Nikon D500 purchase

[Bob Mevis]

Well, I just pulled the trigger on a D500. Somehow, during my reading of seemingly endless Nikon camera reviews, I missed the D500. After reading several reviews, I decided to go with this one. The fact that it has the same autofocus system as the D850 and the fact that it has a tilt-touch screen were big factors in my decision.
I decided to stick with the DX format for several reasons. To be honest, my photography skills wouldn't do the D850 justice. I practice photography for my own enjoyment and frequently having to put my D7000 up for extended periods of time haven't helped in this regard. Weight will no doubt become a factor in the near future also. I can keep the 3 lenses that I really like and spend some SERIOUS money on a wildlife lens. Also, I won't have to upgrade my computer anytime soon.
Any suggestions on lenses would be very much appreciated!

Bob

 

[RVT1K]

Since I don't know what you own, there may be some redundant suggestions. And you didn't give a reach that you would like to achieve...

But I currently own a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 mated with a Nikon 1.7x tele-converter. I've used that with my D7000 and my D3 and have had excellent results.

I also just recently purchased a nice, used copy of a Tamron 300mm f/2.8 SP AF LD mated with the Tamron 300FNs 2X SP AF tele-converter. While I haven't had a chance to really give this a try, my initial shots with my D3 were very promising.

Or perhaps this: Nikon | Imaging Products | AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR

 

[medic001918]

I shoot the Sigma 150-600 Sports and have pulled some acceptable results at a fair price. A friend has a 400 2.8 from Sony and I’m blown away, but $12,000 is serious money on a lens.

These are on a D850 with the Sigma. Granted it’s a full frame, but I tend to use crop mode for shots like these so similar to a dx sensor.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon 200-500/5.6 VR-G???

 

[Bob Mevis]

Since I don't know what you own, there may be some redundant suggestions. And you didn't give a reach that you would like to achieve...

But I currently own a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 mated with a Nikon 1.7x tele-converter. I've used that with my D7000 and my D3 and have had excellent results.

I also just recently purchased a nice, used copy of a Tamron 300mm f/2.8 SP AF LD mated with the Tamron 300FNs 2X SP AF tele-converter. While I haven't had a chance to really give this a try, my initial shots with my D3 were very promising.

Or perhaps this: Nikon | Imaging Products | AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR

I have a Nikon 50mm f1.8 which would have worked on the D850. I have a Tamron 60mm Macro, Nikon 18-105mm and a Tamron 70-300mm. The 70-300 is gonna get replaced. I've never liked it since I bought it for my first DSLR, a Nikon D70s. It's murky on even the brightest day and is extremely slow to focus. Well, I'll have to see what it does on the D500 of course.

I'm looking for at least a something to 300mm which would give me about 450mm on a crop frame. When I say serious money, I'm talking up to around $1,200.00 or possibly a tad bit more. But, I don't want something too heavy.

I should have the D500 in a 2-3 days. I ordered it from Adorama. I'm really looking forward to seeing if the AF lives up to the hype. Anyway, it's got to be better than my D7000 with its back focus problem.

Bob

 

[Bob Mevis]

Nikon 200-500/5.6 VR-G???

That is a distinct possibility. That would sure give me alot of reach on a crop frame.
Bob

 

[Bob Mevis]

I shoot the Sigma 150-600 Sports and have pulled some acceptable results at a fair price. A friend has a 400 2.8 from Sony and I’m blown away, but $12,000 is serious money on a lens.

These are on a D850 with the Sigma. Granted it’s a full frame, but I tend to use crop mode for shots like these so similar to a dx sensor.

View attachment 171721

View attachment 171722

View attachment 171723

Great pics. I really like the Bald Eagle. I've only seen one Bald Eagle in Northern Indiana and was not able to get a pic of it at the time.

 

[medic001918]

Thanks. They are really majestic birds to see in the wild. It’s true of most birds of prey though.

The lens I shoot is the Sports from Sigma. The Contemporary version is right in the price point you’re aiming for. It’s a bit lighter and not as durable in the sealing along with some other small differences. If you need the reach for wildlife, I feel it’s a viable option.

Hopefully you get the chance to shoot photos of them soon!

 

[JonFZ300]

My dream rig is a D500 with a 200-500, but seeing them in person is a little intimidating. Honestly I don't know if I'd want to carry it around much. I'd use it for blinds or stationary shooting, but hiking with it would not work for me. The 80-400 is smaller and still gives you 600mm on a crop frame, and you can pick up the old version (haven't researched the difference between old and new) for about $400.

 

[Bob Mevis]

Thanks. They are really majestic birds to see in the wild. It’s true of most birds of prey though.

The lens I shoot is the Sports from Sigma. The Contemporary version is right in the price point you’re aiming for. It’s a bit lighter and not as durable in the sealing along with some other small differences. If you need the reach for wildlife, I feel it’s a viable option.

Hopefully you get the chance to shoot photos of them soon!

Thanks
I'll check out that lens.

Sent from my LG-M255 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Bob Mevis]

Thanks. They are really majestic birds to see in the wild. It’s true of most birds of prey though.

The lens I shoot is the Sports from Sigma. The Contemporary version is right in the price point you’re aiming for. It’s a bit lighter and not as durable in the sealing along with some other small differences. If you need the reach for wildlife, I feel it’s a viable option.

Hopefully you get the chance to shoot photos of them soon!

Thanks
I'll check out that lens.

Sent from my LG-M255 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

Wow! The Sigma Sport is over 6 pounds. I wonder how it would be on a good monopod?

Sent from my LG-M255 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Bob Mevis]

My dream rig is a D500 with a 200-500, but seeing them in person is a little intimidating. Honestly I don't know if I'd want to carry it around much. I'd use it for blinds or stationary shooting, but hiking with it would not work for me. The 80-400 is smaller and still gives you 600mm on a crop frame, and you can pick up the old version (haven't researched the difference between old and new) for about $400.

Yes, those long lenses get heavy very quickly, don't they?

Sent from my LG-M255 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Derrel]

My dream rig is a D500 with a 200-500, but seeing them in person is a little intimidating. Honestly I don't know if I'd want to carry it around much. I'd use it for blinds or stationary shooting, but hiking with it would not work for me. The 80-400 is smaller and still gives you 600mm on a crop frame, and you can pick up the old version (haven't researched the difference between old and new) for about $400.

The "old" 80-400 is a lens I owned from roughly 2001-2016. It was nice, back in the 2.7-6 MP era, but as megapixels got to 12, then 24, and then 36, the limitations of the optics started to show. The old 80-400 is not good enough for use on modern, high-MP cameras, IMO. I sold mine in 2016 for $500.

 

[medic001918]

The lens is awesome on a mono or tripod. In fact, it’s how I shoot it 98% of the time. The bald eagle is handheld due to the location. The flacons were shot with a monopod.

I believe the contemporary lens is a bit lighter. Most lenses that lend themselves well to wildlife are going to be on the heavier side. It’s a trade off to get the reach.

 

[Bob Mevis]

The lens is awesome on a mono or tripod. In fact, it’s how I shoot it 98% of the time. The bald eagle is handheld due to the location. The flacons were shot with a monopod.

I believe the contemporary lens is a bit lighter. Most lenses that lend themselves well to wildlife are going to be on the heavier side. It’s a trade off to get the reach.

I was researching monopods today. I have to walk with a cane and I thought hey, this could solve two problems. I don't have to put much weight on my cane it's just so I have a third point of contact with the ground for balance. I could probably use the monopod as a walking staff and when I stopped to shoot, attach the camera and shoot away. I'll get a carbon fiber one.

Sent from my LG-M255 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app