Wildlife lens for d7200

Dsiner

Senior Member
Need some input on a good wildlife lens for my 7200. I have a tamron 16-300 and a nikon 55-300 but want some more reach.
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
I have the Nikon 200-500 - love it to pieces.
I took my camera to the shop and tried out all three lenses. Keep in mind Sigma has the regular and hi-test version of their long lense.
I found the autofocus speed to be the final deciding factor - outweighed the extra reach of the other two - but all three (well four counting both Siggy's) have some very loyal and happy users.

An alternative is to go with a TC and 300mm. Some advantages to that set up too - can be had used for less than the new long ones - an old school options.

I did have a 200-400 first, got me started for a lot less - but not in the same league.
 

Elliot87

Senior Member
I have the 200-500mm Nikkor and it is a superb lens.
One that I'm also looking at is the new Sigma 100-400mm f5-6.3. As far as I know it is still just on pre order so can't comment on how good it will be but it is cheaper and much lighter than the 200-500mm. I'm looking at it as a more portable wildlife lens and also one my wife is able to use, the 200-500 is just too heavy for her.
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
I have the 200-500mm Nikkor and it is a superb lens.
One that I'm also looking at is the new Sigma 100-400mm f5-6.3. As far as I know it is still just on pre order so can't comment on how good it will be but it is cheaper and much lighter than the 200-500mm. I'm looking at it as a more portable wildlife lens and also one my wife is able to use, the 200-500 is just too heavy for her.

My wife also finds the 200-500 too big - as did my sister-in-law. It is hefty - all the big zooms are.

Some of the XXX - 400 may be an option, if on a APC camera and maybe with a T.C. may give you enough reach.
 

Danno

Senior Member
Need some input on a good wildlife lens for my 7200. I have a tamron 16-300 and a nikon 55-300 but want some more reach.

I have the 200-500 f/5.6 on my 7200. It is a great lens that is quick to focus and does not hunt. I use mine on a tripod with gimbal head most of the time. For me, it is too heavy to pack around. after a while, it gets hard to hold steady. I like the fixed aperture through the whole zoom range.

Most of what I shoot with it are small backyard birds and such.
 

Elliot87

Senior Member
My wife also finds the 200-500 too big - as did my sister-in-law. It is hefty - all the big zooms are.

Some of the XXX - 400 may be an option, if on a APC camera and maybe with a T.C. may give you enough reach.

The new Sigma 100-400mm weighs in at just 1160g vs the 200-500mm at 2300g, put simply it will be half the weight. I think for a lot of people that will be huge. The downside is that at f/6.3 using a TC is going to be even less practical. Of course an even lighter option is the 300mm f/4 pf and with a 1.4xTC it is about the same reach but still faster at f/5.6 vs f/6.3. The downside of that is it will be double the price once you factor in a teleconverter and you lose the flexibility of the zoom.

The ultimate test will be just how sharp the new Sigma 100-400mm is wide open at 400mm. If it can more or less match the 200-500mm and 300mm at 420mm for IQ then I will be tempted. Ultimately I think a lot of budding wildlife photographers will opt for it over the 70-300's and many others looking for a more manageable/portable wildlife lens might go for it over the heftier options on the market, that is if it also has good IQ.
 

lokatz

Senior Member
This is an older series of posts, so it may have become a moot point for the original poster. However, I am surprised nobody brought up the Nikon 300mm F4 PF. I've had that lens for a few months now and am blown away by how well it performs. I tested it pretty thoroughly against a few others I was considering at the time, mainly Nikon 70-200 F2.8 and F4, as well as Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2, and it blew them all out of the water. All tests were shot handheld in fairly dark conditions. Ok, those other lenses all had less reach, but they also weigh twice as much as this 755g lens that easily outperforms them. If low weight is your thing, the only real alternative is the Nikon 70-300, which looks like it's been fogged up when you compare shots side-by-side (did that - not kidding).

Now, 300mm is not long enough for me. I do lots of birding and also shoot other small animals. Since buying the 300 F4 PF, I have tested Nikon's TC-14 and TC-20, both in their latest incarnations, with this lens, and found an interesting effect: while the TC-14 shows slightly better optical performance than the TC-20, I still get better sharpness out of the 300mm lens without TC, versus using the TC-14, if enlarging the shot in Photoshop accordingly. That is not the case with the TC-20 - sharpness is better with the TC.

On my D500, the 300mm plus TC-20 is a combination that's nearly impossible to beat: at an effective focal length (35mm equiv.) of 900mm, I can still shoot handheld at 1/30s and get tack-sharp pictures. Camera plus lens plus TC together come in about four pounds, still less than the 200-500mm WITHOUT camera. Not an overly cheap combo, but for far less than most serious wildlife lenses run, I feel this is a real keeper and highly recommend it.
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
Thats very interesting, I wouldnt have considered that the 2xTC would have been a real option.
How much does it slow the AF down at f8, and does it still do OK in low light conditions ?
 

lokatz

Senior Member
Hi Brad, Hard to be precise here, but at least on my D500, the AF is still plenty fast. It is pitch dark here in Berlin right now and I just tried shooting a dimly lit window across the street. The AF still felt instantaneous without any hunting. At admittedly very high ISO (25600), I even got a sharp shot of a car wheel that's in incredibly dim light.

You do need the fast AF of the D5/500, though - I'm not getting much from my D7100 under these conditions.
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
OK, thanks for that info Lokatz. Sounds like a viable option, and a low weight one at that.
Another one is the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 + 2xTC, which would be f5.6, at a much heavier weight. I wonder how the IQ would compare.
 

lokatz

Senior Member
I looked at the Sigma, as well, but what scared me away wasn't so much the weight but the fact that ColorFoto, a German magazine that does very thorough and systematic testing (albeit on Nikon D7100 in the APS-C category), gave it 68.5 points for IQ where the Nikon 300 PF received 75.5, which in the tele range is topped only by Nikon's 400 F2.8 FL (77.5 points, >$10,000, almost 4kg). The average across all lenses they ever tested on the D7100 is 62.5, which indicates how far the 300 PF stands out.

Plus, it is an FX lens, so if I ever want to make the switch, I won't have to buy new glass. In the FX ranking, tested on Nikon D800, it is topped only by two behemoths, Nikon's 500 F4 FL and Sigma's 500, both inching in exactly one point above the 300 PF (and each weighing four times as much).
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
If I had the money to spare, I would buy the Sigma 500 f4, but it's well out of my budget unfortunately.
But the Nikon 300 sounds like a great lens. I am using the Tamron 150-600 G1 at the moment, it would be interesting to compare it against the 300 + 2xTC.
 

lokatz

Senior Member
I am using the Tamron 150-600 G1 at the moment, it would be interesting to compare it against the 300 + 2xTC.

I can only speculate here since it's really not an apples-to-apples comparison, but the magazine I mentioned, ColorFoto, tested both lenses on full-frame D800. (Unfortunately, they did not test the Tamron on DX.)

The Tamron got an IQ score of 63.5 (7 below average), with the Nikon 300 PF at 83.5 (13 above average). The TC does affect IQ some, but my testing convinced me to go with the TC-20 instead of simply up-zooming in Photoshop because of better sharpness, so I'd still expect the 300 PF to be a clear winner at 600mm.

(Interestingly, Tamron's newer and pricier G2 scored two points lower on IQ than the old one. )
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
I have been close a couple of times to buying the older afs 300 f4, I might hold off on that idea until I look into the new one a bit more.
All my money is going into house renovations at the moment, so new camera gear will have to wait for a while.
 

lokatz

Senior Member
In case you're wondering: Nikon's old(non-PF)-versus-new(PF) 300 lenses score 71/83.5 for FX and 67.5/75.5 for DX in those IQ tests.
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
I used to own one before i got the Nikon version, the second hand prices for the Siggy f/4.5 are (relatively) cheap compared to the Nikon f/4

I have seen a few 500 f4.5's going for about half the new price of the new 500 f4 Sport here in Australia. I suspect people are offloading them to get the new one.
 
Top