Looking for Opinions & Trying Not to Get My Hopes Up

[sm4him]

...I *might* be getting a substantially larger than usual tax refund this year. Normally, I file my taxes by mid-February, but this year for a variety of reasons, I'm down to the wire. ONE of those reasons had to do with my oldest son's college expenses vs. scholarship amounts and my total confusion about how to figure it correctly.
It was showing a rather large credit for the first time this year, and I figured I'd just done something wrong.

But tonight, I ran it past a friend of mine who is a CPA, and he thinks I've done it right as well. He's going to take a closer look at it tomorrow...

IF I am going to get as large a sum as it currently appears, I may very well be buying myself a longer lens!!

Hence this post:

Let's assume I'm willing to spend $1000 or less (I save most of my refund, so this is the amount I'd be willing to spend on something). Less than $1000 would be better, as I might then look at something like a better tripod as well.

I currently have the Nikon 70-300 AF-S lens; I would be keeping that lens and looking to add something with more reach for bird and other wildlife photography.

The two current lenses I'm looking at are the Tamron 200-500 that Kris (coastalconn) uses, or the Sigma 150-500 that Scott Craig uses.

I'd love your opinions as to which would be the better lens for what I do (and for the price)--or opinions about OTHER lenses that might be a better option.

Oh, in case you don't already know, I shoot with a D7000, and I'm perfectly willing (and likely) to buy used rather than new.

 

[480sparky43 42]

If you shoot a lot of hand-held, you might want to think about a grip.

Other than that, a longer lens for birding would be a top choice. A worthy tripod and maybe a gimbal to top it off with.

 

[manaheim]

I have no idea, but Coastalconn's pictures are amazing and he shoots what you sound like you're jonesing to shoot... so I say buy that.

But seriously, I have no idea... I have 2 lenses with longer focal lengths than my 70-200 and I never use them.

So really what I'm saying is I was just posting here as an excuse to say "hi" because I think you're awesome and I haven't talked to you in a while.

"HI!"

 

[sm4him]

If you shoot a lot of hand-held, you might want to think about a grip.

Other than that, a longer lens for birding would be a top choice. A worthy tripod and maybe a gimbal to top it off with.

Oh, yes, I meant to mention that--I do *prefer* to shoot handheld. Possibly, that's because I don't have a really good tripod/head combination, I don't know. But I'd be curious to know how heavy either of the lenses I mentioned are and how practical it would be to try to shoot handheld with them.

I'll probably buy a grip anyway, separate from the $1000 allowance. I've been meaning to do that, and just haven't quite gotten around to it.

 

[manicmike]

It depends on what you shoot. The Sigma 80-400 I had was pretty good, worked well for daytime sports. The 150-500 is a pretty good lens for tracking moving subjects. From what I understand the Tamron 200-500 is tough for rapidly moving subjects. The Sigma 100-300 f/4 is also a good option and supposedly one of Sigma's sharpest lenses. But man that sucker is heavy. Hand holdable, but I personally wouldn't do it for hours at a time.

 

[sm4him]

I have no idea, but Coastalconn's pictures are amazing and he shoots what you sound like you're jonesing to shoot... so I say buy that.

But seriously, I have no idea... I have 2 lenses with longer focal lengths than my 70-200 and I never use them.

So really what I'm saying is I was just posting here as an excuse to say "hi" because I think you're awesome and I haven't talked to you in a while.

"HI!"

AWW, how sweet is that?!?!

Coastalconn's pictures ARE amazing, and one great hesitation I have is that if I get a nice lens like he has, I'll have NO excuse why I can't get similar shots, other than my own ineptitude (well, and my vision problems--at least I'll always have THAT problem to fall back on, lol).

The main things I shoot are: Birds, macro, abstracts and sports. I already have a macro lens I'm happy with, the 70-300 does just fine for the sports I'm shooting (mostly my niece's soccer games), so the only thing that I feel the NEED for is the longer than 300 focal length.

I think you're awesome, too! Actually, I *already* thought you were awesome, but then you added the tophat and the 'stache and your awesome rating rose even further! :hug::

 

[sm4him]

It depends on what you shoot. The Sigma 80-400 I had was pretty good, worked well for daytime sports. The 150-500 is a pretty good lens for tracking moving subjects. From what I understand the Tamron 200-500 is tough for rapidly moving subjects. The Sigma 100-300 f/4 is also a good option and supposedly one of Sigma's sharpest lenses. But man that sucker is heavy. Hand holdable, but I personally wouldn't do it for hours at a time.

Thanks Mike. This lens would definitely be primarily for bird and other wildlife photography, mostly birds. It MUST be longer than 300, since I already have a lens that will get me to 300 that I'm happy with. I wonder how well that Sigma 80-400 would work for birds?

 

[manaheim]

Coastalconn's pictures ARE amazing, and one great hesitation I have is that if I get a nice lens like he has, I'll have NO excuse why I can't get similar shots, other than my own ineptitude (well, and my vision problems--at least I'll always have THAT problem to fall back on, lol).

The main things I shoot are: Birds, macro, abstracts and sports. I already have a macro lens I'm happy with, the 70-300 does just fine for the sports I'm shooting (mostly my niece's soccer games), so the only thing that I feel the NEED for is the longer than 300 focal length.

I think you're awesome, too! Actually, I *already* thought you were awesome, but then you added the tophat and the 'stache and your awesome rating rose even further! :hug::

Just remember... it's not the gear...

Oh wait. - smacks himself -

 

[Tiller]

I've heard great things about sigmas new 50-500.

Here ya go: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/682766-USA/Sigma_738306_50_500mm_f_4_5_6_3_DG_OS.html

A bit more than you wanted to spend. There's also the older version...

..here: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-50-500mm-4-6-3-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0009F3MPQ

 

[sm4him]

I've heard great things about sigmas new 50-500.

Here ya go: Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM Lens for Nikon 738306 B&H

A bit more than you wanted to spend. There's also the older version...

..here: Amazon.com: Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM APO RF Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Yeah, even though I *could* spend $1500, I'm probably just too cheap to do it, unless I was absolutely sold on the fact that the extra $500 gave me something I couldn't do without.

Any idea what the differences are in the newer and older versions? I haven't looked at any reviews for the older version, but it's definitely more in my price range.

Thanks for the suggestions!

 

[kundalini]

Oh, yes, I meant to mention that--I do *prefer* to shoot handheld. Possibly, that's because I don't have a really good tripod/head combination, I don't know. But I'd be curious to know how heavy either of the lenses I mentioned are and how practical it would be to try to shoot handheld with them.

Perhaps instead of a tripod, consider a sturdy monopod. Much less cumbersome, lighter and gives a much sturdier base than handholding. Great for picking up and moving to the next hide without much fuss. I have a swivel head on mine but will throw on a ball head, depending on the game I want to play.

 

[kathyt]

Well, I think you need to get the lens you want the most even if you have to spend a little bit more, and get a tripod for it. Your arms will thank you. Cut back on something else for the month to make up the difference.

 

[sm4him]

Oh, yes, I meant to mention that--I do *prefer* to shoot handheld. Possibly, that's because I don't have a really good tripod/head combination, I don't know. But I'd be curious to know how heavy either of the lenses I mentioned are and how practical it would be to try to shoot handheld with them.

Perhaps instead of a tripod, consider a sturdy monopod. Much less cumbersome, lighter and gives a much sturdier base than handholding. Great for picking up and moving to the next hide without much fuss. I have a swivel head on mine but will throw on a ball head, depending on the game I want to play.

Oooh, a MONOPOD! That's a GREAT idea--I've been wanting one of those, as it would also come in handy for shooting the soccer games. Now I have to figure out a good monopod/head combination.

 

[sm4him]

Well, I think you need to get the lens you want the most even if you have to spend a little bit more, and get a tripod for it. Your arms will thank you. Cut back on something else for the month to make up the difference.

I agree; I do plan to get the lens I want, and it's not completely out of the question to pay more than $1000, but I'd have to be absolutely convinced that it's that much better than the two I'm already looking at. Even if I were independently wealthy, it wouldn't change the fact that I've inherited my father's cheap genes.

I have a tripod that works okay. The trouble I have with it is that I just find tripods clumsy and cumbersome and so I end up ditching it and shooting handheld. What I was thinking is, IF I happen to find the lens that I want at a price that still gives me enough for a tripod, I'd be looking for something lighter weight than what I have now, that will still handle the weight of the D7K and a big lens. But now I'm kinda liking the monopod idea. That would give me a usable tripod (my existing one) when I want it, the monopod for when I need to not hold the weight but need more mobility and still the option of handholding when I want to.

As for cutting back on something else to make up the difference: HAH! I've been a single mom for over 15 years and now have two boys in college. Ain't nothin' left to cut back on except photography! :lmao:
I spent well over a decade NOT getting to buy the camera and equipment I'd love to have had because the kids came first, so this is my outlet, what I "indulge" myself in. But there truly isn't much else I buy that isn't an absolute necessity.

 

[KenC]

You don't have to spend a lot on a monopod, which leaves enough funds free for the telephoto. I have a Calumet monopod (house brand of Calumet Photo) which was very inexpensive, with a ball head that I got from an even cheaper monopod, and it works very well. Of course one of my biggest criteria was that it fit in my backpack so I could lug it around the city without anyone knowing I'm carrying photo equipment, and that's why I used the very cheap ball head, but it actually works well.


[never mind the next paragraph - after I sent this I looked online and there really isn't anything - I was thinking of the Canon 400/5.6, but there is apparently no equivalent from anyone - who knew?]
One question on the birding lens. Do you find that you are always too far from the birds you shoot, so even at 300 you're doing a lot of cropping? If so, then you may not have that much need for the shorter ends of the zooms you mentioned. In that case, a fixed 400 might be a good investment. Yes, it's shorter than 500, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 400 had a sufficient edge in sharpness, etc. that you could crop to the same image you would get from the zoom at 500 with at least equal IQ (it's really not much of a crop). I don't know the Nikon lenses or any third-party fixed teles, so you'd have to research cost vs. quality, etc., but just a thought ...