Which telephoto would you get?

[dmdigital]

A little on the hypothetical, but the dollar is good at present and may get better:angel: Let's not get fixated on the cost or the brand either, both Canon and Nikon have some superbe lenses at this end of the market.

If you could, what would you choose from the following Nikkors if it was mainly for wildlife shots?

200-400mm f/4 VRII
300mm f/2.8 VR + TC20 EIII
400mm f/2.8 VR + TC20 EIII
500mm f/4 VR
600mm f/4 VR

For me I think it would be either 300mm f/2.8 VR or 400mm f/2.8 VR and the TC20 EIII to use as required.

[Cap]

For walk abouts shots ill buy the 300mm f/2.8 VR + TC20 EIII (or TC14EII)

For tripod mounted fixd location shots ill get the 500mm f/4 VR

I wouldnt get the 600mm as this is way to heavy and IMO unecessary. For me TACK SHARP is critical rather than reach. No point having the reach and only being able to take soft shots.

Now, as for brands, Nikon is waaaaaaaay more expensive than Canon, so a bummer for Nikon users :(

[Chucaro]

200-400mm f/4 VRII
and the 1.7 TC
or if you have a short lens (200mm f/2.8) the

500mm f/4 VR (the cream of lens :) )
and the TC2 III

[dmdigital]

Everything I've read suggests putting a TC on the 200-400 (even the new one) isn't a good idea. Also my understanding is the 500 isn't as good as the 400 and 600 now days.

[Cap]

Theres mixed reports around a zoom with TC but I agree, I would only put a tc on a prime and just keep the zoom as is. So you could have a 200-400mm AND a 500mm prime, for example. That would cover almost all the range for wildlife.

[Chucaro]

Everything I've read suggests putting a TC on the 200-400 (even the new one) isn't a good idea. Also my understanding is the 500 isn't as good as the 400 and 600 now days.

I suggest you to have a look images from Sar Nop. He is a top avian photographer and use the 70-200VR, the 200-400VR and the 600 VR

Some of his images are in this thread:
TC20E III samples (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?49908-TC20E-III-samples)
http://sarnop.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/cb1_9211-resize223.jpg

for the 600VR here:
Review : Nikkor AF-S 600mm f/4 G VR (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?35297-Review-Nikkor-AF-S-600mm-f-4-G-VR)

A MATTER OF LIGHT • View topic - Female Superb Fairy-wren (http://www.amatteroflight.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=375&)
sid=ddfcb4d98a1489b2e4e115aa04ce6714


Ronnie Gaubert have an extensive portfolio using several lens and among them he have very good images using the 500 f/4 lens
One of his images is here
Ruby-throated Hummingbird photo - Ronnie Gaubert photos at pbase.com (http://www.pbase.com/ronnie_14187/image/105202296)
But I suggesting you to have a look his work, I guess that it is better than many not in real life technical reports

[dmdigital]

I'm not saying the 500 is a bad lens just the ones either side of it would appear to be better now. I already have a 70-200VR (the old model) and even on FS it is still brilliant the new version is IMO equally as good and possibly better, though I missed the focus lock buttons when I borrowed one. I've already had a look at most of those links you've posted, it's pretty hard to argue with what those guys achieve.

The 200-400 offers versatility but isn't as sharp, is heavier and longer and doesn't take any TC half as well as either a 300 or 400 f/2.8. The 300 is also about the same price and realistically all of them are best with a long lens mount kit on at least a monopod.

[Chucaro]

I think that THIS (http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=185930) thread will be a good one to read :)

Some of the members have the 3 lens, 200-400,500 and 600 mm :eek:

[Cap]

Some of the members have the 3 lens, 200-400,500 and 600 mm :eek:

Maybe thats what you need to do DM, if in doubt, buy them all! :p :D

[dmdigital]

I wouldn't live long enough to use them once my wife found out ;)

I have a green light to get a new telephoto in the next 12 months and it doesn't extend to the 600mm. Even if it did this is a very big, heavy lens. If you haven't had a chance to play with one you don't know what you're missing, it is a beautiful lens - as are the 300, 400 and 500. The focus acquisition is super quick and with the 3D focus tracking of the D3s it is just brilliant.

[Cap]

Fantastic news, looking forward to some photos of the lens but also the resulting wildlife shots too :cool:

I hope that I can get the 300mm f/4 in the next 6 months or so myself.

[300+]

I prefer the value of third party lenses. Like this one:
200-500mm F2.8 APO EX DG - Telephoto Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/200-500mm-f28-apo-ex-dg-sigma)

Cheers, Steve

[dmdigital]

THis one is a little more practical (perhaps): Unleashing “The Beast” | Analysis & Opinion | (http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/archives/8068)

[300+]

You'll have the presidential security looking closely at that one to make sure it isn't a real cannon!

I hopped into a lift in a Melbourne hotel once with two scruffy photographers with their cameras standing upright on the lenses beside them. The bodies were both at waist height, and they were not short people... They declined to tell me who was in town...

Cheers, Steve

[Chucaro]

I prefer the value of third party lenses. Like this one:
200-500mm F2.8 APO EX DG - Telephoto Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/200-500mm-f28-apo-ex-dg-sigma)

Cheers, Steve

I would like to see some good avian images with it. I would do some search :)
I know that the Sigma 300 f/2.8 is very sharp and good value. Only the tripod mounting is crap.
Here (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=128&sort=7&cat=38&page=1) are some comments about it.

[300+]

Back in the real world, assuming you have something in the 200mm range for general stuff I'd go for the 400 2.8 with a TC. If not, the zoom will be a better lens most of the time. Of course when a 400mm is exactly the right length the prime will be better.

I've only got a 75-300 (APS-C), but there are a lot of times when I'm not using the full length. If you only have a 400mm you may find that you are walking backwards a lot to get everything in the frame.

Cheers, Steve

[Chucaro]

You are lucky Steve, I use my 70-300VR @ 300mm 95% of the time :(
I guess that I need 500mm focal range all the time for my birds photography :(

[dmdigital]

I'm now primarily shooting FX so the 400 may not be as big an issue (no pun intended). Need to think and research more.

Arthur have you seen the long lens rail kits that are available. RRS one is here: Long Lens Support Packages - (http://reallyrightstuff.com/Items.aspx?code=LongLensPkgs&key=cat) (the web site is a bit error prone since they changed it recently)

[DFNDR90]

Hi dmd,

Had (sold 2 months ago) a 400mm 2.8 (last of the non VR's). Always used on Gitzo 1410 leg's with a Wimberly II gimbal head on a DX body.

The wimberly is one of the best pieces of camera equipment i've ever purchased, with lens foot it's around $600 from the US(well, was when I bought it 3 years ago). I've used the 400 on a ball head before, its got nothing on the gimbal. You'd be crazy to use any of the mentioned lenses on a ball head you have to tighten/clamp down after each shot.

I never used it for bird photo's, mainly action/sports. If you want to see some images I can post a few.

To be honest, I doubt you could make a wrong decision if you bought any of them. The 400 worked perfect for me straight away, but that was more so because I had it, and used it appropriately.

So go buy one, and use it. ;)

[dmdigital]

Been thinking of a gimbal head, the long lens rail solution is only for supporting camera and lens and is good in a monopod situation but more importantly will take weight off the lens mount, especially with the weight of the D3s body.

Can't disagree with what you say about a ballhead they have there uses though.

[Chucaro]

I'm now primarily shooting FX so the 400 may not be as big an issue (no pun intended). Need to think and research more.

Arthur have you seen the long lens rail kits that are available. RRS one is here: Long Lens Support Packages - (http://reallyrightstuff.com/Items.aspx?code=LongLensPkgs&key=cat) (the web site is a bit error prone since they changed it recently)

Thank you for the link, I just wonder if works on a Manfrotto ballhead or I need to get one of them.

[Cap]

Thats the problem with big lenses, the ripple effect of having to purchase an appropriate tripod (if one hasnt got one that handles the weight), the head (gimbal type), then theres the external flash and better beamer (fill flash bird photography)... so you can add some extra $k to the equasion!

When you get the kit post up a pic of it so we can drool :D

[DFNDR90]

will take weight off the lens mount, especially with the weight of the D3s body.

A full size body incl battery may seem heavy in your hands, but supporting it off the lens is not an issue at all. The other way around is another matter. ;)

[dmdigital]

Thank you for the link, I just wonder if works on a Manfrotto ballhead or I need to get one of them.
Their rails work with any Arca-style fittings, if in doubt the best thing is to e-mail they are good at answering questions about equipment.


Thats the problem with big lenses, the ripple effect of having to purchase an appropriate tripod (if one hasnt got one that handles the weight), the head (gimbal type), then theres the external flash and better beamer (fill flash bird photography)... so you can add some extra $k to the equasion!

When you get the kit post up a pic of it so we can drool :D
Flashes and tripod aren't an issue, I have a RRS BH-55 which can hold more than the tripod. I will most likely have to get the gimbal head though and the Wimberly would appear to be the best solution, but I may get by with my rail setup as this gives me free movement in 3 planes using two turntables.


A full size body incl battery may seem heavy in your hands, but supporting it off the lens is not an issue at all. The other way around is another matter. ;)
Don't worry I know first hand how robust the D3s lens mount is. It's stronger than the lens' portion:( Long story and a $1000 repair job on a 24-70 f/2.8.

[300+]

You are lucky Steve, I use my 70-300VR @ 300mm 95% of the time :(
I guess that I need 500mm focal range all the time for my birds photography :(

I was thinking more of the sports photos. Kids playing soccer, racing cars, etc. They can get quite close.

But my bird shots are all annoying as they lens just isn't long enough. I'm working at home normally so I've just had lunch on my deck as the birds are all very active and the neighbour's tree is flowering. A lorikeet 15 metres away does not get close to filling the frame at 300mm. I haven't got a shot worth keeping yet. :mad:

Cheers, Steve

[blitz]

Now that I have my D300s I feel I can comment. while I have only had it a few days I have used my lenses a lot, i tend to use my 70/300 zoom the most. the 200/400mm zoom appeals to me but it's not worth it when like you you have one up to 300.

If I could justify it I would probably go the 600mm for the simple reason a lot of the stuff I try to shoot is very timid (well when I was in the NT anyway)

My dream kit is as follows: 18/200mmVR, 200/400mm VR and the biggest god damned lense made - hubble telescope would do :D

but as NASA wont sell it to me and I have the lenses that I have - non VR they will do.

I have used a 500mm mirror reflex (I think that is what it is called) in the past and really like the fact that it was short enough to use without a tripod. but even with that I wanted a bigger lense so the 600mm would be the go for me. My rationale is simple, I can always walk backwards if I cant fit what I want into the frame, but I can't always get closer (think crocs etc then think not brave)

[Chucaro]

I was thinking more of the sports photos. Kids playing soccer, racing cars, etc. They can get quite close.

But my bird shots are all annoying as they lens just isn't long enough. I'm working at home normally so I've just had lunch on my deck as the birds are all very active and the neighbour's tree is flowering. A lorikeet 15 metres away does not get close to filling the frame at 300mm. I haven't got a shot worth keeping yet. :mad:

Cheers, Steve

Steve, for a nice and sharp shot at 15m you need 420 to 500 mm lens :(

[Chucaro]

Blitz, is your 70-300 VR or the cheap version?

[blitz]

Blitz, is your 70-300 VR or the cheap version?

I bought mine way before VR was heard of, auto focus but old technology now - mind you still takes good photos

[blitz]

small lense is nikkor larger lense is not nikkor, in the time between looking last night and this morning I have forgotten but it is one of the cheaper ones. Mind you for my current skills it is more than adequate

[Cap]

...Mind you for my current skills it is more than adequate

Ill give you a few weeks if not a month before you rethink this :D ;)

[blitz]

Ill give you a few weeks if not a month before you rethink this :D ;)

I'll need a few months to convince SWMBO - then as earlier - 18/200 VR + 200/400mm VR

remote flash

monopod

tripod

gizzmo to put fade to gray filter on for clouds

and

and

and :D:D:D

[Chucaro]

...............

and

and

and :D:D:D

......and in a few weeks you will be sleeping in the shed :D

[blitz]

......and in a few weeks you will be sleeping in the shed :D
yeah but it is a pretty good shed - lots of room :p

[blitz]

I hate to admit it but I have to spend some money on the landy - $1200-00 on tyres today.

need to get it in and get the hoses replaced as they all leak (oil)

need to replace all the bushes this weekend so camera has to take second place for a couple of weeks

and playing with the camera today it will probably only be days before I want a better big lense

[Cap]

yeah but it is a pretty good shed - lots of room :p

ahh well then, its a win-win situation then ;)