Looking for Opinions & Trying Not to Get My Hopes Up

[Tiller]

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!

The newer one has OS and HSM, along with better optics.

If you use a tripod or monopod, older version should still hold up pretty well.

 

[kundalini]

This is the monopod I got and has served me well. It is pneumatic and one handed operational with a small flip down foot to stand on for raising. Load capacity is 17.6lbs. The swivel head is a Manfrotto 234RC.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ts/151729-now-s-knife-okay-s-new-monopod.html

In Action...

 

[coastalconn]

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.

Maybe it's the D300, maybe its me, but I really don't have any problem tracking birds at all. I tried the Sigma 100-300 F4 "D" version and it did not play well with the D300 at all. It was the most bizarre lens I have ever tried! The DG is supposed to be better, but it is out of production.

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

I have also heard very good things about the Bigma, but it is a beast at 4.5 pounds!

You don't have to spend a lot on a monopod

[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?]

I do sometimes carry a monopod if I think light is going to be really bad. It's a great cheap back up plan. Yup the life of a Nikonian, no 400 F5.6. It's pretty sad, I know people that shoot the 400 F5.6 and it is a fantastic lens!

 

[sm4him]

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.

Maybe it's the D300, maybe its me, but I really don't have any problem tracking birds at all. I tried the Sigma 100-300 F4 "D" version and it did not play well with the D300 at all. It was the most bizarre lens I have ever tried! The DG is supposed to be better, but it is out of production.

I *do* wonder if that Tamron lens would give as decent results on my D7K as it does on your D300, but the only way to know is to try!

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

I have also heard very good things about the Bigma, but it is a beast at 4.5 pounds!

4.5 pounds, wow. Yeah, that's something to consider. I'm just a little, bitty aging female (well, okay, "little bitty" hasn't been used to describe me since I was in 2nd grade :lmao: ) and that might wear me out pretty quick! On the other hand, that's not really much more than the Sigma 150-500, and once you're up to 4 pounds, what's ANOTHER 8 ounces or so?

You don't have to spend a lot on a monopod

[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?]

I do sometimes carry a monopod if I think light is going to be really bad. It's a great cheap back up plan. Yup the life of a Nikonian, no 400 F5.6. It's pretty sad, I know people that shoot the 400 F5.6 and it is a fantastic lens!

I like that monopod and head kundalini mentioned, less than $200 for the combination and that pneumatic adjustment seems useful. Any other suggestions?

I know the fixed focal length lenses would probably give me better IQ and all that, but I'd say there is a 99% probability that I'll stick with a telephoto; I just like being able to zoom out when the bird decides to fly right over the top of my head or something! I'll grant though, that I probably shoot at 300 over 80% of the time when I'm hunting birds. So maybe I should at least CONSIDER a fixed focal length. I'm not likely to be another long focal-length lens for a very long time, so I want to make sure I get the best option for me. Is there a third party 400 or 500 fixed length lens for Nikon that's worth looking at?

 

[Derrel]

A few years ago, when the lens was brand-new to the market, I demo'd and briefly shot the Tamron 200-500, and my overriding memory/impression is that the focusing ring is very close to the body,and this made the lens handle, I thought, very nicely when it was hand-held. It felt LIGHT, and well-balanced to me, and as I said, the focusing ring is right there, very,very close to the lens mount, and not wayyyyy out in front. This is quite different from many longer zooms and teles.

As far as which lens to choose...I'm not up on them all that much. One thing I do think might be nice though is the optical stabilizer SIgma lenses, for shooting birds in flight while panning the camera with them. In lower lighting conditions, the OS would probably help stabilize the lens, and since the lenses are pretty slow at their longer end, like f/6.3 I believe, you are going to run into slow shutter speeds and higher-than-normal ISO values more often than you might like.

 

[sm4him]

A few years ago, when the lens was brand-new to the market, I demo'd and briefly shot the Tamron 200-500, and my overriding memory/impression is that the focusing ring is very close to the body,and this made the lens handle, I thought, very nicely when it was hand-held. It felt LIGHT, and well-balanced to me, and as I said, the focusing ring is right there, very,very close to the lens mount, and not wayyyyy out in front. This is quite different from many longer zooms and teles.

As far as which lens to choose...I'm not up on them all that much. One thing I do think might be nice though is the optical stabilizer SIgma lenses, for shooting birds in flight while panning the camera with them. In lower lighting conditions, the OS would probably help stabilize the lens, and since the lenses are pretty slow at their longer end, like f/6.3 I believe, you are going to run into slow shutter speeds and higher-than-normal ISO values more often than you might like.

Hmm, somehow I never replied to this. Derrel, thanks for the thoughts. I should be getting my refund sometime this week and while I'm currently *leaning* toward the Sigma 150-500, I'm still kinda back and forth between it and the Tamron, or even that Sigma 50-500. The Sigma 50-500 is probably just not gonna happen though, as I also need to buy a new computer and new Adobe software.

It may just end up being a matter of which lens I find a good deal on when I'm ready to buy.

since the lenses are pretty slow at their longer end, like f/6.3 I believe, you are going to run into slow shutter speeds and higher-than-normal ISO values more often than you might like.

Since I currently shoot with a 70-300, which has a min. aperture of f/5.6 at the long end, will there really be THAT much difference (in terms of speed) between shooting it at 300 versus shooting the Sigma at 500, f/6.3?

 

[djacobox372]

I sometimes see Nikon 600mm f5.6 manual focus lenses sell for close to $1000 on ebay.

 

[Ilovemycam]

OP, don't know.

My sugestion? Make a portfolio at flickr of your best work. Too much stuff to sift through. Nice butterflies at end and liked the crayons. I only looked at 3 pages. When you make a portfolio will be glad to peruse it.

 

[sm4him]

OP, don't know.

My sugestion? Make a portfolio at flickr of your best work. Too much stuff to sift through. Nice butterflies at end and liked the crayons. I only looked at 3 pages. When you make a portfolio will be glad to peruse it.

Hmmm...I'm not sure how your comment applies to this particular thread about which longer telephoto lens to get...however, I *have* either asked for opinions about what should go in my "portfolio" or perhaps I've just *thought* about asking that question...are you reading my mind?

At any rate, since there's probably not much left to be said about whether to get the Sigma or the Tamron at this point, I will say that I greatly appreciate your sifting through even 3 pages of that chaos I call my Flickr account. It's better now than it was a month ago, thanks to seeing how Buckster organized his. The thing is, I have several reasons for my Flickr page, and some of those reasons are why I keep soooo many pictures uploaded to it.

I have, however, recently created a "Featured Favorites" collection, which is my current best stab at "portfolio" sort of work. It's a work in progress itself--I haven't quite fleshed out what to put in it, or how to organize it--but if you want to take a look at JUST that Collection, it should be here.