Need help choosing a telephoto

JayJay

JayJay

Suspended / Banned
Messages
737
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
For the last couple of years I've been shooting with a Nikon 70-300 AF-S f4-5.6 on my D7200.

It's done me well, but now I'm wanting to upgrade it. I use it for a bit of birding, the odd trips to motorsport and zoos.

Budget is sub 1k.

Can't decide between a second-hand Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and a Sigma 150-600c.

The 70-200 has the fast aperture but the Sig has the reach.

I'm quite conflicted, any advice will be gratefully received.

How does the auto focus of the two compare?
Does the IQ and large aperture make up for the lack of length on the 2.8? I'm sure a shot at 200mm cropped to the same field of view from my current lens at 300mm would be better from the 70-200, but does the 600mm of the Sigma blow it out of the water?

Is the difference in size and weight significant enough to sway things? Obviously both bigger and heavier than what I have now.
 
Last edited:
Both are quite different! If you are into birds it has to be the Sigma - I used to have a Tamron 150-600 which I used just for airshows, constantly using around 300-600mm. A big improvement on my Nikon 300mm f4 in terms of shots I could get. Only have a 70-200 now and its just about ok at Old Warden but not long enough.
 
When I had a Nikon crop-sensor camera I had the Sigma 150-600c and can highly recommend it, auto-focus was fast as I needed, used it for motorsports and the odd trip to the Zoo, but can't comment on how it compares to the 70-200 as never had one. At the time I thought the Sigma 150-600c was the best bang for buck lens around (in terms of reach), but it is a bit heavy and for circuits I used a monopod to rest it on, wouldn't want to hand-hold it all day.
 
I had a Tamron 16-300 as the only lens on my D5300 for everything but for aircraft and birds I felt I needed extra reach. I have recently got a second hand Sigma 150-600c for the longer reach. I have found the auto focus is excellent. Only tried it hand held so far and it is very good on the red kites from garden.
 
stick to the nikon brand have you considered the nikon 200-500 f5.6 brand new less than a grand
or get the nikon 70-200 f2.8 or the nikon 70-200 f4
 
From what you said reach would be better than speed I would say,
2.8 is nice but do you need the low light speed ?
Tried birding with my 70-200 and to be honest it was pointless, yes you can get some things, but mostly it’s far to short, I’m guessing for motorsport your not trackside ? More spectator ? If so again reach will be your friend.

In an ideal world both, but only you know what’s important, both very different in the intended purposes or usage.
 
Thanks for all the replies so far.

I must admit, a longer lens like the 150-600 was my original target, but something I saw or read recently about how good 70-200 2.8s are made me question that.

But it seems from the feedback I'm getting so far is that I was possibly leaning the right way in the first place.

One thing I hadn't considered was the Nikon 200-500 - I had already presumed it to be outside my budget. I'll look into it cheers.

Still open to more input, the more info the better!


:)

Which of any of these lenses would you pick for BIF? I find my 70-300 to be frustrating sometimes. It can be a bit hit and miss with the focusing at times. If it locks on it's pretty good at keeping a subject in focus, but it tends to hunt sometimes, and when that happens it can take a long time to get a lock at all. So I would definitely put good AF as high on my list of priorities.
 
Last edited:
I had a 200 on Nikon crop body and to be honest it was not half as telephoto as I imagined it would be.
Tried to photograph small birds on walks and soon realised that to do birding you need hell of a zoom or be invisible.
200 on a crop yes you can get shots but its very limited and if birding is an interest then I would strongly recommend a 500 or 600 lens
 
I used a D7000 and Sigma 150-600c for a couple of years. Used it for birds, wildlife, airshows etc.
Great combination.
I had a tamron 70-300 before the sigma, but it wasn't long enough for birding.
 
Last edited:
I have a D7100 and a D7200 and both the lenses you are looking at, often have one on each body for convenience.
The weight difference between them isn't that much, at least I don't really notice it.
Yes they are both quick at focusing and the 150/600 gives good results, had it's own thread running in the equipment section
I do find the 70.200 is sharper so therefore you can crop pictures if needed, and if in zoos the animals are close
enough it's the lens I use
 
Well I've had my head turned by the 200-500 now!
I've decided, with the help of all the comments, that the 70-200 won't be long enough.
It's a bit more expensive than I was originally intending to spend but by all accounts it has better AF and IQ (slightly) than the Sigma plus the constant 5.6 compared to 6.3 at the long end on the Sigma, although the Sigma does have a bit more zoom range..
The cheapest I've seen it from UK retailers is £1202 with £185 cashback from Nikon making it only just above the 1k mark, and very close to the grey importers and second hand offerings.

Just going to wait until next week to see if there are any post-Xmas price drops.

Thanks for all the replies, much appreciated. :ty:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top