Looking at general purpose telephotos for wildlife

[Infinite_Day]

I have a D7000 - so far I have the kit 18-105 and a 50mm 1.8. I have an old Quantaray 70-300 which I used on my old Nikon D50 but I'm looking for some better glass for wildlife now. I'm not wealthy so I'm in the $1000-2000 range. Right now I'm really leaning toward the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6. It seems like a decent lens for about a grand that would work for a hobbyist who wants good range without being able to afford a prime or a really fast lens. I am hoping that since it's f/5.6 at max length it will work to an acceptable, if not stellar, level in lower light thanks to the D7000's good ISO capabilities. I've also looked at the following:

Nikon 300mm f/4
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS + maybe a Nikon teleconverter for extra range.
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II + a teleconverter sometime down the road
Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR (though I'm not keen on the slow focus issues I've read about with this lens)

and I've also been looking at the newer Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS even though it's much higher than what I'd like to spend.

So what I'm looking for is any input or any recommendations. Obviously if money weren't an issue I'd go for a 300 or 400 mm prime and throw a 1.4 or 1.7 tc on it. I do have a good Manfrotto monopod and quick release so I'm not really worried about weight. Any help or input is always appreciated - I've been mulling this decsion over for some time now. Thanks in advance for any assistance.

 

[subscuck]

Sigma Bigma?

 

[Infinite_Day]

Sigma Bigma?

Are you referring to the 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 or just questioning the bigger Sigma lenses in general? I've read about some issues with the zoom on the 50-500 that make me weary.

 

[subscuck]

I'm referring to the 50-500 (nicknamed "Bigma"). I have a buddy who uses it for wildlife photography. I'm not aware of any zoom issues, and he's never mentioned any issues. Of course, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Lots of people use it as a wild life lens, it fits nicely into your budget, so I figured I'd throw it out there as an option.

 

[Chris1302]

Also look at the Sigma 150-500 OS, for me I would never use the 50mm end of the 50-500 so I think it's a bit of a waste having it. I've got the 150-500 OS and for the money it is a fantastic bit of kit' never had any issues with it.

 

[Cfitz]

Yeah the Sigma 150-500mm seems a good choice. I'm not sure what differences there are between it and the 120-400mm apart from the focal lengths but I'm sure there are some.

 

[Derrel]

It's my impression that the 120-400mm is optically inferior to both the 50-500 and the newer 150-500 OS models. Tamron's 200-500 is a nice, lightweight, fairly compact lens,at a fair price. I have a number of lenses for Nikon, including the 80-400 VR and the 300 f/4 AF-S; to me, I think the 300mm f/4 AF-S is the better lens for telephoto work over ANY,and I mean ANY, 70-200 f/2.8 zoom lens, from any maker. 300mm is simply longer than 200mm, and longer than 200 x 1.4x or 280mm f/4 with degraded image quality at the edges wide open...

Also, the 300/4 AF-S + TC 14e-II is a pretty decent combination, yielding a 420mm f/5.6 effective focal length.

The issue with the zooms, like 80-400 and 120-400 and the 50-500 and 150-500 is that they are relatively "slow" aperture-wise, meaning that you need bright lighting and/or elevated ISO settings much more so than with a faster lens.

One added feature of the 300/4 AF-S is is exceptionally CLOSE minimum focusing distance; it is one of the closest-focusing 300mm lenses ever made, and it works quite well as a sort of long-range close-up/pseudo-macro lens, when used alone, or when paired with a 1.4x, and also it works pretty well when combined with an extension tube. It performs those roles much better than any zoom lens can, for a number of reasons. ALSO, and this is something to consider, the 300 AF-S is a perfect match for the 1.4x and 1.7x Nikon AF-S teleconverters; this is NOT the case with many zoom lenses, or with Nikon's 80-400 VR, which has screwdriver focusing,and even so, is not worth a damn with a TC on it.

 

[Infinite_Day]

The problem I have with the 300 f/4 is that it doesn't have VR which I think might come in handy as I have a tendency to shoot under canopy or in non-optimal light. I have read a lot about lenses, though, and most of that research points toward the Nikon lenses as being much sharper. That's one of many reasons why I can't make a decision considering I have a budget and want to get a decent lens.

 

[tirediron]

The problem I have with the 300 f/4 is that it doesn't have VR ...

After-market VR system, compatible with every lens ever made!

 

[subscuck]

The problem I have with the 300 f/4 is that it doesn't have VR ...

After-market VR system, compatible with every lens ever made!

LOL. I knew that's what it would be before I clicked on the link. Well played, sir!

 

[Derrel]

Yes, the 300 f/4 trades VR for something the other lenses you listed lack: ultimate image quality. See, the 300 f/4 AF-S is a professional-class, superbly-corrected,lightweight field telephoto and close-up lens with an f/4 maximum aperture and AF-S focusing and Nikkor build quality. Most of the other lenses or lens + converter options you mentioned are compromise zooms, with substantially lower image quality, OR which are simply not 300mm in length. I've seen quite a lot of images made with the original 50-500 Sigma...it's an okay lens, and a good value for what it does. But optically, it's just not in the same league as the 300/4 AF-S prime lens. It will deliver an f/4 aperture that is usable, art 300mm, whereas the zooms listed will not be able to deliver that wide an aperture. VR is fine for non-moving subjects, but speeds slower than around 1/180 second with a 300mm focal length are quite often blurred, so VR's advantage is almost always for panning, or shooting in the wind,or when shooting from a moving platform, like a boat or car, more so than for lower-light wildlife work. On MOVING wildlife, like birds in flight, VR is not that useful when compared against a non-VR lens, where the priority is having a wide enough aperture available so that you can select a fast speed like 1/500 to 1/2000 second.

There is a real reason why "f/4" is the maximum aperture of choice throughout many lensmakers' lines, in terms of what is needed in the real world, to give a shooter all the options he needs.

 

[Infinite_Day]

My other concern with the 300 f/4 is that I have an inexpensive 300mm lens already and it often doesn't seem to have enough reach. That's why I have been looking at zooms that are in the 400mm+ range. That's what makes the decision hard because I can only afford one lens and the 300 f/4 would be it if I were sure it would give me the range. Of course, the 1.4 tc would remedy that problem with minimal sacrifice to aperture I guess. As far as the tripod VR - it's not exactly practical all the time if you're hiking or out and about. Plus you don't always have the time to set up a tripod without missing a shot.

 

[Derrel]

Well, yes, for many situations, a 300mm lens is not long enough. That is one reason the 50-500,150-500,and Tamron 200-500mm lenses have been developed. In good, bright light, those lenses do "okay". However, even though a lens might have VFR< if its maximum aperture is f/6.3 at 500mm...that is a "slow" lens, and the light must be bright enough to stop subject motion. ANd, in the woods, or early and or late in the day, that means the ISO values will HAVE to be 3,200, or higher, in order to get a shutter speed like 1/500 second.

VR and OS and IS and VC--none of them can stop subject motion blurring. LIke with Nikon's 800-400 VR for example, which I used for over two years as one of my main lenses...on moving subjects, at 400mm, it takes at least 1/125 to stop motion. And sometimes 1/500 is required.

The Sigma 50-500 for example...that was "the hot lens" a few years back. Optically, it is "good". It;'s nowhere near what i would call "excellent". it simply does not have the biting sharpness and vivid, 3-D-like rendering of a premium Nikkor or Canon telephoto prime lens. The folks at Lensrentals.com have an article on this issue...basically, NO REALLY EXCELLENT tele or tele-zoom lens exists in the under-$1,000 range, and it actually takes multiple thousands of dollars to get into the really excellent wildlife lenses. THis is an area they see over and over and over, and this is where one simply has to accept some compromises--or pony up a lot more cash.

 

[Trever1t]

The problem I have with the 300 f/4 is that it doesn't have VR ...

After-market VR system, compatible with every lens ever made!

I have this very unit and can attest to it's function and reliability.

 

[Fleetwood271]

Derrel beat me to it, but I was gonna mention the Tamron 200-500. I bought one used off Ebay last year. Like most people discover after they purchase a "super zoom" lens, they rarely use the small end of the scale. It is rare that I ever shoot anything under 400mm with this lens. In fact, even on my crop sensor D90, I still use a teleconverter at times to really reach out and touch someone

Here are some shoots taken with the Tamron 200-500 at 500mm: