70-300mm or 150-600mm

Hi all,

I need a lens to capture birds as my primary goal. I have a 55-200mm kit lens but it does not have the reach I need. I have a chance to buy a Nikon 70-300mm VR lens for $250.00 but am concerned that it will not have enough reach. Should I look to something like a 150-600mm lens instead? Money is also a concern as a retired guy.

Rick

The Nikon AF-S 70-300 VR is a bit soft beyond 200 mm setting. The new AF-P DX 70-300 VR is much sharper in the long end according to reviews, but I don't have first hand knowledge. Then Nikon has just announced a third lens in this category, AF-P 70-300 VR for full frame, but that is not yet available. Make sure you compare the correct lens when putting them side by side.

I guess you'll be using a DX camera? I think 300 mm is useful but maybe a bit on the short side with birds. Something in the 400-500 mm category might be better but also much more expensive. It is too bad Nikon doesn't currently offer a 400 mm f/5.6 lens. That wouldn't break the bank nor be too big or heavy.

Howdy Rick,

As a former D7100 shooter myself, I think the answer to your question is really going to come down to budget. From my experience, the 70-300 even on a crop sensor is going to come up feeling a little short. It might just hit your budget price point though.

My preferred lens as a starting point is the Nikon 200-500mm/f5.6, but it's also probably on the far end of your budget. A good compromise though could be the Tamron 150-600mm G1 lens. It's not as fast as the Nikon, but does have an extra 100mm of focal length on the long end. Used, you can probably find this lens in the $600 range while people with the earlier G1 model are upgrading to the G2 or moving to the Nikon lens.

I have the Tamron SP 70-300, it is a good lens and fairly sharp. You can get good bird shots only if you are close. I also have the Sigma C 150-600. The Sigma certainly gets me closer and I enjoy having it. It is also big and heavy, so think about the size. My Sigma hangs around the back yard or it goes in the boat with me or stays near the car. I wouldn't want to walk around all day with it. The 70-300 is much better for all day general use even though it will leave me short for distance. The 160-600 is great for wildlife, but big. So think about your carry needs and balance that with the reach you want. They are really two very different lenses, its hard to make it an either/or choice without extreme compromises.


Here's a pic of the two side by side.

Before I got the Tamron 150-600 G1, my longest lens was the Nikon 70-300VR. It is a bit short for a birding lens, but you can still get some good shots with it, if you can get close enough it may be all you need.
Now that I have 600mm, its still too short sometimes.
Secondhand Tamron G1's are going pretty cheap these days.

I have the 70-300 G lens and do use it with my D7100 and D750 on occasion. Just like any other longer lens you have to use proper technique. As long as you do even at 300MM it is sharp and a pretty good birding lens. BUT it does come up short if you are at any distance. I have a 150-600 that I use on my D750 when I go birding. On the rare occasion I let my wife use that lens on her D7100 it becomes a very long lens and she does pretty good with it.

If you can swing it the a 150-600 is the better choice but if not then the 70-300 on your D7100 will do a decent job. Just make sure it is fine tuned to that camera.

i' have a 70-300 both fx and dx and the 200-500. These are not in the same league, if they were I'd be some disappointed given the cost difference. i have use a 1.4 TC on both, it works to extend but cost a stop of light and some loss of sharpness but does get you 40% closer it is a trade off you could scout out some used older ones i had a tammy 200-400 cheap enough and was good introduction but cant say id recommend that one there are many older longer lenses out there if you can try before you buy that's best

The Nikon 70-300mm VR lens is very sharp, even at 300mm. especially on the D7100. I don't know where some people get the idea that it is soft past 200mm. They either had a bad copy or just relying on internet hearsay and never have owned that combination.

For 250 dollars I would jump all over that lens if budget is tight.

Simple rule. When it comes to birds you can never have enough reach.

My Nikon 70-300vr is just as sharp at 300 as it is at 200.

2nd hand 70-300's are going for around Aust$400 for a decent copy, Tamron 150-600's are going for around Aust$800. If birding will be the primary use of the lens, I would save a little longer and get the Tamron. Just be aware some Tamron G1's have had AF issues. Mine has just come back from being repaired under warranty, it is a lot better now with AF and image quality than before.

I started with a 70-300mm Tamron VC, it got me by but wasn't long enough for birds generally and also not super sharp. I now have the Nikon 200-500mm and the extra reach is so much better and it is a whole lot sharper than my Tamron 70-300mm was, even wide open at 500mm it is much sharper. The major down side is the size, weight and cost of this lens.

There is an option coming out soon that will sit somewhere in between the two. Sigma are releasing a 100-400mm f/5-6.3 lens which will be light and compact compared to the 150-600's and from what I've seen it may be priced at around $800. It is yet to be seen how this lens performs but on paper it looks good. I'd love to get one as a travel wildlife lens.
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/100-400mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-c