# Looking for a wildlife lens under $3,000



## Netskimmer (Feb 15, 2012)

Hi everyone,

I apologize in advance for the long post...

I've been looking for a lens for wildlife photography, mainly birds. The fact that I want at least 400mm, preferably 500mm and don't have more than $3,000 to spend really limits my options. Here are the three that seem to have the most promise.

Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 
$1,069.00
Amazon.com: Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 
$1,659.00
Amazon.com: Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM SLD Ultra Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital DSLR Camera: Camera & Photo

Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 
$899.00
Amazon.com: Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 Di LD SP FEC (IF) Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

I haven't found much in the way of reviews for the Tamron but I really like my Tamron 17-50. The 200-500 looks pretty ugly but I'm more interested in it's capabilities. Reviews for the 'Bigma' (50-500mm) and 'Bigmos' (150-500mm) seem to be inconclusive as to which is better. The consensus is that the 50-500 is better and the shorter end and the 150-500 is better at the farther end. My first inclination would be toward the 150-500 since most people think it performs better at the long end which is where I will most likely be using it and from what I understand, the shorter the focal range, the better the IQ. The 50-500 has a 10x range where the 150-500 has less than 5x. However, the 50-500 is designated as Sigma's pro level glass. I am also concerned with the apparent inconsistency with Sigmas quality control.

So what are your thoughts on these? Are any of them acceptable for bird photography or the occasional air show? Did I miss a lens I should consider? I will be picking up a Nikkor 70-200 2.8 at some point. Would that lens and a high end 2x TC be a better option?


----------



## DorkSterr (Feb 15, 2012)

I have the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 and to tell you the truth at 500mm the IQ takes a dive. Now dont get me wrong I love the lens (chose it over the 70-200f2.8) any focal length below 400mm is astonishing even wide open, but if you're going to do a lot of 500mm shots with the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 you will be greatly disappointed.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 15, 2012)

How about a used Sigma 500mm f/4.5 prime??? OR, the 500mm f/4 Nikkor-P.


----------



## Overread (Feb 15, 2012)

A 70-200mm f2.8 VR II (I think that is the right name for nikons newest) should easily be able to take a 2*TC and deliver optical quality roughly in line with Canons popular 100-400mm (based mostly on the assumption that 70-200mm f2.8 performance between canon and nikon is pretty much equal). Plus you could use Nikons 1.7 TC and get a good amount of range gain with not as much optical quality loss (always a little annoyed that Canon hasn't made a 1.7TC). 


As for additional options consider:
Nikon has an AF-S 300mm f/4 ED-IF which would fit your budget - add a 1.4TC and you should have a good 420mm lens (though I note B&H has this on backorder so stock might be a problem). 

If you can push the top limit of your budget you could also consider a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS - which can take up to a 2*TC and give good performance (provided its stopped down around one stop from wide open). Though you might have to go second hand here since new its $3200 so pushing the very top of your budget limit. 

Derrels suggestions would also be worth considering (esp since he knows way more about older glass than I do). Plus they give you a native long prime without any zoom (So potentially will have a higher image quality to deliver over the zooms).


----------



## Netskimmer (Feb 15, 2012)

Thanks for all the responses guys,

Dorksterr, thanks for letting me know about the softness and 500mm, I probably will skip this one since I'll likely be using it at the longer end most of the time.

Darrel, are you referring to older G lenses? I can't find the sigma 500mm f/4.5 for under $5,000 or the Nikkor 500mm for less than $8,000

Overread, I will take a look at the Nikkor 300mm and the Sigma 120-300 2.8, I don't mind pushing my budget a little. I am a little leary of the lens + TC route as I have no idea what the TC will do to IQ.

I'm leaning towards the Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 and the 1.7 TC, I know I want the 70-200 regardless and the 1.7 TC looks like a good investment. This setup would be far shorter than I am wanting but between the high IQ of the Nikkor pro zoom and my D7000's 16MP I could probably crop pretty heavily and still get a good image. I have heard that Nikon's high end TCs will only work with high end Nikkor glass, is this true or would they work on a Sigma or lesser Nikkor?


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 15, 2012)

Derrel said:


> How about a used Sigma 500mm f/4.5 prime??? OR, the 500mm f/4 Nikkor-P.



Derrel, suggesting a SIGMA product? 

Someone must be posting on his account for him... Either that, or the apocalypse is near.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Feb 15, 2012)

if you want highest quality, go with a prime lens.  Most of the time your zoom lens is extended all the way to the max anyway unless you are at a zoo. It will be ligther, sharper, faster and in some case cheaper.


----------



## Netskimmer (Feb 15, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > How about a used Sigma 500mm f/4.5 prime??? OR, the 500mm f/4 Nikkor-P.
> ...



Yeah, I seem to remember him not thinking too much of 'Stigmas' as he often puts it. I am assuming put his dislike aside because he is trying to help me while working within my limited budget.



Schwettylens said:


> if you want highest quality, go with a prime  lens.  Most of the time your zoom lens is extended all the way to the  max anyway unless you are at a zoo. It will be ligther, sharper, faster  and in some case cheaper.



I had considered that but most primes are way out of my price range. My only hope in that area would be a 300mm prime and a TC.


----------



## Overread (Feb 15, 2012)

Derrel has a love-hate thing with Sigma (a bit like his canon I think ). I know he loves the Sigma 150mm and I think he even uses a 180mm macro from them. 

That aside Sigma do make some serious pro grade stuff for long reach (eg their 200-500mm is the only f2.8 500mm on the market barring maybe one or two special one-offs by others). I've also seen some very good reviews of their 500-800mm lens comparing it very favourably to a 500mm prime. 

That said their superzooms are (like canons 100-400mm) a bit of a difficult area and they can be somewhat iffy as to copy variation. In general most are good, but they have a higher number of copy variation problems than common zooms and lenses - even Canon can't quite get it right (though I'll be fair and say that recent years they are a lot lot more reliable).


Teleconverter compatibility I'll let Nikon users specifically cover - though on the subject of teleconverters this can divide some people. In general using teleconverters gives you superior image quality over cropping to get the same angle of view, though of course using teleconverters will rob you between one stop (1.4*) and two stops (2*) of light from a setup. Some also say that you should never buy a lens that you'll intend to use a teleconverter on and should just buy the lens at the right focal length - however many times a teleconverter can let you get a good quality result out of a shorter lens and make a significant saving over buying a dedicated longer one -- this is important as there is no point lusting after a top end lens if you'll have to wait years to save for it and not have any capability to shoot with that range in the savings time.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Feb 15, 2012)

Yeah, im not familiar with nikon but for canon you can buy L prime 200mm, 300mm, or 400mm for under $1500


----------



## Derrel (Feb 15, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > How about a used Sigma 500mm f/4.5 prime??? OR, the 500mm f/4 Nikkor-P.
> ...



One too many hits off the vaporizer this AM dude? Lemme' see....I own a Sigma 80-400 OS, a Sigma 18-125 DC, a Sigma 180mm f/3.5 EX HSM Macro, and a Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM zoom lens...three of their "best" lenses and one consumer-grade Sigma....

And yes, I was referring to used lenses. The Nikkor 500 is the manual focus (feather-touch, mid-barrel IF focusing ring) f/4-P model, which has a CPU in it. Last time I looked on eBay they were bringing $2,000-$2,300, and the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 was also around the same price on eBay. I do not mean brand-new, retail on either the Sigma 500/4.5 or the 500/4 Nikkor-P, but used lenses, sold by private party sellers, not "The Big Five" web dealers...

Sigma makes some decent offerings in price ranges/niches that the big camera makers tend to neglect, or price VERY high. Sigma makes A FEW superb lenses, like their EX Macro line; I'd also really love to have the new 120-300mm f/2.8 EX OS HSM model Sigma recently re-designed and added OS to. While Canon and Nikon work on oddball crap, Sigma comes out with a lens that is just about the ONLY 3rd party big lens I ever see at FBS-level college football and NFL games...their 120-300, either old or the newer model...


----------



## Netskimmer (Feb 15, 2012)

Overread said:


> *Some also say that you should never buy a lens that you'll intend to use a teleconverter on and should just buy the lens at the right focal lengt*h - however many times a teleconverter can let you get a good quality result out of a shorter lens and make a significant saving over buying a dedicated longer one -- this is important as there is no point lusting after a top end lens if you'll have to wait years to save for it and not have any capability to shoot with that range in the savings time.



This is why I'm leaning towards the 70-200mm + TC. I already know I want and intend to purchase this lens. If the TC allows me to use it as a bird/wildlife lens and save a few thousand dollars that's great but if not then I can still get a longer lens.

Thanks Darrel, I have to get to work but I'll hit ebay and take a look.


----------



## Austin Greene (Feb 15, 2012)

Oh, I can get you a dirt cheap telephoto....

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-1300mm-Definition-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B00064ZC8A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329339982&sr=8-1

Your wish is my command! 


Well, that is if you feel like tossing $245. Still, I can't help but wonder what it must be like to shoot with. 
I imagine taking it out to a bird park would go something like this...


----------



## Infinite_Day (Feb 15, 2012)

I have the 300mm f/4 and 1.4 TC and my IQ is still very good so long as my technique is good. The 300 f/4 is reportedly one of Nikon's sharpest lenses. I think the TC issue is correct with Nikkor lenses because the TC extends into the back of the lens itself. It won't work on lesser glass because the rear element is not in-set enough. I haven't heard a lot of good things about the 80-400mm which is your only other Nikon option. Can't speak to the Sigmas though I did consider them before going with what I did.


----------



## Netskimmer (Feb 15, 2012)

So many new lenses to research. The only Nkkior 500mm f4 p on ebay at the moment is going for around $2,800 but I will keep an eye out for them. I am a little concerned about the manual focus. I don't know if I could track a bird in flight while refining my focus manually. I don't know if I have the hand-eye coordination for that, probably just takes practice. I wonder how that Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS stacks up against the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR II. I don't think I would have a use for both of them, it seems like there would be too much overlap in their focal ranges.


----------



## Josh220 (Feb 16, 2012)

Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII gets my vote. With a 1.7x TC it performs flawlessly and you have almost zero loss of IQ (personal experience). The 2x TC is where you might notice it. 

A DX body with a 1.7x TC/70-200 will give you 510mm if you went this route.


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2012)

When I get a bright day I'm going to compare my 70-200mm f2.8 MII againstmy 120-300mm OS - however even based on optical performance that is only one aspect. Whilst they do share a similar focal range the latter is a much bigger and much heavier lens. If you look here: http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/IMG_0598.jpg you can see the size difference. 

This means whilst they do overlap they are very different lenses to use - the 70-200mm you can easily use all day, indoors (in a large room) outdoors - around town/countryside etc.... The 120-300mm however is different, you couldn't easily use it in many of the same situations as the 70-200mm as it would seriously dominate the situation. Further its weight means that, whilst its adaptable, its a much bigger strain, the kind of lens you might take out on its own or with only one or two back-ups as opposed to taking out a larger setup. 

I did worry about my two overlapping, but honestly having both I can see that they are very different beasts.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 16, 2012)

Derrel said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



Just stating a fact that this is the first time I've seen you endorse a "Stigma" product as you call them... 

No need to have your Victoria's secret up in a bunch!


----------



## Infinite_Day (Feb 16, 2012)

Just FYI - AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E II from Nikon If you scroll down to "Product Overview" there is a link on the right that shows Nikon TC/lens compatability. If you read the top of the chart it talks about the TC hitting the back glass of the lens with non-listed lenses. Those which are listed are all high-end Nikon glass. You'll also not that the 70-200 f/2.8 has no limitations on focusing ability all the way up to and including a 2X TC. I have the higher-end Kenko 1.4 TC myself and it has, thus far, performed without any problems.


----------



## Netskimmer (Feb 16, 2012)

Thank you for all the responses! It looks like I'll probably take the 70-200 + 1.7 TC route. Like I said, I planned on getting this lens anyway so the most I have to lose is the cost of the TC, but it seems like it would be a good piece of equipment to have in general. Even if I do like this setup I'll probably go for a long prime down the road but the 70-200 will be more useful to me right now as I could use it in many more situations. It may take me a month or so to get one but I'll post some pics when I do.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



You seriously need to reconsider the fact that you have missed DOZENS AND DOZENS of instances of ME, Derrel, endorsing the Sigma 80-400 OS, the Sigma 105 EX Macro, the Sigma 150 Macro, the Sigma 10-20, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX MAcro, the Sigma 180 f/3.5 EX Macro, the Sigma 500mm f/4.5, Sigma's superb telephoto converter lineup, and the new Sigma 120-300/f 2.8 EX-OS HSM. 

I think enough of Sigma to have gone out and BOUGHT, for MYSELF, the 18-125, the 180mm f/3.5 Macro, the 100-300 f/4 EX, and the 80-400 OS. All Sigma lenses.

You need to reconsider the fact that you have no business at ALL characterizing my posting habits, or my posting history, nor my point of view--especially when you haven't got a fricking CLUE as to what you're saying. Don't spread mischaracterizations about me. And yes, there "IS" a need to get the Victoria's Secrets in a bunch when some mal-informed person characterizes me unfairly, and uninformedly, in a public forum. Don't shoot your mouth off about me. You do NOT speak for me.


----------



## Netskimmer (Feb 16, 2012)

:shock: ... I noticed you mentioned the 180mm f3.5 macro. A macro lens will be next on my list, have you tried the new 180 2.8?


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2012)

I don't think that is even out yet. It's been revealed, but thus far its not hit the market. The 150mm f2.8 OS has been released and is on the market. Either one is a top choice and there has never been too much between the two save for the 30mm focal length difference - sharpness and build quality they were very much on par and I expect this of the new OS versions as well.

The 180mm however will be heavier (longer reach and f2.8 rather than f3.5 which is more common on other brand 180mm macro lenses) - which I suspect will be the biggest difference between it and the 150mm OS (outside of focal length - even then I think that only really shows up if you start putting things like 2*TCs on for increased background blurring/magnification).


----------



## Netskimmer (Feb 16, 2012)

Cool, I don't know what I'll end up with, hopefully by the time I'm ready to get one the 180 2.8 will be available and in the hands of some experts who can tell us how it performs. My main concern with a 2.8 at 180mm would be DOF. I'm not even sure what focal legnth I want yet. I love taking macros of anything and everything just to see what they look like but bugs would be a major focus.


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2012)

Well f2.8 is only its max, its actually a bonus having it wider so far as light gathering is concerned as it means a brighter viewfinder image to help focus with. You can stop it down for more depth of field of course (like all normal lenses).


----------



## timputtick (Feb 20, 2012)

If it was me I'd stretch it to Nikon 300mm 2.8, I don't have one but the reviews are unbelievable. But by god if i had the money, I'd take 4.


----------



## Thunder_o_b (Feb 20, 2012)

I have had the Sigma 120mm-400mm OS for a little over a year now, I have gotten some good shots at the 400mm (on my 50D so it acts like a 600mm) It can't touch the primes in IQ, but until Canon makes the f/5.6 400mm in an IS version it will have to do.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 20, 2012)

Derrel said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



Derrel, you made your point. There's no way that I could possibly read every single one of your novelesque Hemmingway posts. Calm down, take some Prozac, maybe a Midol or two.

Maybe you shouldn't be so two faced, and refer to them as "Stigma" which I see more often than not, that would at least make you not a hypocrite. 

I'm glad you like Sigma products, I do too. I just don't rag on them when someone posts a thread with a QC issue, like you do. 

My first post was purely in jest. I thought someone of your proclaimed intelligence level could decipher that, and by some slim chance take a joke. Apparently I was wrong. Sorry.


----------



## MReid (Feb 20, 2012)

I have the 50-500. Does ok in good light at F8 only.

Looking at this from another viewpoint.....all the solutions for lens suggested here are compromises in some way and true professional quality images will probably not result. There is no free lunch. Save your $3000. until it is $5000. and get what you really need.

Have you though about spending money on a camera with a larger crop factor like Olympus or a smaller mirrorless camera with an even greater crop factor? 
That is a cheaper more efficient way to get more magnification, just an idea.....a cheaper way to go than spending $5000. for a proper birding lens.


----------



## Netskimmer (Feb 20, 2012)

Hi MReid, I have pretty much decided on a rout similar to your first suggestion. I know I want a 70-200 VRII and my 'need' for that lens trumps my need for a bird lens right now. The TC is the only gamble, from what I have seen the IQ should be sufficient until I can acquire a proper bird lens. 
The 300mm seems a little short for birds, especially if I go full frame in the future. If I was going to spend upwards of 6k I would probably buy a Nikkor 200-400mm. 
I don't really like the idea of going multiple platform just to get s little more magnification. By the time you buy a decent camera and all the accessories (extra batteries ect) and a good telephoto lens I would probably be coming close to what a good super tele would cost. I would also need to lug around all that extra gear on outings.


----------

