Nikon 80-400mm vs Fieldscope ED (DSLR)

[syncrasy]

I currently use a Nikon D300 + 80-400mm zoom lens for bird photography and am considering purchasing a Nikon Fieldscope ED + the DSLR adapter (FSA-L1) for digiscoping with the D300. For a stationary, well-lit bird at 30 meters, will the Fieldscope produce a better image than the zoom lens (@400mm)? (Assume that the lens bird would be cropped to match the dimensions of the scoped bird.) Would the 82mm scope yield better photo results than the 60mm scope?

Thanks.

[ikw101]

Considering you'll be losing autofocus and autoexposure with the scope you'd be far better off buying a second hand manual focus Nikon 500mm lens eg. 500 F4-P EDIF AIS MF and a 1.4 or 1.7 teleconverter. This will give you far better results than the scope and camera option.

Whilst the D300's 12 mp sensor is capable of resolving extremely fine details if attached to a low quality lens or scope unfortunately it reveals every weakness. Attaching a heavy DSLR to a scope is far from simple. If you decide to go down this route please be aware you're likely to require a new tripod and a head capable of taking the weight and uneven balance of the scope and camera. Even then you'll soon realise that the inevitable vibration, focusing errors, heat haze, pollution and lack of brilliant sunshine will result in disappointing results.

[RJM]

I shot the D90 + ED82 + FSA-L1 for about 5mos. It was capable of fine results BUT manual focus was no picnic and only gets harder with target distance. Forget about catching a spontaneous flight pic. I would shoot several hundred pics in an outing only to discover most were ever so slightly out of focus when downloaded to the PC. The focus confirmation light in the Nikon viewfinder helps but at F13 was very finicky, seldom getting a firm lock. Weight-wise, the rig was no problem but I used a relatively lightweight CF tripod and Gitzo 2180 head. However, the overall length made it somewhat awkward to tote around the sancutary. As a 1000mm lens though, it is a good cost effective alternative to a MF camera lens with the benefit of also being a usable scope.

I seriously considered the Nikon 500mm F4/P too and looked at several samples in our local used camera shops. Certainly the 125mm objective lens would resolve more detail than the ED82 BUT it is 2x HEAVIER than the fieldscope as well as 2x MORE EXPENSIVE for a relatively old lens that in the end would share many of the same pitfalls of the kit I already had. In the finally analysis, I did not think the possiblity of better image quality alone was enough to spend $2k. And staying under $1500 budget pretty much eliminated other AF-capable primes too.

But I think I found a great alternative with the Sigma 150-500mm HSM OS zoom. Same 82mm objective and about the same weight as the ED82 fieldscope BUT with fast HSM-driven AUTOFOCUS and Optical Stabilization. NO TRIPOD RECQUIRED!

This has been very liberating, allowing me to get closer than ever, and far less tiring to tote. Icing on the cake is the lens is much cheaper than the fieldscope + adapter. Even better, a modded Sigma 1.4x TC will still allow AF too so now I have the reach of a 700mm lens with the composition flexibility of the zoom. AF can be less reliable with the TC, but the lens manual focus ring can be used in a pinch without having flip any switches. No substitute for OS though.

hope this helps,
Rick

[syncrasy]

Thanks to you both for your input. I think I'm at the point in my photo career that I can only be satisfied with better glass, which I don't think the Sigma can provide. Given the high cost of quality, I'll have to put off any purchase until I have the money, but I think I will happier in the long run.

This discussion also forces me to rethink how I shoot and what I can carry, which really means getting two lenses: one for closer birds (3-10 meters) and another for distance. For close work, I'm comparing the 300mm/2.8 or /4 (+1.4TC) with the 200-400mm zoom. I think the 300/2.8 has the edge because of its slightly lighter weight and prime image quality, although I hear that the 200-400 is superb. The 300/4 obviously is less expensive, is half the weight of the 2.8, and apparently has better AF than the 80-400. (There are other discussion threads on this comparison, so I don't want to hijack my own thread here.) After that, I'll look at the 500 or 600mm for distance work and decide whether I can justify the expense/hassle for the amount of distance shooting I actually do. (Of course, if I had such a lens, I would do more :-) )

I might still get the Fieldscope, as I can always use it for a scope, but I find that I tend to venture outdoors more in "photog" mode than in "birder" mode, and I can always take a quick telephoto shot for species ID. Besides, the two endeavors seem nearly mutually exclusive from a cognitive standpoint. But that's a topic for another discussion.

[RJM]

Here is the Popular Photography review of the Sigma 150-500 (http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5468/sigma-150-500mm-f5-63-dg-os-hsm-apo-af.html).

Here is my thread using it with the D90 (http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=133218). Perhaps not National Geographic cover shots, but they look nice on 5x7 prints in my log book.

The whole kit weighs less (under 3kg) than any telephoto prime lens alone and is exceedingly easy to walk around with. I'm lucky enough to afford the best kit if I wanted it. But this is just a hobby and I like to have fun and staying mobile helps me get physically closer. Walking 5-6km is good excercise too. Toting heavy pro kit on an even heavier tripod on 5-6km hike is only something I'd do if I was being paid, and paid well at that.

Below is me having fun with the D90 and Sigma 150-500 on one shoulder and a Nikon ED50 fieldscope w/Gorillapod on the other. I'd say $1000 for the Sigma 150-500 is money very well spent.

cheers,
Rick

[syncrasy]

Rick,

Thanks for the links and photos. You're getting some nice shots, and you make a good case for the Sigma. I made a cursory comparison with some of my 80-400 images, and I estimate the Sigma is at least on par, possibly even sharper in good lighting conditions. And with your faster AF and stabilization, I bet you probably get more "keepers" than I do (despite VR). I'll definitely give it another look.

[jourdaj]

Sync,

Another option is to keep the D300/80-400 combo and get the Fieldscope and a P&S for digiscoping as an alternative to a 500mm or 600mm. I carry a D300 w/ a Sigma 400mm f/5.6 for quick action bird photos (including flight shots) and also a Zeiss 85 T*Fl Scope and tripod for digiscoping. There are days when I use only the D300, but there are also many days when I mainly digiscope. Right now I'm saving to replace my Sigma 400 w/ a Nikon 300/2.8 and 1.7 combo and will continue to digiscope the more distant birds. You can check out my blog/galleries for examples.

Best of luck whatever you decide!

[syncrasy]

Another option is to keep the D300/80-400 combo and get the Fieldscope and a P&S for digiscoping as an alternative to a 500mm or 600mm. I carry a D300 w/ a Sigma 400mm f/5.6 for quick action bird photos (including flight shots) and also a Zeiss 85 T*Fl Scope and tripod for digiscoping.

Hi Jerry,

Wow, I don't know if I could carry all that!

Actually, I do already own a P&S (Coolpix 990), and considered getting a Zeiss or Swarovski scope (better quality than Nikon, so I've read), but have been reluctant to do so because I don't have the patience for jerry-rigged adapters and fiddling with zoom/exit pupil alignment. When I learned about Nikon's DSLR adapter for fieldscopes, I figured the D300+scope combo would offer better quality (and no eyepiece fiddling!), even if on a (lesser) Nikon scope. But maybe I'm wrong. And, of course, I wouldn't be able to fast-switch between handheld and scoping, but that was a trade-off I would be willing to accept since I'm not sure I can (or want to) carry two rigs.

On the other hand, newer Nikon P&S's aren't too expensive, so I could also consider getting a newer Nikon P&S+Nikon scope+Nikon P&S scope adapter. (I don't think the CP990 is compatible with the adapter.) This would eliminate the jerry-rig factor, but I don't think it eliminates zoom/exit pupil fiddling.

I guess my preference would be to use my D300 (or get a D90 for a second body!) I've seen some great images (yours included) created with a Nikon P&S+scope (much better than my 80-400) so I figured a DSLR rig on a $1900 Nikon ED scope would also be better than my 80-400 (if not quite as good as a Zeiss/Swarovski). Unfortunately, there aren't any stores in my area that have scopes for testing. The closest store is a 3 hour drive away, but I think I'll have to make that drive to move this discussion from the theoretical to the realm of actual experience.