11 replies to this topic

[fallout666]

now was looking for lens to to take long range pictures since my tamron does not have reach i need. since when at race track or was in outfield or on right side or left side baseball field could not get reach i need for long shots. also my basic tamron does not give good quality pictures i need. since if full zoom lose the quality of photo. same with my basic 18-55 nikon lens too. just got nikon prime lens 12-24mm and love it. now i need good zoom lens that not to high price. since do not make tons cash afford full price nikon 200-500 or any of 150-600 zoom lens. also fact since 300mm not get me reach i need i need option on this if could get lens around $1000 and save up for it would be nice. so need our expert help on this. also will be looking to get nikon 18-200 or nikon 70-300 to replace basic tamron 70-300mm down road too. i also heard nikon 18-200 good walk around lens too. not sure where should got next. 

[Ron]

First of all, prime lenses are of a single focal length. So, your 12-24mm is a zoom. Not a prime. Just sayin'.

 

Second, it's really hard to improve on image quality without expending big bucks.

 

Third, all in one lenses such as 18-300 et al are seldom (if ever) as good as lenses with smaller zoom ratios.

 

Currently, KEH has three Nikon 200-500 zooms. All at around US$1300 which is pretty close to your target of $1000. This currently looks like your best bet.

 

--Ron

[fallout666]

i see that so will have wait to see if can get saved up for that long zoom lens. also hope full KEH or any other sight might have one sightly used too. 

[TBonz]

What is it you are trying to shoot where 300mm on a DX body doesn't have enough reach?  The 200-500 is a very nice lens, but not a lens that you are going to want to hand hold for long periods of time.  

 

Agree with Ron as well - the super-zooms are not going to give near the quality of the shorter range zooms.  The reality is that if a 300mm is too short (on any body), your options will not be cheap.  Ron's used 200-500 price is about as good as I expect you will find.  

[mikew]

I would suggest there is not a lot wrong with the Sigma 150-600 C,one major benifit with your camera is if needed you could buy the Dock and fine tune the focus in the lens,your camera has no fine tune facility so lenses from Nikon could not be tuned,they may not need it but you never know.

 

Price could be right

 

https://www.bhphotov..._6_3_dg_os.html

 

And a couple of examples from one at 600mm

 

 

 

It is on the heavy side but ime nearly 70 and not that fit and only gave up on it a couple of years ago.

[fallout666]

will be mostly for sports and landscape shoots of nature 

[TBonz]

The 200-500 or similar would be fine if you are shooting sports and wildlife in good light.  You will probably want a monopod with any of those longer lenses.  For any type of low light wildlife or night sports on a decently lit field, you will have a tough time with those lenses.  I have the Nikon 200-400 which is a constant f4 and sometimes I have to push the ISO past where I am comfortable in order to get a reasonable exposure.  So, if you are thinking low light and long lens, plan on being f4 or f2.8 and those lenses are NOT cheap even used...an old manual focus 300 f2.8 will probably be around $1000 or a bit more.  If you have one of those lenses, the good news is that the lenses retain their value very well...If you don't own one, that means coming up with a good amount of cash at least once!

[fallout666]

so would sigma or tamron work for what i want i see they have 150-600 for each one or better to save up for nikon 200-500 for my d5300 dx camera. also have a 

Manfrotto 290 Carbon Fiber Monopod too. 

[Steve M]

I rented a Sigma 150 - 600   Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports for Nikon.    I could not get a good picture with it on my D7200.   I called and sent a bunch of pictures in to Sigma and the guy told me he would get back to me in a few hours as to what he thought was wrong.  I called back about three hours later and left a message for  him.   I never ever did hear from the guy at tech support.

 

Lens Rentals of which I rented it from took it right back and credited me my money.  I ended up renting a Nikon 85 - 400  Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR.  It is an expensive lens but I bought the one I rented used I loved it so much.  It was nine months old and used eleven times.   I have been extremely happy with it even though it is only goes up to 400mm.    But I can zoom in and it still has a better photo than a 600 in my opinion.

[TBonz]

I had a Nikon 80-400 and I liked it, but it just couldn't handle shooting outdoor (or indoor) high school sports because of the aperture.  Worked pretty well for baseball on a well lit field, but with more varied movement in football, soccer, etc. it really didn't focus fast enough to be useful there either.  I gave up the extra reach for a 70-200 f2.8 and missed having it frequently, but my success rate improved...and I was using a DX body, so I still had some extra reach...

 

FOR ME, I would love to have all of those lenses, but I would be concerned again with low light shooting.  If I had to choose one, I would probably pick the Tamron 150-600  or the Nikon 200-500 strictly based on feedback and images I've seen here and some other photographers I know.  I would probably throw in the 80-400 as one of my top choices too as it is probably the easiest of the bunch to hand hold for long periods of time.  

[Merco_61]

Good samples of the Sigma 150-600 Sports, 2nd generation Tamron 150-600 or the Nikkor 200-500 are about equal but they all suffer from sample variation. If you need to handhold it, the AF-S 80-400 is both better balanced and has less mass to contend with. It is, however, far outside your prefered price range.

[mikew]

You could consider the Sigma 100-400 the downside is its only f6.3.not a problem with the D500 but i guess could be with the D5300, Tamron are due to launch one before Christmas.