More pulling power

[HowlinWolf]

After much deliberation on my part, I've decided that my 300 f/4 lens does not have the pulling power that I would like (even on a DSLR), and need something of at least 400mm focal length. Ideally this will be a zoom, and I'm contemplating either the Nikkor 80-400 f/4-5.6 D ED-VR AF, or the Nikkor 200-400 f/4G AF-S. The latter has been described by Bjørn Rørslett as "...(this) might well be the finest telephoto or zoom lens I've ever tested": and at the price I should hope so!
The question is: although the 80-400 has VR, which is a plus for lenses of that length, will it even approach the quality of the 200-400. This lens, although bereft of VR, does have Silent Wave focusing which can also be an advantage. Has anyone on this forum have any experience in the field with either optic? I'd like a bit of input (persuasion?) before I commit to getting the lens (in the case of the f/4 lens, a once in a lifetime purchase).

HW

[eeyore]

well i generally rely on my suave good looks and raffish debonair charm ..... oh sorry you're talking about long lenses

it is also worth looking at third party lenses - the bigma (sigma 50-500) is one of the most popular this is without image stabilise but does have HSM which is the equivalent of silent wave focusing

if you want image stabiliser the ossie (sigma 80-400 OS) is worth a look too

[Seajay]

Originally Posted by HowlinWolf

After much deliberation on my part, I've decided that my 300 f/4 lens does not have the pulling power that I would like (even on a DSLR), and need something of at least 400mm focal length. Ideally this will be a zoom, and I'm contemplating either the Nikkor 80-400 f/4-5.6 D ED-VR AF, or the Nikkor 200-400 f/4G AF-S. The latter has been described by Bjørn Rørslett as "...(this) might well be the finest telephoto or zoom lens I've ever tested": and at the price I should hope so!
The question is: although the 80-400 has VR, which is a plus for lenses of that length, will it even approach the quality of the 200-400. This lens, although bereft of VR, does have Silent Wave focusing which can also be an advantage. Has anyone on this forum have any experience in the field with either optic? I'd like a bit of input (persuasion?) before I commit to getting the lens (in the case of the f/4 lens, a once in a lifetime purchase).

HW

I have not used either lens but have done a considerable amount of research via the internet on both. The 200-400 is reputed to be one of the finest lens ever produced by Nikon and is a natural step up from the 70-200, Nikon converters again working with the 200-400. The 80-400 is nowhere near the standard of the 200-400 but is still a fine lens for the price. It's the old, old story - you get what you pay for! The 200-400 costs 4 times as much so it's hardly likely to be on a par is it? Search the internet and you will get all your answers. We are treading the same path that thousands have trod before. Unless you're very well off join the ranks of those saving for their dream lens. In the meantime use a lens such as the Bigma which, though nothing near the standard of any Nikon lens, is excellent value for money and will give years of pleasure. (A good job cos it will take me years to save up!

[Gandalf]

HowlinWolf I, like SeaJay, have done a fair bit of research on the internet especially at the nikonians site where a lot of people use both lenses and post many images as to their respective quality. Being just under £4K the 200-400 is obviously superior, being acclaimed as one of Nikon's best ever lenses. Even with TC 1.4 and 1.7, gives tack-sharp images.
The 80-400 is a more modest price, just £1000, but doesn't have silent-wave motor and is not recommended to be used with nikkor TCs, but can with Kenco Pro 300 1.4 TC for Nikon AF-S.
I have the 80-400mm and find it useful but it takes some practicing with and re-evaluating of one's long-lens-technique.
So, all-in-all, if money or time's no object, get the 200-400, but if it is, get the 80-400.
You won't be disappointed with either.

[peterjclarke]

As eeyore mentioned the Sigma 50-500mm is a real contender. I read review of the 80-400VR and the college I'm at has one but its not a very fast focusing lens. Why Nikon did not make it an AFS lens I will never know. I've heard good stuff about the 200-400 but its very pricey indeed. The Sigma 500mm F4.5 prime is another I feel you should consider. A mate of mine recently bought one and is thrilled to bits with it.

[wildlifesnapper]

Hi

I don't think that I would go from a 300mm to a 400mm as there isn't too much difference between the two really.I would probably look at something that goes to 500mm like the bigma or little bigma.

neil

[jasongallier]

Hi
What are you going to do with the photographs?

The "Bigma" might be just what you need?? I would have thought the 200-400 with converters is more flexible and better quality but it will cost you. Such a lens would deserve a good tripod and head.

A 500mm is a great idea (esp sigma F4.5) but if you go down that road you have to remember all of the kit that goes with such a beast and remember it doesn't have IS (VR or OS). You will need to spend LOTS of money on supprorting it (ie a good tripod and head) and then spend a few months working on technique to get the most out of your kit!

Jason

[Zebethyal]

I am also in the market for a lens in this area and at present my leaning is definately towards the Nikon 80-400mm f/4-5.6 VR for the following reasons:

The Nikon 200-400mm f4 AFS VR I am sure it is a wonderful lens but is well outside my price bracket and way too big and heavy for me to bother taking it with me most of the time so for me would not be a worthwhile purchase.

The Bigma is another one being seriously considered and around the same price as the Nikon 80-400mm however much bigger and heavier, slightly faster focusing but no VR and very little gain in length (it is actually only 460mm), much greater range, but how often does anyone who owns this lens actually use it at anything below about 200mm?

As for the Nikon 80-400mm f/4-5.6 VR it is smaller and lighter than the other two though also the slowest to focus is likely to be used by myself more often than either of the other two because it is smaller and lighter, most people do not bother with its tripod mount either (it gets in the way), making it even lighter.

On most sites where I have seen the last two compared, everyone has opted for the Nikon over the Bigma.

Regards

Tim

[jasongallier]

Originally Posted by Zebethyal

As for the Nikon 80-400mm f/4-5.6 VR it is smaller and lighter than the other two though also the slowest to focus is likely to be used by myself more often than either of the other two because it is smaller and lighter, most people do not bother with its tripod mount either (it gets in the way), making it even lighter.

Don't rush to take off tripod mount! The only lens I hand hold (occassionally) is my medium telephoto while stalking and I use the tripod ring to rest on the top of my left hand - any small advantage is worth using. But mainly I try to find a tree, wall, post, rock etc to rest the lens on and then the tripod mount stops the (expensive) lens getting scratched.

Jason
Wild Light Photography: Welcome to Wildlight Photography

[HowlinWolf]

Thanks for your input, people. Maybe the 200-400 lens is a bit too far out there, so I've come up with a contingency plan which is as follows: I already use the Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S, which gives superb results, and am now considering the addition of the TC-14 E II which will take the focal length up to 420 mm and an aperture of f/5.6. The addition of the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 AF-VR ( with the occasional use of the converter, giving me a 98-280 f3.5 option) would make make things more versatile, and the lens has Silent Wave focusing (as does the 300mm). The TC-14E II is designed for use with both lenses.
The field of view of a DSLR will increase the effective focal lengths of these combinations, (hopefully) giving me the extra reach as and when I need it.
I'm considering the Nikkor zoom over anything else because of the optical performance.
Any thoughts or comments?

HW

[Zebethyal]

Just for your own interest I would suggest having a read of some of Ken Rockwell's reviews on his website he has reviewed all the lenses you have mentioned and many more besides.

Also have a read of his page on how to photograph birds where he discusses several options again.

Not everyone agrees with his reviews, however he is consistant in his viewpoints and is not sponsored by any manufacturer.

Regards

Tim

[HowlinWolf]

Tim,
I frequent Ken Rockwell's site on a regular basis, and have read a lot of his stuff. As you say, some people don't agree with his views, but he says what he thinks and then stands by his opinions. Right or wrong, it certainly provokes thought. I, for one, like that.
It was he that convinced me to ditch my PC, and buy a Mac.

HW

[Gandalf]

Originally Posted by Zebethyal

I am also in the market for a lens in this area and at present my leaning is definately towards the Nikon 80-400mm f/4-5.6 VR for the following reasons:

The Nikon 200-400mm f4 AFS VR I am sure it is a wonderful lens but is well outside my price bracket and way too big and heavy for me to bother taking it with me most of the time so for me would not be a worthwhile purchase.

The Bigma is another one being seriously considered and around the same price as the Nikon 80-400mm however much bigger and heavier, slightly faster focusing but no VR and very little gain in length (it is actually only 460mm), much greater range, but how often does anyone who owns this lens actually use it at anything below about 200mm?

As for the Nikon 80-400mm f/4-5.6 VR it is smaller and lighter than the other two though also the slowest to focus is likely to be used by myself more often than either of the other two because it is smaller and lighter, most people do not bother with its tripod mount either (it gets in the way), making it even lighter.

On most sites where I have seen the last two compared, everyone has opted for the Nikon over the Bigma.

Regards

Tim

I use the 80-400 VR, but very rarely hand-held. In combination with my D200 it becomes a heavy blighter to carry round, if not mounted on a tripod or monopod. As to the supplied nikkor tripod collar, you'll find it useless to say the least. Consider purchasing the Kirk lens collar, specially made for this lens.

[Seajay]

Originally Posted by HowlinWolf

Thanks for your input, people. Maybe the 200-400 lens is a bit too far out there, so I've come up with a contingency plan which is as follows: I already use the Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S, which gives superb results, and am now considering the addition of the TC-14 E II which will take the focal length up to 420 mm and an aperture of f/5.6. The addition of the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 AF-VR ( with the occasional use of the converter, giving me a 98-280 f3.5 option) would make make things more versatile, and the lens has Silent Wave focusing (as does the 300mm). The TC-14E II is designed for use with both lenses.
The field of view of a DSLR will increase the effective focal lengths of these combinations, (hopefully) giving me the extra reach as and when I need it.
I'm considering the Nikkor zoom over anything else because of the optical performance.
Any thoughts or comments?

HW

HW - if you've got the money DEFINATELY go for the 200-400 (I am assuming you want to photograph mainly birds) but even then you will also need a converter, a 1.4 or 1.7. If it's a little out of your price range at the moment then your plan is good but in my opinion you would be better off with a 1.7 converter (Nikon). With my 70-200 I opted for the 2x nikon converter as you need 400mm minimum in my opinion, however you have the 300 which has excellent optics. Remember the 70-200 is f2.8 so a loss of a couple of stops isn't the end of the world also it makes it extremely versatile for all forms of wildlife and it is a cracking lens. This would, in my opinion provide you with a great deal of enjoyment untill you could afford the 200-400 when you could sell your 300 if you wanted to help meet the cost. I messed about buying this that and the other when I realise now I should have listened to the advice of others and gone straight for the 200-400 but I originally never contemplated spending as much as I did in the end.
www.wildaboutbritain.


The above are taken with the 70-200 and 2x converter and to my eyes they are OK. All handheld. The processing may not be right as I'm all at sixes and sevens with that! Still learning, but this is not about me its getting you on the right path. I opted for the Bigma as a stop gap but you have the 300 so if you get a converter the quality, I suspect, will be better. Anyway the choice is yours is the end and whatever you choose I'm sure you'll get loads of enjoyment. Good luck, Colin.

[HowlinWolf]

I appreciate your comments, Seajay, but have decided that the TC-14E II is the way to go, and ordered one yesterday. This will be used exclusively with the 300mm f/4 until such time that I make a decision on which of the three lenses that I now have in mind (the agony of choice!). Reviews indicate that the 1.4 TC is 'invisible' on the optics I'm considering, so no problem with CA and other vagaries which afflict telephotos. It's not the cost of the 200-400 that's holding me back: it's the justification of owning such a lens. Sure, it will get used (landscape as well as wildlife), but it's still a considerable outlay just to 'have one in the bag'. However, this could change if the mood takes me. I've also been warned to not even hire one unless I'm serious about buying it, as it will spoil me for life!
As to selling the 300mm f/4...never! It's a superb chunk of glass which close focuses at 5 feet, which is a big asset.
I'll post any progress or problems here once I've got my technique up to scratch.

HW