actually the 120-300/2.8 is a good option - when You close it down to f4 You get a decent quality shots (I would say very comparable to 300/4 wide open), it also handles quite well... the only thing that annoys me is the fact that the barrel twists in opposite direction as the nikon ones (canon style).

Re the 120-300 sigma.. It reviews very well. in terms of Zooms in this range it probably is the best. Thats why the price is so high. I would still go for a 300 F4 nikkor prime over that Zoom.

Yeah the early push and pull versions is the slowest of the 80-200mm F2.8D lenses, while the currently selling 80-200mm AF-D ED is the fastest.

The 80-200 mm F/2.8 AF (push and pull) is still pretty slow even on the D700 (I use the lens every single day) in comparison to the Vr1 70-200mm f/2.8... Not as slow as the kit 55-200mm Dx though

noxin said:
.
.
.
JorPet, I made the same upgrade as you D70 --> D700. I have the 80-200 AF ED lens and it still feels slow. Do you know how that focus would compare with the 80-400? Why do you think you would prefere the 70-200 with the converter over the 80-400?
.
.
.

I have a friend who has the previous version of the 70-200 and shoots with a D3s. Having used that lens it is both sharper and faster focusing than the 80-400. Most skiing shots can be taken at 200mm without a problem, focus speed and sharpness are bigger issues. I would then carry the converter if I ever had an issue where I thought I need more reach going to 120-340 (with the 1.7) would be fine and only drop to f4.8 through the full range.

This is not to say that I don't like the 80-400. It is a good lens and on the D700 it is fast enough focusing to be able to track skiers in multiple shot bursts, even out to 400mm. Just could be better.

I don't think that is the current version, does your have a push and pull zoom or a zoom ring? They all look very similar too, which makes it tough unless you know the small differences.

I believe mine is the 80-200 AF-D currently sold. It's about 19 years old and looks like the one on the BH site.

Which version of the 80-200mm AF-D do you have, there are 3 80-200mm F2.8D ED lenses. Is it the currently selling two ring version? If so it is known for being one of the fastest telephoto AF-D lenses in terms of screw driven auto focus, much faster than the 80-400mm VR from what I have seen other people report.

Thanks again for all the feedback. It's all very helpful with a lot of information and real experineces. Although not the initial intent of the thread, I do appreciate sharing teniques for using a lens like this too.

As of tonight I'm thinking the faster focus is probably more important than the VR for action shots like sports and wildlife (do you agree?).

That being said, there is some good evidence proveded for the 80-400.

JorPet, I made the same upgrade as you D70 --> D700. I have the 80-200 AF ED lens and it still feels slow. Do you know how that focus would compare with the 80-400? Why do you think you would prefere the 70-200 with the converter over the 80-400?

After doing some searchin on the web I started considering the Sigma 120-300 2.8 (and the Sigma 300 2.8). I know it's over my budget by a decent amount, but a used one could be less of a hurdle. Any word on these? I think the 120-300 with a teleconverter could be a good combo.

It really depends on your subject. If you are shooting people the old AF-D lenses without the SWM motor are fine, but when it comes to shooting wildlife you can scare them off with the body focus motor.

mb - there's a lot of ppl who think it's crap because it doesn't have AF-S, and it requires much better shooting discipline in order to get more keepers; I love this lens, in bright light it performs (IQ) almost as my 70-200vr+TC17 combo, and it's smaller and lighter on one hand and has longer range on the other. at this point I will probably have less problems with selling 70-200combo than getting rid of the 80-400; nevertheless, it's so true that this lens needs update, as it would perform much better with vrII and AF-S

Of course it does, D700, D300 and D3 have much more powerful AF motor and better AF system so they will focus much faster.
Nothing matches F5 though; the motor on that beast was capable of destroying lower quality lenses.

One thing I have noticed with the 80-400, the D700 body (and D3) will focus it way faster than my old D70s. So body makes a difference with this lens.

My preference would be the 70-200/f2.8, and that will probably be my next purchase, but it is pricey. That lens with a TC 1.7 would be my preferred skiing combination.

Good old 80-400 VR is very good lens for the price.
If you compare it to other Nikon tele lens for example 70-300 does not have the range or IQ, 70-200 or 200-400 have better IQ but lacks the range and are way more expensive.
I wonder why so many people hate it. I suppose new AF-S model will be a winner.

Sorry, lost the EXIF data on the picture above. Here it is:

Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D700
Image Date: 2010:04:11 21:04:46
Focal Length: 230.0mm (35mm equivalent: 230mm)
Aperture: f/7.1
Exposure Time: 0.0013 s (1/800)
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Light Source: Unknown
Flash Fired: No
Color Space: sRGB

While the 80-400 is not the fastest focusing lens, it can work fine.

Here is an image using the 80-400. Relatively slow shutter speed for skiing, but it is fine. Had the day not been a dark overcast things would have been even better. You can't tell from the picture after Flickr is done with it, but you can clearly read the name tag on the original and can almost read the skis in the goggle reflection.

Nice shot, piper. Sometimes the best photos happen out of nowhere when you were looking for something entirely different. And PB PM has some great advice about tracking birds. Patient observation without the camera running is a great way to learn behaviors in general and gives you a sense of where you should be and when you'll most likely get the shot that you are looking for. I find it also helps your experience the natural habitat that you are in a little more consciously instead of always having your eyes in the viewfinder waiting for something to happen.

Learning to track flying birds is a challenge, and the toughest part is that each type of bird has different flight patterns. What works for geese does not work with hawks. It takes time, and even though I have been shooting birds for some time now I still have trouble sometimes. One of the most important things to do is watch the birds you want to photograph before you even start shooting them, learn how they fly, and it will make tracking and thus photographing them much easier.

SquamishPhoto said:
Just go out and experiment with you camera and see what the results are like and then you can just judge for yourself how you should be using your camera and gear.

Squamish, good advice. There is no substitute for practice and experimenting. I was out chasing what I think was an otter, when two geese popped up. I was unprepared, and had wrong settings for a flying bird. But did manage to capture this.

</p>

noxin said:
I'm planning on getting a 300+ lens (for a FX camera), but need help on what to get. My budget is under $2Kish US. I will use it for everything a long lens can be used for: surfers, sports, wildlife, and anyting else I can think of.

From what I have read the Nikon 300 F4 is probably my best bet and I would get it if it was a VR lens. I feel once you get in the longer lenses the VR is more important, but not necessarily a deal breaker. Even with the 1.4 tele it gives a great image and becomes 420 @ F5.6 (still decent). The other Nikon choice is the 80-400, but it's slow focusing probaly rules it out. Sigma makes a few lenses too (with and without VR), but I don't know much about them. They have the 50-500, 100-300, 120-400, 150-500, it's almost too many choices. Are there any reviews on the new 50-500?

I know there is no golden lens in this area, but maybe you can recommend which ones are supposed to be the best of the bunch, or which ones to stay away from.

Thanks for your help
-Nox

Thank you for the post.
_________________
*Spam link Removed* DO NOT POST AGAIN Kelly or you will be banned!

Sandpiper said:
SquamishPhoto, I'll bite! What is your reasoning? Do you think I need the high shutter speed because both I and the birds are moving, and can't stop the motion otherwise?

My reasoning for stopping down to f7.1 was to try and gain a bit more depth of field to help increase the depth of focus a bit, in concern that the D300 really has a hard time tracking focus with all the movement.

The shot shown below was taken wide open on my old 300mm f4 with the shutter speed set to 1/3200:

Just go out and experiment with you camera and see what the results are like and then you can just judge for yourself how you should be using your camera and gear.

Once you reach 1/800s you're freezing motion of your subject, but you need higher shutter speeds to insure any motion created by you or your equipment are also frozen. If you are shooting from a good tripod it doesn't matter as much. To me, it just looks like you didn't nail the focus. When shooting moving birds you really need to learn to track them properly to nail focus.

SquamishPhoto said:
The photo above would be dramatically sharper if you open up your aperture a little and bring your shutter speed closer to 1/2000 or higher.

SquamishPhoto, I'll bite! What is your reasoning? Do you think I need the high shutter speed because both I and the birds are moving, and can't stop the motion otherwise?

My reasoning for stopping down to f7.1 was to try and gain a bit more depth of field to help increase the depth of focus a bit, in concern that the D300 really has a hard time tracking focus with all the movement.

Thanks for your comments. I've been leaning closer to the Nikon 300/F4, with the Sigma 100-300 hanging in there too. If one had VR/OS I would consider it over the other. I hadn't considered a used 300/2.8 but it makes sense to throw that in the ring of choices. With that in the consideration I'm also second guessing the need for the AFS since it's a long tele, I would think most of the shots would be near the infinity focus so it probably wouldn't need to motor very much to be in focus. Do you guys with the long lenses find this is the case, or is your focus often throughout the focus range?

I'd go with either the AF-S 300mm F4 or a used AF 300mm 2.8. I have owned both and they produce quality results with relative ease.

The photo above would be dramatically sharper if you open up your aperture a little and bring your shutter speed closer to 1/2000 or higher.