framer said:
Forget the VR for 95% of birds, You need to get your shutter speed up, 1/1500 at a min 1/3000 is better. Low cost solution AFs 300 f4 w/TC14E 420mm f5.6. Get focus and take a burst. I like 4-5FPS for birds. I shoot this combo at F8 or one stop down. My body is a D3s I adjust ISO to get my speed where I want it.

Agree that the AF-S 300mm f/4 + TC 1.4 is a great combo (I use it constantly) but very much disagree that people should forget VR for 95% of birds. VR is not important for tripod shots and flight shots, but there are plenty of sub-1/1000 opportunities in bird photography. Additionally, shooting in poor light with a low power flash for micro contrast in the feathers and fill can really be aided by VR since you're often shooting at your top flash sync speed or perhaps just a little more. There are plenty of opportunities I could take advantage of with VR in the 300mm.

Next you'll be telling us that a D40 and a kit lens is all I really need for wildlife.

*face to the palm*

I agree with Breezes wish and feel it would prove far more useful than many realize. Nikon is clearly looking right now at the 80-400VR and that lens DOES need to be revamped. It is in the hands of Nikon Research and Development. That was Nikon's answer to me. Do not think that great photography needs to be done by 400 and 500 2.8s as I abandoned my super expensive lens buying habits based on results from lens like the 70-300 VR. Breezes does have a point for sure according to me as a field user (NOT Studio) but the wait is the real issue. Another is pent up demand. Nikon demands that this exist. So the 80-400VR is getting close. I cannot say more.

Forget the VR for 95% of birds, You need to get your shutter speed up, 1/1500 at a min 1/3000 is better. Low cost solution AFs 300 f4 w/TC14E 420mm f5.6. Get focus and take a burst. I like 4-5FPS for birds. I shoot this combo at F8 or one stop down. My body is a D3s I adjust ISO to get my speed where I want it.

framer

SquamishPhoto said:
And from what most people seem to say the 200-400mm f4 is the poorest performer of all the exotic telephoto lenses, so if you do decide to blow the wad one day you might want to rethink your decision making.

Moose Peterson is a highly respected wildlife photographer. His take on the 200-400mm f/4: "Since its introduction in 2004, the 200-400VR has become “the” lens for wildlife photographers and for very good reasons." This lens is probably the most coveted by Canon wildlife shooters, though Canon has now announced they'll be delivering one of their own at some point. Does it perform quite as well at a prime? Probably not, but that's because ... well, it's not a prime.

I agree with all here that Nikon just doesn't seem to be too interested in the birding, wildlife, and amateur sport photography markets. If they did we'd see updates to the 300mm f/4 (add VR), the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 (AF-S, sharper long end), and introduction of a 400mm f/5.6. They've updated the 300mm f/2.8 TWICE over the past decade, but that's a well over $5,000 lens. It also weighs nearly 6-1/2 pounds.

@breezes: I went from Nikon's 70-300mm (which I still use at shorter range) to the 80-400mm and have settled mostly on the 300mm f/4 + TC1.4. It focuses more quickly than the 80-400 and is very sharp. The lack of VR means that 1/800 is about my slowest shutter speed when hand held. That hurts shooting songbirds in semi-shady conditions, but for flight photos I'd never shoot under 1/1000 anyway. If you go the 80-400 route, two things help a lot; stopping a bit to f/7.1 or f/8 and backing off of 400mm a bit. I got some nice flight shots with it but it is tough due to the slow focus speed.

@looon: What I've read from multiple bird photographers (including those who actually know the guts of these cameras) is that VR doesn't hurt the accuracy of the AF at high shutter speeds but rather slows the AF down without improving accuracy. So if you're shooting perched birds you might never really notice the difference, but if you're trying to shoot speedy hawks or waterfowl in flight you may have more trouble obtaining focus.

looon said:
Awhile back I researched whether I should keep VR turned off while at high speeds. There seems to be 2 schools of thought about whether or not it can actually hurt rather than help at those speeds. All this physics theory is cited on both sides, but no actual test data..

Got to add some info on this one. First, each lens has it's own VR design that is specific to that lens. If you read Nikon's articles, you will see them say that, so you can not have a rule of thumb for all VR lenses. Basically you have to read the lens manual.

There was a Nikon support thing once (that I can not find on their site - google "nikon VR shooting above 1/500" byThom probably is the most detailed - but I didn't read it. He always is very detailed,) that said to turn off VR when you are above 1/500th. The VR may actually kick in and degrade the image.

Now there is a whole thing on panning (Active mode) that it should/could be used.
Also, Tripod use seems to be different for each lens and is listed in the manuals.

Looon is correct, physics is at play - Nyquest I think is what the term is.

My experience: 70-300VR - above 1/500th Turn off the VR for sure. When people talk about this lens being soft, I'm willing to bet they have the VR on over 1/500th. 70-200vr (ver I) never have noticed any issue above 1/500th except for when it is on a tripod and not panning, then I do see the fuzz come to visit. 24-120vr ver1 - who knows that lens always was soft for me.

@msmoto ... If you can find a birdy place, it can be very exciting! What's PAD? Have fun, and let me know how you make out. Now I will need to try some cars!

@looon... I am going to have to try the bird shots now.... and I will keep the VR "ON". Even on a tripod, as I will try some with the birds flying, lots of blank frames....ha, ha, ha... but when situated in a static position, I will change the VR to "TRIPOD" mode. And we will see. if any good ones come up, PAD will get one or two. Let me see, camera, lens, tripod, chair, food, water, etc.,....

msmoto said:
@looon... thanks, I have not tried a formal bird shoot. I imagine there are some techniques one uses for birds in flight, but even in shooting airplanes with a 560mm on FX, sometimes even catching the plane in the frame is difficult. I guess one question I would have is why does one need VR if the birds are flying in an irregular pattern requiring very high shutter speed? Yes, it seems to help in all situations, but hand holding even a light weight lens, 12 times magnification on DX, would suggest a 1/800 or 1/1000 shutter speed, which decreases the need for VR.

Great question. I am usually at speeds betw 1/1250 - 1/3000 and in theory, shouldn't need the VR. Awhile back I researched whether I should keep VR turned off while at high speeds. There seems to be 2 schools of thought about whether or not it can actually hurt rather than help at those speeds. All this physics theory is cited on both sides, but no actual test data.. About a year ago I tried going without VR for about a month and seemed to have less keepers. I have found that VR stabilizes the image in the viewfinder helping me to obtain and retain pinpoint focus - for instance on the eye of a perched bird. No matter how fast the shutter, it isn't going to help if the focus isn't right. The other reason I wouldn't buy a lens without VR is for times of low light when I'm forced to shoot at far slower speeds than I would like (though the D800 has been a huge help with that :-)

I think Nikon is really on the fence concerning how to refresh the 80-400mm VR lens. I believe this was Nikon's first splash in VR technology. It has been criticized for slow AF and its F stop range. Although it gets the job done for a lot of people. However, what will Nikon eventually do? 80-400mm VR F4? Very pricey, 70-300mm VR F4? 70-200mm VR F4? I think the 70-200mm VR F4 should be the first to hit the market. Other than that I'm not sure.

sevencrossing said:
One thing seems clear a 400 f5.6 VR even if did exist, would not cut the mustard

That is b.s. at its purest.

A 400 5.6 with a (relatively new) Nikon body could work very well (Nikons produce cleaner images at high ISOs than comparable Canons). And the Canon 400/5.6 is an excellent lens. The AF speed is quite fast and the images are very sharp and contrasty enough. And it is pleasant to carry around as it is very compact and lightweight for what it is.

This might work for you

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/05/19/nikon-100-300mm-f4-full-frame-lens-patent.aspx/#more-39706

It will be 150-450mm on DX at f4.

Might be able to use it with a 1.4 teleconverter for a bit more reach.

Squamish Photo said:
Tell that to all the birders and sports shooters

Squamish Photo I don't think we are disagreeing. if I ever do blow a wad one on an exotic telephoto lenses, it will be a very difficult choice, as I will only be able to afford to buy one lens

One thing seems clear a 400 f5.6 VR even if did exist, would not cut the mustard

f4 seems to be the minimum f2.8 is going to be better

I favor the 200-400 as it a lighter and could also be used for other wildlife and sport

I'm pretty sure the bigma is F6.3 @ 500mm the same as my 200-500 Tamron. The Tamron is often overlooked for some reason. I see no need for VR as I always shoot over 1/1000th sec and and it is pretty sharp wide open at 500. It is the biggest bargain out there used and also only 2.5x zoom so IQ is pretty consistent throughout the range. Just a thought.

BCRose said:
The Bigma is a decent telephoto lens for a lot less money that the Nikon's.
It does 5.6 at 500mm.

sevencrossing said:
If I did more wild life, I would go for the 200-400 f 4 zoom

The smaller the aperture, the slower the focusing, which is why you really need at least an f4

Tell that to all the birders and sports shooters using 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8 and Im sure they'll look at you funny. My 200mm f2 with the 1.4x tele mounted makes it an almost 300mm f2.8 when shot wide open and I can assure you that its AF speed, consistency and functionality are all superior to that which I had when using the AF-S 300mm f4 that I used to have. And from what most people seem to say the 200-400mm f4 is the poorest performer of all the exotic telephoto lenses, so if you do decide to blow the wad one day you might want to rethink your decision making.

The Bigma is a decent telephoto lens for a lot less money that the Nikon's.
It does 5.6 at 500mm.

IMHO the market is saturated with tele-zooms that are a touch soft at their longest focal lengths (eg bigma, 70-300 VR etc). Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that these small tele-zooms don't have there place but they compromise IQ for flexibility. For birding I can almost guarantee that this flexibility will rarely be used. Also it is not always possible to get close to a very rare bird and therefore cropping is sometimes necessary making the softness more noticeable. It seems as though we are being left with the option of either big, heavy, expensive glass or prosumer zooms.

I went out shoot Sandhill cranes with a group and there were a couple of retired Air Force guys shooting with Canon 7ds with the 100-400. One guy was nailing shots left and right. I was actually really envious and the "gear envy" entered my mind. Then I saw the other guy's photos with the same set up and he got about the same as I did with a D300 and an old Tokina 300 2.8. I learned the guy who was getting all the shots travels 6 months out of the year following rare birds and butterflies. He got dozens of great shots, I got maybe 5.

If I had a D4, 400 2.8VR and a gimbal head that would be fun to shoot with. In the past two years that would have been the only time I needed all of that stuff though. His ability to crop was a huge plus though.

I'm just curious if anyone tried the J1 with a big lens for birding? 2.7 crop on that.

Not sure why Nikon hasn't upgraded the 80-400 yet - maybe the demand isn't there yet or they believe with the 1.5 crop sensor it is not needed. If a cheap FX body is released, I would think that would push for the update and a reemergence of past FX glass. I'm not sure what I think about a 400 f5.6, a bonus is that the new AF systems can now focus down to f8 which is a real plus!

OK, I suspect this is what Breezes wants is this http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ais40056.jpg only in VR, right?

Built by NIKON from February 1982 until August 2002. Apparently built along with variations of the f/3.5, which was eventually replaced by the f/2.8 in 2005. It might be a nice lens, but the demand is apparently not there to allow NIKON to develop a new VR lens, which would have large development costs.

TaoTeJared said:
Great images come from knowledge, experience and knowing the best tools available at the time and how to use them.

And that is the truth. Yet, the original question is one I am sure many Nikon wildlife shooters have pondered. So have I, and I have tried a few workarounds, while waiting for the update to the 80-400 (or the 300/4).

Sure, it is possible to capture awesome shots of birds even on a wideagle lens if you know the tricks and can wait for long periods of time without moving too much. The cold weather in my country makes shooting birds with a bad or almost decent lens a very unpleasant experience. And a very unrewarding one, if you cannot rely on the lens and its AF.

What makes the original question relevant (and agonizing) is that Canon has three excellent and not too expensive solutions (400/5.6, 100-400 IS, 300/4 IS) and the 400/4 DO IS USM.

A few things I tried:

* AF-S Nikkor 70-300 VR - too soft at the 300mm end (as all 70-300 zooms are)
* AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4 - excellent image quality, sluggish AF
* Sigma 120-400 OS - cheap, decent until 300mm, then soft
* Sigma 150-500 OS - cheap, nothing to rave about

Now I have a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS - weighs a lot, is really good when it nails the bird - almost like the AF-S 300mm f/4 in sharpness but not exactly. The bokeh is better than that of the 300/4, the OS works, and this lens produces sharp images with a good 1.4x as well. The AF is quirky like with all Sigmas I have come across.

I really hope Nikon gets there one day and makes a decent 100-400 VR. It is not an impossible task to make such a lens relatively cheap (heck, even Samsung is making a 80-400 on their NX system and releasing it this year, which is why I have a NX as well)

@looon... thanks, I have not tried a formal bird shoot. I imagine there are some techniques one uses for birds in flight, but even in shooting airplanes with a 560mm on FX, sometimes even catching the plane in the frame is difficult. I guess one question I would have is why does one need VR if the birds are flying in an irregular pattern requiring very high shutter speed? Yes, it seems to help in all situations, but hand holding even a light weight lens, 12 times magnification on DX, would suggest a 1/800 or 1/1000 shutter speed, which decreases the need for VR.

And the TC-20EIII is great on the 70-200 f/2.8VRII Nikkor.

Nice questions though...

70-300mm?

donaldejose said:
Anyone try adding a 2x TC to a 70-200 2.8? Just wondering? Never heard of it myself but it could get you to 400mm f 5.6 if it worked.

Or use a D800, a 300mm f4 and crop a lot. Anyone try that?

Yes i use a 70-200 with a x2 for wild life but I am not serious wild life photographer

I already had the 70 -200 so it was a cheap fix

you have to stop it down to f8, even then it is OK ,rather than than excellent.
Focus is a tad slow

There is no improvement in IQ when changing from a D700 to a D800 as the lens /converter combination, limits resolution

If I did more wild life, I would go for the 200-400 f 4 zoom

The smaller the aperture, the slower the focusing, which is why you really need at least an f4

The other option is the 400 f 2.8 and an X1.4 but as you say heavy and expensive

I understand your pain, but the focus on the tools is a bit to much assuming that the grass is greener on the other side. Shooting birds or almost any wildlife, if you get 1 out of 100 that is a great shot, that is doing very, very well. Almost every morning I have sparrows out my balcony door (Less than 10ft) With a D300, battery pack & a 70-200vr and that can't track the dang thing 75% of the time and rarely gets a good or ideal shot. It's not the equipment or needing longer reach, those little buggers move! Shooting from 50-100ft+ away, the chance of getting a great shot is rare. That is why we are in awe of great shots from those who get them. If you follow various pro photogs who are a commercial success, you will note that they only add a handful of images each year. You can bet they shot tens if not hundreds of thousands of photos just to get 5 more great shots they believe they can sell. Being at the right place at the right time has more to do with getting the image than the equipment. Your expectations may be a bit high for what you are shooting.

On the comments of the equipment, personally I see a very little loss of IQ with TCs or a slowing of AF speed. Extending zooms out to their max, the IQ drops a bit but unless you try to crop anything over 75% you can't see it. Although I will say the new Focus tech in the pro bodies and the D800 for the ability to crop certainly would help.

There is a really bad habit of some review sites and others of over exaggerating IQ drops and TCs effect on lenses or racking them all the way out. Many times I just scratch my head at some people's expectations - that every lens that is not Macro sharp is unusable. Pixel peepers and many reviewers focus on numbers rather than results, do more harm than good by detouring people from shooting by making them believe their lens or any other lens is junk. If they actually knew what they were talking about, they would tell people how to compensate for the distance, light, type of situations and wildlife and how the lens can excel in each situation.

When I got into digital, I heard that some rare bird was nesting at a close by pond and it would be a good photo opportunity. I went out early in the morning just as the sun was rising with D80 and an old tamron tele-zoom lens. While leaning against a tree trying to stabilize my body, I heard a light snicker behind me. When I looked over a man with a huge tripod and gimbal head, with a big lens (probably a 300mm f2.8) and a pro digital body walked past and set up his rig about 50ft from me and pointed right at me. The sun rose from behind him, about 30 birds flocked to the tree I was leaning against and pooped all over me.
You see, the tree I was leaning against was further from the middle of the safety of the pond. The birds had been there all week and had picked most of the berries from the "safer" trees. There was nothing obstructing the morning sun hitting the berries on the tree I was leaning against so they all went there. He understood that, been there a couple of times that week, knew where they were going to be, and got set up before it happen. He got dozens of great images - I got shit on. He mounted my camera to his gimbal head, showed me how much easier it worked and proceeded to get some great sharp images. That was almost 7 years ago and the images he took with my camera still stun me.

Great images come from knowledge, experience and knowing the best tools available at the time and how to use them. I have yet to see a great image made with a desire for something that doesn't exist yet.