What are my options for handholdable bird photography with D7500?

[Fenrir]

I currently use Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6. I use a sling style strap to carry it and it works nicely, even for 5-6 hours. That said, it can get tiring at times (I keep switching the sling from left to right to spread the weight distribution across my back) and feels pretty limiting when I want to wait for some action to occur. I can't really keep this lens steady and ready for shooting for more than half a minute.

I know a lot of people use monopod or a tripod to help with that, but it doesn't really go well with my photography style. I walk a lot and prefer to pack light.

My old Nikkor AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 is of course great for light packing, but at some point I just started to feel limited by its range. That's why I gave the 200-500mm a try.

Is there anything in between these two lenses that you can suggest for me?

So far I'm aware of these options:
- Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF + TC-14E
- Sigma C 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM

Not sure which one is better though. Generally I like to work with a single focal length so it would seem that the prime is better suited for me, but I also wonder about the sharpness and stability.

There's currently a nice local offer for used 300mm PF with TC-14E mk II, but I'm still on the fence. Any tips are welcome!

 

[NorthernFocus]

500mm PF is hard to beat.

 

[Fenrir]

500mm PF is hard to beat.

Yeah, this one would be probably the best, but unfortunately it's well outside of my budget right now.

 

[DRwyoming]

Any tips are welcome!

I don't have any real experience with the Sigma C 100-400mm but I shoot with the 300mm PF with and without TCs all the time and in terms of a light and nimble lens it's hard to beat.

If 420mm is enough focal length for most of your shooting the 300mm PF is a fantastic lens. If not then saving up for something like the 500mm PF might make sense.

FWIW, the image quality of the 300mm PF is fantastic and it takes the TC-14E II or III amazingly well and personally I'm very happy with the TC-17eII TC on this lens when shooting mirrorless but the focus wasn't always reliable, especially in lower light situations, when shooting this lens plus 1.7x TC on DSLRs.

BTW, one of the great things about Nikon's 300mm PF is its incredibly short minimum focusing distance that makes it a great lens for small but not quite macro subjects like Butterflies, Frogs, larger flowers, Dragonflies and the like and that close focusing ability isn't changed when you add a teleconverter which can make for some great close up images for small subjects you can get reasonably close to.

 

[Fenrir]

FWIW, the image quality of the 300mm PF is fantastic and it takes the TC-14E II or III amazingly well and personally I'm very happy with the TC-17eII TC on this lens when shooting mirrorless but the focus wasn't always reliable, especially in lower light situations, when shooting this lens plus 1.7x TC on DSLRs.

Sounds very promising! Some questions come to mind:

- Did you find this combo manageable in terms of stabilization as well? I heard that 300mm PF might be slightly worse than 200-500mm in terms of VR and of course any teleconverter would magnify that impression by the TC factor.

- Did you ever try to test if TC-14E gives you better details than simply cropping the image from the naked lens?

 

[arbitrage]

If 500PF is out of budget I’d go 300PF with as many TCs as you want to juggle. The 300PF was the only Nikon lens I thought worked well with the 1.7 and 2.0 TCs. Even the 500E FL didn’t please me with those TCs.

300PF is such a fun lens to use. Only issue is AF is limited with those larger TCs.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Yeah, this one would be probably the best, but unfortunately it's well outside of my budget right now.

Used prices on the 500PF have dropped like a rock since release of the Z 400mm 4.5. You might want to check places like Fred Miranda for used.

Sounds very promising! Some questions come to mind:

- Did you find this combo manageable in terms of stabilization as well? I heard that 300mm PF might be slightly worse than 200-500mm in terms of VR and of course any teleconverter would magnify that impression by the TC factor.

- Did you ever try to test if TC-14E gives you better details than simply cropping the image from the naked lens?

Barring the 500PF and since you say you like shooting prime then I second the 300mm PF/1.4x TC. Yes the IQ is very good and better than cropping. The issues with VR on that lens have reached mythical proportions on-line. If I recall in the early release there were some issues when shot at around 1/100s shutter speed. In my experience they were non-existent.

 

[DRwyoming]

- Did you find this combo manageable in terms of stabilization as well? I heard that 300mm PF might be slightly worse than 200-500mm in terms of VR and of course any teleconverter would magnify that impression by the TC factor.

In practical field use I've never come across the VR issue that was widely reported for this lens. I'm sure it is (or was) an issue that could happen at certain shutter speeds but I've never found it to be an actual issue with this lens. That may be because I just tend to avoid the shutter speeds in the problem range, especially when hand holding the lens but in my experience it's not an issue that has cost me photos.

- Did you ever try to test if TC-14E gives you better details than simply cropping the image from the naked lens?

I prefer the TC to deep cropping to achieve the same field of view.

Steve posted on just this question a while back:

Use A Teleconverter Or Crop The Image? - Backcountry Gallery

Think fast! You’re out searching for wildlife – your camera in hand – when you spot some critter you’ve always wanted to bag off in the distance. Sadly, you know that your lens is just not going to be quite long enough to get the shot you want on its own. So, here’s the question – […]

backcountrygallery.com

 

[DaveA]

Fenrir
My wife uses a D7500 with the 300PF + TC14Eiii for all of her bird and (topside) nature photography and gets excellent results. The results seem to consistently be every bit as sharp as anything I get using a D500 or D850 with the 500PF. I do most of the image processing for both of us, and based on what I see in doing this I would not see any reason to remove the TC14 and crop more to fill the frame. The TC14Eiii works very well with that lens.
I also sometimes shoot a 200-500 on either a D850 or D500, and while I feel this lens yields very good results (more than acceptably sharp), it is not quite as resolving as either the 300PF + TC14Eiii or the 500PF (at least speaking for the copies of each that we own).
Our website is below in case you would like to see examples.
Regards,
Dave

DaveandLisaPhotography

Fishy Characters & Bird Brains: Underwater, Topside Nature and Other Photographic Images by David Allen & Lisa Downs.

www.daveandlisaphotography.com

 

[Alnitak]

I don't see the Nikon 80-400 mentioned. It is faster than the 100-400's (f/4.5-5.6), and almost as quick to focus as a 70-200, and not much heavier. You can find them for $750-$800 in classifieds. Or, for in between, 70-200 with TC-1.4E (even version II for $125 or so since crop camera). I use the 200-500, both with a sling or a monopod with the mono-gimbal head. See Steve's video on the Wimberley. Very easy to carry over the shoulder, or leave the sling strap on (extrra safety too) and use the monopod as a walking stick in between locations. I now use the monopod 90% of the time...much easier to hold on target vs. handheld, at least with the 200-500.

 

[Fenrir]

Used prices on the 500PF have dropped like a rock since release of the Z 400mm 4.5. You might want to check places like Fred Miranda for used.

Thank you, I'll definitely be on the lookout. It'd be great to have this lens one day.

I don't see the Nikon 80-400 mentioned.

I forgot about this one. Do you mean the AF-S f/4.5-5.6G ED VR or the other model (f/4.5-5.6D)?

 

[NWGuy]

I've used my D7500 with the Tamron 150-600mm G2 for numerous years, have some wall hangers from that combo and still use the Tamron with my Z cameras. (hint, hint Nikon - waiting and waiting on a Z long zoom). Consider the Tamron or the Sigma 150-600mm (the Sigma 150-600mm Sport is too heavy, that's why I didn't get it initially). Both those lenses are in the $1200 range. Hope you find something that works for you.

 

[Turberticus]

500 PF. I use the D7500 + 200-500 and have no problem hand holding it, but the 500 PF should be so much easier to handle and just a bit sharper. Good luck!

 

[Garfield]

Yeah, this one would be probably the best, but unfortunately it's well outside of my budget right now.

Then I'd go with the 200-500VR which can be purchased cheaply on the used market. The 300pf is a great lens, but constantly changing TC's quickly gets old.

 

[ARClark]

When I first started getting serious about bird photography about ten years ago, I bought the older non-VR 300mm f/4 and added a 1.4x TC for 420mm f/5.6. It was a good step up from a 70-200 zoom. I got excellent results, and that lens/TC combo also worked great for "macro" photography for butterflies, flowers, dragonflies, etc. You could go essentially the same route today but with the lighter 300 PF with VR and a TC. Buy used, save money over new, and sell (or keep) if you decide you want longer lenses. My other suggested approach would be a Nikon 200-500, though it's a big step up in size and weight. FYI - beware, from that humble 300mm start, I currently own three lenses at, or can reach to, 500mm and an 800mm PF. Bird photography can be addictive.

 

[Fenrir]

Then I'd go with the 200-500VR which can be purchased cheaply on the used market.

As mentioned before, this is my current bird lens, but I'm bothered by its weight. I also like to pack light and hike with my camera, and also don't stay in one place for too long, so monopods/tripods don't really work well for me.

The 300pf is a great lens, but constantly changing TC's quickly gets old.

With this lens the goal would be to keep the TC 1.4x attached basically all the time, with some exceptions e.g. when I'm in a very low light situation and the subject allows me to get close.

Generally speaking, TC wouldn't bother me at all - as long as the image quality and AF are at least on the same level as in 200-500mm and the VR works reasonably well.

 

[Tiago C]

I currently use Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6. I use a sling style strap to carry it and it works nicely, even for 5-6 hours. That said, it can get tiring at times (I keep switching the sling from left to right to spread the weight distribution across my back) and feels pretty limiting when I want to wait for some action to occur. I can't really keep this lens steady and ready for shooting for more than half a minute.

I know a lot of people use monopod or a tripod to help with that, but it doesn't really go well with my photography style. I walk a lot and prefer to pack light.

My old Nikkor AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 is of course great for light packing, but at some point I just started to feel limited by its range. That's why I gave the 200-500mm a try.

Is there anything in between these two lenses that you can suggest for me?

So far I'm aware of these options:
- Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF + TC-14E
- Sigma C 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM

Not sure which one is better though. Generally I like to work with a single focal length so it would seem that the prime is better suited for me, but I also wonder about the sharpness and stability.

There's currently a nice local offer for used 300mm PF with TC-14E mk II, but I'm still on the fence. Any tips are welcome!

I owned a copy of the Sigma 109-400 DG with the D7500 which wasn't very sharp at 400mm but others say it can be very sharp depending on the copy. The VR/OS was OK, not amazing. I really liked that lens as a portable option but again the sharpness wasn't quite there at 400mm.
There's also the Tamron 100-400 option, which focuses faster and has better VR/OS. However it also suffers from copy variation (maybe even more so).
Apart from the Sigma 100-400, other good DSLR lenses I've owned which are lighter than the Nikon 200-500 were the Sigma 150-600 C and the older Sigma 50-500 OS. Both lenses were really nice but the 150-600 was sharper (very sharp) at the long end. Decent OS too.

 

[BillW]

I agree that the 300 mm PF plus a 1.4x TCIII is an excellent lightweight solution, especially on a DX body like the D7500 (where the field of view with the TC is the same as a 630 mm lens on an FX body). I used mine on a D500, which has the same sensor, and at times on a D850. I have since moved to Nikon's mirrorless bodies, but have kept my 300 mm PF and TC for its light weight, excellent optics and close minimum focus distance (great for butterflies, dragonflies, frogs and other small but not tiny critters). It works well on Nikon Z mirrorless bodies with the FTZ or FTZII adapter (as does the 200-500 mm lens, although I sold mine a couple of years ago) in case you were to get a mirrorless body in the future.

If you consider the 80-400 mm lens, mentioned above, I would only consider the most recent AF-S version. It's optically better than the earlier version. I've had both and used them on D500 and D850 most recently. Compared to your 200-500 mm lens, the 80-400 mm lens is lighter and focuses faster. Depending on circumstances, having 80 mm at the short end can be useful. Mine was quite sharp from 80 to 300 mm or so. It's probably not as sharp as the 200-500 mm at 400 mm, but I still found it useful at 400 mm, especially on a DX body where you are using the best part of the lens. I think the 300 mm PF plus 1.4x TCIII is probably a bit better at 400 mm than the 80-400 and on par with the 200-500 mm. One other thing to watch for with the 80-400 mm AF-S lens. It has a reputation for copy variance. I had a good copy, but I have known people who did not (as tested by a well-known photographer on a trip to Galapagos). So you might want to try it before buying or have rights to return it.

Of course, the 500 mm PF is a wonderful lens, if you can find a copy within your budget.

Good luck.

 

[JDG Photo]

The Tamron 18-400mm DX is a lightweight lens that I use for a walk about lens. It focuses very close up, so it is good for butterflies and flowers.