Sports/Wildlife Solution for Nikon?

[Peeb]

Got really intrigued by the new D7500, but on further reflection, what do you think about the choices in this poll? I start to get antsy at spending $1500 and lose consciousness over $2000. I already have a D610 FX camera and the small/light 70-300mm.

If I was an EXCLUSIVE long-shooter the D500 is the no-brainer. But I'm not. My 300+mm shots are some of my favorites, but they are only about 20 to 40% of what I do as a hobbyist.

What would you do, or have you already done?

 

[tirediron]

What sports? For outdoor work it's hard to beat Nikon's 200-500.

 

[Overread]

For the spots I've done, which is mostly equine showjumping, the 70-200mm f2.8 lens is my go-to choice most of the time. Granted that's rather short for wildlife, but for sports its an ideal option. The Nikon is higher priced but there's a Tamron and also a Sigma at cheaper prices and good quality
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens 2185 B&H Photo
Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Zoom Lens AFA009N-700 B&H


This doesn't solve your wildlife issue and honestly the only 300mmf 2.8 zoom that I know of that's good is the Sigma 120-300mm which is heavy and way outside of your price range (although a second hand older copy of the non-OS edition might well suit your budget; not as good as the newer but still a very good lens - but still heavy).

 

[Peeb]

What sports? For outdoor work it's hard to beat Nikon's 200-500.

Mostly both kinds of football (American and European). Honestly, 300mm has been pretty good for most needs for these sports and it the wildlife where I miss the reach. Had a kid into basketball a couple of years ago and I would need a 70-200 f/2.8 if that had turned into a love.

I rented the 200-500 a few months ago and was amazed at how good it was. Really large to tote and hold- but amazing.

 

[Peeb]

For the spots I've done, which is mostly equine showjumping, the 70-200mm f2.8 lens is my go-to choice most of the time. Granted that's rather short for wildlife, but for sports its an ideal option. The Nikon is higher priced but there's a Tamron and also a Sigma at cheaper prices and good quality
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens 2185 B&H Photo
Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Zoom Lens AFA009N-700 B&H


This doesn't solve your wildlife issue and honestly the only 300mmf 2.8 zoom that I know of that's good is the Sigma 120-300mm which is heavy and way outside of your price range (although a second hand older copy of the non-OS edition might well suit your budget; not as good as the newer but still a very good lens - but still heavy).

D'oh! Forgot to put in a 300mm f/4 as an option, combined with 'lesser' DX camera! The new 'pf' is pretty spendy, but the older version is a pretty sweet lens in it's own right.

 

[coastalconn]

Refurbished D7200 about $700
300 F4 AF-S (Non PF) used about 650
1.4x TC 14e II 200
1550 and you are good to go..

Search my Flickr page for "D7100 300 F4" should give you an idea of what the combo is capable of..

Since you say only 20-40 percent, skimp on the DX body and get better glass..

Another option is to pair the D7200 with the Tamron 70-200 G2. I really like the 70-200 G2 on my D500.. but you have to get Uber close..

Testing Tamron 70-200 G2

 

[Derrel]

Coastalconn's suggestions above make the most sense for long-reach work at an affordable price AND high-quality images. The 300mm f/4 AF-S Nikkor (not trhe new Phase Fresnel model, which is the size of the Canon 135mm f/2-L lens!!!) is a very sharp, crisp lens, and is not overly large nor overly heavy, and it carries well in the ballistic nylon carry case for the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses from Nikon,so it's no a "big-big" lenbs like the 200-500mm zoom is.

I owned the 300/4 AF-S from 2002 to 2017....sold it this year as a matter of fact. It's a GOOD performer with the TC14e or TC14e-II converter for a 420mm f/5.6 lens.

Depending on the specific sport ( football or skiing? football or surfing? football or wrestling? football or track and field?), sometimes too long of a lens length is a net negative; one way to get around that is to use the FX format camera, and then crop-in later, as-needed, for sports shots. Some sports, a 70-200 or 70-300 is vastly preferrable on FX, for the close-in action. On some sports, like baseball in the outfield, DX-format and a 400 to 600mm lens is fine.

I would get the LENS first, and try it out on the D610 body and see how it works for you, and your situation. The 300/4 AF-S is VERY sharp; it is not a zoom lens, but is sharper and higher-contrast and better-corrected than a zoom lens, and it will allow you to crop-in on images to a much higher degree than would a lower-performing zoom lens. if this lens has an issue, it is its AF-S focusing motor speed and its tendency to hunt/jitter,especially when you add a TC to it...this is not Nikon's best AF lens in speed/sureness!

The new Tamron 70-200 G-series....early reports have this as being an ASTOUNDINGLY FAST and SURE focuser on Nikon cameras, as in "world-class" AF performance....so.... that is a nice $1399 option for some things I would think.

 

[adamhiram]

I've found that the Nikon 70-300 VR is really only as good as your camera's autofocus. I suppose that's true of all lenses, but that was especially the case with this one for me. On my D5100, I didn't really like using it; even in good light, I wasn't able to track motion very well, and the focus would always hunt. When I switched to a D500 last year, suddenly this lens found new life. Autofocus was fast and accurate, and subject tracking was something I almost didn't have to think about with the right autofocus mode.

If you're not struggling with autofocus, you're probably good with what you already have. If these issues sound familiar, an upgrade to a newer body with better AF system might be the best bang for your buck. You really can't beat the D500's autofocus, but the improvements made in the D7500, even the D7200 (or the D5300/5500/5600) will give you the improvement in autofocus accuracy you might be missing.

 

[Peeb]

The 'new' nikon 3oomm 'pf' VR lens is out of my range, but I've seen some used ones for 1500 or so. I like the idea of super portable sharp lens at f/4 that can take a teleconverter.

Still, you can get a brand-new under warranty 200-5oo that either works perfectly or you simply send it back for another one. Drawback of course is that it it bigger, heavier, and focuses slower than the newer 300.

 

[Peeb]

Having thought WAY too much about this- I'm going with the new 200-500 as it's easily returnable if it's a dog (I know that it's a great lens but sample variation is a real thing).

Thanks for the very intelligent and helpful suggestions. I really was on the verge of pulling the trigger on the AF-S 300 prime plus 1.4x teleconverter but all the lenses I looked at had something just off and/or were overpriced so I took that as a sign to go 'new'.

Will keep you posted.

 

[Derrel]

You will most likely REALLY enjioy the focval length flexibility of the 200-500mm lens...the issue with a single focal length lens is that it imposes ONE length on all shots...not so good for flexible situations! The zoom lens allows you to zoom back or zoom in, as needed. With today's good High ISO performing Nikons, the 200-500 at the $1400 price point makes a ton of sense! Please, let us know how you get on with it, okay?

 

[Peeb]

You will most likely REALLY enjioy the focval length flexibility of the 200-500mm lens...the issue with a single focal length lens is that it imposes ONE length on all shots...not so good for flexible situations! The zoom lens allows you to zoom back or zoom in, as needed. With today's good High ISO performing Nikons, the 200-500 at the $1400 price point makes a ton of sense! Please, let us know how you get on with it, okay?

I've been stewing for months about the best way to go with this- but at some point the "perfect" can be the enemy of the "good" and it was simply time to pull the trigger on SOMETHING.

I've rented this lens before and love it- so why not? I'll start a new thread probably next week and keep you posted. Thanks!

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, agree: perfect can be the enemy of good enough. Zooms these days have become very,very good, and getting the righrt framing, the right 'picture' is usually much more of an issue than squeezing out those last few line pairs per millimeter of resolving ability from a prime lens instead of a zoom lens.

Now that we have digital and unsharp masking and other sharpness-enhancing editing methods, it's not so much a necessity tyo have the ne plu ultra in lens performance to make a perfectly acceptable to fine picture.

 

[astroNikon]

I'd say get the 200-500 first and see how you like it with the D610.
But still 200mm for sports especially if you are close isn't so good. But I'd rather have better close focal range than longer as you can always crop but can't uncrop.

 

[table1349]

Okay, I am going to make you swallow your tongue, but once you go long primes you will not go back. Since I shoot a lot of sports my arsenal includes the 70-200 f2.8, 200 f2, 300 f2.8 & 400 f2.8. For Soccer/European football the 300 is and excellent choice. For American football I prefer the 400. Yes they are expensive and if prohibitively so I understand, but the image quality is amazing. I know guys using previous versions that still blow the big zooms out of the water for IQ.