?: Lens recommendation for BIF on D500, your thoughts

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

greyhoundrick

greyhoundrick

New member
Member's gallery
Hello Everyone,

Nice to be a part of this forum!

Looking forward to interacting with you and appreciate any input you can give me!

I shoot BIF about 1-2X/week and currently use a D500 + 70-200mm f/4 VR. I really like the lens and the auto focus and sharpness rival an older f/2.8 version I had some years ago.

Normally when I shoot I will go for about 2 hours and I don't mind carrying extra weight. I also have a D850 + grip + L-bracket and although heavy, its not really a deciding factor for me personally even though I am an old guy!

With that said, I shoot about 80% of my BIF images at 200mm currently (my max) and still could really use another 100+ extra reach. My budget is around $2500 and Im kind of torn between the 200-500, 300pf, 500 pf and a used 300 f/2.8 non VR. I would like to get a native Nikkor lens, just a personal preference.

I am a bit concerned with the f/5.6 of the 200-500 as I like to shoot just before sunrise mostly in lower light, but the trade off with a prime is the inability to have the zoom flexibility.

I know this is a very common question/concern but, for me, it really helps to receive input from other photographers, especially Nikon shooters.

Image quality is paramount to me as I am an admitted pixel peeper and again, size, weight and ease of transport are not my #1 concern.

Thanks in advance to any advice you can give me. This is a big purchase for me and your input is very helpful and appreciated!

Best to you and take care,

Rick
 
Member's gallery
Yes, that'd be my recommendation too. The 300 PF renders plumage detail very well. With a 1.4 TC, which it pairs well with, you get the option of a longer focal length which will be helpful for BIF.
 
Member's gallery
If it were me... I’d buy a 500pf for the d500... and use the 70-200 on your d850 with an 1.4 tele.... gives you lots of options... All of the equipment is less weight then my d500- 600mm + tripod... you can Hand hold all of it. I’d love to have a d850 and a 500pf. But going to wait in the new z series to see where it goes. Your setup really nice to have two great combos.
 
Member's gallery
I'd second the 500mm PF but that's about 50% above your stated budget. The 300mm PF, with a TC-14 iii at the ready is a very good hand held BIF combo that you can run at 300mm f/4 when you can get close enough and throw on the TC for a 420mm f/5.6 when you need a bit more reach.
 
Member's gallery
I'd lean towards a 500PF if you can find a way to swing it. Personally, I find 300mm too short for most of my BIF work, but of course that depends where you shoot and how close the birds are. The 300PF is a fantastic lens though, can't really go wrong there if the focal length works and it takes a 1.4TC really well in my experience.
 
Member's gallery
OK - I will show my ignorance! :)
I've got the Nikon 80-400 F4.5/F5.6 G (latest model) on my Nikon D500 and love it. I've taken pictures of BIF, as well individuals parachuting in AZ. At 400 mm on the D500, with a 1.5 crop, gives me 600 mm. When I take a picture of individuals parachuting at 400 mm at approximately 30-40 yards out and I would guess 100-200 feet in the air, I can read "Nike" on their tennis shoes and make out the lettering (not always read it) on the patches on their jump suits! I've taken pictures of eagle size birds (hand held) above canyon walls (hard to estimate how high they are, but would conservatively guess 150'-200' above me), on the reservoirs North of Phoenix and am able to zoom in and see their eye! A friend of mine is an avid Canon photographer and he begrudgingly admits my 80-400 does as well as his Canon 100-400. I just got a Nikon 70-200 2.8 for low light and the test/comparative pictures I have taken with that, don't appear to be any sharper. Maybe if I was enlarging them more I would see the difference? The 80-400 is virtually the same physical size and weight as the 70-200 F2.8
I have seen that a 1.4 TC does not work well with the 80-400, but thinks it works well with the 70-200, but that wouldn't give me any more reach. Comfortable with 600mm on the D500.
I'm 72 years old, have had two total knees, two back fusions, three rotator cuffs and getting a total hip on Tuesday. Even though I am 6'6" and weigh 240#, not interested in carrying any more weight around. I do have a RRS Series Monopod with the Wimberly Monopod Gimbal, which is great. Also have a Gitzo 3543XLS Tripod. Think the Nikon lens is selling new for $1800 - $2100.
Interested in your comments, as no one mentioned the 80-400. I know that some of the lenses, especially those that are much higher priced would be sharper. Be nice! (y)
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
LL4D500 said:
Interested in your comments, as no one mentioned the 80-400.
Click to expand...
The latest Nikon 80-400mm is a fine lens and a go to for many photographers and definitely one to consider for someone looking to move up from the 70-200mm or 70-300mm lenses.

I personally wouldn't trade my 500mm PF for the 80-400mm but it does cover an awful lot of useful focal lengths and is a very nice lens.
 
Member's gallery
LL4D500 said:
OK - I will show my ignorance! :)
I've got the Nikon 80-400 F4.5/F5.6 G (latest model) on my Nikon D500 and love it. I've taken pictures of BIF, as well individuals parachuting in AZ. At 400 mm on the D500, with a 1.5 crop, gives me 600 mm. When I take a picture of individuals parachuting at 400 mm at approximately 30-40 yards out and I would guess 100-200 feet in the air, I can read "Nike" on their tennis shoes and make out the lettering (not always read it) on the patches on their jump suits! I've taken pictures of eagle size birds (hand held) above canyon walls (hard to estimate how high they are, but would conservatively guess 150'-200' above me), on the reservoirs North of Phoenix and am able to zoom in and see their eye! A friend of mine is an avid Canon photographer and he begrudgingly admits my 80-400 does as well as his Canon 100-400. I just got a Nikon 70-200 2.8 for low light and the test/comparative pictures I have taken with that, don't appear to be any sharper. Maybe if I was enlarging them more I would see the difference? The 80-400 is virtually the same physical size and weight as the 70-200 F2.8
I have seen that a 1.4 TC does not work well with the 80-400, but thinks it works well with the 70-200, but that wouldn't give me any more reach. Comfortable with 600mm on the D500.
I'm 72 years old, have had two total knees, two back fusions, three rotator cuffs and getting a total hip on Tuesday. Even though I am 6'6" and weigh 240#, not interested in carrying any more weight around. I do have a RRS Series Monopod with the Wimberly Monopod Gimbal, which is great. Also have a Gitzo 3543XLS Tripod. Think the Nikon lens is selling new for $1800 - $2100.
Interested in your comments, as no one mentioned the 80-400. I know that some of the lenses, especially those that are much higher priced would be sharper. Be nice! (y)
Click to expand...
No ignorance there! That’s a highly regarded lens! I think it just doesn’t get mentioned much because it’s fairly “old” now (even the latest version) and most everyone is alway looking for more reach. Over the last few years the majority of stuff is 500/600mm on the long end... 200-500, 500PF for Nikon and 150-600mm for the third party companies.
 
Member's gallery
I'd lean towards the 300 2.8 as it is one of the sharpest of the exotic lenses (all the 300/400 2.8 versions) and the most versatile. Wide open, the F2.8 primes are just outstanding. It takes all the TCs well - with the 1.4TC, the f2.8 lenses are almost as good as the bare lenses both in terms of sharpness and AF performance. With the 1.7 TC there is a bit of drop in AF speed but still very much capable even for BIF and sharpness is very good (Wide open is good and stopping it down by 1 stop is even better). The TC2.0III is not great for BIF but can be very handy for perched birds, although you may have to stop it down to F8 for the best results.

500PF is a fantastic lens and so agile but it is 2 stops slower and less versatile compared to 300 2.8. Since you mention Size/Weight is not your priority, i would say 300.2.8. With the 300 2.8 and D850/D500/3 TCs you are covered from 300mm F2.8 all the way up to 900mm f5.6 (D500 or D850 in crop mode).
 
Member's gallery
I currently use the 500PF on my D500 and love it. I have a new D850 and I am just about to embark on the testing of it, when the rain in Glasgow, Scotland stops. I have owned/used the 200-500 as well and also the Sigma 150-600 C, both with there respective TC's 1.4 in each case and the Sigma I have to say was sharper. The little bit of extra reach at 600 was also helpful.
I finally managed to get the cash together for the 500PF a little while ago and do not regret it one bit. The D500 with 500PF combination for me is wonderful, also being older the weight aspect is important to me. I hope this helps. I also use a Gitzo 3 series tripod and Wimberly 200 gimbal but love the handholding flexibility of the D500/500PF.
 
Member's gallery
I have a good copy of a 200-500 wrt sharpness so I'm quite happy with it, it's a great value lens for sure. However after getting the 70-200 E and 400/2.8 I realised how much slower the AF speed is comparatively. I'm always at 500mm when doing flight shots for the most part so for flexibility and ease of manoeuvrability I think the 500PF is a great choice.
 
Member's gallery
I was just out shooting migrating cranes last night with my gear.
Before I share my thoughts the following might be important. I spend about 60% of my photo outings pursuing wildlife (mostly mammals). I photograph migrating cranes, wintering swans, owls, and herons at a local rookery. I live in Minnesota, and weather resistance is as important as optical quality. I do not photograph erratically moving subjects like warblers, vireos, or other passerine species. I also photograph landscapes, and prefer to hike into the woods, through prairies,, and into jungles rather than work from a vehicle or blind. I travel extensively, and include trips to Costa Rica every other year, and locations from Vancouver to Iceland. Finally, my wife shoots... so we have redundancies in our kit.
Last night it was raining on an off all evening as the cranes flew into their roost. A tripod was impractical, as it tends to spook the birds as they look to land into the wetland. Unlike Bosque del Apache, the birds I photograph are not accustom to large crowds, so getting into the cattails helps to hide one's form. During this shoot I used my D500 and the 500PF, while my wife used her 300PF w/ TC14EIII on her D500. Other than the difference in focal length, one would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the output of either. I shot at f/5.6 to f/7.1 to get the wing to eye in focus and she shot at f/8. We were both working between ISO 1600 to ISO 3200 and could shoot at 1/320 to 1/1000 of a sec depending on light angles... For the record, the lens I normally shoot in these conditions (200-400mm f/4G) stayed in the car, as I would have needed my tripod and gimbal to shoot for a prolonged period of time.
Now as for you... What do you value most?
Budget?.... Then the 300mm f/4E + TC14EIII is about $2500 or 200-500mmVRE ($1400)
New Purchase w/ full warranty?... (See above) and add the 200-500mm f/5.6VR or SigmaTam Zooms
Flexibility?... 200-500, SigmaTamZoom, or Nikon 200-400mmG (noting its weight & long distance limitations)
Optical Quality?... 300mm f/2.8G + TC1.4x I/II (III blows your budget)
Price no option?... 500mmPF (portable) or 500mm f/4G .. not portable (don't get AFSII as repair options are increasingly limited)

Final point.... our gear got soaked and soaked again with no worse for the wear (I think ;))
 
Member's gallery
Everyone is giving great advice, so I’ll throw my two cents in as well. From my own experience , if you use a zoom for birds in flight, probably 99% of Time you are going to have it set at max. focal length(500mm). From that perspective I decided that a fixed focal length was my primary option. I had considered the 200-500 but because of that consideration as well as its bulk I went with the 500PF. I would also think that 500PF has the edge in picture quality as well, but that is up to debate from the fantastic photos I seen on this site from both lenses. If cost of the 500pf and it’s 5.6 aperture is a problem than go with the 300pf and a 1.4 x. I almost made that choice and from the advice you are getting it’s a great one. You get the advantage of 300mm and f4 and 420mm and f5.6. And of course cost is a consideration as well. I hope that helps and you are not totally confused. I know my head is spinning from all the great advice but in the end you know yourself best and you said you are a pixel peeper , so your primary consideration should be quality with versatility (Zoom) being second best.
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
I was just out shooting migrating cranes last night with my gear.
Before I share my thoughts the following might be important. I spend about 60% of my photo outings pursuing wildlife (mostly mammals). I photograph migrating cranes, wintering swans, owls, and herons at a local rookery. I live in Minnesota, and weather resistance is as important as optical quality. I do not photograph erratically moving subjects like warblers, vireos, or other passerine species. I also photograph landscapes, and prefer to hike into the woods, through prairies,, and into jungles rather than work from a vehicle or blind. I travel extensively, and include trips to Costa Rica every other year, and locations from Vancouver to Iceland. Finally, my wife shoots... so we have redundancies in our kit.
Last night it was raining on an off all evening as the cranes flew into their roost. A tripod was impractical, as it tends to spook the birds as they look to land into the wetland. Unlike Bosque del Apache, the birds I photograph are not accustom to large crowds, so getting into the cattails helps to hide one's form. During this shoot I used my D500 and the 500PF, while my wife used her 300PF w/ TC14EIII on her D500. Other than the difference in focal length, one would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the output of either. I shot at f/5.6 to f/7.1 to get the wing to eye in focus and she shot at f/8. We were both working between ISO 1600 to ISO 3200 and could shoot at 1/320 to 1/1000 of a sec depending on light angles... For the record, the lens I normally shoot in these conditions (200-400mm f/4G) stayed in the car, as I would have needed my tripod and gimbal to shoot for a prolonged period of time.
Now as for you... What do you value most?
Budget?.... Then the 300mm f/4E + TC14EIII is about $2500 or 200-500mmVRE ($1400)
New Purchase w/ full warranty?... (See above) and add the 200-500mm f/5.6VR or SigmaTam Zooms
Flexibility?... 200-500, SigmaTamZoom, or Nikon 200-400mmG (noting its weight & long distance limitations)
Optical Quality?... 300mm f/2.8G + TC1.4x I/II (III blows your budget)
Price no option?... 500mmPF (portable) or 500mm f/4G .. not portable (don't get AFSII as repair options are increasingly limited)

Final point.... our gear got soaked and soaked again with no worse for the wear (I think ;))
Click to expand...
Thanks for this Bruce and I appreciate your constructive comments on the weather. I was just a little tongue in cheek when I mentioned it, as we have a bit of a reputation for constant wet weather in the West of Scotland. I really only shot little brown birds with the odd bird of prey and herons thrown in so flexibility for me is ultimately important And the lightness and responsiveness of the D500/500PF is ideal for me. P.s. you are a lucky man to have a wife who also shoots. :)
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
I was just out shooting migrating cranes last night with my gear.
Before I share my thoughts the following might be important. I spend about 60% of my photo outings pursuing wildlife (mostly mammals). I photograph migrating cranes, wintering swans, owls, and herons at a local rookery. I live in Minnesota, and weather resistance is as important as optical quality. I do not photograph erratically moving subjects like warblers, vireos, or other passerine species. I also photograph landscapes, and prefer to hike into the woods, through prairies,, and into jungles rather than work from a vehicle or blind. I travel extensively, and include trips to Costa Rica every other year, and locations from Vancouver to Iceland. Finally, my wife shoots... so we have redundancies in our kit.
Last night it was raining on an off all evening as the cranes flew into their roost. A tripod was impractical, as it tends to spook the birds as they look to land into the wetland. Unlike Bosque del Apache, the birds I photograph are not accustom to large crowds, so getting into the cattails helps to hide one's form. During this shoot I used my D500 and the 500PF, while my wife used her 300PF w/ TC14EIII on her D500. Other than the difference in focal length, one would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the output of either. I shot at f/5.6 to f/7.1 to get the wing to eye in focus and she shot at f/8. We were both working between ISO 1600 to ISO 3200 and could shoot at 1/320 to 1/1000 of a sec depending on light angles... For the record, the lens I normally shoot in these conditions (200-400mm f/4G) stayed in the car, as I would have needed my tripod and gimbal to shoot for a prolonged period of time.
Now as for you... What do you value most?
Budget?.... Then the 300mm f/4E + TC14EIII is about $2500 or 200-500mmVRE ($1400)
New Purchase w/ full warranty?... (See above) and add the 200-500mm f/5.6VR or SigmaTam Zooms
Flexibility?... 200-500, SigmaTamZoom, or Nikon 200-400mmG (noting its weight & long distance limitations)
Optical Quality?... 300mm f/2.8G + TC1.4x I/II (III blows your budget)
Price no option?... 500mmPF (portable) or 500mm f/4G .. not portable (don't get AFSII as repair options are increasingly limited)

Final point.... our gear got soaked and soaked again with no worse for the wear (I think ;))
Click to expand...
Thanks for this Bruce and I appreciate your constructive comments on the weather. I was just a little tongue in cheek when I mentioned it, as we have a bit of a reputation for constant wet weather in the West of Scotland. I really only shot little brown birds with the odd bird of prey and herons thrown in so flexibility for me is ultimately important And the lightness and responsiveness of the D500/500PF is ideal for me. P.s. you are a lucky man to have a wife who also shoots. :)
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
I'd lean towards a 500PF if you can find a way to swing it. Personally, I find 300mm too short for most of my BIF work, but of course that depends where you shoot and how close the birds are. The 300PF is a fantastic lens though, can't really go wrong there if the focal length works and it takes a 1.4TC really well in my experience.
Click to expand...
Thanks so much Steve! Big fan of yours and your channel! I appreciate your expertise and everything you do for us Nikon shooters and photographers in general!!
 
Member's gallery
BC, Rich, LL4D500, DRwyoming, armchicago, Yezdi, Thern, thelordofthelight, David, ruley74, Blen65 and SNEDDERS6666 Thank you all so much for the great advice, expertise and opinions! At this point I am considering all options but Im leaning just a bit towards the 300PF and TC combo. In the areas I shoot I think I will be in good shape with that increased focal length, however, I am still considering the other possibilities and you folks have really helped me! Best to all, Rick
 
Member's gallery
Anyone taken the plunge and bought the new Nikon 120-300 for $9500? Interesting to see what people think - would assume that also works well with the 1.4 TC?
Guessing that it is more of a PRO "sports" lens than a BIF lens, even with the TC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top