Using a 300mm f4 + TC?? Tell me why?

[Smits]

I'm just getting into bird photography and I'm trying to decide on a setup that is not going to cause me too much frustration, and is also relatively economical. I've read so many reviews and forums that I think my head is about to explode. I have one question though...
For arguments sake, let's say I have a D80 (actually have a D40, but that will be changing soon). I've narrowed my choice down to the nikon 300mm f/4 + 1.4 Tc, or a 80-400mm f4-f5.6 VR. Actually, I'm more interested by the sigma 120-400mm OS HSM thats coming out in may (which is only 895US on Amazon). I probably won't get the nikon vr since it sounds like its about time for nikon to upgrade it.
My question is: why isn't the -400mm VR (nikon or sigma) more popular? I'd be especially interested in hearing from owners of either (300mm f4 or a VR lens), and finding out what guided their decision.
Perhaps I am better suited for the VR since I will be using a tripod as little as possible. the 300mm f4 + TC is extremely popular amongst birders, but is the IQ despite losses associated with the use of a TC still better than an 80-400mm VR?

Thanks,
Smits.

[Neil]

Smits,
The reason is that the 300/f4 is sharper than the zoom (primes usually are ) and faster focusing (AFS version ) . The best Nikon birding solution (walk around ) at the moment is the D300 plus 300/4 AFS and 1.4x tele. I walk around using the D3 plus 300/4 AFS and 1.4x all day . The D300 gives more reach (1.5x ). The D80 will also do a reasonable job but the D300 would be 50% better/faster/less noise.
Neil.

[fugl]

I'm just getting into bird photography and I'm trying to decide on a setup that is not going to cause me too much frustration, and is also relatively economical. I've read so many reviews and forums that I think my head is about to explode. I have one question though...
For arguments sake, let's say I have a D80 (actually have a D40, but that will be changing soon). I've narrowed my choice down to the nikon 300mm f/4 + 1.4 Tc, or a 80-400mm f4-f5.6 VR. Actually, I'm more interested by the sigma 120-400mm OS HSM thats coming out in may (which is only 895US on Amazon). I probably won't get the nikon vr since it sounds like its about time for nikon to upgrade it.
My question is: why isn't the -400mm VR (nikon or sigma) more popular? I'd be especially interested in hearing from owners of either (300mm f4 or a VR lens), and finding out what guided their decision.
Perhaps I am better suited for the VR since I will be using a tripod as little as possible. the 300mm f4 + TC is extremely popular amongst birders, but is the IQ despite losses associated with the use of a TC still better than an 80-400mm VR?

Thanks,
Smits.

Much discussed already. See, for example,
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=107147&highlight=fugl

[Smits]

Thanks Neil. Other threads seem to suggest that when using the TC, handheld shots become a bit difficult.

Fugl, Yes the 300mm f/4 + Tc setup is heavily discussed, but never is my question answered. Perhaps I should rephrase the Q: I know a prime is better than a zoom, but if you're taking handheld shots at 400-ish mm, and light is a factor, would you rather be holding the 300mm/TC setup, or a 80-400mm VR (assuming this was a good lens)?

[Duke Leto]

Can't speak for the 80-400 but I hand hold my 300 & 1.4 in average light and have no real issues, its one of those nice matches, it just works.
Saying that though I always try an use a monopod
The 300 works well with a 1.7x as well
so 420mm @ 5.6 or 510mm @ 6.3

[Neil]

Fugl, Yes the 300mm f/4 + Tc setup is heavily discussed, but never is my question answered. Perhaps I should rephrase the Q: I know a prime is better than a zoom, but if you're taking handheld shots at 400-ish mm, and light is a factor, would you rather be holding the 300mm/TC setup, or a 80-400mm VR (assuming this was a good lens)?[/QUOTE]

300/f4/TC
No question ( I have both lenses)
Neil.

[WHIMBREL]

Can't speak for the 80-400 but I hand hold my 300 & 1.4 in average light and have no real issues, its one of those nice matches, it just works.
Saying that though I always try an use a monopod
The 300 works well with a 1.7x as well
so 420mm @ 5.6 or 510mm @ 6.3

Steve,

If you could only chose one, which would it be 1.4 or 1.7? I'm using a Nikon D300 and seriously considering purchasing the 300 AF-S F4.

Regards,

Bill

[Duke Leto]

have to say the 1.4, its a tad short on focal length but its a perfect match, I do carry the 1.7 when I'm travelling light and use it in better light conditions but for value for money and usability the 1.4 imho is a clear winner, stay away from the 2x.
BUT and theres always a but, not tried it on a D300 and if the noise benefits are as good as discussed then you would get better shutter speeds than I do on my D200. If its distance your after then the 1.7 but on my set up the 1.4 is always delivered the sharper results.

[WHIMBREL]

have to say the 1.4, its a tad short on focal length but its a perfect match, I do carry the 1.7 when I'm travelling light and use it in better light conditions but for value for money and usability the 1.4 imho is a clear winner, stay away from the 2x.
BUT and theres always a but, not tried it on a D300 and if the noise benefits are as good as discussed then you would get better shutter speeds than I do on my D200. If its distance your after then the 1.7 but on my set up the 1.4 is always delivered the sharper results.

Thank you, the general concensus of opinion agrees with your experience of the 1.4. There does however seem to be a dearth of Nikon 300 f4 AF-S lenses at the dealers at present, and sensibly prices pre-owned are also hard to come by. Nikon often seem to create a 'demand outstrips supply' scenario, it can sometimes be frustrating, but if they are they should consider the fact that Sigma are bringing two new zooms (120-400 and 150-500) to the market place, to provide more choice for us potential buyers.

Regards,

Bill

[Duke Leto]

yep, but the zooms once again imho are no match for a prime lens, they do how ever offer superb value for money and allow the user to have a variety of lenses in one. My 18-200vr isn't the sharpest and fastest lens on the block but when it comes to travel its superb. I have never worked out what the Nikon 200-400 is all about its an f4 200 to an f4 400 okay it has vr but for the price is it really worth looking at? Saying that if I had one it would be a great "jack of all trades" sports lens

[Hyrax]

I've gone for the less obvious choice of the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2x TC (sigma again as it works better with sigma lenses than the Nikon or so I hear - and it's cheaper)

This gives me an effective focal length of 600mm on my D50 - not too shabby as it's still only f/5.6. However I really need a new camera for my lens!

This combination gives me greater versatility, especially as I should have the opportunity to photograph some Dolphins this summer - the lens by itself will be perfect for this.

Just an alternative to think about

[rioja]

I've gone for the less obvious choice of the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2x TC (sigma again as it works better with sigma lenses than the Nikon or so I hear - and it's cheaper)

This gives me an effective focal length of 600mm on my D50 - not too shabby as it's still only f/5.6. However I really need a new camera for my lens!

This combination gives me greater versatility, especially as I should have the opportunity to photograph some Dolphins this summer - the lens by itself will be perfect for this.

Just an alternative to think about

You have ignored the Prime is better than Zoom argument then ?
With a 2x TC you will also get extra image degradation. At the end of the day you usually get what you pay for.If it was the cheapest and best route everyone would do the same. Most things are a compromise of some description but the worst compromise is the one you wish you hadn't made.
Hope you made the right choice. Good luck !

[Outboard]

The 300 f4 AF-S + TC14EII is a good combination. Taken this lunchtime.

[Smits]

Nice shot Outboard!

As of last Saturday I now have the same setup (300mm plus 1.4Tc). Now, if the weather would just cooperate maybe I could actually use it |!|

Thanks for the replies!

[yossi]

If you are not chasing birds, the 80-400 VR is a very good choice.
It focuses slower than the 300+TC14, but the zoom advantge of the 80-400 for composing and the VR which allows it to be used hand held is preferred in some occasions.
To solve this dilemma, I have both, and decide before I leave home which one to take along with me.
IMHO, it is likely that both lenses will be replaced in the future with both AFS and VR versions. When? only Nikon knows...

[rioja]

Since buying my 300mm I can't bring myself to take the 80-400 out birding anymore. It's just not quick enough to focus, makes so much more noise and the image isn't as sharp. I do miss the zoom effect though and can't bring myself to sell this lens as it has non birding applications.
As for hand holding, the VR advantage is lost by the f5.6 aperture to a large extent.

[Hyrax]

You have ignored the Prime is better than Zoom argument then ?
With a 2x TC you will also get extra image degradation. At the end of the day you usually get what you pay for.If it was the cheapest and best route everyone would do the same. Most things are a compromise of some description but the worst compromise is the one you wish you hadn't made.
Hope you made the right choice. Good luck !

With modern high quality lenses the zoom/prime debate is really negligible (at least from what I've read ie. Chris Gomersall and that chap who wrote the RSPB guide to digital wildlife photography, I forget his name).

It's not the cheapest and best route for dedicated bird photography I would agree, but the flexibility it provides for all my other photographic pursuits ie. photographing cetaceans from boats using just the lens without the TC.I'm hard pressed to find any noticeable loss of quality when using the TC thus far, it was actually designed specifically with the 70-200 in mind so the AF is just as fast, moving through the entire focus range in nest to no time. And the images are excellent quality for a £600 lens - the nikkor equivalent would be better undoubtedly but it's more than twice the price.

[ruchai]

300mm prime maybe a little sharper than 80-400VR but no way 300mm + 1.4tc can match 80=400VR. Zoom lens are engineered for the purpose it will be use by photographer. When engineer design a tc he did not know what lens it will be use with. So there will be lots of compromises.

The only drawback with 80-400VR is the lack of AF-S. I use the 80-400VR with D200 and love it. It is an old lens designed for pro film cameras with big focussing motors, now the D300 seems to solve the problem.

I was looking for a 400mm tele before desided for the 80-400VR as I did not think I need a zoom. But in real life I use th zoom very often.

[Outboard]

300mm prime maybe a little sharper than 80-400VR but no way 300mm + 1.4tc can match 80=400VR.

Absolute rubbish.

[ruchai]

Absolute rubbish.

Taken with 80-400VR.

[Outboard]

Taken with 80-400VR.

And that's supposed to be convincing is it?

Try this one, in fact there's several taken with a D200 and the 300f4 and tc14eII.

Black-throated-gray Warbler (http://www.zuropak.com/photogallery/black-throated-gray/slides/Black-throated%20Gray%20Warbler%20(4).html)

[Guidenet]

Actually, the 300 f4 with a 1.4 converter has about the same MTF50 resolution as the 80-400 at 400, both wide open. I've always believed this zoom to be a little soft comparibly, but the MTF graphs don't bare it out. I was quite surprised. Only in the corners wide open does the 300/1.4 converter significantly out-perform the zoom. At f8 they are about the same. www.photozone.de

I still prefer the 300 prime.

[ruchai]

I'm just getting into bird photography and I'm trying to decide on a setup that is not going to cause me too much frustration, and is also relatively economical. I've read so many reviews and forums that I think my head is about to explode. I have one question though...
For arguments sake, let's say I have a D80 (actually have a D40, but that will be changing soon). I've narrowed my choice down to the nikon 300mm f/4 + 1.4 Tc, or a 80-400mm f4-f5.6 VR. Actually, I'm more interested by the sigma 120-400mm OS HSM thats coming out in may (which is only 895US on Amazon). I probably won't get the nikon vr since it sounds like its about time for nikon to upgrade it.
My question is: why isn't the -400mm VR (nikon or sigma) more popular? I'd be especially interested in hearing from owners of either (300mm f4 or a VR lens), and finding out what guided their decision.
Perhaps I am better suited for the VR since I will be using a tripod as little as possible. the 300mm f4 + TC is extremely popular amongst birders, but is the IQ despite losses associated with the use of a TC still better than an 80-400mm VR?

Thanks,
Smits.

I think I have the answer for you Smits. New comer to dslr very likely buy D40 or D60. These camera auto focus will not work with 80-400VR. Then the only choice is 300f4.

In 2004 when I was looking for tele for my D50 I looked at all my favorit pictures in the birdforum and it turned out Nikon 80-400VR was far ahead of others. At that time there were no D40!