I Currently have a D7500 and a 70-200 F4 lens. I am going to start shooting more sports and wildlife and wondering which lens would be better. I am considering and 80-400 or a 200-500, or possibly just a telecoverter for my 70-200. I have heard the 200-500 is a very large and heavy lens. Is the 80-400 nearly as big and heavy? Picture quality is a concern as I will be making some large prints of some of the photos and fast AF is also a concern as I will be shooting action shots. I am fairly new to digital photography and have never used a teleconverter, so not sure how they work. What do you guys think would be best for me?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Which lens for D7500
- Thread starter Dave7878
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d750 nikon d7500
Entropius
Senior Member
I've used the 80-400. It is larger than your 70-200 f4, but not overwhelmingly so. Images are sharp throughout; I've made large prints of pictures from it at 400mm f/5.6 and they look fine. AF was fast and accurate on my D7100. I don't use this lens any more; I fell and damaged it, and it's not quite sharp now.
Another option is the 300 f/4. There are multiple versions of it; the newest one is a "phase fresnel" lens that uses a special element to greatly reduce size and weight. There is an older one that is slightly larger (but still not that big) that still has the modern AF-S autofocus system, and one still older marked "AF" that doesn't have an autofocus motor, but is focused using a mechanical torque coupling to the camera body. Only the newest one has VR. All of them are very sharp and can be used with a teleconverter (see below). I have the newest one and it is a great lens.
I've never used the 200-500. It is large (not as large as a 500 f4 or something, but substantially larger than even the 80-400). It's reputed to have good optics. The general comment I hear about the autofocus is that it's slow but accurate; it will track subjects just fine, but initial focus acquisition can be pokey.
Teleconverters are small auxiliary lenses that can be placed between the lens and the camera body. They multiply both the focal length of the lens and the maximum f/number by whatever the teleconverter factor is. So my 300 f/4 becomes a 420 f/5.6 when used with my 1.4x converter. They reduce optical quality, both because they magnify any existing aberrations and because the extra glass elements in the optical path may introduce their own. The only lenses above that I'd recommend using with a teleconverter are the 300 f/4's.
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
I had the 80-400G and now use the Sigma 100-400 C, which in my book is a much better lens, but your mileage can vary, as always.
For little closer sports, or wildlife, the Sigma 135/1.8 is an astoundingly crispy lens.
I've used the 200-500 and own the Sigma 150-600 S, which is a bit heavier but focuses much faster. The 100-400 C has in everyday activities replaced the big Sigma S, and is just used from a fixed position, not really made for walking around.
The Sigma 100-400 C works well with Sigma's TC-1401 1.4X teleconverter, but you need a lot of light for it to give you fast enough shutter speeds.
cyuill2007
Senior Member
I have rented the 80-400 for a weekend, and taken some in-store test shots with the 200-500 on a couple of occasions. The 200-500 is indeed big and heavy, and is not something you will want to handhold for long periods of time. I wanted a lens that was good for handholding for extended periods of time, so I looked at other lenses. The 80-400 is smaller and lighter, and more expensive. It is pretty sharp at 400mm, but not outstanding. I recently picked up the Sigma 100-400, which I think is better optically. I have also rented a 300 PF lens, which is really good and very compact, but a bit pricey.
Deciding on a long-telephoto lens involves compromises, and can be tough. Good luck with making a choice.
Deciding on a long-telephoto lens involves compromises, and can be tough. Good luck with making a choice.
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
I had the 80-400G but got very variable results, got the Sigma 100-400 C and got much more consistent results.
Do not regret selling the 80-400G, think the Sigma is an excellent workhorse. And sharper than the Nikon in the long end, not least.
They balance roughly the same way and both pretty awesome in backlighted situations.
lokatz
Veteran Member
I used to own the 200-500 and the Sigma 100-400, and have tested the 80-400.
The 80-400 is excellent between 80 and ~250mm but fairly mediocre at the tele end, clearly worse than both, the 200-500 and the Sigma 100-400. Since you already have the 70-200, I would definitely go with the Sigma.
The 80-400 is excellent between 80 and ~250mm but fairly mediocre at the tele end, clearly worse than both, the 200-500 and the Sigma 100-400. Since you already have the 70-200, I would definitely go with the Sigma.
Last edited:
lokatz
Veteran Member
None whatsoever. I have one that works just fine with my own D7500 (and D500) as is.
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
I have owned the 80-400G, own the Sigma 150-600 S, and the Sigma 100-400 C, and have tested the 200-500. And I have the Nikon 70-200/4.0G, and the AF-P 70-300 DX VR, as well.
Agree fully with Lokatz, that although the 80-400G was awesome in the wide end, it was the long end I bought it for, and there it was not much to brag about.
Next time I am going back to the jungle I will definitely bring the 70-200/4.0G and the Sigma 100-400 C and the Sigma 135/1.8 Art. Speedy lenses are essential, as are those with a long reach.
(This time I had just the 100-400 and the AF-P mentioned above).
If possible, the Sigma 150-600 S would be a delight to bring along!
Here are some Sigma 100-400 C shots from the last trip into the jungle!
--
tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.
Last edited:
I got an AF-P 70-300 DX with VR refurb for $149 and it's a sleeper if you don't need a big aperture or strong to-fro AFC performance.
Featherlight cheap-reach.
Last edited:
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
I paid around $500 for mine!
calson
Forum Pro
The 200-500mm weighs a pound more than the 80-400mm and the weight difference is quite noticeable when shooting hand held. The 200-500mm also uses an expensive 95mm polarizing or other filter whereas the 80-400mm uses the standard 77mm size filters, same as many other Nikon lenses.
With the 200-500mm on a DX camera I often found the view angle too narrow with it at 200mm and so would take the 70-200mm lens as well. No such issues with the 80-400mm zoom at 80mm.
The 80-400mm will focus faster with your camera and VR will be better. For a time I owned both lenses and with a DX camera my choice was nearly always the 80-400mm lens. The exception was when shooting from a boat but then I had to deal with the reduced autofocus performance of the 200-500mm lens and many more missed shots.
For what it provides at the price it sells at the 200-500mm is an excellent value but for most situations I prefer the 80-400mm lens. Shooting only small birds the 500mm provides a 56% larger image size than 400mm focal length. For larger animals, like a heron or a bison, the 80-400mm is my preference on a DX camera where it provides the view angle range of a 120-600mm lens.
I have the 600mm f/4 lens and my companion lens is always the 80-400mm zoom and you will find that most people do the same for wildlife photography. Canon shooters as well though with their 100-400mm lens.
With the 200-500mm on a DX camera I often found the view angle too narrow with it at 200mm and so would take the 70-200mm lens as well. No such issues with the 80-400mm zoom at 80mm.
The 80-400mm will focus faster with your camera and VR will be better. For a time I owned both lenses and with a DX camera my choice was nearly always the 80-400mm lens. The exception was when shooting from a boat but then I had to deal with the reduced autofocus performance of the 200-500mm lens and many more missed shots.
For what it provides at the price it sells at the 200-500mm is an excellent value but for most situations I prefer the 80-400mm lens. Shooting only small birds the 500mm provides a 56% larger image size than 400mm focal length. For larger animals, like a heron or a bison, the 80-400mm is my preference on a DX camera where it provides the view angle range of a 120-600mm lens.
I have the 600mm f/4 lens and my companion lens is always the 80-400mm zoom and you will find that most people do the same for wildlife photography. Canon shooters as well though with their 100-400mm lens.
lokatz
Veteran Member
Glad you like your 80-400 so much, but saying that "most people" always take it for wildlife is a stretch, to put it mildly.
I've seen lots of posts from current and former owners confirming what I and other posters in this thread experienced and the magazine test confirmed, namely that the lens is less than stellar at the tele end. That makes the albeit-hefty Nikon 200-500 and the much-lighter Sigma 100-400 better choices.
Last edited:
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
Totally compatible with a D7500, at least with mine!
Any doubts about Sigma would be with older lenses used with the Z series. Just as older lenses do not always work with Nikon 1 cameras, but most sure do!
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
Have you looked at the new Nikon 500mm. Much lighter and smaller. Will be out soon. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon 500mm&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Been enjoying my 100-400 C all day, mounted on my D7500, shooting Whooper Swans and (Common) Cranes. No issues what-so-ever!
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
Haven't they just been scarce in the US?!
lokatz
Veteran Member
You mean the one I show in my gear list and have owned since September? ;-)
(Couldn't help but brag here. I am a VERY proud owner of this fantastic lens.)
Tord S Eriksson
Forum Pro
I used AF-C all day today, with nil issues! Will post images tomorrow, bit tired tonight.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum