Telephoto lens advice please

E

erasmus666

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Edit My Images
No
I'm going to India for a safari holiday. I have a D800 with 24/120 lens for close-ups /walkaround. I've bought a D500 body as the fps on the D800 is poor. I need advice please as to the telephoto lens to go with it. I have a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary lens which I only tend to use for airshows or looking at the moon. I've heard good reports about the Nikon 200-500 lens and wonder if it'd be better to get this and sell the Sigma OR get something else instead. I look forward to reading your advice and comments. Thank t.
 
This has come up a few times before, maybe try the search while you wait?

I’ve not been on safari but friends have and they tell me considerations are:
- weight and space limits for all the flights and transport
- proximity to the wildlife at the location
- whether low light shooting (dusk or dawn) will be possible, apparently not everywhere
- think about m43
 
My wife went to India in September and as part of the trip they did a couple of tiger safaris. They didn't see any tigers but what animals they did see were so far away as to be almost invisible. If you go on a similar safari, you will be in a very bouncy truck, open to the air and dust so be aware of that. She took a D7000 with a Nikon 18-300mm lens (28-450mm equivalent) but it wasn't powerful enough to get any decent shots. If your trip is a dedicated safari, they may take you to hides where you can wait, in which case things might be different and animals might come much closer. Try to find out what the format of the safari is and that will help you decide what lens you need to take.
 
I have the Nikkor 200-500, superb lens but whether it is worth changing the Sigma for it is another matter.

In terms of flight allowance - either lens will pose no trouble on a flight on anything same size or bigger than a 737/A320. I have had no issues on long haul with my gear and my Lowepro 650AW complete with 500/4 Nikkor easily fitted into the overhead locker on our BA A320 to Inverness. But you need to be strong to lift it....

Only issues I had with the Sigmas (my old 150-500 and OH's 150-600C) is that it's a cumbersome lens - ideal for social distancing as when it is fitted with a hood it extends out a long way....the Nikkor has much better handling..... But it you are happy with your current lens and is sharp at 600 I see no reason to swap....

I have D850 and D500, the D850 replaced the D810 which replaced the D3 I had....I would've suggested you go for D850 over the D500 for the cropping potential.
 
We went to India in 2011 , to Kanha and Rantahambore , they use small Suzuki jeeps that are bumpy and it’s very dusty
I am not familiar with Nikon sorry but used a Canon 100-400 and 70-200 on crop bodies , most of the time was at 400mm but sometimes was close enough for the short zoom
we were really lucky and saw tigers most days , the most important thing is a good guide who knows the park
what Tim said is spot on about weight limits and bag sizes for the flights so You can work out what you can take
 
For a walkabout lens on my Nikon D 810 the Tamron 24 -70 mm f2.8 SP USD Di G2.is hard to beat. the VR on it is amazing and keeps the shot rock still and the sharpest I have come across in that mm range. well worth considering. Expensive yes (£1100+ new) . Takes 82m filters

P1060048aa.jpg


I do have the 80-400 mm nikon lens but I would hate to be carrying that around on holiday due to the weight'

Of course as many on here know I am more into videography and that would be my preferred choice for that trip . my Panasonic HC-X1500 videos up to the equivilant of 600mm and no need for other lenses. also no need for extra ND filters they are built in or even a lens cap .
when you can do something like this without changing lenses
Unedited as taken
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO492YO6NZg

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wklr2LvR8iM

a heavy lump of a camera make me think why bother to use anything else. That is all I took to Norway and Iceland last year and a small compact camera.
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering if using a Tele converter with my 70-300 lens on my d500 might be a better solution. Less weight than either the 200-500 or the 150-600 lenses. However, would this solution be at the expense of image quality?
 
Having been to so many countries in the world I would suggest travel as light as possible. The more you take the more that can be stolen/damaged/lost and make sure you are insured for your travel re equipment.. Looks to me as if your overthinking what to take which is quite normal. I do it myself. So now I limit to the above in the photo which has captured everything I wanted or my camcorder . this is why I would recommend just a 24-70mm lens of one make or another.
If taking photos of wild animals do you really want a super zoom lens so you can look up their arse? or do you want one it their natural surroundings? which would make the better photo.' the longer the lens the harder to keep steady.
 
Last edited:
erasmus666 said:
I'm wondering if using a Tele converter with my 70-300 lens on my d500 might be a better solution. Less weight than either the 200-500 or the 150-600 lenses. However, would this solution be at the expense of image quality?
Click to expand...
A teleconverter might not be compatible with your 70-300, and the image quality will be way worse than your Sigma. I've never been on safari, but I would imagine the more reach you have the better. I'd say you already have the perfect lens in your Sigma 150-600mm, without spending massive amounts of cash on something better.
 
realspeed said:
Having been to so many countries in the world I would suggest travel as light as possible. The more you take the more that can be stolen/damaged/lost and make sure you are insured for your travel re equipment.. Looks to me as if your overthinking what to take which is quite normal. I do it myself. So now I limit to the above in the photo which has captured everything I wanted or my camcorder . this is why I would recommend just a 24-70mm lens of one make or another.
If taking photos of wild animals do you really want a super zoom lens so you can look up their arse? or do you want one it their natural surroundings? which would make the better photo.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with this. A point to consider is that there are millions of close-up photographs of wild animals, many of them perfectly composed and executed by professionals and all you would achieve by using a long tele, that you'd dragged across the world, would be similar, but not as good, photographs; they'd just be taken by you. A reminder of where you went and what you did might be better achieved by a shorter focal length documenting the surroundings and the culture rather than individual animals, the like of which could probably be photographed better and more easily in a UK zoo. I must say that if I were going to do this, I would definitely not arm myself with my biggest, longest lens.
 
I haven’t been on safari in India, but I have been to South Africa. I think you would regret not having a long lens and a shorter lens. In Africa I had a Canon 7D2 with a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and almost always had a TC on. I also took a 5D3 with a 24 - 105 f/4. Both got a lot of use. Sometimes the animals are closer and sometimes they are further away. Not all the animals are big - some birds can be very small.
 
I have to say I am going away a bit now from still photography aftermany many years. More now into making videos for myself as reminders . Seeing/recording the actual action I find is more rewarding . The way still photography is going is everyone want sharper clearer photos with true colour as seen or better, there must be a limit. We have some excellent photos on this site and those that took them have to be admired.
The question I am now asking myself, getting not too far off 80years old, is no I want to produce photos in the unprofessional arena, where people go "OOH ARR Amazing"? Obviously a person doing it for a living should want to produce outstanding photos accepted.

Yes I still take still photos and enjoy doing so don't get me wrong.

making something like this gives some idea of the fun and atmosper it was taken in ,

One just has to smile/laugh/groan, a stills would convey nothing

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AFxCIrDIAY
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
I have to say I am going away a bit now from still photography aftermany many years. More now into making videos for myself as reminders . Seeing/recording the actual action I find is more rewarding . The way still photography is going is everyone want sharper clearer photos with true colour as seen or better, there must be a limit. We have some excellent photos on this site and those that took them have to be admired.
The question I am now asking myself, getting not too far off 80years old, is no I want to produce photos in the unprofessional arena, where people go "OOH ARR Amazing"? Obviously a person doing it for a living should want to produce outstanding photos accepted.

Yes I still take still photos and enjoy doing so don't get me wrong.

making something like this gives some idea of the fun and atmosper it was taken in ,

One just has to smile/laugh/groan, a stills would convey nothing

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AFxCIrDIAY
Click to expand...
I love the idea of videos as mementos (or is it mementi) but unlike photographs where one can flick through quickly for a reminder of anything, videos have to be sat through and since they are taken in real time they have to be sat through in real time and I have no wish to live parts of my life over and over as I would be using up my actual lifetime. I know, that's not the way it actually is and I'm only saying it tongue in cheek, but I personally don't have the patience to sit through videos. Even as I type this, my other monitor has snooker on and the TV series House on in another window as my attention span is...ooh look, a puppy.... It's why I don't like Lightroom instructional videos, they just take too long, I'd rather it was written down with photographs so I could read it at my (rather fast) speed.
 
The 200-500 isn't really any better than your Sigma. And a 2x on the 70-300 will be a big hit on IQ.

IMO, your best bet for size/weight/IQ is a 500pf and a 1.4x TC... if this is going to be a once in a lifetime type trip, it might be worth increasing the budget.
 
Hi, I agree with @sk66 .. I had an opportunity to shoot with both (actually 3 lenses: Nikon 200-500, Sigma C 150-600 and Tamron 150-600 g2) and they are just all same class and product range .. if you wanted some noticeable IQ boost (and more importantly autofocus speed and accuracy boost) you would need some high end professional (primes) $10k+ lenses ... My personal choice however would be Sigma Sports if I had to ... It is supposed to be in the middle between these guys and pro $10k glasses, look here, scroll down

photographylife.com

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Review - Page 4 of 7

photographylife.com photographylife.com

but I didn't have an opportunity to test Sigma Sports in real on my camera ... When I was considering which enthusiast super-zoom lenses to buy I was testing only 3 lenses mentioned above and in the end, I was very annoyed by all of them and decided to not buy any :p (because really, I would not use it and it would be pure GAS from my side as I've realized in the process) .....
 
Last edited:
ntz said:
Hi, I agree with @sk66 .. I had an opportunity to shoot with both (actually 3 lenses: Nikon 200-500, Sigma C 150-600 and Tamron 150-600 g2) and they are just all same class and product range .. if you wanted some noticeable IQ boost (and more importantly autofocus speed and accuracy boost) you would need some high end professional (primes) $10k+ lenses ... My personal choice however would be Sigma Sports if I had to ... It is supposed to be in the middle between these guys and pro $10k glasses, look here, scroll down

photographylife.com

Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Review - Page 4 of 7

photographylife.com photographylife.com

but I didn't have an opportunity to test Sigma Sports in real on my camera ... When I was considering which enthusiast super-zoom lenses to buy I was testing only 3 lenses mentioned above and in the end, I was very annoyed by all of them and decided to not buy any :p (because really, I would not use it and it would be pure GAS from my side as I've realized in the process) .....
Click to expand...
The Sigma 60-600 is the sharpest of the super zooms... in my tests it is equally as sharp as my new Z180-600, and approaches the resolution of the 500pf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ntz
sk66 said:
The Sigma 60-600 is the sharpest of the super zooms... in my tests it is equally as sharp as my new Z180-600, and approaches the resolution of the 500pf.
Click to expand...
I have one of these, good lens, really hefty beast though, don't think I'd like to cart it around as a tourist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top