D7xxx(D7200) vs D500

Hiker

manhattanboy said:

BVS said:

If you're trip isn't until 2019, you've got plenty of time to save up and see what else is released.

The 70-200 f2.8 would be f4 DOF on crop not f5.6 I believe. Crop vs. FF is about a 1 stop difference.

The Nikon 70-200 f4 is also a good lens. Smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the 2.8, but still sharp and fast AF, although you lose a stop of light.

Nikon is rumored to release an update to the 70-300 this year, so I'd wait and see how it performs at 300mm. If it's anything like the new DX 70-300 it should perform pretty well.

The Sigma 50-100 doesn't have VR, so keep that in mind. They also made a 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO in the past (only available used now) that I've heard some good things about. May be worth researching. I question whether either of these lenses will be long enough for wildlife, although I admit I don't know much about shooting Pumas.

The Nikon 300 f4 is a nice lens, and you can put a 1.4TC on it to get 420mm f5.6 (630mm crop). However, like you said, it's expensive and you're limited to a single focal length.

Sigma also has the new 100-400, but it sounds like the AF is slow, and personally I wouldn't want to be stuck on f6+ so much of the time.

Mostly agree with this post, but I would counter that if you are HIKING WITH A LENS and do not have a Sherpa with you then hands down I would choose the 300PF or go for the newly released 70-300 DX lens. The 300Pf is by far my favorite lens; lighter and smaller than the 70-200f4, and a fraction of the size and weight of the 200-500. I assume you will be shooting either the 7200 or the 500, both of which have built in crop mode. I use that to go from 450 equiv to 600 equiv as my "zoom". The rest I just crop in post, but it depends really what you are shooting. If I were going on your assignment I would probably use the 300PF attached to the D500 and carry the very light weight 35 1.8 DX and 50 1.8 FX for wider shots as needed. Contemplating a 100mm for dangerous wildlife is very brave of you, so hat's off to you sir.

Oh, no, the 50-100 was for a 70-200 comparable lens. My friends just came back from Patagonia last year. A Puma came within 30 feet of them, checked out their bags, and took off after it's prey. They are elusive, but they had several close encounters, but nothing dangerous. Last fall they were in the Himalayas to shoot the Snow Leopard. They photographed 4 of them, all together. 800mm lenses with 2000mm equiv. 1/2 mile was the estimate. 2 Tibetan Wolves to! I will be taking a 7200. And like you said, maybe in a year or so something will come out. They would find the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot if they tried!

DaveyJ

I owned the Nikon 70-200 2.8. The nickname here was the wrist breaker. I used it a LOT. I have nice shirts that still are very nice looking except for the black mark where the wide support camera strap rubbed off on very hot and arduous field days. In all my photography with it I took ONE really top notch photo. I own five Nikkor 70-300 lens. That is what is on my D7200 most of the time anymore. I have taken some of my most memorable action images with that. Above 250 it is not that great. Neither was the 70-200 2.8 with a TC. In terms of wider.....My D500 has the16-80 mm most of the time and when it gets replaced it is for the Nikkor 12-24 or the Sigma 10-20. I'd way rather have the new Nikkor 10-20 than the Sigma and I paid about $500 for that lens. I think the Nikkor 10-20 new one, would be a better color match and as good optically. The Tamron I have put off for a long time as I feel 4.3 pounds in the field is right at the edge of being usable as I usually have do other chores too! But I am convinced when I am ready to shoot the Tamron G2 150-600 is going to be important MOSTLY at the 600 end. I finally sold the excellent but too heavy 70-200 2.8 and still regard the sale as too late, and it would have been better off to NOT to buy it. So much for your expert advise received here! My experience by the way there pre-dates Nikon Rumors.

The Nikon D7200, theNikon D500 I know could work well as the camera. Also I personally am certain the D7500 would be almost equally usable. Not having two card slots might even be acceptable as the tilt screen might meanI would not have to be laying flat in the wet to see the viewfinder.

DaveyJ

The Nikkor 300 f4 is recommended by some here. I used the lens and developed a real dislike for it. Why? No zoom. The 1.4 TC the only one worth a damn of the TCs only got me too 400 plusmm, and the situation usually called for less that 300 or more than 500. In terms of dangerous wildlife, Puma are dangerous indeed, but only if you are attacked. And having been there and done that for a number of years, I sure would NOT base my mountain lion photography on a fixed lens of any type or be thinking about possible attacks. Again without lion dogs, you are lucky to get to photograph them. We had some collared cats in Idaho years ago and that helped immensely to find them.

California has quite a few of the big cats and they are elusive. I would want wide, and long. The70-300 range is good, too bad it is so soft above 250. The new 70-300 AF-P Nikkor is NOT what I would recommend. It requires high light, and the 70-300 4.5-5.6 is a far superior lens. I and one of my close friends both got the new stepper motor VR lens and it is very far from my favorite 70-300. The Nikkor 200-500 is even heavier than the Tamron G2 and nor as well rated. It though would be my next choice and my use of it found it good but sure heavy.

spraynpray

"Puma are dangerous indeed, but only if you are attacked. "

Now THAT is funny Davey!!!

DaveyJ

I would think that someone who was considering Mountain Lion photo work would study Puma attacks and what caused them and therefore be not very threatened. Considering I worked in that arena and lived at a farm that had three caged Pumas I might know a lot about it. Pumas lead the fatal attack list for wild animals in North America. Domestic Dogs, lead Puma attack KILLS by QUITE a few times. The myth that Pumas prey on the weak and diseased is just that. Any animal which can purposely kill a wild Rocky Mountain Elk is a natural born killer, but they sure direct their attacks on deer, etc...I think Hiker is pretty safe with his plan. The Puma attacks on humans can be categorized well enough so a photo buff could learn from the reasons the humans were attacked. Running around in a jogging suit is not the photo buff way, and if I were doing what he plans I would be dressed and act like a hunter and Pumas usually know what those are do not pounce on those types. I also assume the photographer is not a woman....etc..

The most dangerous animal on this Planet (Man) is extremely well known and documented and some here might even want to experience some real life before it disappears.....I've known Timothy Treadwell and there are other animals that I would fear as a matter of course. Hiker is not off to photograph Cape Buffalo but for sure the actual hazard is a possible Crop Failure as we call it in farming.....not being able to get photos of your subject. In my experience Brown Bears, and Cape Buffalo are about the most dangerous subjects to be around. Also the National Park Service guidelines on wildlife photos is a good rule of thumb. And that does push the Suoer Telephoto to the fore front. There're are plenty who,want to do that but simply cannot afford a 600mm megbucks lens.

My Nikon Rumors Mission is to get the best possible gear to take pictures of the things we love. I also appreciate your hints on safety as for sure as it is crucial. I hope Hiker has researched his quarry. But my experience with them says they are darn elusive, far beyond the spookiness of even Coy Wolves and Grey Wolves. Best of luck to you all! I guess we are lucky if one of our personal biggest troubles is getting the right lens for a DSLR camera!

Hiker

DaveyJ said:

The Nikkor 300 f4 is recommended by some here. I used the lens and developed a real dislike for it. Why? No zoom. The 1.4 TC the only one worth a damn of the TCs only got me too 400 plusmm, and the situation usually called for less that 300 or more than 500. In terms of dangerous wildlife, Puma are dangerous indeed, but only if you are attacked. And having been there and done that for a number of years, I sure would NOT base my mountain lion photography on a fixed lens of any type or be thinking about possible attacks. Again without lion dogs, you are lucky to get to photograph them. We had some collared cats in Idaho years ago and that helped immensely to find them.

California has quite a few of the big cats and they are elusive. I would want wide, and long. The70-300 range is good, too bad it is so soft above 250. The new 70-300 AF-P Nikkor is NOT what I would recommend. It requires high light, and the 70-300 4.5-5.6 is a far superior lens. I and one of my close friends both got the new stepper motor VR lens and it is very far from my favorite 70-300. The Nikkor 200-500 is even heavier than the Tamron G2 and nor as well rated. It though would be my next choice and my use of it found it good but sure heavy.

The 300mm was for local use in AZ. Not in Patagonia! LOL. I've been living in the mountains of north central AZ for 11 years now. Just recently, 2 weeks ago I spotted a possible mountain lion. Saw a flash of a rear end and a long tail. My first if it was true. And I've hiked several hundreds of miles. I'm sure they however have seen me many a time. Humans just don't taste that good to them.

Hiker

DaveyJ said:

I would think that someone who was considering Mountain Lion photo work would study Puma attacks and what caused them and therefore be not very threatened. Considering I worked in that arena and lived at a farm that had three caged Pumas I might know a lot about it. Pumas lead the fatal attack list for wild animals in North America. Domestic Dogs, lead Puma attack KILLS by QUITE a few times. The myth that Pumas prey on the weak and diseased is just that. Any animal which can purposely kill a wild Rocky Mountain Elk is a natural born killer, but they sure direct their attacks on deer, etc...I think Hiker is pretty safe with his plan. The Puma attacks on humans can be categorized well enough so a photo buff could learn from the reasons the humans were attacked. Running around in a jogging suit is not the photo buff way, and if I were doing what he plans I would be dressed and act like a hunter and Pumas usually know what those are do not pounce on those types. I also assume the photographer is not a woman....etc..

The most dangerous animal on this Planet (Man) is extremely well known and documented and some here might even want to experience some real life before it disappears.....I've known Timothy Treadwell and there are other animals that I would fear as a matter of course. Hiker is not off to photograph Cape Buffalo but for sure the actual hazard is a possible Crop Failure as we call it in farming.....not being able to get photos of your subject. In my experience Brown Bears, and Cape Buffalo are about the most dangerous subjects to be around. Also the National Park Service guidelines on wildlife photos is a good rule of thumb. And that does push the Suoer Telephoto to the fore front. There're are plenty who,want to do that but simply cannot afford a 600mm megbucks lens.

My Nikon Rumors Mission is to get the best possible gear to take pictures of the things we love. I also appreciate your hints on safety as for sure as it is crucial. I hope Hiker has researched his quarry. But my experience with them says they are darn elusive, far beyond the spookiness of even Coy Wolves and Grey Wolves. Best of luck to you all! I guess we are lucky if one of our personal biggest troubles is getting the right lens for a DSLR camera!

And to add...I consider myself a pretty worthy outdoors person. I'm not the idiot you read about in the paper that ran from a mountain lion. True story here in Prescott. And our "wonderful" (note the sarcastic quotes) Fish and Game found it and killed the lion just because some dumb ass human ran from a predator and scraped his knee diving under his truck. Going to Patagonia with very experienced people. Like I said, they saw 8 Pumas. One with 3 cubs. 2 got fairly close just checking them out. It is with an experienced guide also.

DaveyJ

That is pretty much what I assumed of Hiker. You know as much as I did when I started that quest years ago. You also don't sound like Cougar would be deciding to attack you. They are very discriminating. Having been "friends" with Charlie the Mercury Cougar Lion, I have far more than a passing interest in Mountain Lions. I saw my first one in 1957 when we were trout fishing on our Home Farm in leather stocking Country in New York's Southern Tier. It was catterwailing and when my sister and I hiked up,we saw it, it gave out a couple of more quite lost sounding wails, then turned our way, saw us and bounced to the woods so far away it was awesome in only four bounds! It turned out to be a former captive cat that belonged to the famous Outdoors Sports Writer Ray Ovington, who had finally decided to release it! It bounced around NYS from the Catskills to the Southern Tier. The most I have ever seen were in Idaho where I have even been six feet away from Puma kittens. Everything I know of them is marvelous and today I am blessed to have a Maine Coon Cat x Persian who is a domestic hunter and a great photo subject. When I worked in Fisheries Research in West By God Virginia I worked with some Mountain Lions and one very big one got killed, unfortunately.

The only dependable place to see them I know of now are wildlife rehab units. South America Panagonia where my father almost moved our farm would be an excellent place. Most of the wild lion images I have taken were on wider angle as I was at the right place at the right time. Never once did I have as good a camera as say the D7200 but I had very good 35 mm film cameras, Minolta and Nikon. I myself rely greatly on take in the field one Camera body with a zoom from wide to longer than normal, and one 70-300 4.5-5.6
and hope you can get Shooting when you are with them. In awhile I'll get a longer Probably 150-600 but it is not coming here for Puma photos. In the East US it will be Whitetail Deer, Wild Turkey, and Red Fox, Eagles, etc., Yellowstone it will be Elk, Bison, Antelope, maybe Brown Bear and Grey Wolf. Photobug on this site says the 200-500 Nikkor would do well.
Thank God there are still some places wild enough to still have these kinds of wildlife. I admire zoos, but rarely go to one to photograph but they sure lend themselves to close up photo ops.
I have got to scratch the ears of Cheetas though which I would not have been able to do on Safari, but real wild animals are a treasure of our Planet and one of the best reasons to own and use DSLR cameras! I hope you continue to be as thrilled with your D7200 and I have talked a number of friends into getting that exact camera, and they feel it changed their lives! Two never owned a DSLR until then.

manhattanboy

spraynpray said:

"Puma are dangerous indeed, but only if you are attacked. "

Now THAT is funny Davey!!!

LOL

DaveyJ said:

You also don't sound like Cougar would be deciding to attack you. They are very discriminating.

I occasionally get a Cougar coming after me at the gym. I have to quickly get away otherwise I would become a Cheetah.

I'll see myself out

spraynpray

Bwaaa-hahaha! Nearly spat my tea!

Capt_Spaulding

LOL. For bad or worse I don't spend much time around the gym and never was Cougar bait when I did, so other than my alma mater (UH) I have very little experience with them. I lived in California for 8 years and did quite a bit of back county camping, mostly in the mid Sierras, but also in the San Gabriel, San Bernadino, and San Jacinto areas. Saw the rear ends of several bears, a lot of elk and some sheep, but no cougars. I have to confess though, on solo trips I did think about them. Getting up to relieve myself in the middle of the night, I thought about them quite a bit.

dissent

Having already purchased the D7200 (instead of the D500) about six weeks ago, I succumbed to a severe attack of NAS and also bought a D500 when an opportunity arose a within the last couple weeks.

It was $200 bucks off. And came with a free Nikon grip.

I was powerless to resist.

Now I have an extra Ruggard bag too. I'll find some use for it.

spraynpray

Come on Ian, send that old D7200 over here, I'll give it a good home

DaveyJ

dissent: Wonder what your reaction is to the D500 versus D7200. I use the D7200 most of the time as our D500 gets tasked with projects from my son and grandson. Personally I like having an on board flash. Giving some thought to getting a second D7200 for use with my 16-80 in Yellowstone NP and using the other one with the Nikon 70-300.....the Nikon 200-500 or Tamron 150-600 look pretty big and unless you are shooting right then, they are to me a burden! Sigma's new 100-400 C is selling well, and Nikon's 80-400gets passed over an awful lot due to price. I have seen a lot of Yellowstone photos of wildlife and other than pros who live there....can't say I have seen images that resonate with I Need To Buy This Lens. One thing for certain the new Nikon 70-300 better be optimized for 300mm, as the stepper motor AF-P DX VR I own two copies of is very, very far from impressive! Those two lens sit in a gear bag and they will,stay there until I get a D3300 or something light to use them with as the are not a lens to be taken seriously!

DaveyJ

Well a thorough check of Sigma 100-400C new lens shows the autofocus speed is not all that good, very problematic for my use....

spraynpray

I wish Sigma weren't dogged by poor focussing.

heartyfisher

DaveyJ said:

Well a thorough check of Sigma 100-400C new lens shows the autofocus speed is not all that good, very problematic for my use....

?? Where did you get that? did you try it ?

retread

I am dreaming of a Sigma 120-300 2.8 sport lens for sports. It is heavy but not carrying it far and on a monopod I think it would work. Any one have any experience with it? I use a D500.

PB_PM

Cannot speak to the current generation, but I have an older non-stabilized Sigma 120-300mm F2.8. The weight of the lens isn't a big deal, if you've ever handled a Nikon or Canon 300mm F2.8 lens you know what you are dealing with. Even on a cheap Manfrotto monopod it holds up well, I mount it directly to the monopod without a head.

Focus is quick, but not on par with the OEM super-telephoto lenses (aka AF-S 300mm F2.8G VRII). It also suffers from the same fate that all third party lenses I've owned have to some degree, slightly less reliable focus accuracy rates; both for static and moving subjects alike. Never used it on a D500, but it works well on the D300, D700, D800 and D750, so I don't know why it wouldn't perform on the D500.

retread

With my D500 the 70-200 G works well for high school softball and football. It is a bit short for baseball and the 150-600g is a bit long and not 2.8. I am looking at the 120-300 as an in-between lens.

Indoor sports the 70-200 is not perfect but works well.

Love my D500.

DaveyJ

@heartyfisher: My reaction is based solely on an extensive review which was quite positive, and States pretty clearly that focus Speed was inferior to the Nikon 100-400 and the Nikon 200-500. I figure my personal testing of the lens was not going to yield as bonafide conclusion and it simply is the reaction of one potential buyer who shies away from a lens based on focus speed, there were about ten chapters in the review. Since focus speed and resolution are critical to my possible purchase and the lens falls short of the focal length I feel is needed for my use (somewhere between 150-600mm) I just decided not to buy the lens and try it, at least in this mid purchase stage. A typical reaction of a buyer after a careful read of an extensive review. I have used the other lens I have considered, and have not tried the Sigma. By all accounts it is a good buy. I own and use Sigma lens. I also note that others have stated the focus is not that brilliant in third party lens. But if a lens receives nearly all five star ratings from purchasers, then it starts looking pretty good. Last time I checked the 100-400 Sigma C was up to about eleven ratings, hardly hundreds. It does look good enough to try based on price, that review, the few recent ratings, if it was just right for focal range for my target photos. One of the most attractive aspects of this lens is smaller size!
That smaller size and lighter weight puts it in the most appealing zone compared to the four and five pound and up lens.

heartyfisher

Thanks for the response... I have seen some reviews of the 100-400 sigma but it was on canon cameras.. i know that sometimes the sigma lenses behave differently when on Nikon Cameras.

PS in the canon version review AF was good but af tracking was not.

DaveyJ

The Sigma 100-400 lens are so positive for a modest priced lens it is hard to ignore, the 80-400 Nikon is clearly better and impossible for me to justify buying! The200-500 Nikkor is awesome but very heavy, but it's pricing is forward thinking and sure is selling for Nikon. The 80-400 is over priced!

Hiker

$2,300??? WTF? Does Nikon have a lack of oxygen in corporate?!

PB_PM

The price difference between the 80-400mm and the 200-500 is a little mind boggling, but then the 80-400 does need a more complex optical formula.