Telephoto Lens Suggestions for Nikon

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).

U

Ulterior

New member
Member's gallery
Hi all,

I'm very much an amateur and love to capture my travels as best I can. It seems every trip I go on I discover a new gear or skill limitation! I started on a D3100 back in 2012 and moved up to a D7500 last year and I love it!

I'm still using the 55-200mm f4-5.6 G ED VR kit lens from the D3100, and I have a 35mm f1.8 G.

After my last trip to Queenstown (I'm from NZ), I found I couldn't get some landscapes I wanted, and also couldn't get close enough at the far end. I managed to get a good deal on a used Nikon 12-24mm f4 G ED so I've hopefully closed the gap and wide end of my lens collection.

I'd really appreciate some thoughts on what telephoto lens to get next. I think the main reason would be to get closer to wildlife to get those great shots. Secondary to that would be some landscapes at the longer end. I've been practicing the tips Steve meantions and really enjoy seeing those wildlife shots pop.

A salesman at a local store suggest I'd only get frustrated by a 300mm lens which is what I was originally thinking. After trying one in store and comparing to 200mm, I'm tending to agree. He sugggested the Tamron 100-400mm f4.5-6.3 might be a good choice. I've also been looking at a Nikon 200-500 f5.6 as a possible option.

On the Tamron, I'm unsure mainly on the high min aperture at the long end and also to some extent, how would the performance compare to the Nikon?

What other lenses could be an option for me to look at? For example I saw a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 E FL ED VR today used for $2500 - I wondered if that plus a TC-20EIII might be a good combo. The new TC is another $1200 though......
The Tamron is $1375
The 200-500 is $2100.

I'm okay around the $2000 mark and could go a little higher for a good option. I'm really looking to round out my lens collection so if anyone has some suggestions or ideas for where I should look, I'd really appreciate it!
 
Member's gallery
You have lots of options. You will have to balance reach v aperture as the longer you go with a zoom, the smaller the apertures gets. I have a Sigma 150-600 Sport which is great and the new 60-600 is supposed to be better and lighter. I takes a 1.4x TC OK in good light. It is also heavy. I have an old Nikkor 300mmf4 D which is very light and takes both a 1.4x and 1.7x TC and the 1.4x is really good on it. I also have a Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED which again takes the TCs well with the 1.4x the favourite.

I'd avoid using a 2x TC personally.
 
Member's gallery
Ulterior said:
Hi all,

I'm very much an amateur and love to capture my travels as best I can. It seems every trip I go on I discover a new gear or skill limitation! I started on a D3100 back in 2012 and moved up to a D7500 last year and I love it!

I'm still using the 55-200mm f4-5.6 G ED VR kit lens from the D3100, and I have a 35mm f1.8 G.

After my last trip to Queenstown (I'm from NZ), I found I couldn't get some landscapes I wanted, and also couldn't get close enough at the far end. I managed to get a good deal on a used Nikon 12-24mm f4 G ED so I've hopefully closed the gap and wide end of my lens collection.

I'd really appreciate some thoughts on what telephoto lens to get next. I think the main reason would be to get closer to wildlife to get those great shots. Secondary to that would be some landscapes at the longer end. I've been practicing the tips Steve meantions and really enjoy seeing those wildlife shots pop.

A salesman at a local store suggest I'd only get frustrated by a 300mm lens which is what I was originally thinking. After trying one in store and comparing to 200mm, I'm tending to agree. He sugggested the Tamron 100-400mm f4.5-6.3 might be a good choice. I've also been looking at a Nikon 200-500 f5.6 as a possible option.

On the Tamron, I'm unsure mainly on the high min aperture at the long end and also to some extent, how would the performance compare to the Nikon?

What other lenses could be an option for me to look at? For example I saw a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 E FL ED VR today used for $2500 - I wondered if that plus a TC-20EIII might be a good combo. The new TC is another $1200 though......
The Tamron is $1375
The 200-500 is $2100.

I'm okay around the $2000 mark and could go a little higher for a good option. I'm really looking to round out my lens collection so if anyone has some suggestions or ideas for where I should look, I'd really appreciate it!
Click to expand...
A TC20 on an f/2.8 lens will yield you an effective focal length of 400mm at f/5.6, but personally, I don’t think the image degradation would be worth it with a 2x TC. Also, if you end up choosing an f/5.6 lens (or smaller max aperture at maximum zoom length), keep in mind that most DSLRs autofocus only works down to f/8, and even then, it’s just the center point(s).
For the money, the Nikkor 200-500 is really a very good lens. In my own experience, I’ve had horrible luck with third-party lenses. There are some folks on this forum who’ve gotten gorgeous shots with third-party lenses, but it seems to me it’s luck of the draw; the manufacturing is kind of hit-or-miss. You might get a good lens, you might not. From what I understand, the third-party lenses are reverse-engineered to be used with Nikon’s F-mount, as Nikon has never released any of its schematics for third-party production.
In my own personal, humble opinion, the Nikkor 200-500 would be your best option at your budget.
 
Member's gallery
If weight is a serious issue for you, you might consider the Nikon 300 f/4 PF. My birding buddy uses that with a Nikon 1.4 TC and gets great results. It's about as ight as you're likely to get, and should be within your budget if you can pick one up refurb or used. The big problem will be getting hold of the 1.4 TC. I expect you'd want the version III, which is reputed to focus much faster than the II for some reason, and is also weather sealed. I use the Nikon 200-500 and have no complaints except for the weight.
 
Member's gallery
tclune said:
The big problem will be getting hold of the 1.4 TC. I expect you'd want the version III, which is reputed to focus much faster than the II for some reason, and is also weather sealed. I use the Nikon 200-500 and have no complaints except for the weight.
Click to expand...

I saw a review comparing the 1.4TC mkii v mkiii and the result was that yes, the mkiii was better than the mkii, but the improvement in the older lenses was so small they said the mkii was the better bet. The mkiii works best with newer lenses like the PF. My 300mm f4 D + 1.4x mkii TC give great results.
 
Member's gallery
dabhand16 said:
I saw a review comparing the 1.4TC mkii v mkiii and the result was that yes, the mkiii was better than the mkii, but the improvement in the older lenses was so small they said the mkii was the better bet. The mkiii works best with newer lenses like the PF. My 300mm f4 D + 1.4x mkii TC give great results.
Click to expand...
That's pretty universally acknowledged for IQ. But the thing that I was most concerned about was focusing speed, which matters a lot to birders. FWIW
 
Member's gallery
I just purchased the Nikon 200-500mm lens and my first impressions were this is not the best option for walking around with (weight), or hand held shooting. I also felt the zoom ring to be quite large. Now those comments are not intended to put this choice down just my first impressions, which in time and use may change my thoughts about this len. I do own Nikons 300mm f/4 PF which I use with the 1.4TC version iii (nikon) and must say I love it. It is a great choice for a walk-about lens, and works very well hand held. As a travel lens it is excellent and I find it to be tack sharp. I use it for birds in flight with a very good keeper rate, and if the price point is not within range the older version of a Nikkor 300 f/4 is also a very nice lens as well. This is just my opinion regarding your thoughts on the 70 -200mm with the 2xTC, I would think Nikons 80-400mm would be a much better choice, I'm not a fan of 2xTC. The 80-400mm Nikkor will give you the zoom range and reach without a TC and works very well with the 1.4TC. and can be used hand held. I apologize to you for not keeping your price point in mind with some of my suggestions as I just don't know the current prices off the top of my head so my suggestions are just combinations that I have used, presently own and have had very good results with them. I do have an older Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 which works well, but I just find in lacks the reach that I can get with other options, so this lens which is built like a tank sits in my bag more then it should.
 
Member's gallery
Hello Ulterior-
I have had my D7500 for three years and also love it. I guess your inquiry depends on how you will mostly be using the lens. I personally enjoy shooting some wildlife but primarily nature both in close up and landscape. I have the Tamron 100-400 which I chose to give me greater coverage and more options instead of getting a 70-200 to fill out my trinity of landscape lens. I really enjoy the Tamron 100-400. My copy gives me sharp photos, autofocus works well and it is easier to handhold than some of the other options. I love macro work as well so in addition to my Tamron 90mm macro lens (which is terrific) the 100-400mm gives me good close up results which are close to macro. Also, the 400mm on your D7500 will give you more apparent reach to 600mm. If your photographic journey is more focused on wildlife or especially birds in flight greater reach and lower apertures will be your friend. I've gotten great shots of larger/slower wildlife I am very pleased with using the Tamron 100-400. Subjects like, deer, wild turkeys, pelicans and a variety of insects like bees, butterflies and dragonflies. So if you are looking for a great all around multipurpose telephoto the Tamron is a good choice. I would certainly defer to some of the great wildlife shooters in this forum for their advice if you make that your primary direction. Good luck.
 
Member's gallery
I have the Nikon 200-500 and it is super wildlife lens but I have to use it on a tripod or monopod due to the weight. It is not my everyday walk around lens!

I use the Nikon 300 PF 90% of the time with the 1.4 TC and love it. Super quality images, and at 420mm with the TC has good reach. The entire setup is ultra light. I use the 300 PF for most of my macro shots because it has a reasonably short minimum focus distance.
 
Member's gallery
I have both the Tamron 100-400 and the Nikon 200-500. Both are very good and sharp lenses. If you want to stick with the versitility of the zoom, I think these are your two best options of the long zooms that are out there. The Tamron is quite light, which is nice. The Nikon is a little heavy, but whether it is too heavy for you is simply an individual consideration. I hand hold the 200-500 and carry it around everywhere, but for many people it's just too heavy to do that.

If you go the prime lens route, a 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter gives you 420mm, which is decent. The 300 with 1.4 teleconverter is widely reported by reputable sources to be very sharp.
 
Member's gallery
Ulterior said:
What other lenses could be an option for me to look at? For example I saw a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 E FL ED VR today used for $2500 - I wondered if that plus a TC-20EIII might be a good combo. The new TC is another $1200 though......
Click to expand...
I have the 70-200mm E f/2.8 lens, the Tamron 100-400mm and the TC-20e iii TC and though the 70-200mm is a fantastic lens I'm much happier with the IQ of the Tamron 100-400mm vs the 70-200mm plus 2x TC.

I really liked my Nikon 200-500mm but would also second the recommendation above to consider one of the Tamron or Sigmas in the 150-600mm or even 60-600mm range. I have friends using those and producing fantastic images with them and the versatility is very hard to beat.
 
Member's gallery
I will repeat the suggestion that I made to someone else. Buy the cheapest option you can get because ultimately you will spring for the 500pf or for some yet unannounced lens. What you are purchasing is a place holder.

What I have found, for me, is that light weigh and balance trumps everything. I upgraded from a D-7200/sigma 150-600C to a D-500/500pf and the pound in weight saved and shorter lens (when extended) made all the difference handholding.

Ditto shooting on a monopod/monogimble To shoot BIF with a monopod/monogimble it is necessary for the camera to rotate in the ring. We found that the ability to rotate the Sigma 150-600C in the lens collar very difficult so shooting BIF with it on a monopod/monogimble ineffective. However, with the D-500/500pf it is quite effective.

My d-7200/sigma 150C 6#
My d-500/500pf 5#
D7500/200-500 7#

I don't think the 300pf/1.4T/C iii will give you the reach you need and finding the t/c is very difficult.

Your mileage may vary. Many have no trouble handholding 10# rigs and some even prefer it.

Tom
 
Member's gallery
Ulterior said:
I'm okay around the $2000 mark and could go a little higher for a good option. I'm really looking to round out my lens collection so if anyone has some suggestions or ideas for where I should look, I'd really appreciate it!
Click to expand...

You might consider either the Tamron or Sigma Contemporary 150-600mm lenses. Both are very good, not expensive, and are light enough for easy handling. The Sigma Sport 150-600 is terrific optically but it is heavy and not really made for hand-holding for long. I own both the Nikon 200-500 and the Tamron 150-600 and I find myself using the Tamron more because it has greater range and is easier to handle. The image quality is quite comparable and differences can be found mainly through serious pixel-peeping.
 
I have the original A011 Tamron 150-600mm f/5.6-6.3 and a Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 I have used them both on D3400, D7500, D500 and D850 I wish I would have not gotten the Nikon and upgraded to a Tamron G2 150-600mm. That's just my honest opinion. Some swear that the 200-500 works great but mine has flaky AF from the beginning plus the added versatility of 150-600 is a plus.

I also have the Tamron 18-400mm mentioned above and the thing is a great little lens for versatility on a crop sensor. We have used it as a travel lens on the D7500.

I also have a Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 half the price of a Nikon with great IQ and VR

You might actually like to try a Nikon AF-P 70-300 f/4.5-6.3 G ED I got one with my D3400 a few years ago and it is surprisingly good for birds in flight. I have no idea if it works with a TC or not but it is a very nice little inexpensive lens. I was using as my macro lens for insects for awhile and discovered it does well on small birds.

edit- I want to agree with TR ^^^ 500 PF is the best birding lens overall for an average Joe shooting a Nikon aps-c
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Member's gallery
Hut said:
I have the original A011 Tamron 150-600mm f/5.6-6.3 and a Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 I have used them both on D3400, D7500, D500 and D850 I wish I would have not gotten the Nikon and upgraded to a Tamron G2 150-600mm. That's just my honest opinion. Some swear that the 200-500 works great but mine has flaky AF from the beginning plus the added versatility of 150-600 is a plus.

I also have the Tamron 18-400mm mentioned above and the thing is a great little lens for versatility on a crop sensor. We have used it as a travel lens on the D7500.

I also have a Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 half the price of a Nikon with great IQ and VR

You might actually like to try a Nikon AF-P 70-300 f/4.5-6.3 G ED I got one with my D3400 a few years ago and it is surprisingly good for birds in flight. I have no idea if it works with a TC or not but it is a very nice little inexpensive lens. I was using as my macro lens for insects for awhile and discovered it does well on small birds.

edit- I want to agree with TR ^^^ 500 PF is the best birding lens overall for an average Joe shooting a Nikon aps-c
Click to expand...

The 70-300 Af-P DX does not work with the latest TC. It does work with a Kenko 1.4 but was, IMHO, not worth the trouble. We do carry a 70-300 Af-P on a separate camera body (D-500)
 
Member's gallery
If I had a D-7500 and wanted more reach but had a limited budget I would find a used Sigma 150-600C or the Tamron equivalent (probably better) and WAIT.

The problem is that a $5K solution is indicated.
1-Go Sony and a 200-600 Sony lens @ 7#
2-Nikon D-500/500pf @ 5#

I liked the pictures the Sigma 150-600c took but I hated how the camera rotated in the collar so shooting BIF on a monopod/monogimble was very frustrating. However, if you can hand hold the rig with the lens extended, a NEW Sigma 150-600C can be had for $900.

Unfortunately, I just don't see a good solution near your price point. Some love the Nikon 200-500 while some don't. You are looking at $1400+
 
Member's gallery
I use the 200-500mm on a D500 and have no complaints except for the weight , I use it 60/40 on a tripod and hand-held and get good shots both ways. Prior to the 200-500 I had the Sigma 150-600C but wasn’t thrilled with the image quality.
 
Member's gallery
Have used a D7500 for several years and my telephoto is the Tamron 150-600mm G2. Very happy with this combination as the range is great from near to far. Had some problems with picts at the far range that were soft but fixed that with adjusting the auto focus in the D7500. Often shoot hand held without problems. Took a 500mm PF on a recent trip and didn't use it near as much as I expected to, just because of the varied distances to target I was faced with, the zoom worked better. Decisions, decisions .. zoom for allowing varied focal lengths, less expensive but with some restriction on aperture, vs prime with usually a higher price tag, wider aperture, some distance to target restrictions and often heavier. Depends on what you are going to shoot, how much cash the spouse will let you donate to the hobby and your arm strength. I debated between the Sigma contemporary, their Sport and the Tamron, decided on the Tamron. Do think would've been happy with any of the three (the sport was a bit heavy). Have been using the Tamron on my Z6ii with the FTZ with good results.
 
Member's gallery
It's interesting how many here are suggesting the Tamron 150-600 over the Nikon 200-500. I had both versions of the Tamron 150-600, and neither was as sharp as the Nikon, and neither focused quite as fast. Obviously, opinions vary, and it's likely that individual copies of the lenses vary, as well.
 
Member's gallery
The 500mm PF is the best I've used overall, but it's $3600. If you're willing to save up for a while longer or sell another lens to get it, it's a game-changer. You can handhold it pretty easily.

The next best option is probably the 200-500mm, but it's almost 5 pounds and needs stabilization unless you're just holding it for 1-2 minutes at a time. I have gone on long hikes with it on a monopod, and it's not a fun experience (even if you get good shots.)

Third would be the 300mm PF with a 1.4X TCiii (effectively 420mm f5.6.) Very light and small setup, autofocus works just about as well with the TC as without, but the image quality and reach aren't quite as good as the 200-500mm.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
tclune said:
That's pretty universally acknowledged for IQ. But the thing that I was most concerned about was focusing speed, which matters a lot to birders. FWIW
Click to expand...

The focus speed is surely linked to the light falling on the sensor and AF sensor and AFAIK the 1.4 mkiii will still loose you a stop, as does the mkii.
 
Member's gallery
Being the D7500 has crop sensor, 400 mm is 600 mm equivalent. Although unloved by many, the Nikon 80-400 AF-S could be a good choice.
The weight is just a little more than the 70-200 f/2.8, it’s relatively easy to fit in your bag unlike the 200-500. It’s a pretty good performer out to about 380 mm and still more than acceptable at 400 mm. Given its lack of popularity there is some well priced used ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top