Best Wildlife Telephoto Option for $1,000?

[ac12]

The Nikon 200-500 on the D500 is awesome. I shoot mostly wildlife, mostly birds. I am 71 years of age and have never found the weight to be a problem. Oh and I also so have a battery grip installed. Trust me the 200 - 500 is the way to go.

Brian,
You are in MUCH better physical shape than me.
Beyond 100 feet from the car, weight is a consideration.

 

[Frank F.]

The D500 & 200-500/5.6 is a terrific combination. I did use it, got the lens with the camera until it nearly broke my arm. I gave it back and did invest a plus on the 4/300PF.

This is 750g instead of 2300g and I am better with primes by training.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Lens

After a hiatus of a few years, I'm getting back into photography as a serious hobby. I just bought a refurbished D500 from Adorama and I'm in the process of selling my old D7000 on Craigslist.

I love wildlife photography, with a particular focus on birds. I used to have a Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VC, but 95% of the time I was at 300mm and it was often not enough reach, even with the DX crop factor in consideration.

I'm looking to add a sharp, capable lens to my kit for around $1,000 and have come up with three options that meet my needs and budget, but I'm just having some trouble deciding what would be the best. As a hobby shooter, image quality is of course important to me, but it's not like my life depends on it. I'm not producing 60" x 40" gallery prints or working halfway around the world for National Geographic. The biggest print size I would make is probably 20" x 24" or 16" x 20", which any of these lenses can easily handle.

Here's my options, from high to low price. I have no problem with used lenses as long as they're not beat up.

• ~$1200 - Used Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 (300-750mm on DX)
  
• ~$1100 - Used Nikon 300mm f/4D and 1.4 teleconverter (450mm f/4 up to 630mm f/5.6 on DX)
  
• $800 -New Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC (150-600mm on DX)

Weight is a factor in this decision, so here's those numbers, from highest to lowest:

• 81.2oz - Nikon 200-500mm
  
• 50.8oz - Nikon 300mm (57.5oz including the teleconverter)
  
• 39.3oz - Tamron 100-400mm

Although a 750mm f/5.6 would be pretty awesome, the weight, bulk and price of the 200-500mm Nikon puts it last on my list. Plus, I would definitely have to use either a tripod or a monopod for that lens, adding even more weight to carry around. Lugging that behemoth on vacations would not be much fun. The 300mm f/4D doesn't have VR, but I know that won't help me for moving subjects anyway, so I'm not all that concerned about it. The option to leave off the TC and have a 450mm f/4 at my disposal is also a nice bonus. The Tamron is the lightest lens and has VC, but it's got the shortest reach of the three I'm considering and also has the slowest aperture at it's maximum focal length. However, it is the cheapest option and comes with a 6-year U.S. warranty from Tamron.

I'm not interested in any of the Sigma offerings like the 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 OS (too wide of a focal range) or 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS (also too wide of a focal range), so please leave those out of your suggestions. Again, I never used the shorter end of my previous Tamron 70-300mm, so there's no point in paying for a feature I won't use.

Thanks in advance for all thoughts and opinions!

 

[Rafterman]

I'm sure that in "real-world" usage, I would be happy with any of my three options as far as image quality goes, so I guess it depends more on how much weight I want to carry and how far I want my reach to be. The lenses' maximum apertures are all close enough to each other that I can reach a desired shutter speed by just bumping up the D500's ISO if needed, so I'm not too concerned in that regard.

I will say that due to weight, size and price, I've decided to pass on the Nikon 200-500 for now. I'm gonna go with either the Nikon 300mm & 1.4TC or the Tamron 100-400mm.

To me, the pros for the Nikon 300 are that it's a prime, professional-level lens that has great sharpness and color, even wide open. The built-in hood is a nifty feature too. I found a used one in pristine condition online for about $650. With a used 1.4 TC, I'll be able to stay under $1,000 easily. Its biggest cons are that it doesn't have VR (a monopod is likely a required purchase), and that as a prime, it'll force me to walk back and forth to zoom. In the case of wildlife/bird photography, moving around is not usually something you want to be doing, especially around easily-spooked species like Cardinals, for example. Also, being that it's used, there's no warranty included (not that I necessarily want or have to have one.)

The pros for the Tamron are its VC, combined with relatively light weight (over 18oz lighter than the 300mm w/1.4TC), and its zoom capability. Even though I rarely shot my old Tamron 70-300 VC at any focal length other than 300, it's nice to have the ability to occasionally zoom out and recompose a shot or to "back away" from a subject that is headed towards you, such as a kite surfer. Lastly, I can get one brand new for $800 with a 6-year U.S. warranty. As for the cons, um...uh...yeah...

Perhaps I have my answer?

 

[zombiesniper]

My personal opinion is the best quality glass is always the right choice.
Having said that with tossing the 200-500 out the 300mm is the only choice left. It will be sharper then that Tamron.
Don't be afraid of fixed focal length. I've shot everything from a portrait to wildlife to sunsets with the same lens. It's gotten to the point when I use a zoom I usually forget I have the option and treat it like a prime.

P.S. 6lb+ cameras can be carried all day comfortably.

 

[zulu42]

Isn't shooting with a long prime difficult? For me, even with just my 70-300, if I'm trying to acquire a bird in flight, I can't find them easily at 300mm. I have to zoom out to find the bird, then zoom back in to shoot. I wonder how you guys even find the target at with 300+ mm primes.

 

[Cortian]

Isn't shooting with a long prime difficult? For me, even with just my 70-300, if I'm trying to acquire a bird in flight, I can't find them easily at 300mm. I have to zoom out to find the bird, then zoom back in to shoot. I wonder how you guys even find the target at with 300+ mm primes.

I believe that's what @BrentC uses. I imagine it's mainly a question of practice?

This is what I'd get if I could afford the $7,000 price tag: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM. I'm thinkin' that and a 7D Mk. II would rock for wildlife. All I need to do is come into about $10k of free money

 

[Rafterman]

Isn't shooting with a long prime difficult? For me, even with just my 70-300, if I'm trying to acquire a bird in flight, I can't find them easily at 300mm. I have to zoom out to find the bird, then zoom back in to shoot.

I agree, and that's a very good point. When I had my Tamron 70-300mm, I would do the same thing; start out at 70 or 100mm, then zoom in to get the composition where I wanted it. Songbirds especially are VERY hard to catch in-flight if you can't "target" them first by starting at a shorter focal length.

This is what I'd get if I could afford the $7,000 price tag: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM. I'm thinkin' that and a 7D Mk. II would rock for wildlife. All I need to do is come into about $10k of free money

Yeah, it's tough trying to get wildlife/bird lens recommendations from people when I've only got about $1,000 to work with. You get pigeonholed into buying either A) an older model of a "pro" lens with less modern features, like the 300mm f/4D I'm looking at that lacks VR, or B) a newer model of a "consumer" lens with modern features, like the Tamron 100-400mm VC on my list. Given my fixed budget, compromises MUST be made in one place or another. I'd LOVE to have the Nikon 500mm f/4 VR if it wasn't for that pesky $10k price tag.

At least with my D500's DX crop factor, a 300mm f/4 prime "becomes" a 450mm f/4, or a 630mm f/5.6 with the 1.4E teleconverter. Again, it's a compromise, but one I could live with.

 

[splat1016]

I recently purchased the Tamron 100-400 and put it to the test against my Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM lens. I was very surprised that in both sharpness and contrast, it blew away the Canon at comparable focal lengths and aperatures. I was looking for a longer reach lens to photograph this years sandhill crane migration here in Nebraska. I have a 80D camera, which has a APS-C sized sensor. The build quality of the Canon lens is legendary, but I'm not a pro; so for me image quality and a little extra reach was more important. The 70-300 will be sold.

 

[Cortian]

Yeah, it's tough trying to get wildlife/bird lens recommendations from people when I've only got about $1,000 to work with. You get pigeonholed into buying either A) an older model of a "pro" lens with less modern features, like the 300mm f/4D I'm looking at that lacks VR, or B) a newer model of a "consumer" lens with modern features, like the Tamron 100-400mm VC on my list. Given my fixed budget, compromises MUST be made ...

Precisely.

Though I will say this: I bought an older Canon Zoom Lens EF 100-300mm USM off an eBay seller for $99. Thing was in the box and looked like it'd never been used. A month later the guy who gifted me the 20D body I'd bought it for gave me a Canon Zoom Lens EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

I subsequently took a similar-ish photo with that DO lens and my 40D as I had with the 20D and the older lens. There was quite a difference in image quality. Bad Scientific Method, because newer camera body and different lighting conditions, true. But, still: I cannot help but think part of the difference was the lens and its IS.

This is caused me to be inclined to avoid older lenses w/o IS/VR.

What I'd really like to see is Tamron come out with a 300mm or 400mm primary that's as good as their recent 100mm macro lens. Man, I love that lens!

 

[Rafterman]

I subsequently took a similar-ish photo with that DO lens and my 40D as I had with the 20D and the older lens. There was quite a difference in image quality. Bad Scientific Method, because newer camera body and different lighting conditions, true. But, still: I cannot help but think part of the difference was the lens and its IS.

This is caused me to be inclined to avoid older lenses w/o IS/VR.

What I'm trying to do is run though potential shooting situations in my head. I know better than anyone exactly HOW I'm going to use this lens, so I want to buy the one that BEST serves my purpose.

Some common situations I'll be in:

1. Walking down our town's local greenway trail, looking for wildlife (birds, squirrels, rabbits, deer, foxes, coyotes, etc.) as I head to a large lake that is always LOADED with waterfowl, turtles, snakes, frogs, etc.
2. Walking down the beach or patrolling the coastal salt marshes, photographing sea birds, kite surfers, boats, people on jet skis, etc.
3. Spending the day photographing animals at the North Carolina zoo, who could be either very close to me or very far from me, based on the size of their enclosure and where they're located inside it.

I'm fine with using a monopod if needed, which is why I'm not turned off by the fact that the 300 f/4D doesn't have VR. However, I think in the scenarios I described above, a zoom lens would benefit me more than a prime, even if it means sacrificing a little image quality. For example, kite surfers can move inshore or offshore VERY quickly. In order to keep them filling the frame with a prime lens, I'd have to run towards the water or away from the water pretty quickly, or stand still and just hope they come within range for the composition I want. With a zoom, framing a moving subject becomes much easier. The same goes for birds that are flying towards me vs. standing still. I'd just zoom out instead of having to physically move away from them.

 

[SCraig]

In my opinion, when shooting birds there is no such thing as a lens that is too long but there is most assuredly one that is too short. I'd personally never even consider anything less than 500mm for shooting birds. Birds are small, the detail in bird feathers and eyes is even smaller. Been there, done that, spent a lot of hours chasing them around.

 

[ac12]

Generally, when I shoot sports, I leave a lot of room around the player that I am tracking. I crop out the extra space in post processing. I find that when I zoom in tight, I have a hard time tracking the player. This is primarily the case in sports where they can quickly change directions, like basketball vs. track. I think the term is "situational awareness." Zoomed in tight, I loose situational awareness, or what could cause the subject to change directions.

BTW, if you are going to zoom while tracking the subject, you want a loose smooth zoom. Some zooms are too stiff for easy zoom tracking. What seems fine at home is different when you are in the field, and have to track moving subjects. I would almost call those stiff zooms variable focal length lenses. This is where you need to actually have the lens + camera in your hand, so you can see exactly how it feels to work that zoom ring.
Example, my Nikon 18-140 is a great GP lens, but the zoom is too stiff for real use as a sport lens, where I am constantly turning the zoom ring. I hate to admit it, but the similar Canon 18-135 has a much smoother zoom ring.

 

[BrentC]

Isn't shooting with a long prime difficult? For me, even with just my 70-300, if I'm trying to acquire a bird in flight, I can't find them easily at 300mm. I have to zoom out to find the bird, then zoom back in to shoot. I wonder how you guys even find the target at with 300+ mm primes.

The more you shoot the more the more you get used to targeting the bird. I'm pretty quick from hip to eye even 420mm (840mm eq) and getting bird in sights. One thing to try is keeping your eye just above the camera and sight along the lens. Once the bird is in line then bring viewfinder up to eye.

 

[Cortian]

The more you shoot the more the more you get used to targeting the bird. I'm pretty quick from hip to eye even 420mm (840mm eq) and getting bird in sights. One thing to try is keeping your eye just above the camera and sight along the lens. Once the bird is in line then bring viewfinder up to eye.

The same principles apply to... uhm... another kind of shooting.

What works with that is what we call "dry-firing," which is where you shoot nothing at a target. The pros say you should shoot ten times in dry-firing for every real shot. I wonder if the same would work for photography? I bet it would.

 

[zombiesniper]

Isn't shooting with a long prime difficult?

It take a bit to get used to but in short....no. It'll become instinctive. You'll see a bird in flight and you'll just know where to aim the lens. I'm next to useless unless I'm at 500mm. Every other focal length takes me 3 time as long to work out shot.