Lens for Eagle pics and wildlife?

<p>Hello<br>

i have a Nikon D7100 i have a 55-300 mm Nikon lens currently but i am looking for a lens around 1200 or less any suggestions would be appreciated </p>

<p>Based on the reviews I have seen from several sources, I would say your best bet for that price point would be the new Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 lens. It is a couple of hundred dollars more than the budget you specify, but again based on the reviews it would be the best lens for what you want.</p>

Thanks. .what about the Tameron

150-600 lens has anyone used this

<p>It appears that there are 4 options that fit your wishes and general budget. The Nikon 200-500, as already stated, is a little more than your budget, but would do the trick nicely. Second, there are 2 150-600 mm zooms, one each from Sigma and Tamron. Sigma actually makes 2 of the 150-600's, one called the Contemporary (and within your budget) and the other the Sport (and well over your budget). These 2 are different optically and physically, but the less expensive Contemporary version has been well received. The last option is the tried and true Nikon 300 f4 AF-S (second hand) with teleconverter(s) (this is not the latest 300 PF version with VR, but the previous AF-S version without VR). This last option, of necessity, involves buying a used lens, and whether that is to your liking is entirely up to you.</p>

<p>Each lens has its merits, and a search of threads about each of these in the dpreview.com forum will yield enough reading material to last the rest of the winter. And reading is probably necessary here - It is a way to arm yourself with the experience of others with each lens. And a surprisingly large number of users have purchased and compared 2 or more of these.</p>

<p>But beware of negative reviews. The price of these new lenses have moved a lot of amateurs to buy a long telephoto for the first time, and a lot of them tested the lens and wrote their assessments without necessarily developing the specialized skills of shooting with a long telephoto lens. There are user reviews of all of these lenses that found the lenses to be soft, unable to focus accurately, etc, that may well reflect the shooters' limitations more than the lens' limitations. Positive reviews, especially those with example images included, show what the lens can do, as well as what the shooter can do.</p>

<p>The best approach I can recommend is to take your camera and get to a store that sells these lenses, put each lens on your camera in the store, and shoot and fiddle with them. Judge for yourself how the lens/camera balances in your hands, how the controls are placed, which way the zoom ring rotates, and the weight of each rig. If you can do this, I think the one you want will identify itself this way. How it feels and works in your hands is an essential characteristic - you'll be more effective using one that feels comfortable to you.</p>

<p>There's a blog written by Brad Hill in Canada - he has purchased and tested (exhaustively) a Tamron 150-600, a Sigma 150-600 Sport (the one that's over your budget), and the Nikon 200-500. You can find his blog at http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html. He isn't paid by any of the manufacturers, nor does his web site include advertisements. You can judge for yourself whether his opinions are learned and worth listening to yourself - just take a look at his gallery. His opinion of a lens is just one opinion, like each other user's opinion. But his testing has been really systematic, and he does a very good job of describing how he has tested each lens, and is very good about making sure the reader knows what he didn't test and what conclusions should not be drawn from his test results.</p>

<p>I use the Nikon 300 f4 with 1.4X and 1.7X Nikon teleconverters, and I love the results. I miss the convenience of a zoom, but as a retiree, I have made a decision that I'm not going to spend the money to buy one of these new lenses - to me, a $1,000 purchase represents enough money to spend 2 weeks in Yellowstone, and I'd rather have those 2 weeks than a new lens. But, if I was buying, base on all I've seen and read, I'd buy the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. For wildlife shooting, there's no such thing as too much reach, and reviews of the Sigma Contemporary have me convinced the performance would be quite satisfactory.</p>

<p>Good luck in your search. In many ways, I envy you.</p>

Thankyou where's a good website

or store to buy used equipment?

<p>I briefly tried the Tamron in a store, and found it pretty nice, but the optical stabilization was not as good as that on the Nikon. I did not try a Sigma, none available locally. Combined with the slight aperture advantage, the Nikon definitely wins over the Tamron for hand holding in low light. </p>

<p>I purchased my Nikon 300 f4 AF-S lens and Nikon 1.4X teleconverter from KEH.com. I have also purchased a couple of other small items from them and sold a couple of items to them. I think that they are regarded as the standard for the used gear market and have been for many years They have a reputation for being very conservative about grading their merchandise - my 300 f4 was graded EX (a notch lower than EX+ and 2 notches below LN- which mean Like New), and, frankly, I found no evidence that the lens, its caps and case weren't brand new. KEH also includes a 6 month warranty on most of their items.</p>

<p>There are other places that sell used equipment - B&H and Adorama come immediately to mind. I've not done business with them for used gear so I have no experience to share. Others here may be able to speak about such places, both of whom enjoy high regard for their retail practices for new equipment.</p>

<p>The 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR is the obvious choice. You can take at look at <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=9020100">Chris H</a>'s posts on the following thread: <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dVDu&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiBy97ft8PKAhUJ2GMKHVS8DVsQFggEMAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNEp7gCQ9tOQUcOn3euXu-MBumF4aQ" target="_top" data-ctorig="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dVDu" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dVDu&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiBy97ft8PKAhUJ2GMKHVS8DVsQFggEMAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNEp7gCQ9tOQUcOn3euXu-MBumF4aQ">Nikon 200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR Lens Early Impressions</a></p>

<p>Canadian wildlife photographer Brad Hill seems to have a lot of experience with these lenses. Initially I read his blog with a lot of interest. Later on, he started talking about hand holding those long lenses at 1/50 sec and their VR performance, and I lost interest. I use those long lenses for wildlife. Regardless of how well VR works or how stable your tripod maybe at 1/50 sec, any subject movement will show at 1/50 sec. Typically I rarely use below 1/250 sec with those lenses (even for "still" birds standing on a tree) unless I have no other choice.</p>

<p>With the Nikon 200-500mm/f5.6 option, I wouldn't consider those third-party 150-600mm/f6.3 lenses as they drop below f5.6 close to their long end, and Nikon AF becomes iffy.</p>

<p>The main problem with the Nikon 300mm/f4 AF-S without VR (not the latest PF with VR version) is slow AF. It can be very problematic for birds in flight. Optically that lens is excellent. 300mm is also short so that you'll need a 1.4x TC frequently, which further exasperates the AF speed problem.</p>

<p>I have to agree with Shun - the shutter speeds Mr Hill uses with long lenses are remarkable, and completely irrelevant to my shooting. But if he gets sharp images that way, it tells me what the lens can do. What he can do in the way of hand-holding the lens doesn't mean anything to me and my photography. The fact that he gets good shots using a 400/2.8 handheld in a floating Zodiac tells me his shooting doesn't relate to mine.</p>

<p>I see how people can prefer the Nikon 200-500, and over the years I've had a preference for the Nikon brand over 3rd party hardware in general. The only reason I'd pick the Sigma over the Nikon is the additional 100 mm. As Gretzky taught us all, "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take," and the 200-500 won't be taking any 600 mm shots. That extra reach has value, at least to my viewpoint. It's always a personal choice.</p>

<p>Shun's right on about the 300/4 focus speed. When I got mine, the improvement it offered over my old Nikon 80-400D was terrific, and I don't shoot birds in flight much at all (not to many of them here in the desert!). I've had some success but only with large birds - eagles, herons, etc. Sea gulls are generally too fast for me, but I suspect that's more my limitation than the lens. I haven't found any meaningful change in autofocus performance with my 1.4X, but there's an unmistakeable loss with my 1.7X.<br>

I can also see value in the Sigma being a new lens. I could get a 300/4 AF-S and a 1.4X Nikon TC for about the same money as the Sigma, and the Sigma is new, with a new product warranty. That will attract a lot of buyers, too. </p>

An issue to consider is weight. If you want to hike around freely and shoot as you go, the 200-500 mm Nikon may be too

heavy. I have owned a number of lenses over the years and find the heavy ones literally a pain to hike with, so I

eventually sell them, in spite of their virtues.

<p>I have been very happy with the Tamron 150-600mm on a D7100. I have gotten sharp shots at 1/40th at 600mm, despite the shaky hands that have come with age. With small flitty birds, subject motion was more of a hindrance. That was under a rain forest canopy on a cloudy day; I later decided I should have increased the ISO limit in Auto ISO. The lens and camera are light enough to carry for hours, although the tripod foot isn't as comfortable a carrying handle as on the 150-500mm Sigma. If I was buying today, I think I'd be perplexed to decide between Nikon quality on the 200-500mm and the extra reach of the Tamron (mostly on the long end, of course). </p>

I have the Tamron and use it with my D750. I inherited it and probably would not have bought it for myself but I'm very

happy with it in the limited situations where I've used it. The only thing is, as with all lenses with these big tele ranges, it's

quite large. The physical handling takes practice. It wants to be on a tripod or at least a monopod, and if you want to

shoot handheld you need to practice your stance and grip and even breathing - it's like handling a rifle.

If one wants to photograph eagles and wildlife, long and big lenses come with the territory. Nikon has a 80-400mm AF-S

VR, but even a used one is going to way exceed the $1200 budget, and 400mm is still on the short side. Those Tamron

150-600 and Nikon 200-500 are not nearly as heavy as the Nikon 500mm/f4 and 600mm/f4. One is unlikely going to hand

hold them all day. If you hike with them inside a backpack, IMO it is very manageable. I prefer to use the 200-500 from a tripod, but it is also handholdable.

 

The Tamron 150-600 was popular for a year and half, but after Nikon introduced the 200-500mm, Tamron has been

discounting it to move them. The Nikon is the easy choice now unless you absolutely have to save $500 or so.

Not implying that big lenses don't come with the territory :-). However, someone who is currently using a 55-300mm lens may

not realize what they are getting into when purchasing such a lens. I learned this the hard way.

<p>Same question, zoom lens for DX body.</p>

<p>I second the redo for <a href="http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#anchor_2015_GearStuff">Brad Hill's excellent reviews</a> comparing the Nikkor 200-500 and the Sigma. (Use the link and look for posts Sept-November 2015).</p>

<p>I went with the 200-500 Nikkor and I am extremely pleased. Sharp wide open at f/5.6 and 500mm. VR works well. This is about the longest I want to handle on a DX body. I'll post a sample shortly. </p>

<p>And, I'll add that any of the 300 f/4 lenses are very good. Before the 200-500, I used the oldest 300 f/4 AF and was very pleased.</p>

<p>Here is a sample shot from the 200-500mm Nikkor. Some post processing. Shot at 280mm, wide open f/5.6, reasonably close to the bird.</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/160207-GBH-Wakodahatchee-D721089-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And, here is <a href="http://2under.net/images/160207-GBH-Wakodahatchee-D721089-Max.jpg">link to the full-resolution file</a> (jpg, 5MB)</p>