Super telephoto for Nikon D750

[BratNikotin]

I am looking for something entry level for Nikon D750, with something like 300mm+ capabilities.
Looked at Sigma 150-600, but it is unbearably huge, and I won't have ability to use.  So, I wanted to ask, if there is something smaller in bulkiness, but with the super photo range.
I look at the Tamron 18-400mm F/3.5-6.3 DI-II

But wanted to ask, if there is a problem using it on the full frame D750 ?  Is it quick to focus?  
Anything else, you can recommend?  I am OK getting a very old used lens, as long as the autofocus is supported on my camera

[mike_halliwell]

Used Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 lenses are a steal at the mo'....🙂

[Dieter Schaefer]

It's a DX lens, so it won't cover the entire sensor of your D750. Or force the D750 to work in DX mode - which is 10.7MP only

Edited May 18, 2023 by Dieter Schaefer

[bgelfand]

I use the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 A022N on my D750. It is slightly smaller than the Sigma. I tested both lenses on my D750 and found the Tamron sharper to my eye. With its excellent VR, I do not have any problems hand holding it. If you find it too heavy, consider using a monopod with it.

The Nikon weighing 5.07 pounds  is even heavier than the Tamron at 4.38 pounds 

[mike_halliwell]

Or the same weight if you take the pointless foot off....😉

[roland_vink]

If the Sigma 150-600 is too big, then other zooms with similar zoom range like the Tamron 150-600 and Nikon 200-500 are also likely to be too big.

More compact lenses beyond 300mm are the AF-S 80-400. Another option is the AF-S 300/4 with or without a teleconverter.

If 300mm is enough, the AF-P 70-300/4.5-5.6 is your best bet - much more compact and affordable than the other options.

[ShunCheung]

It depends on the budget and the focal length range desired. The AF-S VR version of the 80-400 is quite good, but avoid the earlier, AF-D version using screwdriver AF. The 300mm/f4 AF-S VR PF is quite light, but it is not a zoom and you may want to use it with a 1.4x TC.

[Dieter Schaefer]

8 minutes ago, ShunCheung said:

The AF-S VR version of the 80-400 is quite good

Not really. Clearly lags behind the 200-500 optically. Would only consider if available at a decent discount; it's not wort the $2100 asking price.

According to my local store, the Tamron 150-600 is their most sold tele-zoom.

[bob_flood1]

If 500 or 600 mm is longer than you want right now, Sigma and Tamron both offer a 100-400 mm lens with stabilization. I suggest you search for reviews of both.

I agree that the older 80-400D (screw drive) is to be avoided these days. Mine is a very good 80-300, not much of a 300-400. I shoot with the Nikon AF-S 300 f4D, a version older and heavier than the PF, but really good optically. I use a 1.4X TC to get 420 mm, and a 1.7X TC to get 510. Not as convenient in the field as a zoom, but awfully good optically.

[mike_halliwell]

I guess you could get a 300mm f4 PF and add the latest TC1.4 to get to 420mm.

Probably the lightest and most compact way to >400mm

[ShunCheung]

Dieter, you have the same opinion as a photo buddy of mine. That person and I both had the 80-400 AF-S VR and 200-500/5.6 AF-S VR in the late 2010's. He thought the 200-500 was the better lens and sold his 80-400, but I like the 80-400 a lot more than most people do. I recently traded my 200-500 in for another Z lens. Optically, I think the 200-500 is very good for a consumer zoom, but its AF speed is not that suitable for birds in flight, even on my D5. It is also a fairly heavy lens, but for the original $1400 price tag, it was a great deal in 2015. More recently, Nikon USA has discounted it to around $1060; that is a wonderful price in an era when the F-mount is gradually out of favor.

Depending on the OP's budget and weight tolerance, there are a number of options from Nikon and third parties. For those who are using the F-mount, there are a lot of bargain prices. For example, the 300/4 PF, 80-400, and 500/5.6 PF are all candidates. I am not that familiar with non-Nikkor F-mount lenses, but I probably would avoid any DX option for the D750.

[Dieter Schaefer]

30 minutes ago, ShunCheung said:

Optically, I think the 200-500 is very good for a consumer zoom, but its AF speed is not that suitable for birds in flight, even on my D5.

Optically, the AF-S 80-400 is head and shoulders above the older AF-D version; same goes for AF speed. While I agree that the 200-500's AF speed is slower than that of the AF-S 80-400; optically, the 200-500 is better above about 300mm (I have rarely used the 200-500 towards the lower focal length range). The AF-S 80-400 starts strong at the lower end but loses at lot towards the long end. A direct comparison of my 200-500 with my 500PF shows the 500PF optically ahead - but not by a wide margin. Astonishingly, the 200-500 also takes the 200-500 rather well (con't mount that one behind the AF-S 80-400; it's a waste of effort) - but just like with the 500PF on a D850 or D500, the AF performance leaves a lot to be desired. On that note, the Z9 handles the 500PF/TC-14EIII combo just fine, both optically as also in terms of AF performance.

Yes, AF performance of the 200-500 for birds in flight is not optimum - but entirely doable if one doesn't try to get small, fast, agile birds. Those with a rather predictable flight behavior aren't a big problem, provided one can acquire focus early.

I am keeping my AF-S 80-400 only for one reason - its trade-in value is very low at about 20% of its current price new. In addition to the general F-mount "falling out of favor" this seems to indicate to me that its reputation is not the best. Once I got the 200-500, I have not used the 80-400 even once for wildlife photography. I kept if for travel - where it is now replaced by the optically superior Sony 100-400.

 

IIRC, the AF-S 80-400 cost $2700 at introduction back in 2013 - a price that definitely was not warranted by it's performance. Nonetheless, it replaced my AF-S 300/4 as it was about as sharp as the the 300/TC-14E combo and definitely faster focusing.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Dieter Schaefer

[Matthew Currie]

Just a quick note because people often mention the old 80-400 D lens,  and if you have not used one you might be tempted to wonder "how bad could it really be?" given its current price.  I have one (or access to one that my wife used to use but does not any more).  Optically, though it gets pretty soft at the long end, I think it's not perhaps as awful as some people make out,  but its AF is not just slow, but dead slow, to the point that it is essentially worthless for action.  It actually is measurably the slowest AF of any Nikon lens made.  You might as well be focusing manually.  It's too bad, as it's a nice size for carrying around, despite also having one of the least useful tripod feet ever made.*  On film, it sort of made sense, but for any digital camera that allows cropping,  any good 300 blows it away.

The 200-500 is indeed pretty big and heavy, but if you can carry it, you can use it surprisingly well, because its VR is superb.

*tripod foot note.  I've seen some of these lenses sold without the foot at all.  Unlike the 200-500 and others, the foot on this cannot be used as a handle, so if you're hand holding it it makes sense to take it off.  Maybe they tossed it.

[ShunCheung]

27 minutes ago, Matthew Currie said:

Just a quick note because people often mention the old 80-400 D lens,  and if you have not used one you might be tempted to wonder "how bad could it really be?" given its current price.  I have one (or access to one that my wife used to use but does not any more).  Optically, though it gets pretty soft at the long end, I think it's not perhaps as awful as some people make out,  but its AF is not just slow, but dead slow, to the point that it is essentially worthless for action.  It actually is measurably the slowest AF of any Nikon lens made.  You might as well be focusing manually.

I have never personally owned the first-generation 80-400mm AF-D VR (i.e. not AF-S). That was the very first VR lens Nikon introduced, in year 2000. Since I was very interested in that zoom range, I tried one at a camera store twice. Its AF reminded me the "stone age" screwdriver AF when I first bought my N8008 (F801) in 1989. To me, it doesn't matter how good or bad it is optically, such AF is not useful. At that time (year 2000) I already had a couple of early AF-S lenses from the late 1990's, a 300/2.8 and 500/4.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I did own the old AF-D 80-400 and used it on D200 and D300 bodies where it's lack of optical performance wasn't as glaringly obvious as when I later mounted it on a D500 or D7200. IIRC, I never bothered with it on an FX body. I had handed the lens down to my wife but when she upgraded from a D300 to a D500, I found it necessary to upgrade to the AF-S lens.

AF speed on the AF-D: I wonder how I got all those bird in flight images with it? IMHO, it was just a tad slower than the AF-S 300/4 and probably at par with the older AF IF-ED 300/4 lens. FWIW, the slowest AF lens I ever encountered was the 200/4 Micro lens; in the time it takes to focus from far to near, one can brew an espresso.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Dieter Schaefer

[mike_halliwell]

45 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

one can brew an espresso

and that includes grinding the beans....🤣

[mike_halliwell]

13 hours ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

200/4 Micro lens

I always wonder if Nikon should do something outlandish and do a 300mm f4 1:1 Macro in Z with 5 stop VR and Z9's syncro IBIS. I know it's not as effective in macro but never-the-less. Body about the same size as the 'old' 300mm f4 AFS barrel. @ $3K...😉

Add to that lightning fast focus-shifting. Maybe no-need for in-body stacking.

[robert_bouknight1]

I did manage to get a reasonable number of in focus images of middle school kids playing soccer with the 80-400AF-D mounted on D1H and D2H bodies back in the 00's.  Maybe the higher power AF motor in the big bodies helped.  

But I don't miss that lens.

If size/weight is an issue, the AF-P 70-300 mentioned earlier is a great option.  It is much better than my friends earlier AF-S 70-700.  Configure a Fn button on the D750 for DX crop to get a "built in 1.5x teleconverter"

Edited May 20, 2023 by robert_bouknight1

[mike_halliwell]

1 hour ago, robert_bouknight1 said:

I did manage to get a reasonable number of in focus images of middle school kids playing soccer with the 80-400AF-D mounted on D1H and D2H bodies back in the 00's.  Maybe the higher power AF motor in the big bodies helped.  

If a player is running more or less parallel to you it doesn't have to do much. Head-on or at a tight angle troubles slow focus lenses a lot.

The single digit Pro bodies are pretty good AF power wise. My D3S was pretty quick on my otherwise not spectacular 80mm 1.4D. 

[ben_hutcherson]

I'll just toss out that I bought a 300 f/2.8 VR1 not too terribly long ago and I was surprised at how(relatively) inexpensive it was. The VRII version from what I understand has the same optics and pretty much the same performance other than VR being a newer generation and better(and VRII used examples seem $2K-2.5K vs. ~$1.5K or so for VR1).

The lens absolutely is incredible, and I find it quite useable with the 1.4x and 1.7x. That gives a lot of versatility in a single lens, and these big fast lenses are nearly perfect for TCs since they are already super sharp(so don't take as big of a penalty for using one) and also can keep good AF performance.

Although I have used it handheld, I find it more at home on a monopod at a minimum, which is one downside once lenses get this big. Handholding will probably tire you pretty quickly. Although I decided on the VR1 version based mostly on price/similar performance I've found I've kept VR off more often than I've had it on.

If you do anticipate using VR a lot and are interested in one of these lenses, the VRII might be worth it. The VR1 I think is the same generation VR as is in my 70-200 f/2.8 VR1, and it does a perfectly acceptable job but is loud(there's no question whether or not it's working) and seems a bit clunky to me and almost like the gyroscopes and such are taking their dear sweet time to spin up and start working. I can only hear my newer VR lenses if I listen for them. Also, the VR1 version has the "rotary" type VR switch that a lot of people don't seem to like(I don't mind it other than it being somewhere different from all of my other lenses).

Just tossing this out as an option.

[Dieter Schaefer]

14 hours ago, ben_hutcherson said:

Although I have used it handheld, I find it more at home on a monopod at a minimum

Not surprising at about 6.3lbs. The VR2 version is slightly heavier at 6.4lbs. Pretty much the same weight as the Z-mount 400/2.8 with build-in TC. And a pound heavier than the 800mm PF lens.

The direct non-VR predecessor (AFS-II of the VR1 version is the lightest 300/2.8 Nikon made - at 5.7lbs.

[Matt Laur]

I just spent a couple hours this afternoon shooting the Blue Angels ripping up and down the river in front of the Naval Academy (it's commissioning week!), and the 200-500/5.6 did a pretty great job on keeping F18s going 300mph in focus. Blew focus on a couple when I tried to pick them up as they cleared trees in my view. But for what that lens costs, it's a killer. 

[mike_halliwell]

1 hour ago, Matt Laur said:

the 200-500/5.6 did a pretty great job

What body were you using?

[Matt Laur]

I was using a Z9, and the adapter for the mount. 

[ShunCheung]

See the images Matt posted to Nikon Wednesday: https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/549078-nikon-wednesday-2023-21/