Sorry I missed "you are not" part ...

mb said:
I believe you meant telefocus, retrofocus is used on wide lens.

I did mean "retrofocus", and I do know what it is. What I wanted to say: when the focal length is much shorter than the free space behind the last lens, the optical designer has to fight for every additional degree of un-distorted imaging. For this reason, wide angle(zoom) Nikkors are available that only fill the DX circle, even though the distance between the rear element and the focal plane is the same for FX and DX. The Canon designers have it easier (at the price of restricted compatibility): The EF-S lenses intrude further into the body. If an EF-S lens were to be mounted on a 5D-II, it would lead to a mirror crash. That does not happen with Nikkors, even those that are exclusively DX. This is one reason that convinced me to settle for Nikon over Canon (not the only reason, mind you!).

Recent Convert and mb have got the heart of the argument. It doesn't make sense to design telephoto DX lenses.

I believe you meant telefocus, retrofocus is used on wide lens.
And yes you are right, the only way to save on DX lenses is by using smaller optical glass elements, but on long lenses you are more limited by the aperture and not so much by angle of view so front and all other glass elements must be pretty large F-mount or not.

HotDuckZ said:
Ok, finally Nikon will release 400mm f/3.5G VR DX.
... ...
It's curse some vignette when stop down in FX. (Far distance.)

I still don't understand what kind of savings you expect from making this DX versus FX (at 400mm!!!)? At that focal length, you are not limited by the mount (F-mount), you do not have the challenges of retrofocus, and you do not have the challenges of large apertures. Can you spell out what savings the optical designer can achieve in an F-mount lens of 400mm focal length by limiting the angle to 4° (instead of 6°)?

Another (real) alternative is the Tamron 200-500 AF, its $900.

http://amzn.com/B00021EE7W

photozone seems pretty positive about it.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/296-tamron-af-200-500mm-f5-63-di-ld-if-sp-lab-test-report--review

Ok, finally Nikon will release 400mm f/3.5G VR DX.

Full specification;
Nick Name - 400 f/4 DO Killer
Focal length - 400mm
Maximum Aperture - 3.5
Minimum Aperture - 22
Maximum Angle of View (DX-format) - 4°
Maximum Reproduction Ratio - 0.25x (MF)
Minimum Focus Distance - 3.9m AF/ 1.5mMF
Focus Mode - Auto, Manual, Auto/Manual (Not M/A)
Diaphragm Blades - 7 (But round @f/4-5.6)
Distance Information - NO
Size - 126 x 250cm
Weight - 2,200g.
Filter - 52mm holder (Nikon current standard.)
Hood - HK-36 Slip-on (16cm total length, build quality as HK-30.)

Performance;
VR II - 4 Stops
Focus with out TC - Excellent as 200-400VR
Focus with TC-14E III - Fast
Focus with TC-17E III - Still Fast
Focus with TC-20E III - Moderate
It's curse some vignette when stop down in FX. (Far distance.)

Feature;
No AF-Lock
Included protective glass
Polycarbonate body with some Magnesium construction.

Price : 3,599 USD. (Or as low as possible, please!! lol.)
Available : Late 2010 (With TC-17E III)

HotDuckZ said:
However, I still want it.

or 400 f/4 VR DX in 300 f/4 size, 77mm filter thread and same price.

This is physically impossible: 400mm f/4 means that a light beam of 400mm/4 =100mm diameter has to enter the front element. A 77mm filter cannot fit on a front lens that is at least 100mm in diameter. Even a 300mm f/4 is at the edge with 77mm filters, as the front element is at least 75mm in diameter.

HotDuckZ said:
or 400 f/4 VR DX in 300 f/4 size, 77mm filter thread and same price.

That doesn't really make much sense considering that the existing 300mm F4 on a DX camera is giving you a 450mm equivalent. Why would you want to pay the same money for a lens that isn't as long?

However, I still want it.

DX lens will work with all Nikon D-SLR cameras.

Please Nikon,

400mm f/3.5 VR DX in 300 f/2.8 size but lower price and auto focus still work nicely with TC-17E III.

or 400 f/4 VR DX in 300 f/4 size, 77mm filter thread and same price.

PB PM said:
It can be, in the winter months you really have to use a tripod. That being said, at the shutter speeds you need when shooting most birds (1/500s or more is best), then VR isn't much help anyway.

I saw some tech info on VR and at what shutter speeds it provides help, and it was pretty clear that at high shutter speed, VR didn't have much impact.

It can be, in the winter months you really have to use a tripod. That being said, at the shutter speeds you need when shooting most birds (1/500s or more is best), then VR isn't much help anyway.

PB PM said:
My shots are a mix of hand held and from a tripod, depends on whether I feel like lugging one along or not. Some of the photos I have with the 300mm F4 AF-S with the TC were taken at 1/200s, from a tripod, and the sharpness of the images even shocked me. Proper telephoto shooting techniques help a lot! I crop when needed, but I have a mix of crop and uncropped images. I rarely shoot from a bird blind, I find them to limit my field of view too much. What I usually do is find an area where I bird I want to shoot likes to be, and then wait. I find that once the birds become used to your presence, they will return to their normal habits. Wearing earth tone clothing really helps in being able to be that close.

Thanks for the suggestion on them getting used to you. The rest is what I kind of expected. Has the lack of VR on the 300/f4 been that big an issue to you?

NikoDoby said:
So Bob are you hoping for a 600mm DX lens for under $2000? Sounds like you want a high zoom point & shoot but with DSLR image quality instead. Something like an EVIL camera with a compact "big" zoom.

That would be real nice, unfortunately I realize it won't happen. Unfortunately everything out there is some compromise. I'd like to find a nice balance between speed, IQ, and money.

A bit more clarification, my budget is somewhat restricted since this is primarily a hobby for me, so $2000 is about the upper end. I'd like to be at 400+ mm, with good sharpness. Of course the lower the F stop the better. When I started the thread I realized that getting all of these wasn't going to happen in my price range. That's what got me to thinking about why DX long lenses weren't an option.

Bob Pan said:
You have some very nice shots. Were you hand holding or using a tripod? Looks like most of these you were pretty close or you cropped extensively, if the latter were you using a blind?

My shots are a mix of hand held and from a tripod, depends on whether I feel like lugging one along or not. Some of the photos I have with the 300mm F4 AF-S with the TC were taken at 1/200s, from a tripod, and the sharpness of the images even shocked me. Proper telephoto shooting techniques help a lot! I crop when needed, but I have a mix of crop and uncropped images. I rarely shoot from a bird blind, I find them to limit my field of view too much. What I usually do is find an area where I bird I want to shoot likes to be, and then wait. I find that once the birds become used to your presence, they will return to their normal habits. Wearing earth tone clothing really helps in being able to be that close.

So Bob are you hoping for a 600mm DX lens for under $2000? Sounds like you want a high zoom point & shoot but with DSLR image quality instead. Something like an EVIL camera with a compact "big" zoom.

PB PM said:
Haha, the 300mm F4 AF-S with the 1.4x is a great birding lens, in fact it is the only lens I use for birding. It is tack sharp wide open, even with the TC. Focus is fast enough in most situations, even with the TC, and with proper technique you can get excellent results, even in lowish lighting conditions.

Here is a link to my bird photography gallery. Almost every shot was taken with the 300m F4 AF-S, with or without a TC.
http://robdphotos.smugmug.com/Photography/Bird-Photography/7921214_wYZCX#837515235_bbbtV

You have some very nice shots. Were you hand holding or using a tripod? Looks like most of these you were pretty close or you cropped extensively, if the latter were you using a blind?

mb said:
It seams to me the only viable solution for you Sandpiper is AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4G ED VR.

I would hope not! If I post some conclusions here and someone blows them out of the water, then that is great. I will have gained some perspective. PB PM has linked to some great photos of his, and I have not missed his point.

Yeah, maybe once I make some money from my photos I'll think about it. ;-) lol

It seams to me the only viable solution for you Sandpiper is AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4G ED VR, for 10.000$ it will give you pretty decent pictures ;)

Sandpiper said:
The 300mm/f4 is too short to begin with, you would always need at TC. So that seems like a 'no go'.

Haha, the 300mm F4 AF-S with the 1.4x is a great birding lens, in fact it is the only lens I use for birding. It is tack sharp wide open, even with the TC. Focus is fast enough in most situations, even with the TC, and with proper technique you can get excellent results, even in lowish lighting conditions.

Here is a link to my bird photography gallery. Almost every shot was taken with the 300m F4 AF-S, with or without a TC.
http://robdphotos.smugmug.com/Photography/Bird-Photography/7921214_wYZCX#837515235_bbbtV

Pixels Opinion said:
I just bought a D300S, because I got tired of waiting for the new FX from Nikon. I thought Nikon was coming out with more "Prime lens for DX, so I bought the Nikor 17-55 f2.8. Now after reading this forum, I think I have been screwed by Nikon. I guess I will have to go with the other brand lenses, or get a cannon, and hope for the best.

PO, I think you have a great camera, just need to find a lens for it, and that lens may not be made by Nikon. I think the focusing operation on the D300s is very good, and it allows me (very new to DSLR) to track and photograph a bird in flight. Not sure the Canon will reliably do that.

tcole1983 said:
I also heard the 80-400 is poor from 300-400 which is the range you would want if you get the lens...otherwise there is no reason getting it with such a large focal range. I personally have thought about the 300 f4, but the teleconvertors won't allow auto focus and it might loose too many f-stops to be useful anyway. There really isn't a "good" option under $2000. The closest would be the 70-200 with a teleconvertor, but then you are in the $2500 or more range.

This is the only reason I am even considering any other brand lens then a nikon lens...and I still don't know if there are any good lenses by sigma or tamron in this range.

So it seems the 80-400 is out, possibly soft at 400, and can't use TC, so can't get past 400mm. Plus for me, where I already have the 80-300, it is not worth carrying another lens for just the 100mm.

The 300mm/f4 is too short to begin with, you would always need at TC. So that seems like a 'no go'.

70-200 is good, but even with 2x TC can't get past 400mm, so that's not an option.

Gelu88 suggested I look at Sigma, and others here also suggested that. Looks like Sigma has zooms that might fit the bill (oh, really bad pun, not intended). At 400 or 500mm I would be just as happy with a prime lens, I think. I would use a TC as time and need allowed. But if the IQ is OK, then zoom is OK if the price and TC use are reasonable.

From all the posts, it appears there is a market. I hate to see Nikon give up this market, but I also can see that it might be hard for them to compete with Sigma, as Sigma will take the same basic lens and market it for all bodies, thus a larger market. Maybe there is a Sigma lens in my future. Certainly not what I expected, but I am very new to the DSLR game.

My prior post about the 80-300 not being good enough was only in reference to birding at 100 or 200 yards. I have that lens, love it, and it almost never comes off my camera.

tcole1983 said:
I was looking at Nikon's webpage when I said it won't autofocus...is this bogus then from Nikon?

Prod. # Lens Description Function Limitations
1909 AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED Autofocus not possible

If you are talking about the 2x, that's probably true, two stops loss would get you to f8, which is where autofocus is supposed to stop. I don't know of anyone who has tried it.

Bob Pan said:
The 300/f4 will autofocus with a 1.4 and 1.7 teleconverter, the 2x will work too, but apparently the IQ suffers. I looked at that as a serious possibility, but it lacks VR. For stuff that's not moving VR or a tripod is a must have. For things that are moving you need to crank up the shutter speed, and shutter speed can do just about as good a job as VR if it's high enough.

The 70-200 with a teleconverter just doesn't reach far enough unfortunately. The 70-300 is supposed to be pretty good, and inexpensive, but 300mm is still to short and can't be used with the Nikon Teleconverters.

I was looking at Nikon's webpage when I said it won't autofocus...is this bogus then from Nikon?

Prod. # Lens Description Function Limitations
1909 AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED Autofocus not possible