Through_MI_Eyes

I appreciate all the advise on DSLR. My lens recently got damaged...50-500 sigma for Nikon I used on my d3400. I know have 800 to spend on a new lens and want to use it for birding and would be shooting a distance away at some points. Love to hear any advise

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I have a Tamron 150-600 G1 A011 that I use for my wildlife shots. There is a newer version, but it costs a bit more, beyond your budget. The G1 version you should be able to pick up used for less than $800

Through_MI_Eyes

I have found the tamron sp 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD lens for Nikon retail 779.00

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

For what you want and in keeping within your budget, I agree with the members who’ve recommended the first generation Tamron 150-600. I had one which I used on my D5200 and D7200. When I bought my D500, I sold the 1st generation lens and bought the G2. In hindsight, I wish I’d kept my 1st one. At least I sold it to a friend and she really enjoys shooting with it.

UncleBuck Loc: Malvern, Arkansas

Consider the Tamron 100-400, less reach but easily handheld.

Bipod

You don't say what sort of damage the old lens sustained,
and whether you've considered having it repaired.

Some damage is not as bad as it looks. Just wanted to mention it.
$800 is $800.

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

The Nikon 200-500 is a little more than $800.00. But it get very positive results. I have used it over the past three years and have sold my Nikon 300 2.8 and 200-400 4 because the 200-500 was much lighter and compared to both lenses in image quality.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I got my G1 used for $450....

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

You get what you pay for.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

It is in excellent condition and takes excellent images. I originally got it for a trip to Yellowstone as I had no other long lens past my 80-400 Nikkor or an older MF 400mm Nikkor.. Mind you, I have scads of Nikkors and this lens is comparable for my needs. Plus, with the money I saved, I have been able to acquire other items. Consider also that with an $800 budget, most longer Nikkors are out of their financial reach.....

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Good deal. In similar fashion, I got a Sigma Sport for $1100 in 2016. It also was in great shape and I've been very happy with the 6,000 pictures I've taken with it since. It is easily the lens I use most. I briefly tested the 200-500 F5.6 but found it lacking in the sharpness I was seeing in the Sport, and I wasn't thrilled with the build quality or the quality at 500mm. I couldn't justify the small increase in cost over the used, longer lens. I own mostly Nikkor lenses, but I have a couple of Tamrons and Sigmas just because they offer the image/bulid quality I look for.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...You don't say what sort of damage the old lens sustained,
and whether you've considered having it repaired..."

Thank you Bipod... my thoughts entirely... my financial adviser suggests to always review all alternatives before moving forward with any major purchase...

If Sigma doesn't respond in a timely manner then you may understand why third party kit while enticingly cost effective for an initial investment is not a preferred choice by those who make a living with their craft...

"Birders" are decidedly not likely to be commercial shooters since there is virtually no market value in same... especially since the current dominance of cost effective stock imagery...

All the best on your journey Through_MI_Eyes

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I agree. At roughly 3 lbs. its a joy to hand hold compared to the heavier lenses. Its sharp enough that a decent crop will still retain excellent image quality. And the stabilization is very good.

Remember on a crop sensor it is equivalent to 150-600mm.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...The Nikon 200-500... ...sold my Nikon 300 2.8 and 200-400 4 because the 200-500 was much lighter and compared to both lenses in image quality..." Thank you billnikon... I agree that from 200 through 400mm it is close to parody with the AF-S 200-400mm IF ED VR albeit it's build quality isn't... in fact I can't use it for sports since it has to be locked in place before use.... Yes I've had it "jump" out of it's rotational tract and freeze up... That was before I carefully studied Nikon's fine print that it has to locked down before use... Also it's not weather sealed and even worst since it's a "pumper" it is highly prone to internal dust contamination... Nope, I love and cherish my 200-400mm which is literally the cat's meow... especially on a soccer pitch... and as Gene51 mentioned the 200-500 isn't at it's best at 500mm (in fact I have a piece of white tape marking 450mm which I try not to go beyond)

Ok I still love and use the 200-500mm for fashion editorials and beauty genre since it's awesome VR (4 stops) allows hand holding (not possible with the 200-400mm unless you're maybe a Navy Seal...}

Below is the 200-500 at 460mm... btw, I'm a commercial shooter... not interested in birds... sorry
.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm-500mm F/5.6 ED VR at 460mm

(Download)

Wags Loc: Mequon, WI

MadMikeOne, why do you regret getting the newer version of the lens? I recently purchased a D500 and was thinking about doing the same thing you did.