@sevencrossing +1
Which Nikon super tele?
(87 posts) (25 voices)-
Posted 9 months ago #
-
-
What?!
He could have paid from years of practice.
He could have paid to get somewhere.
He could have paid to get rid of spouse so he can spend time with some bears...
Everything has a cost including luck. Spend enough time feeding a slot machine and money might come out.
framer
Posted 9 months ago # -
Just curious, is the 200mm f2 considered a super tele? In any case, I guess the price is enough for it to be a super tele. :D
I guess you could put a 2x converter on it, but I don't think some people want an F4.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Yes, many thoughts... the 300mm f/2.8 at $5900 plus TC-14EII for $520 gives 420mm f/4 for $6420
And the 200mm f/2.0 at $6000 plus the TC-20EIII for #500 gives 400mm f/4.0 for $6500Or the 200-400mm f/4.0 gives it all for $7000 and most likely sharper than either of the above combos...
Many ways to skin a cat...as it is said....
Funny, no one has mentioned the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF Autofocus Lens for Nikon SLR - Green for only $26,000.....
Has anyone even seen one of these?
Posted 9 months ago # -
msmoto said:
Yes, many thoughts... the 300mm f/2.8 at $5900 plus TC-14EII for $520 gives 420mm f/4 for $6420
And the 200mm f/2.0 at $6000 plus the TC-20EIII for #500 gives 400mm f/4.0 for $6500Or the 200-400mm f/4.0 gives it all for $7000 and most likely sharper than either of the above combos...
Many ways to skin a cat...as it is said....
Funny, no one has mentioned the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF Autofocus Lens for Nikon SLR - Green for only $26,000.....
Has anyone even seen one of these?
Ha...I could buy lots of stuff for $26000 and none would include the word Sigma, great lens or not ;)
I have seen a picture of one on the interwebz :) I have to imagine in person they look fairly funny...people probably start running for cover when they think you have a bazooka and can't see your camera attached to the end :P
Posted 9 months ago # -
I consider the 200 f/2 a super-tele, not necessarily for its reach, but for the low light capability. It seems to be a go-to lens for lots of sports pros.
@sevencrossing - +1. That's why I'd like the 600.
At nearly 35 pounds I feel that the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 might be too unwieldy for someone of my modest 6'4" 205 pound stature. Although a full stop faster and 100mm longer than the Nikon 200-400 f/4, the $20,000 price differential seems challenging to justify. Perhaps if it were a different color... After all, we all know that proper lenses should be black, not green (or beige). ;-)
Posted 9 months ago # -
@msmoto - I was even shooting one, though a canon version only... the AF is fast, though it's very hard to move the whole setup and the camera looks really tiny at the very end. if I find the snap I took with it, I'm gonna post it here, but it was so long time ago.
Posted 9 months ago # -
tcole1983 mentioned "running for cover". Well, whenever I head to the nearby airport to photograph airplanes coming in, I usual call the security. But, if I am more than a hundred yards or so off airport property, I do not and just wait until they arrive. The 400mm w/ hood, on tripod, pointed at the planes always seems to be mentioned by the commercial pilots to the tower. Takes about 10 minutes for security to find me, but as I am in the system, they only say hello, and "Oh it's you". But, pointing any of these big lenses at anyone will elicit some interesting responses. And, if you are going to the airport, always call and give information vis email the first time so they have no reservations about what you are doing. Otherwise, the issues become for them one of an unknown or as they say on TV a potential "unsub" and they may respond with sometimes less than friendly actions.
And, as one person said to me when I was shooting the cars, the 400mm as a "super tele" carries a lot of "wow" factor simply because of the carbon fiber lens hood and size of the front element. Of course it does perform fairly well...
I will be looking for a photo from a lens costing what one could buy the 300mm 2.8, 400mm 2.8 and 600mm f 4.0 and the teleconverters for.
Posted 9 months ago # -
A Sigma 50-500 2.8 with a Nikon 1 camera would give you quite some reach.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Here's some NIKKOR Mac Daddy's! lol That top one is 1200-1700
Posted 9 months ago # -
-
OK, who posted a picture of msmoto's lens collection without her permission? :-)
Posted 9 months ago # -
framer said:
What?!He could have paid from years of practice.
He could have paid to get somewhere.
He could have paid to get rid of spouse so he can spend time with some bears...
Everything has a cost including luck. Spend enough time feeding a slot machine and money might come out.
framer
I was just saying "Duck" as the subject of luck versus skill in photography was hotly debated in another thread. Luck plays a significant part in mine!
Posted 9 months ago # -
msmoto said:
I will be looking for a photo from a lens costing what one could buy the 300mm 2.8, 400mm 2.8 and 600mm f 4.0 and the teleconverters for.I found some pics on the web. I didn't find them any better then anything I have seen on the PAD thread and well...none are even shooting $10,000 lenses on there that I have seen. I guess it is good, but as you point out. That is a ton of very nice glass for the cost of one ridiculous looking specialized lens. I would have to pass. Or you could buy my car and half those lenses mentioned above ;)
Posted 9 months ago # -
Well,you mentioned budget.....so my budget could possibly swing a Nikkor 300mm f/2.8......from what I have seen it handles all of the Nikon TC's nicely,and on a DX body it would be a dream!.....If you have tried to find a new one online however,they seem to be as scarce as a bounced check from Bill Gates ;)
Posted 9 months ago # -
shutterdancer said:
Well,you mentioned budget.....so my budget could possibly swing a Nikkor 300mm f/2.8......from what I have seen it handles all of the Nikon TC's nicely,and on a DX body it would be a dream!.....If you have tried to find a new one online however,they seem to be as scarce as a bounced check from Bill Gates ;)To find one at B & H...check in early morning and late evenings and see if it shows up. Sometimes they will have a couple, and you have to order it immediately. The 70-200mmf/2.8VRII was in this category, and I saw it one day, ordered mine and an hour later no longer available. Two months later they said they had them available. But, for some reason, they will pop up and then disappear.
And, I think the 300mm f/2.8 is an excellent choice. It is small enough to hand hold. ALthough I am working on a rig to allow the 400 to be hand held. And carried conveniently with protection.
Oh, and very funny, SkintBrit...but that is Eric's lens collection, ha, ha, ha.....or is it Adam's???
Posted 9 months ago # -
Thanks msmoto.....I haven't preordered at B&H...but I am on the email me when it's in stock list.....which has worked well for me in the past ;)
Posted 9 months ago # -
Tommie, It's not mine. I think I only have one push/pull zoom left; and I would have noticed the 8mm & 13mm fisheyes... as well as some of the other stuff. Must be Adam's. ;-)
Posted 9 months ago # -
@ shutterdancer...I was on the email list, but what happens is these will be in stock for only a few minutes, the emails never go out.
Posted 9 months ago # -
OK, I am posting some important instructions here:
http://espikes09.blogspot.com/2012/04/nikkor-1200-1700mm-mother-of-all-super.html#_
:-)
Posted 9 months ago # -
Wow, $60,000, 36 lbs, after you add a camera body and a gimble head the size of the space shuttle launch pad, is there a tripod that could hold this??? I am sure there is but geez it would be heavy to move that setup around.
I admit I went with the 400mm 2.8 for my dream. Here was my thought process on the matter, I have the 70-200 and can add a 2.0 TC III for good-decent results making a 140-400mm lens. I can take that same TC and get an 800mm on FX and an effective 1200mm on DX using the 400mm.
At the time F5.6 was the best any Nikon camera could auto focus but now that has changed so you could use this on the 600mm and get a 1200mm FX or effective 1800mm if they ever make a DX body that can auto focus for a lens combo at F8. When I got mine all you could use on the 600mm was a 1.4 TC which only gives 840mm FX and if I was shooting sports or birds in low light I would want the F2.8 option.
Now that the D800 and some other high resolution sensors hit the market in the future the option of using a TC might be limited for good results. I would love a 200-400mm but due to the fact I have a 70-200 and a TC 1.7 I could not justify the extra $6300 and portablity factor at the time. I still don't have a D800 so in some sence it has not changed my personal needs but has changed my opinion of what might I do in the future.
Posted 9 months ago # -
@msmoto - An important thing to note in the picture about carrying that lens is that camera strap hangs loose so that your neck isn't broken in the event that the lens is dropped. ;)
Posted 9 months ago # -
I think I know how I would transport that lens.... a two wheel dolly.... and two armed guards. The interesting thing to consider, is exactly what does one do with it? Tracking a moving object....very very difficult. Pictures of stars...better done with a telescope and at a price of most likely $45,000 less. So, what does one do with it? Sleeping lions, yes, of course.
Posted 9 months ago # -
...or maybe assessing the eye color of spitting cobras.
Posted 9 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
