Nikon sports/wildlife lens.

Blackdog67

Blackdog67

Messages
32
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
No
I have 2 Nikon cameras a D750 and a Z6. Last year I sold my old Sigma 100-300mm f4 and now I'd like to get another long lens for sports and wildlife. I liked the look of the Z mount 100-400mm f4.5/5.6 but I don't really have the budget. Realistically I have abudget of £1000 and have been looking at the following lenses:
Nikon 200-500mm f5.6
Nikon 200-400mm f4
Sigma 120-300mm f2.8

Any advice, experience or opinions on these or any others would be greatly appreciated.
 
I have a spotless 200-500 in the for sale section ,it’s in as new condition and pin sharp wide open only selling as I now have the 180-600
 
sk66 said:
Do you have a second lens for the second body? For when the action gets close (sports)...
Click to expand...
I have a sigma 70-200mm f2.8
 
the black fox said:
I have a spotless 200-500 in the for sale section ,it’s in as new condition and pin sharp wide open only selling as I now have the 180-600
Click to expand...
I have just lookedin the for sale section and can't see any items listed in the Nikon section.
 
Blackdog67 said:
I have a sigma 70-200mm f2.8
Click to expand...
In that case the 120-300 is not enough of a difference IMO; the 200-400 is the better of the other two lenses (faster AF, sharper, etc); but the extra reach of the 200-500 will come in handy, especially for wildlife.

Definitely buy used in any case; otherwise I would get the Z lens (might find one of those used as well).
 
Blackdog67 said:
I have just lookedin the for sale section and can't see any items listed in the Nikon section.
Click to expand...
It’s most definetly in there look again , look for my black fox avatar
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
macvisual said:
Would the D7100 body be a reasonable camera for sports/wildlife …?
Click to expand...
If you are shooting JPEG and not shoot RAW to one card and JPEG to the other as I did. The buffer on the camera is hopelessly small. That was the only criticism I had of that camera. For example at airshows and shooting wildlife action the camera would regularly lock up as the buffer was full. The D3 was nearly as bad; the D500 is faultless in that regard.. The D7200 was a slight improvement, the D7500 more so.
 
Since the original post the 180-600mm Z mount lens has started sneaking into my budget. Any thoughts on this one?
 
have you thought about the Nikon 300mm f4 PF and say a Nikon X1.4 TC
 
Blackdog67 said:
Since the original post the 180-600mm Z mount lens has started sneaking into my budget. Any thoughts on this one?
Click to expand...
That’s the reason I sold the 200-500 . It’s a totally stunning lens and also takes the Z 1.4 tc only downside is the tripod collar replaced mine with a hoage one wich is far superior . Cotswold cameras have them at circa £1100
 
the black fox said:
That’s the reason I sold the 200-500 . It’s a totally stunning lens and also takes the Z 1.4 tc only downside is the tripod collar replaced mine with a hoage one wich is far superior . Cotswold cameras have them at circa £1100
Click to expand...
How does the 180-600mm compare to the 200-500mm f5.6? I'm leaning towards the 180-600mm now as it will be more useful going forwards. I have a Z6 and a D750 but in Time I am hoping to replace the D750 with a later Z series camera.
 
If you can only afford one lens, the 180-600 is a no brainer! - However, to get the best from it, you really need a Z6iii, or Z8/Z9.

Sell your current bodies and lenses and put the money towards a Z6iii and 180-600 from 'Panamoz'.... You won't regret it!
 
I will say that the 180-600 can tend to have nervous/nisen bokeh, so busy/messy backgrounds can look pretty bad sometimes.
I've not owned the 200-500 so I can't provide a comparison, but I know it also suffers from nervous/nisen type bokeh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top