Nikon D750 but just on lens? (1 Viewer)

[socksitis]

Having thought about upgrading to a Nikon for the past 3 years - I am about there and have decided to go for the D750. But then lenses, this is my lack of knowledge here, if I were to go for a telephoto lens, something along the lines of 300mm but then there are options within that range - and what about a prime lens? (son is better at this photography than me, but he is not here).
Want to take some wildlife shots, but then I like a bit of macro photography - insects, so another lens needed - price is stacking up here, please any advice welcome.

 

[PeteQuad]

Well, I am not particularly adept but I have been doing an immense amount of internet research since I am planning to purchase at some point in the next couple months. I have decided on a D7200 and a Sigma 150-600mm C lens. However, if you want to do some insects and such you might want to look at the Canon 100-400mm II lens. It has a very close focus allowing not true macro but something very like it. I have seen excellent flower and bug pictures with it. You would probably want to pair it with either the Canon 7DmkII or 80D. This would allow you to stick with one very versatile (and super sharp) lens.

That's my two cents. I do not think I would be happy with only 300mm for birding (especially on a full frame camera). If you want to stick with Nikon and are planning to heavily focus on birding which requires reach I would suggest you look at their aps-c cameras unless you are willing to go whole hog on tripods and expensive prime lenses. In particular the D7200 and D500 would be your best options.

Full disclosure - my only two (D)SLR cameras were a Minolta 8000i and a Sony a100 so my hands-on photography knowledge is not exactly current. I'm currently using a Canon G3X bridge camera while I contemplate my upgrade.

 

[nikonmike]

The Nikon 200-500 could be worth looking at.

 

[PeteQuad]

I agree. I have been looking into that lens also but I am not convinced it is worth the extra money (vs the sigma) for me.

 

[nikonmike]

I agree. I have been looking into that lens also but I am not convinced it is worth the extra money (vs the sigma) for me.

Being involved with a Nikon forum i can say it beats the others on stabilization,if thats important to you.

 

[PeteQuad]

It's really a tough choice for me. But because of the extra $350 and the loss of focal length and slightly heavier, I lean towards the Sigma C. However I have a feeling the Nikon is a bit sharper and has the better stabilization, is faster, etc. The question for me is - is the Sigma C good enough? I am hoping that it is. Of course I can have almost the same decision between the Nikon 200-500 and the Canon 100-400 II. I actually am choosing the lens first and camera second.

 

[nikonmike]

It's really a tough choice for me. But because of the extra $350 and the loss of focal length and slightly heavier, I lean towards the Sigma C. However I have a feeling the Nikon is a bit sharper and has the better stabilization, is faster, etc. The question for me is - is the Sigma C good enough? I am hoping that it is. Of course I can have almost the same decision between the Nikon 200-500 and the Canon 100-400 II. I actually am choosing the lens first and camera second.

The main question is do you want wider or longer as i dont think there is much performance difference between them.

 

[PeteQuad]

I am seeing what you mean in a lot of sample pictures. The Nikon seems to get more really sharp pictures than the Sigma at lower f-stops. The Sigma at 600mm and f/8 looks as good as the Nikon at 500mm and f/5.6. That is a really tough choice.

 

[peterjones]

I have used a brace of Nikon D750s for the best part of a year with the 300f/4 latest version, 500f/4 and Sigma 150-600 Sport, the quality of results from the Sigma is staggering considering the price, mine cost £990 s/h from that doyen of retailers: Ffordes; I am almost but not quite yet considering selling my 500 as the results are only slightly better than my Sigma. I love the 300, so light for flight shots and again outstanding quality even mated with a x 1.4 TC, I wouldn't use the Sigma with a TC.
HTH, Peter.

 

[PeteQuad]

Thanks - that is interesting about your thoughts on the 500 f/4. It's good to hear the Sigma is so close to such an excellent lens. I would be using the Sigma on a D7200 so a TC would probably be overkill.

 

[socksitis]

Well I have tried the Sigma 24-105mm f4 DG OS HSM, just too heavy for the 'general lens' so am going to try the Nikon 24 - 85mm f3.5 -4.5 and the Tamron 28 - 300 f3.5 - 6.3 was just not the one, so it will be the Sigma 150 - 600mm Contemporary- cpu;d not stretch any further.
Would love a macro lens, but just cannot spend any more money. Is there a cheap option for the time being and then look for a better macro lens in the future, or continue to use the old camera that is adequate at macro, but not brilliant?

 

[BillN]

Nikon 300mm f4 PF + TC x 1,4

or go for a used 300mm f4 AF-S

wildlife, birds, Dragonflies, etc.

 

[socksitis]

Hmmm, still do not know if I have made the right choice? I think the Nikon 24 - 85 is just the job for the lens that stays on the camera, but the 150 -600, hmmm, does it do what I thought it would do? No, did I expect too much for the money?

 

[PeteQuad]

I'm not sure I follow you. Did you purchase a Sigma 150-600 C already?