Alright,

So I own a tamron 200-500, exclusively on a D7200. It’s old, beyond slow AF, and if you crop even a hair, image quality goes out the window.

I live pretty close to the tetons now, and all the serious photographers are rolling with 500 or 600mm primes. Obviously this becomes a money issue

I love the ability to throw the 200-500 in my back pack and take it on regular hikes where I might run in to wildlife, but the allure of a vehicle deployed nikon prime is festering. The added flexibility of a nikon 200-500 having an actual range to compose with seems nice shooting wildlife, as obviously they do their own thing, and I feel like a huge prime would be nice, if what I was shooting played along.

I know a few of you have the Tamron 150-600, how does that stack up vs the nikon 200-500?

I’ve even read some folks that think their images on the cropped nikon 300mm F2.8 are satisfactory, and it’s obviously a way more maneuverable lens.

I almost think keeping the tamron as my pack away glass, and deciding on a prime and maybe a teleconverter would be best, to cover both avenues?

The Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 will absolutely stomp the Tamron 200-500mm f/5-6.3 pretty decently.  The AF, optics, etc are head and shoulders above it to be blunt.  

If I had to pick my most commonly used lenses, the 200-500mm f/5.6 is probably my #2.  The only issues I've had with it were either user error or extreme temp related.  So long as you aren't shooting in subzero temps the lens works great.  The barrel gets a bit stiff to zoom around -15f or so.

If you get one, Nikon occasionally has refurbs down to $1000 or so on sale.

Was hoping you would chime in
The tamron is super lackluster. But it’s what I could afford at 23.  Do you feel like the 200-500 offers you more versatility vs a prime in a similar focal length? That’s right around what a tamron 150-600 runs. I can only assume the nikon beats it twice on Sunday optically, and the loss in focal length is made up in cropping clarity?

A prime will almost always whoop zooms.  That said, you'd be easily spending 5-7x the cost to get a prime.  If I had the money, I'd absolutely be getting a 300mm f/4 PF and 500mm f/5.6 PF prime though.

The 200-500mm f/5.6 is a fat bastard.  Hand holding it is manageable but for longer stuff you'll certainly want a tripod or monopod.  It's ~5# vs 8.5# for the 500mm f/4 prime as an example.  Unless I was making big money on photos using the lens, I'd take the 200-500mm f/5.6 over a prime simply for the utility of having a wide variety of focal lengths to choose from.

For cropping though, FX lenses are usually fantastic on DX sensors simply because they're already using the best portions of the glass.  Not to mention a 200-500mm would look like a 300-750mm on your D7200 when compared to my D850.  Optically the 200-500mm holds pretty well for cropping, assuming your camera can resolve the image well enough to accept the crop.  The D7200 is still a damn solid camera (I miss mine) and within reason it shouldn't have any issues with crops that aren't severe.  The only way to find out is trial though, but I'm solidly confident that you won't have any issues unless you hit the limit of sensor resolution.

You could always check local shops or lensrentals.com to snag a 200-500mm for a few days/week to see if you like it.

Original shot, albeit cropped for framing.  Then (next photo in sequence) cropped in to focus on the pilot.  To be honest, I'm really wishing I have a crop sensor to use the 200-500mm on for airshows and whatnot.  A D500 or D550 (if one comes out) is in my future.

Seriously though, I want the 300mm f/4 PF and 500mm f/5.6 PF.  Downside is cost.  $2000 and $3500 respectively, but they weigh nothing compared to other primes because of the lens design.  Anyone want a kidney?  It's one of the few functioning organs I have left, so no warranty.

lol.   I always enjoy your posts.    

Using Canon lenses I regularly get very decent imagery from an ordinary (non L series) prime. But I don't have any really long primes, just the 135L and 200L. I keep thinking about the 400L, but there's no way I could handhold that (age and infirmity make me a pretty shaky platform) and I hate lugging even my carbon fiber Manfrotto.

@NorthPolar

What are your thoughts on this?

Attached File

That's the old AF-D model that was introduced in '92.  Optically it's solid, but the screw drive AF on this guy is known for being insanely slow.  Like 'people switched to Canon' levels of slow.  If it breaks, there's not really any real chance of getting it repaired as it's been discontinued for years now.  Maybe a private repair place, but considering the lens who knows.  I can only think of 2 screw drive lenses that Nikon still makes these days, simply because they are so unique.  (the 105mm and 135mm f/2 DC portrait lenses)

Adorama's V rating is pretty heavy use but no damage that should affect optical performance.

As a whole, I'd pass on it.

Tamron 150-600 on an 80D.

I'm late to the party here, but I'm VERY happy with my Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG OS.

$899 at B&H, new in the box. On sale currently. Linky

Picked this 150-600 sigma for Nikon from B&H for $729. They had them on sale week of 12/14/2020. So far so good. still learning how best to use it.

EBR

Is there a huge difference between the tamron and sigma offerings?

Not sure. Go to the B&H site and take a look-see. They run specials all the time.

I had a very positive experience with them. For items that were in stock the shipped the Fedx next day free.

Also I don't know what your states sales tax situation is but if you apply for their credit card they add the tax to the sale and then put a rebate for the tax as a line item so you don.t pay the tax.

Decided to look for you. Tamron $1200   Sigma $900  That's for nikon F mount 150 - 600 tele

EBR

My first super was the Tamzooka; the 150-600 f/5.6-6.3.  The Gen I version.  I got a pretty good copy, it was fairly sharp as long as I stopped it down to f/9.  Good lens, but I started hitting sharpness limitations and looked into the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 NP mentioned; now that's my only superzoom.

Sure, I'm losing 100mm of zoom, but it's sharper at 5.6 than the Tamron was at 9; that's more than 3 full stops of aperture.  I'm willingly trading that 100mm for the extra light and it's worth it.

Tamron 150-600

Heron On Piling by FredMan, on Flickr

Nikon 200-500

Soaring Buzzard by FredMan, on Flickr