Upgrading tele for wildlife, need suggestions

[TKC_D500]

I rented the Sigma 150-600/TC combo before Christmas as part of my research into what lens to buy for BIF and with that combo on my D500 it would auto focus out to 600 but only in the middle of the day in full sunlight. As the sun started to drop the struggle started. At dusk there was no chance with the TC while without focusing was very good. Granted this was a short sample of one combination on one day, but I did cross that combo off my list. I have settled on the Tamron 150-600 Gen 2 as soon as I sell some extra motorcycle junk I have held onto for too long!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, a couple of quick thoughts here. Most higher end Nikon bodies with the better AF systems are rated to be able to work at F8. However in practice once you get to this point unless you have pretty good lighting the AF system will be slower, and have a tendency to hunt more. As the lighting starts to fall off a bit the AF systems gets dodgy, sometimes even refusing to lock at all.

Teleconverters do get a very bad rap because a lot of folks who buy them initially really don't understand their limitations or proper operation. If you get a cheap teleconverter, yes you will most likely end up with a noticeable IQ loss. If you use any teleconverter with a low end lens, yes again your IQ is going to be noticeably affected.

A good teleconverter on a lens with really good IQ that is fast enough (F/2.8 preferable for 2x, F/4 for say 1.4) will produce very good results. Yes, if you pixel peep the crap out of stuff you can probably find some minute differences, especially in the corners. However pixel peep any shot enough and you can find problems, if you really want to find them.

So, my recommendations on TC's - use them with fast lenses of good quality. If you need to shoot just a tad bit wide, crop out the corners since that's usually where any IQ loss will be at all noticeable.

 

[robbins.photo]

Oh, quick addendum. When possible yes, it's always better to have a longer focal length as opposed to shooting with a TC.

However, since the OP was looking at purchasing the 70-200mm 2.8 anyway, that's why I recommended he might wish to get it and a TC for now and then get a Sigma/Tamron 600mm option later on down the road.

Just my 2 cents worth of course, YMMV

 

[BeerBelly]

The thing about the 150-600 zooms with variable apertures are the values the lens sends back to the body when conveying data. It cheats a little bit and presents the actual aperture of f6.3 as f5.6. This happens for two reasons:
1) to allow phase AF on older bodies that do not have the capability to AF at F8;
2) to allow the use of TCs on newer bodies that do have this capability

This is also the reason why some bodies underexpose a bit on these lenses.

That said, I think these lenses are a true revelation when it comes to wildlife photography. They are an "affordable" way of getting to 600mm, while providing excellent IQ along the way. Sure, the exotic primes provide even better IQ, but for hobbyists and amateurs they are a dream come true.
I would say the biggest difference between them is copy variation. They are all adequately sharp (with the Sigma 150-600 Sports and Tamron 150-600 G2 leading the way), but what is important is also how they will be used. For handholding...I would probably rule out the Sigma 150-600 Sports (at 3 kilos it's a lot to handle) and go with the G2 Tamron most likely.

 

[snj979s]

Any reason to get a
[h=1]TC-14E, verses a
[/h][h=1]TC-14E I,
[/h][h=1]TC-14E II, or
[/h][h=1]TC-14E IV? lol They all the same thing other than looks? Difference in quality?
[/h]

 

[snj979s]

BTW I've pretty much settled on the 300mm f4 AFS. Cheap, comparatively light, sharp, super well respected. And I so rarely need to zoom back when I shoot eagles. I'll get the 70-200 later since I'm in love with my 85mm for portraits.

 

[BeerBelly]

If 300mm is enough for you then the 300 AF-S F4 sounds good. I would argue though that if you intend to use TCs, you might be better off using a lens that gets you those focal lengths natively. The TCs, while helpful, do present a hit on AF speed and image quality. So if you intend to use them most of the time and turn your lens into a semi-permanent 420/5.6, my suggestion would be to take a look at the Nikon 200-500 or one of the 150-600 zooms, because you will get faster AF and most likely better image quality from them.

Now as far as the difference between the Nikon versions of the 1.4 TC...I can't help you much there because I haven't used any of them. I do recall reading that the newest ones do not physically fit on the old AF-D lenses.

 

[mikew_RIP]

I think if you pick the right 1.4 converter you will not notice any loss in IQ the 300f4 afs has IQ to spare, do check about fittings and compatibility there were some changes in them at different times.

 

[snj979s]

I do intend to use the 300mm prime w tc-14 extender some. I also want just better IQ at 300mm for cropping in post. I haven't been convinced (yet) that the options in my price range (under 2k) would be significantly better in terms of IQ and af than that combo. 300 plus tc-14 = 420mm 5.6 verses 200-500 5.6 at 420mm. Later option worth double the price and weight?

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Any reason to get a
TC-14E, verses a
TC-14E I,
TC-14E II, or
TC-14E IV? lol They all the same thing other than looks? Difference in quality?

No, they are not "all the same thing other than looks". They are most definitely different optically, some have better/faster AF, some offer better weather sealing...

You really need to do some research.

 

[BeerBelly]

I do intend to use the 300mm prime w tc-14 extender some. I also want just better IQ at 300mm for cropping in post. I haven't been convinced (yet) that the options in my price range (under 2k) would be significantly better in terms of IQ and af than that combo. 300 plus tc-14 = 420mm 5.6 verses 200-500 5.6 at 420mm. Later option worth double the price and weight?

I'm not really sure where you're getting the double weight and price...The 300 with 1.4TC combo will weigh slightly less than the 200-500 and cost again, slighty less, but nowhere near the double mark you're reffering to. I think that the 200-500 peaks in sharpness at 300mm and is only slightly less sharp at 500mm, while giving you the flexibility of the zoom. I know a few photographers that switched from the 300 + TC to the 200-500. They compared both lenses and couldn't tell the difference in sharpness between them...Your call, but I vote for the 200-500.

 

[Woodyg3]

If 300mm is enough for you then the 300 AF-S F4 sounds good. I would argue though that if you intend to use TCs, you might be better off using a lens that gets you those focal lengths natively. The TCs, while helpful, do present a hit on AF speed and image quality. ..

I use the 300mm / 1.4x TC combination all the time, and the AF is very fast and IQ excellent. It is better than my Tamron 150-600. I can't speak for the Nikon 200-500 since I don't have that lens.

I do intend to use the 300mm prime w tc-14 extender some. I also want just better IQ at 300mm for cropping in post. I haven't been convinced (yet) that the options in my price range (under 2k) would be significantly better in terms of IQ and af than that combo. 300 plus tc-14 = 420mm 5.6 verses 200-500 5.6 at 420mm. Later option worth double the price and weight?

I'm not really sure where you're getting the double weight and price...The 300 with 1.4TC combo will weigh slightly less than the 200-500 and cost again, slighty less, but nowhere near the double mark you're reffering to. I think that the 200-500 peaks in sharpness at 300mm and is only slightly less sharp at 500mm, while giving you the flexibility of the zoom. I know a few photographers that switched from the 300 + TC to the 200-500. They compared both lenses and couldn't tell the difference in sharpness between them...Your call, but I vote for the 200-500.

The 300mm with TC weighs in at 3.5 pounds, while the 200-500 weights 5.1 pounds. Not double, but it might be significant when out in the field for hours.

The VR and zoom capabilities of the 200-500 will be a serious consideration for many users. I use my 300/1.4X combo most of the time, but in low light the 150-600 Tamron sometimes gets the nod due to image stabilization. Again, I haven't used the Nikon 200-500. I suspect that if I were in the OP's situation, I would be very tempted to go with the 200-500, and I would build stronger arm muscles in the process.

 

[snj979s]

No, they are not "all the same thing other than looks". They are most definitely different optically, some have better/faster AF, some offer better weather sealing...

You really need to do some research.

Agreed. I haven't looked into TC individually enough to purchase. Tho Rockwell and others have said it doesn't matter between I, II, and III which contradicted what some have said here, hence my asking. ;-)

 

[snj979s]

Well I will say I've spoken to a photog on flickr who has absolutely amazing images of all sorts of wildlife who shoots with the 200-500. Said he use to use 300s. I'll also note I am also impressed by how well respected it is and can find very few of them for sale used even for being relatively new to the market. Thanks everyone. I have time, will research it more.

 

[snj979s]

In reading about crop factor and pixel density I've also mulled over upgrading my crop kit verses my d800. I have a Sony a65 with better frame rate, decent focusing, and I'm assuming good pixel density. I could grab a long lens for it for wildlife. Problem is I love my d800 it has advantages namely blipping awesome high ISO performance. I can use auto ISO minimized to 2500 and have complete control over shutter and aperture while maintaining quick exposure through auto-ISO. Wildlife don't always wait for you to expose them. Than again the Sony 70-400mm G on a crop would give me splendid range and the photographic equivalent of a swiss army knife. Thoughts?

 

[Danno_RIP]

If I were going to upgrade a Crop Sensor kit for wild life I would go with the D500 and my Nikon f/200-500 5.6 because I like the fixed aperture thru the zoom range. I set my 7200 to 1/1200 shutter speed and Auto Iso and I have no issues with focus in changing light. Even shots into a dark bank of trees are quick and sharp.

The only thing that limits me with my system is health related... It is heavy and I am no longer 10 feet tall and bullet proof. I think the Sony is fine but the D500 is better. I even prefer the D7200 even with the slower frame rate and smaller buffer.

 

[harleridr]

Hi
I use an 80-200d f2.8 and a 300d f4 with a tc14b with great success. These can be bought rather "cheaply", though prices are going up with the advent of Nikon's full frame cameras. Care must be taken when buying a TC. this has to do with the way the inner lens is made. On some lenses the inner lens is recessed and on others it stickes out somewhat from the body. My TC14B has the lens on the female side pretruding out from the lens mount which means I must use a lens with a recessed inner lens. I don't know if all Nikon tcs work like this or not.

 

[BeerBelly]

I've always found maintaining two systems as quite difficult. Crop sensor would help with reach, but you will lose the high iso performance. The best thing would be to go with the D500 but it's also the most expensive option. The D500 is undoubtedly the king of APS-C. That is my dream setup...but it'll take a while for me to get there.

 

[snj979s]

I'm thinking of selling my Sony kit. It just makes more sense to use a second body of the same brand. All my lenses for Nikon work on dx. Was looking at the D7200 some today. But it doesn't solve my dilemma of wanting more reach (potentially from a crop) and wanting to retain the high ISO performance of my full frame. Best option may be what most of you have been saying, just getting a lens with more reach for my D800. I was shooting eagles yesterday (I added one as my first image here, check it out!) and I do think I would miss being able to zoom. Also my arms are sore today from holding a lens that is much less in weight than the super-zooms. So I'm still conflicted between the 300mm (I could get the feather weight PF version) and the 200-500 (zoom plus bigger muscles). lol

 

[snj979s]

Anyone use the Tamron 150-600mm G2? I'm taking a second look at it after learning the reviews I read on it were on the first generation version.