D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
Aston Senna Junior Member • Posts: 49
D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

Reposting this as i posted it in the wrong sub-forum earlier.

Hi! So i have my D7500, love it. I bought a cheapy AF-P 70-300 DX VR based on the great reviews i had read for it, and for the $80 i paid, it's fantastic.

Over 200MM, though, it loses a slight bit of quality I find, but up to that point, it's amazing. Especially 150MM and under, I can't imagine a better looking image possible from this camera.

I do want some more reach though, I don't do birds, I photograph cars mainly and do make it to Laguna Seca for racing and other Nor Cal tracks. In the past with 18-270s or 18-300 zooms, i always found 300 to be not enough for a lot of shots.

So I want to go further.

So, I'm considering buying a Sigma 150-600 or their 100-400.

I'd be buying Second hand, and there seems to be only maybe $100-150 difference between the two sigmas, while I can't splurge for a 200-500, yet.

So first, I'm just not sure if the difference of getting out to 400 vs 300 is really enough. 600 is likely too much to be honest, but I guess it would be nice to have 'just in case' you need it. Where i see needing 400 and above is when a car is heading straight on at you or away , not a panning shot. To really go in deep and use the focal length to compress the background and help isolate the subject regardless of being at a modest f6.3.

I've seen lots of examples of these lenses on full frames and they look great, but not sure about how they would compare on DX especially when compared to the mostly almost perfect 70-300 dx. I would like to get that extra reach but not reach for reach's sake if you know i mean. In other words, I want to get that extra reach but also at least have the same image quality and sharpness that my 70-300 gets most of the time (under 200mm).

I don't want to get out to 400 or 500-600 and then be disappointed with the photos quality if the quality and sharpness is less than the 70-300.

The 70-300 is worth so little, I'd keep it anyways to have as a light go-to for shorter range telephoto. When I shoot cars at work, i usually work in the 150mm range which is right in the lens' wheelhouse. So this addition would be an extra lens for shooting things over 200MM.

That would then go hand and hand with my plan to move to a 70-200 G2 in a year to cover shorter stuff.

View: original size

here's an example of the D7500 plus DX 70-300 , 130mm, F4.8 (wide open) , iso 200, and at 1/50. only very ever ever so slighted feddled with in Apple Photos. I think i just hit the enhance button to be honest and was more than satisfied.

So what do you guys reckon? Hoping someone has experience on the DX 70-300 AF-P and the 100-400 and 150-600 Sigmas on their dx cameras to compare to.

Hope I'm making sense! Thank you.

 Aston Senna's gear list:Aston Senna's gear list
Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon 85mm F1.8G +3 more
Nikon D7500 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
OP Aston Senna Junior Member • Posts: 49
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

View: original size

here's another i took yesterday with my 70-300 dx to show how it renders on d7500

180mm, f5.3 (wide open), iso 160 1/200th

 Aston Senna's gear list:Aston Senna's gear list
Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon 85mm F1.8G +3 more
polslinux Forum Member • Posts: 75
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300
3

I own the Tamron 150-600 G2 and I love It!! It works really well with the D7500, and the IQ (imho) is super!

Also the IS is really good! I was able to shoot the moon at 600mm without tripod and the photo came out super sharp (I was around 1/400 iirc)

 polslinux's gear list:polslinux's gear list
Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-140mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR Tokina 11-20mm F2.8 Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 Di VC USD G2
dzimm1435 New Member • Posts: 14
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

I was going to say if you could splurge, look at the 200-500. Really solid lens, IS works great and fast, plus the consistent f5,6 aperture! However I too have used the Tamron 150-600 g2, really nice lens (cant speak for sigma but I hear they are pretty close in quality) I opted for the Nikon just for the consistent aperture and the glass quality. good luck with what you decide on.

 dzimm1435's gear list:dzimm1435's gear list
Nikon D80 Nikon D750 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F4G ED VR
bluzman
bluzman Contributing Member • Posts: 986
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300
1

I own both the DX AF-P 70-300mm VR and the full frame Sigma DG 100-400mm OS Contemporary. The former is frequently used on my D7500, the camera I favor for BIF images.

I got the Sigma, though, because I wanted more reach at times. Since it's a FF lens, it yields images from a DX camera with a field of view that reflects the 1.5X crop factor. It's heavier (2.5 pounds) than the DX 70-300mm (slightly less than 1 pound) but it's still easily maneuverable hand held.

I have not been disappointed with the reliability or IQ of either lens. FWIW, if you decide on the Sigma, buy the USB dock which allows one to apply firmware updates and tweak the lens parameters, too.

 bluzman's gear list:bluzman's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ1000 II Nikon D750 Nikon D7500 Nikon D3500 Nikon Z50 +19 more
lokatz
lokatz Senior Member • Posts: 2,176
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

Shooting cars, I think a 150-600 would be an overkill. That's different for bird shooters, but are you really sure you need that much focal length?

My recommendation is one you may not have considered: get an AF-P 70-300 DX VR lens and retire your AF-S one. I've owned the AF-S and now have the AF-P FX version, which does not seem to be way ahead of the DX one from all the reports I saw, and I have to tell you that while at the time I sort of liked it (not knowing any better), in hindsight I think the AF-S lens was a miserable performer. In other words, the combination of your D7500 with a SHARP 300mm lens may make you happier than getting a longer lens. Take another look at that Toyota shot you posted: the lettering on the windshield should be crystal clear and at least the large letters on the side window sticker should still be legible with a D7500.

Take a look at your past shots to determine how often you had to crop substantially. I'm guessing that with your favorite subject, the answer is 'not often'.  The AF-P lens is not much of an investment, so you could probably still go for a longer lens if you determine it's not enough for you - but I sense you'll find it solves your issues.

 lokatz's gear list:lokatz's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.8G +26 more
Flashlight Veteran Member • Posts: 8,543
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

lokatz wrote:

Shooting cars, I think a 150-600 would be an overkill. That's different for bird shooters, but are you really sure you need that much focal length?

My recommendation is one you may not have considered: get an AF-P 70-300 DX VR lens and retire your AF-S one. I've owned the AF-S and now have the AF-P FX version, which does not seem to be way ahead of the DX one from all the reports I saw, and I have to tell you that while at the time I sort of liked it (not knowing any better), in hindsight I think the AF-S lens was a miserable performer. In other words, the combination of your D7500 with a SHARP 300mm lens may make you happier than getting a longer lens. Take another look at that Toyota shot you posted: the lettering on the windshield should be crystal clear and at least the large letters on the side window sticker should still be legible with a D7500.

Take a look at your past shots to determine how often you had to crop substantially. I'm guessing that with your favorite subject, the answer is 'not often'. The AF-P lens is not much of an investment, so you could probably still go for a longer lens if you determine it's not enough for you - but I sense you'll find it solves your issues.

He already has the AF-P one, not the AF-S. It seems to front focus a bit btw, looking at the road in front of the car.

-- hide signature --

Philip

lokatz
lokatz Senior Member • Posts: 2,176
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

My mistake - sorry.  There does seem to be a focusing issue with it, then.  This is not nearly the IQ I'd expect from this lens...

 lokatz's gear list:lokatz's gear list
Panasonic ZS100 Nikon D500 Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.8G +26 more
CMCM Senior Member • Posts: 5,912
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

When I wanted to get a "better" long lens than my Nikon AFP 70-300, I was considering these lenses: Both Sigma and Tamron 150-600, the Nikon 200-500, and ultimately, the Sigma and Tamron 100-400 models.

My first big lens test was the Tamron 150-600 G2. Its size and weight kind of shocked me at first. I wanted to like it, but I was really not impressed with my results. However, being a first experience and since the light that day wasn't optimal, I wasn't sure I could judge it well. But it WAS heavy and a bit hard to handle for hand held shooting, which I wanted to be able to do.

Second test was the Nikon 200-500. It seemed a lot better than the Tamron, and even though it was only my second time out with a big lens, I got some really great photos with it. I liked the fixed f5.6, too. But at a bit over 5 lbs (more than the Tamron), my hands and arms were really tired after about 30 minutes of shooting and the day I used it, I finally had to switch back to my 70-300 just because I got so tired.

I never could find a Sigma 150-600 rental, but then I started thinking about the Sigma 100-400. I read up on it a lot, and a great many people were very enthusiastic about it. At the same time, I also tested the Tamron 100-400 to compare them. I found both lenses took equally good photos of stationary subjects, but in my experience the Sigma did better at tracking and keeping focus on moving subject (birds mostly). I got more keepers with the Sigma. And as I looked around for photos from these lenses, I saw a LOT out there from the Sigma and I loved the overall sharpness, contrast and quality of the photos from this lens. At the same time, I saw relatively few from the Tamron and the ones I saw I didn't like as much as those of the Sigma.

After thinking a lot about it, I compared the type of shot I'd get with 400mm vs. the 500mm of the Nikon 200-500. Not an enormous difference, actually, and I finally decided I could use 400mm with the Sigma and easily crop up just a little bit to get what the 500mm would have shot at 500. Realistically, I also could see that the much smaller and lighter 100-400 was a world of difference to handle and shoot with, far easier to handle, and that I would more likely take it around with me and be inclined to shoot with it more, whereas with the bigger lenses it would be...welll....a big deal.

I don't regret my decision to get the Sigma because I use it a lot and it's quite manageable to shoot with. I can also fit it into my camera bag mounted on my D7500, ready to pull out and use at a moment's notice. I couldn't do that with the larger lenses.

Final realization for me: 400mm, 500mm, 600mm....it's really never enough in many instances. That's why I also carry around my Nikon P900 (2000mm equivalent), which if the light is good can produce very good images of stationary images that are far off (it's not a satisfactory BIF machines, admittedly). And I'm considering getting the P1000, which has a 3000mm equivalent. It's fun and satisfying to have both options and these two Coolpix cameras can produce an incredible focal length that is impossible with any of the usual long DSLR lenses. I had found that I got my favorite photos (especially BIFS etc.) at a range often well under even 400mm because it's better to be as close to the action as possible. If shooting a bird way up in the sky, even a 600mm will be shooting a small bird against a big sky and you'll be cropping way in for that one as well, with all the degrading effects of such a big crop.

If money were no object....I'd keep my 100-400 but I'd probably splurge on one of the big lenses just for fun, maybe the Nikon.  And of course, I drool over that Nikon500 PF just for its smaller size and lighter weight.  I'll get that one the minute I win the lottery.  

 CMCM's gear list:CMCM's gear list
Fujifilm X30 Nikon D500 Canon G7 X II Nikon Coolpix P950 Nikon D700 +17 more
OP Aston Senna Junior Member • Posts: 49
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

lokatz wrote:

Shooting cars, I think a 150-600 would be an overkill. That's different for bird shooters, but are you really sure you need that much focal length?

My recommendation is one you may not have considered: get an AF-P 70-300 DX VR lens and retire your AF-S one. I've owned the AF-S and now have the AF-P FX version, which does not seem to be way ahead of the DX one from all the reports I saw, and I have to tell you that while at the time I sort of liked it (not knowing any better), in hindsight I think the AF-S lens was a miserable performer. In other words, the combination of your D7500 with a SHARP 300mm lens may make you happier than getting a longer lens. Take another look at that Toyota shot you posted: the lettering on the windshield should be crystal clear and at least the large letters on the side window sticker should still be legible with a D7500.

Take a look at your past shots to determine how often you had to crop substantially. I'm guessing that with your favorite subject, the answer is 'not often'. The AF-P lens is not much of an investment, so you could probably still go for a longer lens if you determine it's not enough for you - but I sense you'll find it solves your issues.

So I do have the AF-P one.

The Toyota shot, I have single point engaged and I have it right on the nose, so that's why the window sticker is blown out. I know lots with cars go for mega depth of field, but I like making them more into portraits. Cars with long noses like the Supra exaggerate the thinner depth of field in this case even more.

I wonder if the AF-P FX is better at the long end than the DX on a crop sensor.

 Aston Senna's gear list:Aston Senna's gear list
Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon 85mm F1.8G +3 more
OP Aston Senna Junior Member • Posts: 49
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

So, um. I did buy a Sigma 150-600. Found one an hour away on Facebook Marketplace at what I thought a great price with the USB dock. I'm considering it a long term rental right now, as the pics I've been snapping outside my house aren't that great.

I know there's a ton of focus calibration that can be done with this lens, but it does seem very very tediious to try it at multiple focal lengths and then at multiple distances from subject. I'll get to it this week hopefully and try stuff out. But various pics of a car at the full 600 , kinda simulating the shot at the track I'm envisioning, it probably is more reach than I need, 500 would probably be enough, but quickly taking a few pics, reviewing them, and then adjusting the camera's builtin auto focus fine tune , retaking it, trying a different fine tune, more pics and so forth, just to get an idea of which adjustments to make for the dock. However, these quick adjustments, never yielded great results. I saw some bad ones and then far better, but definitely not as good as my little DX 70-300.

I'll play with it some more the next couple weeks, take it to the track on the July 26th is when I get a chance to shoot at Laguna next and see how it works.

It's also HEAVY. And this is the light one. There's no way I'd want the 200-500 Nikon anymore now, as I know that's an extra pound. Yeesh.

So yeah, I'm not worried, saw a deal, took it, and trying it out to see how i like it. If i don't, i'll party ways, be glad i tried it to never wonder about it, and likely get the 100-400 Sigma instead.

Jared Polin's sample photos of the 100-400 with a D500 at the zoo are outstanding in my opinion. That's what I'm hoping to be able to get out of the 150-600 in terms of detail

 Aston Senna's gear list:Aston Senna's gear list
Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon 85mm F1.8G +3 more
OP Aston Senna Junior Member • Posts: 49
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

CMCM wrote:

When I wanted to get a "better" long lens than my Nikon AFP 70-300, I was considering these lenses: Both Sigma and Tamron 150-600, the Nikon 200-500, and ultimately, the Sigma and Tamron 100-400 models.

My first big lens test was the Tamron 150-600 G2. Its size and weight kind of shocked me at first. I wanted to like it, but I was really not impressed with my results. However, being a first experience and since the light that day wasn't optimal, I wasn't sure I could judge it well. But it WAS heavy and a bit hard to handle for hand held shooting, which I wanted to be able to do.

Second test was the Nikon 200-500. It seemed a lot better than the Tamron, and even though it was only my second time out with a big lens, I got some really great photos with it. I liked the fixed f5.6, too. But at a bit over 5 lbs (more than the Tamron), my hands and arms were really tired after about 30 minutes of shooting and the day I used it, I finally had to switch back to my 70-300 just because I got so tired.

I never could find a Sigma 150-600 rental, but then I started thinking about the Sigma 100-400. I read up on it a lot, and a great many people were very enthusiastic about it. At the same time, I also tested the Tamron 100-400 to compare them. I found both lenses took equally good photos of stationary subjects, but in my experience the Sigma did better at tracking and keeping focus on moving subject (birds mostly). I got more keepers with the Sigma. And as I looked around for photos from these lenses, I saw a LOT out there from the Sigma and I loved the overall sharpness, contrast and quality of the photos from this lens. At the same time, I saw relatively few from the Tamron and the ones I saw I didn't like as much as those of the Sigma.

After thinking a lot about it, I compared the type of shot I'd get with 400mm vs. the 500mm of the Nikon 200-500. Not an enormous difference, actually, and I finally decided I could use 400mm with the Sigma and easily crop up just a little bit to get what the 500mm would have shot at 500. Realistically, I also could see that the much smaller and lighter 100-400 was a world of difference to handle and shoot with, far easier to handle, and that I would more likely take it around with me and be inclined to shoot with it more, whereas with the bigger lenses it would be...welll....a big deal.

I don't regret my decision to get the Sigma because I use it a lot and it's quite manageable to shoot with. I can also fit it into my camera bag mounted on my D7500, ready to pull out and use at a moment's notice. I couldn't do that with the larger lenses.

Final realization for me: 400mm, 500mm, 600mm....it's really never enough in many instances. That's why I also carry around my Nikon P900 (2000mm equivalent), which if the light is good can produce very good images of stationary images that are far off (it's not a satisfactory BIF machines, admittedly). And I'm considering getting the P1000, which has a 3000mm equivalent. It's fun and satisfying to have both options and these two Coolpix cameras can produce an incredible focal length that is impossible with any of the usual long DSLR lenses. I had found that I got my favorite photos (especially BIFS etc.) at a range often well under even 400mm because it's better to be as close to the action as possible. If shooting a bird way up in the sky, even a 600mm will be shooting a small bird against a big sky and you'll be cropping way in for that one as well, with all the degrading effects of such a big crop.

If money were no object....I'd keep my 100-400 but I'd probably splurge on one of the big lenses just for fun, maybe the Nikon. And of course, I drool over that Nikon500 PF just for its smaller size and lighter weight. I'll get that one the minute I win the lottery.

Can you shed some light on how you'd compare the images you get out of your 100-400 Sigma vs your 70-300 DX? Thank you!

 Aston Senna's gear list:Aston Senna's gear list
Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon 85mm F1.8G +3 more
CMCM Senior Member • Posts: 5,912
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

Can you shed some light on how you'd compare the images you get out of your 100-400 Sigma vs your 70-300 DX? Thank you!

I felt the Sigma 100-400 was better at tracking a flying bird....and the resulting photos came out sharper, better contrast, better color. Of course, I was using the D7500, which like the D500, has a Group AF setting that is really good for locking focus on a moving subject and staying with it. That feature was also helpful with the 70-300. Also, I felt I got more photos that I really liked with the Sigma.

Examples....here is a link to an album of photos that used the 70-300.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cmcm2018/albums/72157705272034094/with/46560610061/

And here are photos done with the 100-400:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cmcm2018/albums/72157714086206343/with/49831991333/

And just to confuse things further, here's an album of shots from the same day as the 70-300 I linked above, but using the 200-500 I rented. I was surprised to get any good shots because other than a rental with the Tamron 150-600 a few weeks back, I really hadn't any practical experience with such a large lens.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cmcm2018/albums/72157688856473273/with/46057497334/

 CMCM's gear list:CMCM's gear list
Fujifilm X30 Nikon D500 Canon G7 X II Nikon Coolpix P950 Nikon D700 +17 more
anycolourfloyd Regular Member • Posts: 250
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

My experience with the Sigma 100-400 is that while the AF-P is very sharp, the Sigma is sharper and if you're cropping as well (I use it for birds), the difference is significant.

I do have a feeling though that despite them both being f6.3 at the long end, rhat the Nikon is a bit better in low light.

 anycolourfloyd's gear list:anycolourfloyd's gear list
Nikon D5500 Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM | C Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II +4 more
cosmicnode Veteran Member • Posts: 5,940
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300
1

lokatz wrote:

Shooting cars, I think a 150-600 would be an overkill. That's different for bird shooters, but are you really sure you need that much focal length?

No it's not overkill. at motorsport events your view is often obstructed by catch fencing at track level. it's not fun to shoot through a chain link lens filter. this means you need to move up embankments or to the back of  grandstands to shoot over the catch fencing, 5 or 600mm also gives you the opportunity of shooting cars coming out of a corner that may be a longer distance away but you are not physically able to get to. I use a 70-300  in conjunction with the 200-500 even so I often need to crop.

This was shot at 500mm and cropped,

My recommendation is one you may not have considered: get an AF-P 70-300 DX VR lens and retire your AF-S one. I've owned the AF-S and now have the AF-P FX version, which does not seem to be way ahead of the DX one from all the reports I saw, and I have to tell you that while at the time I sort of liked it (not knowing any better), in hindsight I think the AF-S lens was a miserable performer. In other words, the combination of your D7500 with a SHARP 300mm lens may make you happier than getting a longer lens. Take another look at that Toyota shot you posted: the lettering on the windshield should be crystal clear and at least the large letters on the side window sticker should still be legible with a D7500.

Take a look at your past shots to determine how often you had to crop substantially. I'm guessing that with your favorite subject, the answer is 'not often'. The AF-P lens is not much of an investment, so you could probably still go for a longer lens if you determine it's not enough for you - but I sense you'll find it solves your issues.

-- hide signature --

Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

 cosmicnode's gear list:cosmicnode's gear list
Nikon D1 Nikon D1X Nikon D1H Nikon D2H Nikon D2X +16 more
cosmicnode Veteran Member • Posts: 5,940
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

Aston Senna wrote:

So, um. I did buy a Sigma 150-600. Found one an hour away on Facebook Marketplace at what I thought a great price with the USB dock. I'm considering it a long term rental right now, as the pics I've been snapping outside my house aren't that great.

I know there's a ton of focus calibration that can be done with this lens, but it does seem very very tediious to try it at multiple focal lengths and then at multiple distances from subject. I'll get to it this week hopefully and try stuff out. But various pics of a car at the full 600 , kinda simulating the shot at the track I'm envisioning, it probably is more reach than I need, 500 would probably be enough, but quickly taking a few pics, reviewing them, and then adjusting the camera's builtin auto focus fine tune , retaking it, trying a different fine tune, more pics and so forth, just to get an idea of which adjustments to make for the dock. However, these quick adjustments, never yielded great results. I saw some bad ones and then far better, but definitely not as good as my little DX 70-300.

I'll play with it some more the next couple weeks, take it to the track on the July 26th is when I get a chance to shoot at Laguna next and see how it works.

It's also HEAVY. And this is the light one. There's no way I'd want the 200-500 Nikon anymore now, as I know that's an extra pound. Yeesh.

So yeah, I'm not worried, saw a deal, took it, and trying it out to see how i like it. If i don't, i'll party ways, be glad i tried it to never wonder about it, and likely get the 100-400 Sigma instead.

Jared Polin's sample photos of the 100-400 with a D500 at the zoo are outstanding in my opinion. That's what I'm hoping to be able to get out of the 150-600 in terms of detail

a important accessory with the 150-500 is a monopod, i also use a ballhead fitted to my 200-500 but with the clamping knobs loose to allow freedom of movement when panning. it takes practice to get your panning right with long lenses.

-- hide signature --

Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

 cosmicnode's gear list:cosmicnode's gear list
Nikon D1 Nikon D1X Nikon D1H Nikon D2H Nikon D2X +16 more
David5833 Senior Member • Posts: 1,711
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300

200mm

300mm

400mm

500mm

I shot these quickly a few minutes ago with a D7500 and 200-500 on a tripod at f/5.6, 1/500, VR on. They are intended only to help you see the differences between focal lengths. I'm guessing that the distance is about 100 yards.

I'm sure you realize that no matter which telephoto lens you choose in this focal length range, handheld is going to require a high shutter speed and rock steady holding ability, even with VR.

 David5833's gear list:David5833's gear list
Canon G9 X II Nikon D810 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Nikon D7500 Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF +11 more
Old Greenlander Veteran Member • Posts: 4,337
Re: D7500 which super Telephoto? 150-600, 100-400 vs my AFP 70-300
1

For parked cars you don’t need telephoto lenses ,

for races, is another story...

-- hide signature --

Old Greenlander
"I show the world the way I see it"
40 years of photography and still learning
https://www.juzaphoto.com/me.php?l=en&p=88256

 Old Greenlander's gear list:Old Greenlander's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P900 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon D850 +18 more
OP Aston Senna Junior Member • Posts: 49
some practice and samples today

here's a couple examples of me playing with the lens today at work. I'd normally just use the dx 70-300 but brought this big old thing just to use it for the sake of using it

I had the in camera auto fine tune at +5 i think for all these shots. This front shot up close at 150mm wide open is TACK SHARP. wow, go in on the badge (where i put my focus point) and then also the headlight detail at 100% is incredible

this one at 300mm (again, single focus point on the badge) is good i think, but definitely not tack like the former. so some fine tuning i think to be done.

and this this last one at 400 is pretty meh. looks good until you peep.

So seeing the potential of this thing when it nails focus at 150, i think i just gotta really spend time going back and forth on dialing it in using the sigma dock to get this pupper nailed in.

I will say, having it in my camera backpack where it barely barely fits , with my d7500, the 70-300, a 12-24 , af-p 18-55 and 35 dx, that backpack becomes pretty heavy. I like bringing the 18-55 with me because it weighs virtually nothing and is so tiny, but main reason is it is super good for macro. I think it has over .40 magnification, probably the cheapest sharp good macro lens you can buy for a DX nikon!

 Aston Senna's gear list:Aston Senna's gear list
Nikon D7500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon 85mm F1.8G +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads