CCC Forum

I currently have two lenses for my Nikon D750: the Nikkor 24-120 f/4, weighing 710g and 14..19cm long; and the Sigma 50-500 f/4.5-6.3, weighting 1970g and 29..38cm long.

The Sigma 50-500 is a versatile lens, but it's large, heavy, and doesn't focus as fast as I'd like, so I've been trying to work out if there's an alternative available.
Except the other available 500mm lenses are all larger, heavier, and expensive. Also, at 200mm the minimum focus of the Sigma 50-500 is far closer than Nikon's 200-500mm.

So I've been trying to figure out if the Nikkor 300 f/4 PF is worth getting - it weights just 755g and is under 20cm with hood attached.
I could fit a 1.7x teleconverter and have a ~25cm 1kg 510mm lens for ~£2000... that may or not be able to focus better than my Sigma.

OR... I look at the other end of things and try to decide between various ultra-wide angle lenses.
When using my 24-120 I've been trying to determine how often would I prefer to be closer and/or wider, and there have been some situations where that might have helped make an image, but it's hard to know for sure.
Second-hand the Nikkor 16-35 f/4 goes for around £730 so it's a cheaper choice, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'd be value for money if I don't use it as much.

Anyone have any thoughts that might help me decide?

The standard response to this type of question is to enquire what you intend to do with your new lens. Your 24-120 will cover most situations; going wider or closer, the former especially, is starting to get into more specialist territory. Wide-angle can be tricky to get a good composition as it includes so much, but can be useful if there is not much space such as with an interior shot. Going closer can help declutter the composition as it often easier to eliminate unwanted elements in the scene.

Regarding the minimum focus distance of a telephoto zoom, how often do you need to get that near? And how big is your subject? If not being able to fill the frame sufficiently is a frequent occurrence, you might be better off with a macro. At 500m, a 7' MFD is going to get you pretty darn close and depth of field will be shallow. You can check the reviews yourself (I have linked to one below), but from what I hear the Nikon 200-500 gets a good press and is relatively inexpensive compared to some of the competition. As for weight and bulk, unfortunately that is where you start running up against the fundamental laws of physics. Light falls off quickly when passing down a tube, so it requires a large front element to ensure sufficient photons reach the sensor. Image stabilisation and autofocus mechanisms add to weight and size as well.

https://dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-len ... -lens.html

I believe that the Sigma 50-500 is an older design which dates from before the time when Sigma started to up its game. I once spent a morning at the Tollie Red Kite Centre near Inverness trying a similar Tamron 150-600. Although sharp, it also focussed too slowly to lock consistently onto the birds and I ended up binning most of what I took. The rep explained that the inefficient AF was the compromise Tamron had made to keep the cost down. Shortly afterwards the company introduced a new design which had better focussing performance but the price was higher.

If it helps, my own experience is that I usually prefer to zoom in when shooting rather than zoom out. Earlier this year I did buy a Fuji 10-24 f/4 zoom (roughly equivalent to 16-35 on full frame) when it was on offer to extend my options, but it has spent little time on my camera. However, when I do attach a lens with a wider field of view, they do tend to stay there and I start finding compositions which make use of it.

When I was shooting a Canon DSLR and was looking for a longer lens, I did face a conundrum similar to yours. If I wanted image stabilisation, Canon did not have many affordable offerings at the time and the Sigma alternatives fell short. The lens which closest met my needs was the old Canon 100-400 trombone style zoom. It was sharp and focussed quickly but the push-pull zoom tended to suck dust into the lens. There was also a problem with the zoom mechanism when the bearings could fail, requiring an expensive repair. Naturally, they usually lasted long enough to survive the warranty period after which Canon did not want to know. Furthermore, the image stabilisation was first generation and not particularly effective. The lens was by far the oldest in Canon's catalogue, yet although I patiently waited for a replacement, the company stubbornly stuck with it. In the end, I opted for a 300 f/4 and 1.4 extender. In conjunction with a 70-200 zoom, the combination met most of my needs and the prime lens normally proved suitable for the subjects I was photographing.

Hi! Mike's comprehensive response will stand you in good stead, the only thing I would add to this is - if you have a library management tool such as LR you can sort your photos by focal length. this will give you a view of what focal lengths you used most often. I found this useful for homing in on which lens would be more suitable for the type of work you are producing.

Thanks both for your comments.

I've tried using stats from Lightroom, but it turns out to be not so straightforward.

The Sigma 50-500 has 16 different focal lengths recorded, and depending on how you group the values can give different impressions.
Also, whilst it tells me that a substantial amount of images were at 500mm (25% of the shots taken with that lens), it doesn't let me know how many of those were filling the frame, versus needed to be cropped significantly. (But based on the 400..499 stats it's probably more than 20% overall when I want longer/closer.)

The Nikon 24-120 has 34 different focal lengths, and I've taken more at 24mm than the 27..38mm range combined. (Despite 38mm being my third most frequently used focal length for that lens.) But how many times was I going as wide as possible then stepping backwards to fill the frame, and how many times was I simply taking a snapshot and thinking "I can crop that later".

If I had comprehensive tagging, I could filter on different subjects/occasions and get a better idea of the answer to that, but at present 82% of my photos are untagged. (Really wish I had been more disciplined!)

Another interesting factor is that my fourth most common focal length with the 24-120 lens is 105mm - until I limit the selection to images I've actually processed and then it's not even top ten. I'm not really sure what conclusions to draw from that.

Mike wrote:Regarding the minimum focus distance of a telephoto zoom, how often do you need to get that near

Insects.

I consider it lucky to fill as much as 5MP of my 24MP sensor with the subject, and the same applies for birds (where going beyond 500mm would help).

When I tried Nikon's 200-500 in Park Cameras, it seemed to be the 2.2m MFD was throughout the range.

The online quoted MFD for the Sigma 50-500 is always 1.8m - but that's the 500mm value. At 200mm it's 0.6m - which is less than a foot from the front of the lens - an extra 50% magnification (0.32x vs 0.22x) when I can get that close to the creatures, but limited use for the likes of butterflies.

The Nikon 300 PF's MFD is quoted at 1.4m, with a magnification of 1:4.2 (0.24x) it's about the same as the Sigma at 500mm, but combined with a 2x teleconverter would mean 1:2.1 whilst not needing to be too close.

From a quick look at macro options, the longest for Nikon is a 200mm f/4 which will get to 1:1 up close, but would give 2/3rds as many pixels to work with when I can't get close.

Peter Boughton wrote:

Mike wrote:Regarding the minimum focus distance of a telephoto zoom, how often do you need to get that near

Insects.

I consider it lucky to fill as much as 5MP of my 24MP sensor with the subject, and the same applies for birds (where going beyond 500mm would help).

Not the easiest subject, obviously, given that most are fairly small. As I suggested previously, I suspect that you would be better off going for a longer macro that can achieve at least 1:1. Even that, though, might not go close enough and you will need extension tubes as well. Canon does a specialist macro which goes up to 5x, but that will not be much use on your Nikon DSLR. Another possibility is a compact camera with a small sensor as some of those can get very close and the shorter focal lengths of their lenses have a greater depth of field. Alternatively, how about a powerful close-up lens, albeit it will likely introduce distortion? Some people reverse lenses, sometimes joining two together - see the second link below.

https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/mp-e-65m ... hoto-lens/

https://digital-photography-school.com/ ... -lesson-3/

Doubtless there are online fora which specialise in insect photography where you can get advice from those who have already found solutions which work for them. If you want to experiment, I have a Leica Elmarit-R 60 macro with has the 1:1 macro adapter which you are welcome to borrow. (In addition, you would need to acquire a Leica to Nikon F adapter.) It does get very close, but I accept it could well be insufficient for an insect. The lens is completely manual, but often that is a better option for macro work as it offers greater control for positioning the point of focus. The Nikon F mount has a long flange distance and a consequence is that adapted lenses normally cannot focus to infinity, but that could be an advantage in this instance. You are welcome to come to my place to have a look and see whether such a setup has any potential before making any financial outlay.

As for birds, you rightly point out that the longer the lens, the better. A few years ago we had a talk from a birder who was shooting slides, i.e. full frame, and he used a Canon 500 with a 2x extender. His gear must have weighed a ton.

Peter Boughton wrote:If I had comprehensive tagging, I could filter on different subjects/occasions and get a better idea of the answer to that, but at present 82% of my photos are untagged. (Really wish I had been more disciplined!)

I suspect that you are far from alone.

Another option, which I erroneously thought I had already mentioned in my previous post, is to use extension tubes, most likely i conjunction with a short focal length. Going more extreme, it would solve the minimum focusing distance issues of a long telephoto lens, albeit I suspect that depth of field would be vanishingly shallow even when stopped down. I have not heard of anyone utilising this approach but who knows, you could start a new genre.

Hi Peter,

As has been said, what do you photograph and what are your common focal lengths?

I use Nikon and have roughly the same lenses. My go-to is the 24-120. I also have the Nikon 80-400 f4.5-5.6. I find that if birding or at airshows, you really need a minimum of 500mm. On the other hand, I find 24mm is not wide enough though I rarely shoot at the wide end.

Personally, I don't find the 300mm focal length particularly useful. I either want to shoot further or wider. I would like the Nikon 200-500 but it is heavvvvv-ey.

Both Sigma and Tamron produce well regarded 150-600 and in January Nikon launch their new 120-300f2.8 but lord knows how much that'll be - https://nikonrumors.com/2019/12/03/the- ... soon.aspx/ Sigma do an identical lens which will probably be cheaper than Nikon's but again, this is very heavy. If you're feeling very flush, there's always Nikon's 500mmf5.6! Sigma do 100-400 or Nikon do a 70-300

At the wide end I'd go 14-24 or 16-35 and if you're doing macro I'd go for a specialist lens

Hi Peter

This article might be of interest if you are considering a high magnification lens for your insect photography.

https://petapixel.com/2019/12/10/a-comp ... ra-lenses/

If I could justify the expense, I'd happily get a close-up lens, a macro lens, a 500mm PF with 1.4x+2.0x TCs, and an ultra-wide zoom. (And a D850 too.)

My "low budget" alternative is using the 300mm PF with a 1.7x TC to get a 510mm lens for birds that isn't heavy and can also work as a close-up for insects.

I do already have extension tubes, but they are not the best and aperture control can be flakey.
When they work, depth of field can be enough, depending on subject, though obviously requires focus to be precise.


I'd been aware of reversing lenses for macro work, but it had slipped into one of the cracks in my mind until Mike mentioned it, and the possibility of a new lease of life for my old 30mm f/1.4 DX lens is attractive.

I've just tested with that lens held reversed against my 50-500 and the combo can resolve the individual red/green/blue subpixels on my mobile's screen - and fills the whole frame - so I'm going to go find the appropriate step up/down and coupling rings, and essentially get a 16x macro for peanuts.


Interesting to see a Laowa lens in that macro comparison - someone recently mentioned them to me as a relatively new brand worth paying attention to, with a 15mm f/2 that apparently produces good results.

Peter Boughton wrote:I'd been aware of reversing lenses for macro work, but it had slipped into one of the cracks in my mind until Mike mentioned it .......

To be honest, I had forgotten about reversing lenses as well until I had a rummage in my own brain. Surprising what can be found there ......

Peter Boughton wrote:Interesting to see a Laowa lens in that macro comparison - someone recently mentioned them to me as a relatively new brand worth paying attention to, with a 15mm f/2 that apparently produces good results.

There are a number of Chinese companies producing good quality lenses, often manual focus, at relatively low cost. 7Artisans is one to watch. I recently bought one of their 50 mm f/1.1 Leica M mount lenses new for just over £200. In terms of maximum aperture, it is within a whisker of Leica's own 50 mm f/0.95 Noctilux which retails for £9.5k these days. (Apparently, the f/1.1 designation has been rounded up from f/1.05. Some manufacturers would have been tempted to call it f/1.) Does it perform as well as a Noctilux? That is not such a stupid question as it first appears and there is far less between them than the disparity in cost would suggest. The 7Artisans even manages to best the Noctilux in some areas. Now that is surprising.

https://www.overgaard.dk/7artisans-for- ... eport.html

Incidentally, 7Artisans appears to have performed a similar feat with its new 75 mm f/1.25, which can be bought for around £350, holding its own against Leica's £10k+ equivalent. Admittedly there are some flaws which I would not expect in Leica's version but for the money it is a more than capable lens.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-7a ... 75mm-1-25/