

The best image quality in its class combined with a reasonable price, a good image stabilization, and an acceptable size and weight earns Nikon's new 2.5x super-telephoto a Highly Recommended rating.

PS - Don't forget you can support my work next time you order anything at Amazon, B&H or Adorama by first clicking through to them using the following links. It works for anything you order at any time, or alternatively you could treat me to a coffee! Order the Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6E at B&H, Amazon US, Adorama, Amazon UK or Amazon DE. Thanks for your support!

Summary

Good points
Very good quality over 36Mp full-frame, even wide open.
Good image stabilization.
Constant f/5.6 focal ratio.
Works well with 1.4x teleconverter.
Weather sealing.
Quiet, fast, and precise AF operation.
Maximum magnification of 1:4.0 in MF.

Bad points
Not the cheapest super-telephoto zoom.
Not the lightest lens in its class.
Only 2.5x zoom range.