having got some pretty reasonable results with my trusty old 70-300 AF (the old non VR one) on my D200, I'm looking at trying to extend my reach for wildlife photography without breaking my bank balance. I've been considering the 80-400 VR. Also the 70-200 and teleconverter route.
It seems that the 80-400VR is never going to get updated! can people give me their thoughts on whether the extra ££ of the 70-200 + tele is worth it over the 80-400VR? I know the 400 is slow to focus, so is my old 70-300! If I can keep this project below £1000 it would be great.
reaching beyond 300mm
(37 posts) (12 voices)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
I would suggest 300mm f/4 + 1.4xTC/2xTC. The 300mmf/4 (any of them from the AIS days to today) easily has good enough IQ to use with the 2x TC. f/8 is a bit slow at 600mm, but certainly usable during the day, i do it all the time. Plus the 420 f/5.6 is very useful. It's cheap and pretty versatile if you don't mind dealing with the TCs
Posted 4 years ago # -
I was looking at going with a long lens before prices went up (all on hold now), and I'd convinced myself through reviews and forum posts that the 300 f/4 with TCs is the best bang for the buck. I'll probably be going that route before the end of the year.
Posted 4 years ago # -
tai - isn't the 300/4 with TC-2 going to perform as a manual focus only?
as for 70-200/2.8 + TC I think it's a great compromise between price and IQ, personally I use 70-200/2.8 + TC-17 and find it excellent, both wide open and handhold, below an example of handholded - wide open shoot:
the other option is to use 300/2.8 + any of the new TC - You will have full AF support and great IQ, the only drawback is the hefty price tag.
For budget You can also go for Sigma 50-500 - very good price/IQ factor, although You either need a lot of light or use a tripod, as handholding at 500 is tough, or go for sigma 100-300/4 - great IQ and great price/IQ factor.Posted 4 years ago # -
@adamz - The TC-20E should preserve AF-S, if citizen gets the 300mm AF, then it would end up being MF
Posted 4 years ago # -
Very good recommendation tai. also consider getting extension tubes so that you can focus closer for friendly tiny birds. Those older primes are very sharp but some cant focus close enough for birds that you my be able to get close to eg bird baths / feeds
BTW what do YOU call "wildlife" photography?
Posted 4 years ago # -
I'm right there with you heartyfisher, I use my PN-11 extension tube with my 300mm all the time.
Posted 4 years ago # -
For some reason (probably aperture is too small) 300mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S mounted on TC-20E does not autofocus very well (USM is actually working but AF is not precise). It works fine (AF-S and everything) on TC-14E though.
You have couple of choices beside 300mm f/4:
80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF: It will overlap your current 70-300 but will give you great results. It is slower to AF then others, but it is reasonable fast on camera with good motor and AF (like your D200) and you will be able to frame faster with zoom than with prime lens if you are after animal or bird shots and, because of very good VR, you could use it from hand most of the time.
70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR: I would sell old 70-300 if I was you and will go for 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR with TC-20E, it works really great and will give you good results, and it has VR. It will cost you twice of what will you have to pay for 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR and will not give you better pictures than 80-400 beyond 200 though.
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR: if I was tight on budget than I would also sell old 70-300 and go for this one with TC-14E, this setup would give you 70-300 and 100-420 ranges and it works really great for the price and is fast to AF and it has good VR also.
My personal preference: I would keep 70-300 and go for 80-400. Great and no too expensive lens and I don’t believe Nikon will be able to improve it much optically if and when they finally decide to produce new model, but it will be way more expensive.Posted 4 years ago # -
"70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR: if I was tight on budget than I would also sell old 70-300 and go for this one with TC-14E, this setup would give you 70-300 and 100-420 ranges and it works really great for the price and is fast to AF and it has good VR also."
The only problem with this is that a third party TC would have to be used as Nikon does not make these lenses compatible with it's TC's. These consumer zooms have no room for the Nikon TC's where the mount meets the lens. If mounted, it could break either then lens or the TC or both.
Kenko's TC's will mount with this combination. However, the IQ will be noticeable lower. AF will also hunt a lot especially if you point to a target that may be under the shade of a tree (which is very often the case with birds if that's what you're after. Your aperture drops to something like 6.3-8.0 or something, I don't remember the exact range but there is a lot of light lost. I have used this combination myself and found it can be frustrating at times as you will miss shots do to AF hunting. It's why I got my prime.
Posted 4 years ago # -
If you want a one lens option for telephoto (like I do) then I would get the 80-400mm VR. Despite it being the oldest Nikon VR Lens, it's still really good. I was allowed to demo the lens on a D3 for an afternoon, and I really fell in love with the lens's range.
If you concerned about the lens being updated, then buy it now. Then sell it the instant a new 80-400mm before the value drops and before the masses know about a new version.
Posted 4 years ago # -
"The only problem with this is that a third party TC would have to be used as Nikon does not make these lenses compatible with it's TC's."
This is not the case. Nikon does not support the use of Nikon TC-E teleconverters on 70-300 but fortunately for us the camera, lens and TC itself does not now that so it works, and pretty good too.
As for aperture it will drop with any teleconverter proportionally to its gain (1.4 for TC-14E, 1.7 for TC-17E and 2 for TC-20E) Nikon or third party.
What room are you talking about really? The only thing likely to break is AF drive, but 70-300 does not have or use one. As for bayonet mounts they are exactly the same on 70-300 and 300 metal Nikon F type.
I must admin that I haven’t tried 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR NIKKOR mounted on TC-14E for a very long time, but I doubt anything bad could happen really unless you use you lens as a handle for a camera used as a hammer.
If you are using any of TCs on 300 you know that picture quality is not as good as without it on this or any other lens.
NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF is still my preferred choice for low cost telephoto lens. And you probably do not need any TC on DX camera such as D200.Posted 4 years ago # -
mb:
If you hold the 70-300 ( I assume we mean this and not the 70-200 ), then look at the 70-200 or one of the primes, the Nikon TC's extend into the rear of the lens. The normal consumer lenses come out almost all the way to the end of the lens casing, not leaving much room. This can collide with the TC during operation. Just look and compare the back of them and you will clearly see this. It's obvious when I look at my 70-300 then compare it to my 70-200 and 300f4. The Kenko TC's don't do this although I'm sure that the IQ is lower.As far as not needing the extra reach on a DX body, that's a matter of opinion. Depends on what you are shooting and how furtive that subject is. 500mm would be ideal for most birders. I don't mean tame birds that you can walk right up to practically. I mean the real wild migratory birds that you won't see people feeding by hand where you need lots of reach.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Please excuse the quality of this. I took it in a hurry and lightened it with Capture NX's D-Lighting to show the inside of the back of the lens:
From left to right: 70-300VR. 70-200F2.8 VR. And 300mmF4.Now if you look closely, you can see where the 70-300 pokes out a little further than the 70-200 and the prime doesn't poke out at all. Not only this but unlike the 70-200, that glass moves as you zoom. The glass is also not flat or concave like the 70-200 which does not move when you zoom. The 70-300's glass bulges out (or in this case upward) slightly. The Nikon TC's poke inward toward the rear element. This is perfect for the pro zooms and primes. However if you were to forget and zoom back toward the minimum focal length, the glass elements could collide, damaging more than your AF.
Yeah you could try it, if you have the money to replace anything that's damaged, but why?
Posted 4 years ago # -
It is a well known issue that the 70-300 and the 80-400 will crash into the Nikon TCs. The New Kenko TC and Tamron TC provides enough clearance to work with these lenses. These new 7 element TCs are pretty good. I have a Kenko 1.4 and I am happy with its performance.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Thank you heartyfisher! :)
( I just realized there's a y in there lol sorry)
Posted 4 years ago # -
I use the kenko pro 300 with my prime. Here is an example:
http://www.pbase.com/shonn/image/109402914
The image is a little soft but it worked for me. With a D300 the metering knows that something is askew. It tries to compensate for this be overexposing. With this shot I had to stop down the exposure compensation to -1.0 This is just one other thing to keep in mind when using TC's and telephoto lenses.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@ Gentoo : Nice picture .. should clean up very nicely with a lick of sharpening ...
@ Adamz : Just opened your tiger picture at full resolution. Gee-wizz that's a nice combo.I have heard good things about that combo in the past and your picture sure doesn't disappoint.
Posted 4 years ago # -
gentoo - be surprised but I agree with You 100% - the fact that You can mount TC on any unsupported lens does not equal the true usability as pretty much the rear element will be smashed. Kenko works in a little bit different way, that's why sometimes we are able to use it on non supported lenses.
as for using 1.7 and 2.0 on lenses slower than f2.8 they usually will not work, as the auto focus doesn't get enough light - with fixed f4 lenses - 1.7 TC will give You f6.8 and 2.0 will give You f8, Nikon AF works well when the lens does not exceed f5.6 (Canon OTOH is less picky and works up to f8)
also once again I will try to convince some of You to try the Bigma (Sigma 50-500), I've played with this lens a little bit, and can say that the 750mm reach on DX camera is great, also with enough light You can easily handhold it (although it's heavy) and I bet that IQ is far better on this lens than on 70-300 + TC (I had the 70-300 some time ago I sold it as the IQ on the far end was little bit disappointing)
heartyfisher - thank You, glad You liked it
Posted 4 years ago # -
adamz Agree with you again although I've not used the Bigma.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@ adamz : Which version of the 70-300 did you have. The New 70-300 vr is much better than the non vr versions.
Yea that Bigma is rather amazing. The picture samples are better than expected. However the new Sigma OS lenses
APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM
APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSMlook great!. The samples I have seen are really good. I am seriously considering getting the 150-500 OS. Pair it with my extension tubes and I should be able to get some nice pictures of those friendly pelicans. 8-)
Posted 4 years ago # -
heartyfisher - I had both of them, but was referring to the VR version (the non VR non ED version is some kind of joke - I gave it away )
As for sigmas, the difference between the new ones and the old ones is that the old one (50-500) is EX series - pro quality from Sigma - which means better sealing and generally tougher build, also the IQ is better on 50-500 than on the other two (once I've compared all of the sigmas as I wanted to get one - I ended up with Nikon 70-200/2.8 + TC17 :) as I shoot mostly on base ISO and doesn't like to carry a tripod, but if someone has a camera that performs well in higher ISO - 800 and more, than Bigma's lack of VR shouldn't be a problem).Posted 4 years ago # -
adamz, I've heard that Sigma has spotty quality control and that it's IQ can't compete at all with the Nikkors. How true is this in your opinion? When I bought my 70-300VR It was between the 50-500 and that one. I settled on the Nikkor. Also, how does it perform being a 5.6-6.3? I would imagine that it would need a lot of light.
Posted 4 years ago # -
gentoo - as for sigma I'm not a big fan of their lenses, but that doesn't mean that they doesn't produce some good glass, I love the 10-20 and as I've played with the Bigma I think it's really a unique lens with great price/quality factor - definitely I'll choose it over the 80-400 vr from Nikon (as it focuses faster). As with all sigma lenses I will suggest to buy them from a good retailer (with good refund policies) as the build quality is a common issue with this company. As for the performance, I was testing it wide open (6.3 @ 500) and found it is acceptable for most of users and certainly better than You could expected from a zoom with 10x factor, and once You stopped it down a little bit to f8 You will get a really good glass, so as for the light Yup it needs a lot of it. You need to get at least 1/500 (1/250 when You have a really steady hand). Concluding, if You have a camera that performs well on iso 1600 or above than it's a good choice if You need range, otherwise go for something brighter.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@ adamz : Hope you are not offended.. 8-) (uh oh here it comes! ) But, are you sure about the 2 sigma long zooms? APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM
APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM
These are pretty new... and the 50-500 is rather old now. The samples I have seen from these new OS HSM sigmas are way better than the versions they replaced.
just checking... :-)Posted 4 years ago # -
heartyfisher - for sure I'm not offended, maybe You have seen some nice samples, and I have a good Bigma copy and not so good copies of the other two - as it's very common and possible with Sigma - unfortunately. Anyway, if some of You are going to buy any of the sigmas I would suggest to test it and compare results.
as for being old - my 70-200/2.8 vr was introduced before the Bigma, and I still think it's a great lens :)
also as for reaching beyond 300mm - I played today a little bit with Nikon 300/2.8 vr - what a great lens, almost no difference in IQ when You shoot on 300 or at 510 (with Nikon TC-17) - can wait to get one (maybe next year :( )
BTW:
did You get Your d200?Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
