looon said:
Addendum... I've decided that if there's still no word of an updated 80-400 or similar by the fall, I will go with 70-200 f2.8 + tc-20e iii. Changed my mind about 20e vs 17e, I normally shoot at f8 anyhow and not worried about autofocus speed with d800. This combo will be just right for me other than the 5 lb weight; that is the only reason I'd still wait to see if an updated 80-400 is in the works. This site is showing "update expected" in their product guide for that lens, would love to know if that is really the case!

BTW check out my wildlife at wildbirdy dot com. All captured with 70-300 mostly using d7000.

Thanks again for all the helpful input.

Hi, have both the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II and the TC 1.4 and 2.0. Also the 80-400mm. Both are very good. Weight wise, if you are out at 400mm equivalent, you will be on a monopod unless you are a gluten for punishment.

Oh, a word of caution.... put your website on this forum and they get upset.... yikes, done that and got spanked...

Addendum... I've decided that if there's still no word of an updated 80-400 or similar by the fall, I will go with 70-200 f2.8 + tc-20e iii. Changed my mind about 20e vs 17e, I normally shoot at f8 anyhow and not worried about autofocus speed with d800. This combo will be just right for me other than the 5 lb weight; that is the only reason I'd still wait to see if an updated 80-400 is in the works. This site is showing "update expected" in their product guide for that lens, would love to know if that is really the case!

BTW check out my wildlife at wildbirdy dot com. All captured with 70-300 mostly using d7000.

Thanks again for all the helpful input.

Thanks for all the great input and example pics!

scoobysmak: What a coincidence, I was reading up on using that combo just this afternoon and am starting to think that may be my best bet, if my dream lens fails to materialize soon. The 70-200 2.8 is an awesome lens. Though if I decide to do that, I might go for the TC-17E ii rather than the TC-20E iii. Not a huge focal length difference between them, and the 17E would give me another half stop so I'd be at F/4.5. From what I've gathered so far from sifting thru reviews, the 17E is faster focusing and has better IQ than the 20E iii. Downside is it would only give me a focal length of 340mm + crop factor = 510mm, but that is still more than my current 300 + crop factor = 450mm. Really like the half-stop I would gain. All it all it would certainly be an improvement over what I have now, though my little 70-300 has been very good to me.

msmoto: If i had to look at a car picture, that would be the one. Cool!

proundgeek: Your bird convinced me that what I really should be spending money on, is airfare :)

Tao: I never turn on NR in camera, slows things down. I use Topaz Denoise first thing in PP. I think with the D800, I might have a bit more leeway with the iso than I had with the D7000 from what I'm seeing so far, but I think I will still be more conservative with it now that I have learned how much it affects IQ.

I agree that I think my shooting needs to improve before I notice that (insert your lens of choice here) is soft or has bad this or that. I would say for BIF I can see autofocus speed to be an issue but this might be my only reason to exlude the 80-400mm in my choice of lenses. I have not used it but would rent it first due to that reason if I wanted a lighter package to carry around.

I see the first post said they were looking for a lens that went to at least 400 for under $3000. I do have a suggestion and someone might have already pointed it out and I missed it but why not get the 70-200 VRII and get a TC-E 2.0 III this is still F5.6 just like all the other lenses suggested. This would keep you in the buget your looking and give you the range you wanted plus the zoom factor. I doubt unless you really blow it up you could notice the difference between this combo or the 200-400. The 200-400 would give you a stop more light but breaks the bank and maybe a back trying to carry this around. The 70-200 and the TC-E gives you way more options in the end.

Extra Advice not related to new lenses:
I admit I always thought people blamed mirror vibrations and other various things on the "long shots" because they didn't get the "pro" shot they were looking for. Well I learned the hard way that this stuff does exist and just not BS stories covering up a memory card full of bad photos, they are still bad but I at least now have some sympathy for what happened. Because I am hard headed sometimes, I went out and got my own memory card of crap and learned I needed to really focus on what I was doing, it comes down to good technique. I am almost finding photography like golf, if you practice on your putting (wide angle shots) your driving might/will suffer (long lens area). I have learned I need a day of pratice screwing up long shots after shooting a bunch of wide angle stuff before I go try the real thing.

OK, if I have to look at the birds... you can look at a car... this will be much bigger on Flicker at original size. D90, 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR Knee-Core, at 1/800 sec, f/9, ISO 400 Focal length 280mm (eq 420mm)

Oh, don't forget, he is moving toward me about 55-60 mph at this point.

looon said:
Normally I'm at f8 which is the sweet spot per Photozone and generally allows me to get at least 1/1000 which is my minimum speed for birds, except that is with auto-iso set up to go as high as 800. That's really helpful about the drop in sharpness after iso 400! Will try max of 400.

I have been finding that many think their camera sucks, lens is dull, this or that and it when I see their images I will see a daylight shot at very high ISOs. Usually fuzzy shots were that people didn't have the shutter fast enough, now with Auto ISO it seems that has become the "missed" info where people think lenses/bodies are not good.

Just like lenses, bodies have their optimum settings. Base ISO is always the best. On the higher end, I tend to look at noise tests to find where the cut-off is. Usually at tested ISOs there will be a point where noise either doesn't change much or becomes better then the lower ISO. That is when the Noise reduction is kicking in and "tac" sharpness is lost - sometimes by quite a bit. It can still be a good image, but if high detail is one of the elements in the image you are going for, the loss maybe more than you want.

Nikon seems to kick the NR in at 800. If you need to shoot at higher ISOs turning the NR off or set it to low can help retain some detail, but then you will have to deal with noise when editing (which really is not that big of a deal.)

I borrowed an 80-400 from a friend once for a two-week trip and found the results to overall very good. Yes, it hunts a bit and focuses slowly (particularly on my D90). Yes, it may be a touch soft at 400mm. Yes, f5.6 isn't ideal. But when you factor in the relatively light weight (at least compared to beasts like the 200-400) when hiking great distances, and the flexibility, I'd say that overall it's a pretty good lens, albeit in need of an update.
Shot this at 400mm, f5.6, 1/250, handheld.

looon said:
msmoto: Sorry didn't mean to knock your lens! In fact my dear 70-300 was knocked earlier so I know how you feel! But the argument can certainly be made that a new one is needed, with faster af. And if it does happen, yes please make it useable with TC. Yes the D800 allows autofocus with min aperture of f8, though it limits your autofocus points.

I was actually joking a bit. The 80-400mm is sharp, but the limits are in the teleconverter issue and with the bodies I used, sometimes slow focusing. However, mine will no doubt be for sale, and at a low price as the new version will kill the value. So, some lucky soul will get a great lens at a super price.

I suspect Tao has the facts when he calls it a "refresh" and that it will be an upgrade only in the VRII, no basic change in the design. This should make the lens work better in focusing, but not allow the teleconverters to be used. If they did change to say, an f/4.0 fixed and made a new lens, the price would be close to $3,000 or more, no doubt. This would sort of defeat its purpose I think.

msmoto: Sorry didn't mean to knock your lens! In fact my dear 70-300 was knocked earlier so I know how you feel! But the argument can certainly be made that a new one is needed, with faster af. And if it does happen, yes please make it useable with TC. Yes the D800 allows autofocus with min aperture of f8, though it limits your autofocus points.

Tao: Really appreciate your input, I always pay extra attention to your informative posts. I love my 70-300vr, I too move it a tad down from 300mm. That's interesting about your other settings, will try that. Normally I'm at f8 which is the sweet spot per Photozone and generally allows me to get at least 1/1000 which is my minimum speed for birds, except that is with auto-iso set up to go as high as 800. That's really helpful about the drop in sharpness after iso 400! Will try max of 400.

Great to hear these kudos for the current 80-400's sharpness, the problem remains it is slow to focus - everyone seems to agree to that, and as I'm mostly into capturing action the speed of focus acquisition is important. As for the refresh probably not happening, that's too depressing so I'll just continue to cling to my thread of hope, at least until Photokina, before giving up and going to plan B, which I guess would be to go with the old 80-400. Maybe the D800's autofocus system would help with the afs speed.

"rate of successes vs toss outs" lol! that was funny.. and I'm sure true.

I've rented the 80-400vr, Sigma's 100-400, 50-500, and the Nikon wins hands down. If I had more of a need, I would still git one. 300 f4 even with the doggy 2x TC was razor sharp. Lenses are rarely the issue. You move, the subject moves, the wind blows, a train rumbling by that shakes the ground - everything is working against you. Not every shot will be sharp. On zooms, if one small range is not as sharp, no one ever said you have to use it. On my 70-300vr If I want it tack sharp I stop it down to f11, @ 280mm, iso at 200 and shutter 1/500 or higher. Unfortunately that rarely works out so I choose where the sacrifice will come from which creates less of a chance of a sharp photo. If the ISO goes above 400, the sharpness drops drastically.

You have to remember People like the respectable Mr. Hogan and many high end wildlife photographers have so much experience with the $5,000+ optics that it makes the "poor man's" optics sound much worse than what they really are. Just like on one of the other threads, almost any equipment can make great images, many times it just comes down to the rate of successes vs toss outs.

As to the refresh - people were saying one was coming out 5 years ago. I just don't think it is that big of a seller otherwise they would have. Not too many people buy those.

Hey, do not knock my 80-400mm Nikkor. Great lens. Does well, with maybe some struggles from time to time if I do not allow it a moment to "lock on" to a 100+mph car moving toward me. I think it is sharp. Mainly shooting at 1/800th with an ISO of 800. D90 or D200 was what I used. Most of the "problems" I have had with equipment was the nut behind the camera. She cannot be told anything and refuses to admit she is wrong.

But the new 80-400, hopefully with VR II should be a real winner. Especially if somehow it can be used with a 1.4 teleconverter.... (redesign so as to not hit the rear element). I am guessing the newer bodies will allow autofocus at f/8.0 like the D4. This would make the 400mm / 1.4x, an equivalent of 840mm on a DX sensor. This can get out there. A bit difficult at times to find the darn cars, or birds, or whatever might be moving, but once locked on, they are in your hand.

adamz: There seems to be a lot of differing opinions as to the 80-400 sharpness, ie Thom Hogan said the Sigma 150-500 (which he likes better than bigma) is sharper than 80-400 at 400mm (though soft at 500), but even that is still only "good" sharpness not excellent. Regardless, AF speed is crucial for BIF. As for the 200-400, that is ridiculously heavy to hike around with, and trying to react quickly to BIF and other action is challenging enough without a tripod to limit me. Prime is also way too limiting, I don't want to be stuck at 600 mm and only be able to get parts of animals when they get close. Although now being able to shoot full frame adds a considerable amount of flexibility there, so I would certainly consider it if they upgraded the 300 f/4. As for Nikon seeing no need, the 100-400 is extremely popular with Canon and about to be upgraded even though they are also coming out with a 200-400. I know a lot of patents never attain fruition but why would they patent those 3 lenses if they weren't thinking about something new in that range? Plenty of Nikon wildlife shooters are clamouring for it, it is always listed high on lists of lenses to be updated, c'mon Nikon!!!!

+1 PB PM, I also love the 300/4 + TC combo

as for N80-400vr, well have You guys used it? I had, and sure the AF is not super fast, but once You learned how it works it delivers. as for 400mm and being soft, well... it's sharper than n70-300 @ 300mm, sharper than bigma and any other lens withing it's price range except the 300/4 + tc. do I expect Nikon to update this lens soon? I doubt, IMHO Nikon believes that there's no need for such a lens. with 70-300vr You get 450mm on dx, and if You are an fx shooter buy 200-400/4. hopefully, I'm wrong and finally will see either 80-400vr2 with af-s (the only one thing I miss in this lens), n300/4 vr or n400/4vr.

Yes, it was taken with the TC14E (not the current TC14E II) attached.

That's one gorgeous woodpecker, thanks for posting, was that with TC or just the lens? I never suspected the lens to be at fault, but my TC copy may have been a bit dodgy.

If you were getting soft shorts with the 300mm f4 and TC14E, it wasn't the lens at fault. I've taken well over 20,000 images with that combo (on D300 and D700) and if I missed focus or it was soft, it wasn't the lens that caused the problem.

Example:

PBPM:
I agree, definitely want a zoom. Plus I took a bunch of test shots once with the 300/TC14E (with tripod) and found it to be a bit soft. Might have had a bad copy or TC, got them off ebay then sold. I have researched every possible solution including 3rd party and there is none other than to wait and hope for Nikon to produce one of those 400mm tele zoom lenses they patented.

shawnino:
That tech guide spooked me too, but coming from the D7000 I'm already used to what is basically the same pixel depth. It helps that when I'm shooting wildlife I always have a minimum shutter speed of 1/1000. So far my ability to capture a 50-ft away bird's eye in focus while handholding has been about the same as D7000. Pretty much everything else about the D800 seems to be superior... the dynamic range and color depth are just gorgeous, stunning... even the bokeh seems better, focusing is lightning fast, and my lens seems to have gained a whole stop as if the minimum aperture got bigger. I love everything about this camera!

Looon:

1) Anybody who tells me it's not my technique, but a weakmness in the lens, is my new best friend.

2) Totally get you re: plastic. In another thread today ("Fallacy:...") people complain about lens reviewers disliking plastic. I think the posters and you have it right. If the plastic is of sufficient quality, what's wrong with using plastic to make a lens sufficiently light enough to handhold? Nothing IMO.

Super glad to hear the hand-holding is working for you on D800. I doubt I'll ever spend $3K on a camera body but the Nikon technical guide left me extra spooked re: D800. Glad to hear it's not as bad as all that.

shawnino said:
The existing 80-400mm does not float your boat?

Hmm lets see, slow, noisy AF, check. Not sharp at the long end, check. Pinches your fingers when zooming, if you aren't careful, check. Good points, just one, VR. The 300mm F4 (with TC14E) is a much better choice in general, but it: a) lacks zoom (duh) and b) lacks VR. Thus it fails to be considered hand holdable. Of course, if you are shooting at over 300mm you should be using a tripod for consistent results anyway. Still wouldn't fix the zoom problem though.

It wasn't a bad copy, the 80-400 is soft at 400mm plus the autofocus speed is molasses. It even lists it in NR's Nikon Buying Guide to wait for the upgraded version. I don't want a sub-par lens, I'm willing to pay around $2500 for a 100-400mm f/4-5.6 or similar lens. Having a max aperture of 5.6 and some plastic parts to keep it light, doesn't mean it can't have high quality glass and excellent IQ. Plus the D800's higher iso capabilities will help with the lower speed of the lens.

The existing 80-400mm does not float your boat? (Too heavy?) There is some chitchat that it is due for an update. I admit I had bad results with one I tried. Might have been a poor copy. Might have been my technique too.

I will be interested to see what happens in that part of the market as the megapixel esplosion continues. It's all guessing at this point but if people are using 70-300 at 36MP now on D800, will consumers and prosumers want to shell out for a zoom that goes to 400mm and beyond, or will they set their high-MP camera up, use the longest focal length on a lens they already own, and just crop like crazy?

Many of us wildlife shooters are still waiting on a hand-holdable and reasonably affordable (under $3000) telephoto zoom lens that goes to at least 400mm. I went back through NR and here are the most recent Nikon patents in that range, quoted from NR:

Jan 13, 2011: "Nikon patent application .... is for a new full frame 200-500mm f/4-5.6 lens."

Dec 13, 2010: "Nikon filed a patent application in Japan for a AF-S 100-400mm f/4-5.6G VR ED lens."

Nov. 15, 2010: "Nikon files patent applications for an … 80-400mm f/4.6-5.4 lens."

Canon's 100-400 is expected to be updated in 2012 as f/4-5.6. Will Nikon finally come out with something to compete with that?

BTW very happy so far with my new D800, mostly using with 70-300 vrii.

Gareth said:
Look here http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=168&page=2 for a pic I took with the 300 2.8G with TC-20eiii. Hand held.

You can pretty much forget about birds in flight with a TC though, unless they are landing or taking off. I can never find a small bird in a big sky, sometimes it is even hard when they are not moving. This problem would be the same with a 500 or 600, so I suppose it is technique.

that's from other thread, but here's a good place to continue this topic.

From my experience, once You use AF it's really hard to find a bird in the fly, but once You use manual override and master this technique You will get some keepers.

Not very affordable, but handheld at f8, 600mm on a d300s, so 900mm equiv.

D300S 300 2.8 with TC-20EIII. ISO 500, f/8, 1/400. Handheld.