Super-tele lens for wildlife (300 AFS, 200-500, Sigma 150-600)

[netarc]

Seeking guidance re: lenses for wildlife photography (birding, etal) on my Nikon d500.

I have the option to pick up, locally, a Nikkor 300mm/f4 AF-S for $450, or the Nikkor 200-500/f5.6 for $600; alternatively, can order a Sigma 150-600 HSM for <$900 new (Amazon, B&H, etc).

The 300 +1.4v2 tele is what I'm leaning towards specifically for the weight, but appreciate any thoughts/recommendations, thanks!

 

[DRwyoming]

Seeking guidance re: lenses for wildlife photography (birding, etal) on my Nikon d500.

I have the option to pick up, locally, a Nikkor 300mm/f4 AF-S for $450, or the Nikkor 200-500/f5.6 for $600; alternatively, can order a Sigma 150-600 HSM for <$900 new (Amazon, B&H, etc).

The 300 +1.4v2 tele is what I'm leaning towards specifically for the weight, but appreciate any thoughts/recommendations, thanks!

The 300mm f/4 AF-S was a very good lens for its time but its auto focus performance isn't the best by modern standards. Its image quality is excellent alone or with a matching 1.4x TC but I was never all that happy with its auto focus speed. If size and weight is your primary concern then its a great lens that can deliver excellent results on your D500. But if you can manage the extra size the 200-500mm is a much more versatile lens with vibration reduction and IMO better AF performance than the 300mm f/4 AF-S.

The newer 300mm PF f/4 is in a whole different league from size, weight and AF performance but it tends to cost quite a bit more even on the used market.

The Sigma and Tamron super zooms are great as well but if its in good shape I'd take the Nikon 200-500mm at $600 over the others at $900.

Welcome to the forums!

-Dave

 

[Tom Reynolds]

Did not like the Sigma 150-600C because of the weight. I used a monopod/monogimble but the lens did not rotate smoothly in the ring.

 

[Steve W]

The Nikon 200-500 might not be the greatest lens but is the pick of your options. FWIW I could never get comfortable with the Sigma 150-600 C due to its weight and the zoom ring rotates opposite to Nikon.

 

[EricBowles]

I'd agree - that price on the 200-500 is about $200-300 below market. It's a good lens with plenty of reach, is reasonably new, and is very good in terms of sharpness. One of the things I like is a constant f/5.6 aperture, which really helps if you are trying to use manual exposure at the longer end.

Both of the other choices are good. The 300mm f/4 is a lens I own and use - and it's very sharp. But it may be a little short for most wildlife and especially so for small birds. On the other hand, it would be my first choice among these lenses for dragonflies and butterflies because of the short minimum focus distance.

 

[StefanSC]

Seeking guidance re: lenses for wildlife photography (birding, etal) on my Nikon d500.

I have the option to pick up, locally, a Nikkor 300mm/f4 AF-S for $450, or the Nikkor 200-500/f5.6 for $600; alternatively, can order a Sigma 150-600 HSM for <$900 new (Amazon, B&H, etc).

The 300 +1.4v2 tele is what I'm leaning towards specifically for the weight, but appreciate any thoughts/recommendations, thanks!

I do have the 300mm f4 AF-S and the Sigma 150-600mm C and I have used them on the D500 and the D810. I've also had the chance to shoot with multiple samples of the 200-500mm f5.6. My experience with them has been as follows:

(the TLDR version): if there is nothing wrong with the used Nikkor 200-500 f5.6 you should buy it. At 600 $ it is a steal.

The long version:

AF speed (from best to worst): Nikon 300mm f4, Nikon 200-500 f5.6, Nikon 300mm f4 with 1.4xTC, Sigma 150-600mm (and quite far behind the Sigma and the f6.3 long end doesn't help it, even on a D500).

Sharpness wide open (from best to worst): Nikon 300mm f4(by a mile), Nikon 200-500 f5.6 (best sample I've encountered), Sigma 150-600mm (no replacement for displacement), Nikon 300mm f4 with TC1.4x, Nikon 200-500 f5.6 (worst sample I've encountered).

Versatility (from best to worst): Sigma 150-600mm, Nikon 200-500mm f5.6, Nikon 300mm f4 + TC.
Two notes on versatility:
1) For me and the way I shoot, the 300mm f4 is top of the list as there isn't much between 500mm and 420mm at closer ranges due to the Nikon's focus breathing and the close-up abilities of the 300mm make it a brilliant lens for shooting medium and large insects without making them run away. Also, if the subject is friendly enough, 300mm f4 is brilliant on it's own.

2) I rank the Sigma zoom as more versatile than the Nikon due to the larger zoom range, the better handling (center of mass is placed better, zoom ring is a bit better) and the large amount of configuration options via dock (e.g: custom focus limiter).

Quirks (in no particular order):
The Nikon 300mm f4 AF-S motor is prone to failure. If it squeaks, it is on it's way out and it can't be repaired. Also, it's aperture blades are exposed at the back and can get gunk on them and seize up.
The sample variation I've seen in the 200-500mm f5.6 is much larger than I've seen with the Sigma 150-600mm.
The Sigma 150-600mm O.I.S system is the worst of the bunch and has strange interactions with the D500's 10fps (depending on the settings, you can end up with every other shot blurry when using the Sigma due to the OIS being slow to reset). I don't get this on the D810 at 6 fps...

 

[Craig Yuill]

I have a D500 that I use with a Sigma 100-400, which has an f/6.3 maximum aperture @400mm. I discovered, to my chagrin, that there is a downside to that aperture. The outer AF sensors on the D500 tend to perform inconsistently with apertures narrower than f/5.6. Only the central cross-type AF sensors are reliable down to f/8. That f/5.6 maximum aperture in the Nikon 200-500 would give it an operational advantage over Sigma or Tamron 150-600 lenses, which each have a maximum aperture of f/6.3 at 600mm.

The Nikon 200-500 is, however, quite bulky and heavy, as are the 150-600 lenses. It might be worth looking at a Nikon 80-400 AF-S, if one is available at a decent price. (Although I found that the Sigma 100-400 has slightly better optics.) It has an f/5.6 maximum aperture @400mm.

Are you able to test the lenses before buying? If so, of the three lenses you mentioned, the Nikon 200-500 is probably the best prospect, if it is a sharp copy.

 

[tickle_my_nikon]

Seeking guidance re: lenses for wildlife photography (birding, etal) on my Nikon d500.

I have the option to pick up, locally, a Nikkor 300mm/f4 AF-S for $450, or the Nikkor 200-500/f5.6 for $600; alternatively, can order a Sigma 150-600 HSM for <$900 new (Amazon, B&H, etc).

The 300 +1.4v2 tele is what I'm leaning towards specifically for the weight, but appreciate any thoughts/recommendations, thanks!

You might want to spend a few hundred more, and be a little patient. I just picked up a second copy of a 300mm f/2.8 VRII for $1,000 locally. Plenty of foolish people getting rid of great F mount lenses cheap, and there's no comparison between the 2.8 and 4.0. It's 6 pounds though.

That's not the first 300mm 2.8 I've seen sell for that price.

 

[Calson]

When I first received my D500 camera I tried it with the Tamron 150-600mm and the two Sigma versions. The build quality was clearly better with the Nikon 200-500mm and only the Sigma Sport was its equal. The problem I had with the Sigma Sport is the collar for the lens foot and the foot itself could not be removed. 95% of the time with the 200-500mm lens I shot hand held and so I took off the collar and foot entirely. The only value to me of a lens foot on such a lens if when shooting video and needing a tripod to keep the lens steady.

With a DX camera like the D500 the 200-500mm lens provides the view angle of a 300-750mm lens. No probems at the long end but the 300mm minimum focal length was often a problem with larger animals and so I more often used the 80-400mm in places like Yellowstone.