What telephoto lenses do Nikon users use for wildlife?

[DanJeffery]

I don't want this to degenerate into a Canon vs Nikon vs other formats debate/argument.

I am a canon user contemplating switching to Nikon. One of the things holding me back is that I love my canon 100-400L lens.

I wonder, Nikon users, what long lenses do you use for wildlife photography?

[Richard G.]

Well there's what I use and what I'd like to be using, two different things

I use the 70-200mm f/2.8, often with 1.4 TC. Fabulous lens with or without TC (note I'm on DX though, FF users do complain of softness at the edges with this lens and I think that's the primary reason for Nikon's new 70-200mm with VRII).

Add to that the Sigma 150-500mm, never used with TC. This lens is a compromise between half decent quality and affordability for me.

In an ideal world I'd have a 200-400mm f/4, well I can dream

The direct equivalent to your 100-400L is probably the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6. The main issue with this lens is it's not AF-S, which means focusing is not as fast as some of the more recent lenses. This lens is begging for an update from Nikon, IMHO, and I would dump the Sigma tomorrow if there was an 80-400mm with AF-S and VRII. Having said all of that there are people who get good results and are perfectly happy with this lens and I'm sure Dave P. will be along shortly to give you some genuine hands on feedback on this lens, I've never used one though, to be clear.

[momji1971]

Dan,

Why the change? Most of the birders I know and have met along the way are canon shooters! Just wondered on your train of thought. Would it not be incredibly expensive to swap over?

Anyways, I use Nikon 300mm f4, Sigma 500mm F4.5. The 300mm will take a 1x4 converter and is a brill hand held lens.

regards.
Stu.

[DanJeffery]

Stu

I have a Canon 40D (APS-C sensor), 17-85mm kit lens, Canon 100-400mm lens, a Canon 50mm f1.8 lens and a Canon flash. In about six weeks time I will be in a position to buy a new Canon 5D MkII body only.

However, I have also had a little look into the Nikon D700. It is full frame but instead of going for the crowd pleasing pixel race it has better high ISO noise performance and it's pixel count is plenty for me.

And there are a few things that I prefer about the Nikons -
- the in built remote flash triggering
- the 51 focus points vs the Canon's 9
- the fact that you can use the APS-C (ie DX) lenses on the full frame cameras and the camera just uses a smaller part of the sensor. That just seems so sensible (even though it is unlikely to benefit me!).

Overall the Nikon approach seems to be more sensible and more mature. But I must admit I do fancy the Canon 5D's video. And then it is rumoured (yes, OK, I know - "rumoured") that Canon are to soon announce a replacement for the 1D mkIII - I could carry on saving and get that in a year or so. Or get a cheap 1D mkIII when the mkIV comes out, but they have been plagued by focusing problems.

The sensible thing for me to do would be to buy some better lenses and continue using my Canon 40D.

Anyway, back to the point - if I am going to jump ship now would be a good time to do it, when I am contemplating buying a more expensive body.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by momji1971

Dan,

Why the change? Most of the birders I know and have met along the way are canon shooters! Just wondered on your train of thought. Would it not be incredibly expensive to swap over?

.

I cant speak for Dan but in my case (which is v. similar) I am attracted to nikon by the low light / high ISO performance , particularly of the D3 , which IMO compares favorably with the 1Dmk3

you are right about the expense of switching systems but my long lense is nearing the end of its natural life and my intent is to buy a nikon body (D3 if i can afford it otherwise D300s) and a nikon fit long lense and continue to use canon on my short and macro lenses (as i always shoot with a body dedicated to the long lense anyway) until the time comes to replace them , then swap slowly over to nikon as the canon kit expires

[momji1971]

I totally understand where you're coming from. Both have their pluses and minus's.

The only problem I can see changing to a ff sensor would be at the moment your 100-400 has an equivalent view of a 150-600mm lens (might be more on canon). Your gonna lose a lot of reach. I went through the same kind of torture. Do I upgrade to a d700 or stick with the 300 i have. In the end, after speaking to a few people on here and thinking hard, for me, I need the extra reach. I shoot mainly birds.

Good luck! Let us know how you get on.

Pete,
If you're gonna save, save the extra pennies. The D3 knocks spots of the 300. Iso2000 on a D3 looks like 400 on a D300.

regards.
Stu.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by momji1971

The only problem I can see changing to a ff sensor would be at the moment your 100-400 has an equivalent view of a 150-600mm lens (might be more on canon). Your gonna lose a lot of reach. .

true - but if you also do landscapes your 10-20 wide angle will be 10-20mm not an effective 16-32 that it is on a cropped sensor

ideally i'd like to have two bodies one ff and one cropped with the long lense on the cropped sensor and the wide angle or short zoom on the ff one

question for me is whether this is going to be a D300 (or D3 if i win the lottery) and D700 or my current 20D (or 1Dmk2n (i dont like the 1Dmk3)) in and a 5Dmk2

[momji1971]

Originally Posted by eeyore

question for me is whether this is going to be a D300 (or D3 if i win the lottery) and D700 or my current 20D (or 1Dmk2n (i dont like the 1Dmk3)) in and a 5Dmk2

Now thats a problem I'd like to have. Perfect set-up though.

regards.
Stu.

[liam71]

I have a 120-300 2.8 Sigma. There are some really good reviews on it. It's a heavy beast but it has really good IQ. The only downside with mine is that @2.8 it's not as sharp as what people say. F4 and its tack sharp.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Richard G.

The direct equivalent to your 100-400L is probably the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6. The main issue with this lens is it's not AF-S, which means focusing is not as fast as some of the more recent lenses. This lens is begging for an update from Nikon, IMHO, and I would dump the Sigma tomorrow if there was an 80-400mm with AF-S and VRII. Having said all of that there are people who get good results and are perfectly happy with this lens and I'm sure Dave P. will be along shortly to give you some genuine hands on feedback on this lens, I've never used one though, to be clear.

Took me over a day but I'm here now!

Yep, I've been using the 80-400 f4.5-5.6 for just over 3 years and, for the money, I think it's a great lens. It's capable of delivering some very clear and sharp images. Almost all the birds in my Gallery since April 2006 were taken with it (although there are a handful that were taken with the Sigma 150 when I could get close enough). My biggest problem in offering a meaningful opinion of it is that I have no experience of any other long zoom. Or prime for that matter. As Richard says, it lacks the silent wave motor and I've read lots of reviews that say it's slower to focus as a result but I've no idea how much slower. It's true that I have missed the odd shot because I couldn't get a focus lock before the bird flew but no lens focuses instantly so that's always going to happen occasionally.

I stopped using the VR about 18 months ago as I think it gives slightly softer results. If I'm truly hand-holding I look for a shutter speed faster than 1/400th sec but most of the time the lens is supported. If not on a tripod then on a hide window frame, a fence, a branch, the ground - anything really!

If Nikon ever do bring out a newer version with silent wave and VRII, and I agree with Richard that it's long overdue, I'd be very interested!

Originally Posted by Richard G.

In an ideal world I'd have a 200-400mm f/4, well I can dream

Described by Andy Rouse as "the best wildlife lens in the world". Anyone got four and a half grand spare?

Dave P.