This was one of the greatest threads ever on NRF. A kid who bought a $6000 dollar lens for his D5000. Brilliant! He went on to claim he bought a D700 or D3 if I remember correctly but I doubt this story was ever real. I'm pretty sure it was just a ruse for laughs. Nothing to see here, time to move on...

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.

So, one year on, does anybody know what became of formatted.

What lens did he get and did he move up to a better camera.

Or was he eaten by a Lion while touring Africa.

Interesting story, would be nice to know what was the conclusion.

I must add that I would consider a third option that maybe more suitable as a walk around telephoto lens for wild life shooting if you are not a pro, and that is AF-S 80-400 replacement that should be out soon enough.
It will be lighter, compact, more versatile, should have really great IQ as the current model does, you could attach protective NC filter on it and you will need that in the bushes and it will be far more affordable so you could save some money for a better camera and maybe an additional lens (you would love to have a decent macro wouldn’t you?).

You can't have a decent discussion without alteast 2 different points of view!

Formatted said:
Thanks for the help Gentoo and for the support.

You're very welcome. I will tell you what I tell everyone else; be true to yourself first and foremost. If the 200-400 is what you want and there is a way you can get it, then that's what you should do. Half the stuff I acquired someone did there best to convince me otherwise and you know what? I don't regret it for one bit. The last time I wasn't true to myself I ended up selling what I had which of course you take a hit financially which makes no sense.

I look forward to seeing some of your shots with whatever lens you decide on.

smarterchild said:
I like the idea that you get the 300mm 2.8 and buy some teleconverters. Itd give you...

f/2.8 at 300mm

TC-14E - f/4 at 420mm
TC-17E - f/5(ish) at 510mm
TC-20E - f/5.6 at 600mm

I believe the 1.7 gives you something like 4.8 so right about 5.

Formatted said:
I actually live in the UK, and so I'm not at "high school", you can comment on my financial situation all you want! To be honest I'm not going to tell you what my family earns as its not conducive to my final goal of producing good quality photos.

This thread seems like its getting derailed! If you really must know its my 18th birthday, some of my brothers have gotten cars and I want a lense instead.

Thanks for the help Gentoo and for the support. Mono-pod ftw?

I came from a very wealthy family too Formatted. My father was an executive of a major US financial company. We owned many "chickens". But everything I had as a kid I earned! My father could have easily bought me a brand new sports car or thousands of dollars worth of photo gear, but he didn't. I worked my butt off after school and during summers to buy my first camera! There is nothing more gratifying then earning your own success than being feed with a silver spoon.

Just because mom and dad can afford to buy you a $6000 dollar lens for your D5000 doesn't mean they should. If you are serious about your photography then get daddy to go with you to Greys of Westminster and spend $6000 on a complete camera, lens, and tripod package. Like a D700 with pro nikkors. Don't just get a single lens.

A decent monopod and tripod setup for for a 200-400mm VR would cost far more than $300.

I'd get both a monopod and a tripod, formatted. You could get both for $300 or so.

i forgot to add, Look at my previous thread i posted about support. Look under "i need some support" its on the first page. I was looking for the same thing

Formatted- I am on the same boat. I just turned 18 this past october and got a new speedlight and my Nikon F5. For christmas i got my nikon d3 and nikkor 24-70 2.8. Thats exactly how i viewed it, I would rather have lenses then a new car.

Lenses is a wise investment, I got the 70-200 2.8 for my nikon d90 knowing it would be a fantastic investment for the future.

I actually live in the UK, and so I'm not at "high school", you can comment on my financial situation all you want! To be honest I'm not going to tell you what my family earns as its not conducive to my final goal of producing good quality photos.

This thread seems like its getting derailed! If you really must know its my 18th birthday, some of my brothers have gotten cars and I want a lense instead.

Thanks for the help Gentoo and for the support. Mono-pod ftw?

I like the idea that you get the 300mm 2.8 and buy some teleconverters. Itd give you...

f/2.8 at 300mm

TC-14E - f/4 at 420mm
TC-17E - f/5(ish) at 510mm
TC-20E - f/5.6 at 600mm

You might want to do some weight lifting too, get the arm strength up! I find it hard enough to hand hold the 300mm F4 AF-S for long periods of time and it is only 1400g, and I am used to working with heavy stuff from work!

adamz said:
and I will disagree with You Gentoo - sure it's good to aim high, but there should be some reasonable limits. If You are driving a car than it's not bugatti veyron You take for the first drive.

formatted - I get Your point of view and don't think that using an expensive lens with a cheap camera is wrong - for sure it's not if You know why and for what You are doing this. I'm not gonna judge You, as it's Your decision and Your money afterwords. Just please remember that 200-400/4 is an enormous piece of glass that needs to be used in a proper way to obtain good results, and needs training. If You haven't hold it Yourself for longer period of time, than I suggest You to get a piece of board - same length as this lens, put some stones on it, so the weight will be comparable and try to carry it with You for a longer period of time. Don't know about Your experience in using cameras off the beaten track, but my experience is simple: if You want to have Your gear at the end of Your travel stick it to Your butt, no matter what You do.
Considering all the additional info You provided, I will suggest You to take a closer look either at 300/2.8 vr or at sigma 500/4.5, as I still think that 200-400 is not a good lens for You, at least not right now and certainly not for the shots You gonna do with it.

Really? All that? LMAO! Dude he's not buying a house LOL.

Formatted, adamz disagrees with me most of the time, he seems to enjoy it lol

Now I've held that 200-400 and despite the doom laden warnings about it weighing as much as a 6 ton hippo, it's really not that bad. Don't take my word for it, go to a place that will let you hold one...the lens...not a piece of wood LMAO! I will never get over that one lol

However adamz does have a really good point about the 300 2.8. He knows what he's talking about here. I got a 300 2.8 precisely because of adamz's advice. I hand hold mine and it's a monster to hold but it can be done. If you're not used to a lens the size of either of these, it will take some practice and training as adamz said to get used to it. However, you're never really going to perfect such a technique if you don't get of your own to practice with.

adamz said:
mb - 200-400/f4 will work properly only with TC14, the AF may work (in some situations) with TC17 and certainly will not work with TC20 (unless You point directly towards the sun). as for size, if 10cm of difference is "almost the same size" for You than for me this discussion is pointless

With TC-14 300mm is around 300mm long and 3050g, 200-400 is 360mm long and 3275g, yes in my view they are almost the same.
And no, 200-400 will probably not focus with TC-17 and almost certainly not with TC-20, but it will AF without any problems with TC-14. 300 IQ will suffer with TC-14, more so with TC-17 and it will really be kind of “better then nothing” with TC-20.
200-400 is more versatile and usable lens then 300 for wild life in my view, but you are welcome to think otherwise.

mb - 200-400/f4 will work properly only with TC14, the AF may work (in some situations) with TC17 and certainly will not work with TC20 (unless You point directly towards the sun). as for size, if 10cm of difference is "almost the same size" for You than for me this discussion is pointless

Yes the 200-400 can auto focus with the D5000. I really do think you are just having fun with us on the forum. Your current set up is a D5000 and 18-55mm kit lens and you want us to believe you bought a $6000 dollar lens just so you can improve your photos?

The only reason you don't have that $6000 dollar lens for your D5000 is because the store you bought it from suddenly went out of business before you could pick it up? As a high school student, you should be spending $6000 dollars on more important things than on one lens.

shivaswrath said:
does the 200-400 even AF with the D5000?

I'd get a body first - probably a D300(s) if you're looking for that long reach; if you can afford both a D3/D300, then go for it (I saw a D300 go for $899 recently and D3 nearly $2k, so you've got lots of cheap used choices out there!!)

Yes it does AF on D5000, it is AF-S and it does AF on any current Nikon with or without TC without a glitch.
One other thing, 300 with TC is almost the same size and weight as 200-400 and its IQ is inferior even with humble TC-14 mounted, not to mention time and trouble to mount it on and of a TC, and 300 will never do 200 better then 70-200 as 200-400 does.

does the 200-400 even AF with the D5000?

I'd get a body first - probably a D300(s) if you're looking for that long reach; if you can afford both a D3/D300, then go for it (I saw a D300 go for $899 recently and D3 nearly $2k, so you've got lots of cheap used choices out there!!)

and I will disagree with You Gentoo - sure it's good to aim high, but there should be some reasonable limits. If You are driving a car than it's not bugatti veyron You take for the first drive.

formatted - I get Your point of view and don't think that using an expensive lens with a cheap camera is wrong - for sure it's not if You know why and for what You are doing this. I'm not gonna judge You, as it's Your decision and Your money afterwords. Just please remember that 200-400/4 is an enormous piece of glass that needs to be used in a proper way to obtain good results, and needs training. If You haven't hold it Yourself for longer period of time, than I suggest You to get a piece of board - same length as this lens, put some stones on it, so the weight will be comparable and try to carry it with You for a longer period of time. Don't know about Your experience in using cameras off the beaten track, but my experience is simple: if You want to have Your gear at the end of Your travel stick it to Your butt, no matter what You do.
Considering all the additional info You provided, I will suggest You to take a closer look either at 300/2.8 vr or at sigma 500/4.5, as I still think that 200-400 is not a good lens for You, at least not right now and certainly not for the shots You gonna do with it.

Formatted said:
Well you've got to start somewhere, don't you? Why buy 2 pieces of semi-good equipment when I could get 1 amazing piece and then wait till I can afford another amazing piece.

Exactly! And in the long run you'll be happier with that decision. That's why I said if money isn't an issue, aim high.

NikoDoby said:
Wait, I don't mean to be a bad guy but are you seriously thinking of spending over $6000USD on a lens that you intend to use with a $700USD camera?!

Well you've got to start somewhere, don't you? Why buy 2 pieces of semi-good equipment when I could get 1 amazing piece and then wait till I can afford another amazing piece.

I've been taking photos for about a year now a digital camera, before my D5000 I had a canon Rebel Kit, but I prefer Nikon simply for the brand, and before that I used film with a old olympus. I'm not new to photography, just alittle lost when it comes to making the best decision.

Thank you very much, for the people that have helped, I'll guess we shall see what Nikon annouces this week!

adamz said:
formatted - look closely on the d3 prices, a decent one should cost You between 2500-3000 USD. if the camera was used in studio than double check the articulation number, as there might be no single scratch on the body. I would also suggest You to get d300s instead of d3, as the 1.5x crop will give You a better reach.

Again, very sound advice adamz. Formatted, if you were to put a 300 2.8 on a D300s and add a TC to it, you might be overwhelmed by what you might get from this combination. I have basically the same set up minus the good Nikon TC's and I couldn't be happier with it. I've actually held the 200-400 on a D3 before and despite some of the remarks, it's actually not that hard to hand-hold. However having said that, the new 300 2.8 is even easier to hand-hold, easier than my older version. If money isn't an issue to you, then by all means get the best you can.