Hereīs the deal, I do a lot of wildlife pictures, I recently change my body for a D600 (coming from a DX). It was hard with the 80-200 to get close pictures so now I need something more for the Fx.Money is a problem so the 200-400 is out of the question, and I will only use this lens for wildlife.
Here are my choices:
Sigma 120-400 cheapest ( Donīt now anything about it)
Sigma 150-500 ( probably the best? )
Nikon 80-400 (I heard itīs too slow for wildlife)
Nikon 400 4.5 (1972 all manual)
I threw a 2x on my 70-200mm VRII. It is pretty sharp and I'm happy with the results for anything I don't get paid for. Focus is a bit slower, but the sharpness is pretty decent.
I'm puzzled why you buy a D600 for wildlife You would have been better off with a D7000 and something like a Nikon 300mm f4 and a TC-17E. Now, you are trying to make do with second and third tier lenses. For a D600 shooting wildlife your obvious choice is the 500mm f4. The d600 would be my last choice if I were a wildlife shooter.
I know the D600 is not the best choice for wildlife, but Iīm coming from a D200 and the only available choice now for me was the D600 (living in South America and itīs not easy to get everything). Probably Iīll sell the D600 and buy another but next month I have a trip to Kruger and I need the tele. Another choice could be a 300 for the D200 but I donīt want to buy dx lenses if Iīm not going to use them anymore.
IMOH the Sigma 150-500 is the best value for money. It's reasonable sharp, has OS and is relatively cheap.
Thom Hogan published a review here
I used it as a 'holiday' lens on a D300s and liked but at the end I replaced it with the 200-400.
It's a good choice for a safari lens.
The 80-400 isn't that bad a lens, not as fast focussing as the AFS lenses but I'm pretty sure it works well enough for Wildlife.I had one when they first came out with an F5 film body and shot Sports in good light with it.
Whenever I see these post about which lens for Wildlife on a budget, I want to say your better off picking up a Canon APS-C body like the 7D or 60D and the Canon 100-400L IS.Faster to focus and better image quality the the Nikon version.
I had the Sigma 120-400 and 150-500. I liked the 120-400 better because the 150-500 was rather soft beyond 400mm. I haven't tried the 50-500 but I've heard that one is better yet.
If you're really strapped for cash, the 70-300VR (or Tamron version) is a really nice lens. In broad daylight, it's a phenomenal lens. And for the price, you really can't beat it. I use it with my DX kit (with 16-85) as my traveling set-up, but use it with my FX occasionally as well.
Other than that, your price range goes up fast. Still, what the others have said... either a 80-200 or 70-200 or 300/4 and a tele converter will get you the most focal length for the money.
I have and use the 80-400 occasionally. It was my first "super tele", and it was what I used when I went to Masai Mara. It worked really well during the day, on slower moving targets. If you want speed, it won't deliver, but range it has.
signo wrote:
Hereīs the deal, I do a lot of wildlife pictures, I recently change my body for a D600 (coming from a DX). It was hard with the 80-200 to get close pictures so now I need something more for the Fx.Money is a problem so the 200-400 is out of the question, and I will only use this lens for wildlife.
Here are my choices:
Sigma 120-400 cheapest ( Donīt now anything about it)
Sigma 150-500 ( probably the best? )
Nikon 80-400 (I heard itīs too slow for wildlife)
Nikon 400 4.5 (1972 all manual)
Thanks for the advise.
I always think it's funny when people say the Nikon 80-400 is to slow for wildlife.
Yes, the AF is slower, but if one learns the lens and uses the limit switch then it works fine for wildlife.
The 80-400 was a favorite of mine when I had it and sometimes I wish I never sold it. It's a great lens, very sharp and compact.
The photo below was taken with a D300/80-400 combo and the duck was flying very fast just above the water.
Chestnut wrote:
If you're really strapped for cash, the 70-300VR (or Tamron version) is a really nice lens. In broad daylight, it's a phenomenal lens. And for the price, you really can't beat it. I use it with my DX kit (with 16-85) as my traveling set-up, but use it with my FX occasionally as well.
+1 to that. Sample shot with the D600 + Tamron 70-300 VC...
I donīt do a lot of birds so If the subject is quite big sometimes I can get really close. I must say Iīm not agree with Kent about the D600 for wildlife (itīs not the best choice but definitely itīs not bad at all).
I have the 80-200 2.8 with two rings and always worked great with the D200. The Nikon 80-400 seems a very good lens (judging David shot). Also more expensive than the 150-500 here in south America.
Scott, Canon is out of the question,excellent brand, but too expensive to change brands for the same quality. I believe more in the human factor.
Runamuck Iīm 100% agree but I also do travel photography and using again my 20-35 2.8 as wide is great.
I love my 300mm f4 afs with D600. I use it with TC14 and TC20-III. It will auto focus with TC20-III but it is on the slow side. Here is the photo with D600 (DX mode) + 300 + TC20 at f8.
You would have been better off with a D7000 and something like a Nikon 300mm f4 and a TC-17E. Now, you are trying to make do with second and third tier lenses. For a D600 shooting wildlife your obvious choice is the 500mm f4. The d600 would be my last choice if I were a wildlife shooter. 
