Looking for a telephoto zoom setup..

Hi All! I'm after a telephoto setup and got a few ideas of what I should buy..

I'm after something around the 200-400mm focal length range. 300mm would be OK too. For use in small waterparks of larger birds, geese, etc and taking photos of trains and landscapes.

I already own a Nikon F80 (85mm f1.8, 28-80mm f3.3-5.6) and Lumix S5 (50mm f1.8, 24-105mm f4). I'm not sure how seriously I'm going to take film photography in the long run - I've been shooting for a month and had a few rolls developed, I'm really enjoying it though!

Simple option - just buy the Sigma 100-400mm L Mount.

Pros -
Gets the focal length I want in one easy package
I could afford it in one months pay

Cons -
Might have to switch between the 24-105 / 100-400 when I'm out and about?

Or the smarter option -
Lumix S70-300mm
Pros - Won't have to swap lenses as much as the 70-105 range will be covered..
Cons - It's expensive.. I'd have to save up for 2-3 months (I have no self control at saving money!).. the lens feels overpriced

Go APS-C.. ? Nikon D7200 + a 70-300mm
Pros -
Second hand both would cost less than the 100-400mm
I get a digital camera body to use with my 2 Nikon Lenses
I think the idea of a smaller sensor might work in my favor with having a larger depth of field - especially when I'm taking photos of trains

Cons -
DSLR, I might struggle with focusing, tracking moving subjects? I've not used a DSLR in a few years!
Quite a bulky setup - carrying that and my S5+24-105mm might cause some problems..

Lumix G90 + 45-200mm OIS
Pros -
Small setup!
I think the idea of a smaller sensor might work in my favor with having a larger depth of field - especially when I'm taking photos of trains

Cons
Same price as just buying the Sigma 100-400mm - is spending that much on Micro Four Thirds a good idea.. ?
Lower image quality than I'm used to when compared to my S5 (Maybe, not sure?)

Lumix GX9 + 45-200mm OIS
Same as above but in addition
Pros
I really like the form factor - I'm also yearning for a small every day camera I can carry around that doesn't draw attention.

Cons
Can't find the GX9 to purchase anywhere in the UK currently, even second hand.

Go full film! My F80+70-300mm
Pros
Cheapest option by far, just need to get the lens..

Cons
Shallower depth of field might not be that great for some of the photos I want to take
Steeper learning curve in being able to get the photos that I would otherwise get with digital

--

Oh I should mention I used to own the Canon 55-250mm STM and an M100/M6II. Had 2 of those lenses actually - one got ruined by steam from a steam train and then I eventually sold all my EOS M gear to buy into L Mount gear as I wanted something built more solid and a viewfinder. I was really pleased with the quality of the 55-250mm STM.

Well, this post went in all different directions - film, m4/3, DSLR.

Is there something you don't like about your Lumix S5? It sounds like you just want to get rid of it.

You spoke of the Sigma 100-400 in L mount so I'm guessing this lens will be for the Lumix S5?

If it's for the Lumix S5, consider the newest Sigma 60-600 in L mount. If you don't mind the size/weight, there's really no better zoom for what you're trying to accomplish.
www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/sony/60-600mm-f4-5-6-3-dg-dn-os-s

It's primarily because I want to avoid situations where I'm having to swap lenses. Though I suppose I could use my Nikon F80 for shots at < 80mm. I enjoy shooting with the S5 and 24-105mm but I find I'm having to regularly crop in at 2X with my railway photography of trains down the tracks. I really miss having a telephoto lens to use walking around local water parks.

Did not realise that lens existed, that lens has a great focal length range! Shame about the price and weight though.. but it would mean I only have to carry one lens around and no need for cropping in if taking photos of birds/animals!

I really wish the Lumix 70-300mm wasn't £1,250.. I'd have snapped it up a year ago if it was the same price as the Sigma 100-400. Maybe I should just try harder and figure out a way to save up for it over the course of a few months!

I agree with Lance on this one. You are confusing yourself with too many options.

Here are some of my comments/suggestions:

There is no rational reason for returning to film, especially for birds. It is the most expensive option - just work out how many shots you may want to take in a year and cost that out for film and for digital. However, there may be emotional reasons for using film for some of your photography but that is a decision that only you can take.

I can't see any point for going to an APS-C DSLR like the D7200. It is going to be worse than the S5 for just about everything except possibly birds in flight. Also note that your 28-80mm lens is equivalent to 42-112mm when used on an APS-C body which means that you lose all wide angle. So it isn't a very useful general purpose lens on APS-C.

The same is true of the M4/3 options that you have suggested - worse than the S5 for everything that you say you want to do, although the lenses for birds are smaller and cheaper.

The Lumix S5 has better image quality than any of your other suggestions and it is very much better for video. It is also better for large, stationary birds at short range. So, if your usage is going to be only "in small waterparks of larger birds, geese, etc and taking photos of trains and landscapes", then getting the 100-400mm lens and keeping the S5 is your best option.

However, you say that you only want to photograph large birds at small waterparks. That is very limited and most bird photographers would want to move on to more interesting/difficult subjects pretty quickly. That would include birds taking off and landing on water and single or groups of birds in flight. That requires higher fps rates and better AF-C. Eventually you will want to photograph smaller birds further away with longer focal length lenses. The S5 has relatively low fps rates and not as good AF-C as many of its mirrorless competitors. 400mm is quite a short lens for birds on a FF body like the S5, so you would need to go to at least 600mm. That would mean a Sigma 150-600mm or the much more expensive 60-600mm mentioned by XRay. These are big, heavy lenses.

So, if you get interested in bird photography in the future, then the S5 may not be the best long term option. Selling your S5 and lenses and moving to Canon, Nikon or Sony mirrorless bodies which are more suited to wildlife, e.g. Canon R6ii or R7, Nikon Z6/7 or Sony A9, is going to be expensive Another alternative would be to keep the S5 for trains and landscapes and get something cheaper for birds, e.g. a used Olympus E-M1 Mk2 with 75-300mm lens, a used Sony RX10 Mk3, a used used Panasonic LZ1000 or even a Nikon P900.

I think that you need to think a bit more carefully about what you want to photograph now and what you might want to photography in the future. Then think about the best path to get from the equipment that you have now and what you will need in the future.

I hope that this is of some use.

Chris

I have a similar problem while shooting at my local nature preserve. I want to document current conditions for future reference using wide-angle landscapes and I want to take bird photos using a big zoom lens. Over the years I have tried three things. Maybe one of them (or some combination) could work for you:

• Just take one camera+lens and restrict my photography to suitable subjects. If necessary hike back to the car, swap lenses and go back out again. This didn't work out very well - too much hiking, not enough photo-taking.
• Bring my big camera and big zoom for bird photos and a small 1" sensor camera - or my cellphone - for documenting landscapes. I did this for a full year. The little cameras did fine for my landscape documentation purposes but I would occasionally run into dynamic range problems (bright fluffy clouds over a dark tree line). Using multi-shot HDR techniques helped to extend the dynamic range of the 1" sensor camera. Honestly, this is good enough for my purposes - no one can see the difference. The problem is me - I can see the difference.
• Currently, I just bite the bullet and carry two big cameras - one with a big zoom lens, and another with a lightweight wide-angle zoom. It's about 8 lbs of equipment altogether. I wear a 2-camera harness to carry it all and I think I look like a dork.

I'm getting old, and someday I won't be able to haul this stuff around. So I have a fourth option for that day - just buy and use an RX10 IV (or future equivalent).

One of my first MFT lenses was the 45-200. I loved having a 400mm EFL lens I could carry in a coat pocket. It was truly revolutionary for me, and I carried it on long walks in hill country. Got some scenic shots I really love. Note, though, that it's a bit soft beyond 150mm. If 300mm is enough for you, you might be happy with Panasonic's 14-140/3.5-5.6, which is sharper at every FL and aperture and gets you to 280mm EFL. It's smaller than the 45-200, too.

Nowadays, my casual walkabout camera, which complements my high-rez pro kit, is a Panasonic FZ1000 MkII. It definitely won't fit in a pocket, but it's lighter than it looks and easy to carry everywhere in a top-load-zoom pouch. IQ suffices for crisp prints up to 24". The 25-400mm EFL zoom range is super-handy, and it's a very pleasant camera to use, with a good grip, extensive and well-placed controls, and a very responsive touchscreen.

Overall, I'd say the GX9 with 14-140 yields slightly better IQ, but it's a lot more money.

For best portability and reach while maintaining good IQ, I combine Sony RX10IV 24-600mm for wildlife with EOS-M 6II and selected lenses for other works.
When I travel by plane, I take Sony RX10IV and RX100 VII.

Thanks for your advice and suggestions everyone.
I would say only 25% of my photos would be for wildlife - the main bulk of the photos is travelling on railways. I don't need 400mm+ for those types of shots, maybe only around 200-300mm. But I do miss my walks and having something at the 400mm range like I used to use with my M6II+55-250mm was really fun.

I wonder how much image quality I'll really lose compared to Full Frame if I went for a Micro-four thirds setup. I had started to look at compact sensor 1" offerings too. Some of those look pretty neat - like the FZ2000.

I could pick up the G80+100-300mm Power OIS (or 45-200mm Power OIS) for £650~ second hand and have it arrive for the weekend. That seems like very good value for money - providing I'm satisfied with the image quality from such a small sensor.

One alternative I was thinking was buying the Sigma 100-400mm and in a couple of months picking up a second S5 body - this would solve the problem of not having to switch out lenses when I'm about.. those cameras are a very good price now on the used market now that they have been superseded by the S5II. I don't care for PDAF in my photography.. always found the focus to be fast and accurate on my S5 - only ever ran into DFD issues when using C-AF in 4K 30fps video mode - but that's something I very rarely use the camera for.

I have a friend, who's a pro writer/photographer and a famous mountaineer to boot, who's been using his m43 kit for many years now, although a monochrome Leica recently was added to his kit. For years he used a huge 4x5 that used blade film on his climbs and treks, then Switched to Cannon, and then eventually, approaching 60, switched to m43.

His shots from Mount Everest are amazing, and he uses the E-M1X and is very pleased with that, as he wants a good kit for travel, and trekking.

I myself am close to his age, and try to have as light a kit as possible, although I like to shoot macro and birds. So I use the Nikon 1 J5 with the Nikon 1 70-300 CX (a superb lens), which equals a 189-820mm FX lens. Lately, I've used my Sigma 135 Art a lot, which, depending on which camera it is mounted on, gives me a nice selection of alternatives in crop factor, from 2.7 to 1.0!

My wife uses various m43 cameras, and her shots on stationary birds are better than mine due to the IBIS (she uses the PL 100-400 and the P 35-100 with her cameras (most of them Olympus brand, one Panasonic). That 35-100/2.8 is amazingly sharp, although her classic Olympus 75/1.8 is even better! I love her Olympus 60/2.8 macro, on apr with my heavy Sigma 105 macro, but so much lighter!