300f2.8 / 500F4 Dilemma

[Martin Standley]

after 3 years of digiscoping with some half decent results I'm thinking of taking the plunge and getting a decent dslr set up.
My logic is to get the best I can afford as opposed to gradually stepping up.
My experience with digiscoping tells me that all the best shots come within 15m (rather obvious really) and anything past that distance can still be decent but some of the detail starts to go.
My thoughts are that if I get a 300mm f2.8 and a set of teleconverters (up to 2x) I will have the flexibility of handheld flight shots as well as close up detailed shots, extra reach in good light conditions plus the added benefit of low light work.
If distance is required I could always revert back to digiscoping.
I appreciate that if I go for a 500mm I will have good reach but limitations when it comes to flight shots.
I suppose my question is does anyone else agree with my logic?

Could anyone offer any comments?

[RJM]

Seems like a plan. The 500mm F4P (if that is what you mean about flight shots) manual focus will drive you mad with randomly moving creatures that don't stay still. On the other hand I think it is lighter and better balanced than the bowling ball-like 300 F2.8! If you are going to do much walking perhaps the 300mm F4 might be a better compromise. Certainly easier on the wallet.

I prefer the flexibility of a zoom for proper framing when close in so went with a Sigma 150-500mm. The optical stabilisation let's me walk-about without being burdened with a tripod too. For well-lit targets under 20m I think the IQ can be just as good as the best prime lens. But I never print larger than 8x10 or view at higher rez than my HD TV.

have fun!
Rick

[rioja]

I don't think you were contemplating manual lenses where you Martin ?
Anyway, I have both a 300f2.8 VR and the more recently purchased 500mmf4VR.
I must admit that the 500mm is getting more use than the 300mm nowadays but odd though it might sound, if I could keep only one the 300 would be the choice and it's nothing to do with price.Basically it's more flexible, faster focus, portable,far easier to hand hold,superb bokeh, brilliant for BIF...... but although I have 1.4 and 1.7TC's lacks reach... hence the reason to purchase the 500mm.Reach is the only thing the 500 brings to the table so if you are happy digiscoping I'd get the 300mm to compliment it.

[Vespa]

There is a lot of logic in what you are saying. I have a 300 f2.8 (mainly used with a 1.7 tele) and went to this from digiscoping. It depends what type of birding you do. While I'd like more reach sometimes, I also like to do a lot of walking and despite the weight I can go a few hours with this on my shoulder and a scope/bins.
Must say though I havent done much digiscoping recently, simply too much gear to carry!

[crutchm]

SO many options as the replies show...I've dabbled with a Nikon D700 (the FX sensor yields lower noise than the D300, but you lose the 1.5x crop factor that the D300's DX sensor gives) and am currently settling on a D300S. When it comes to lenses, I've tried Sigma 50-500 (7.5 out of 10 on image quality - static and flying), Sigma 150-500 with optical stabilisation (6 out of 10), Sigma 120-300 f2.8 (8 out of 10), Sigma 100-300 f4 (7.5 out of 10), Sigma 500mm f4 prime (9 out of 10) and finally the current trusty wildlife 'bazooka', the Nikon 200-400mm f4 with VR (10 out of 10 for static/birdfeeder action-type shots, 9.5 out of 10 for flying).

As always, no matter what equipment you have, it's light conditions and technique that will ultimately yield the best results. Try to remember the adage that you probably need to double the cost of your camera body to find the best lens to go on the front of it!!

[crutchm]

PS As far as teleconverters go, the Nikon TC-14E is superb - no loss of quality. Go beyond that and you're bringing more problems factors into play - folk will argue that the TC-17 and TC-20 are fine, but remember what you're doing to the focal length and the resultant criticality of shutter speed and f stop and you reduce the number of days per year (light wise) you could successfully use it!

[rioja]

PS As far as teleconverters go, the Nikon TC-14E is superb - no loss of quality. Go beyond that and you're bringing more problems factors into play - folk will argue that the TC-17 and TC-20 are fine, but remember what you're doing to the focal length and the resultant criticality of shutter speed and f stop and you reduce the number of days per year (light wise) you could successfully use it!

The 1.7 TC gives you 500mm at f5.6 on the 300mmf2.8. , much the same as the average zoom and probably similar or better IQ. AF speed can be quite badly affected in poor light conditions but the same can be said of a 1.4TC on an f4 lens. A naked 300mm f2.8 will leave virtually everything else standing in all departments except reach.It should at the price, the only other lens I would consider in it's place is the Nikon 300f4. I would ignore the Sigma zooms and settle for less reach, more IQ.With the savings made start building a fund towards getting a 500mm prime !
The 200-400 is a great lens and very versatile but it's pretty big too. Not a walkabout lens or hand holding one IMO but if you only ever intended getting one birding lens it may well be the one to go for..

[Martin Standley]

'As always, no matter what equipment you have, it's light conditions and technique that will ultimately yield the best results. '

This is what I'm thinking.Over the past year or so I have managed to improve my fieldcraft considerably (Only last week I had yellow wagtail down to 2ft and dunlin and curlew sandpiper to 7m).
I understand that the bigger converters will only work in the right conditions but its through my fieldcraft that I would pursue the best results.
I believe that most if not all 'knock your socks off shots' are taken at close range under good or better conditions.

If I use a D300 with the DX format adding 1.5x to the focal length plus a 1.4 teleconverter what would be the total effective length? Please excuse my ignorance as DSLR speak is something I'm not too familiar with.

[rioja]

'As always, no matter what equipment you have, it's light conditions and technique that will ultimately yield the best results. '

This is what I'm thinking.Over the past year or so I have managed to improve my fieldcraft considerably (Only last week I had yellow wagtail down to 2ft and dunlin and curlew sandpiper to 7m).
I understand that the bigger converters will only work in the right conditions but its through my fieldcraft that I would pursue the best results.
I believe that most if not all 'knock your socks off shots' are taken at close range under good or better conditions.

If I use a D300 with the DX format adding 1.5x to the focal length plus a 1.4 teleconverter what would be the total effective length? Please excuse my ignorance as DSLR speak is something I'm not too familiar with.

The 300 mm with a 1.4TC = 400 @f4 min with a 1.7TC= 500@f5.6 min
The 500mm with a 1.4TC= 700 @f5.6min, with a 1.7TC =850 @6.3min

I guess you can add the 1.5 crop on top compared to a FX body but theoretically I think I am right in saying you can do that on a computer anyway. Depends on the image quality you are working with. I would guess a D3x image with it's 24 MP's would leave the D300 behind in IQ when the image is cropped by 50% on a computer to even the score.
If your subject is too close you might not be able to focus on it ( all lenses differ in minimum focus distance, check out the manufacturerss spec's) , or if it's too big get it all in the frame !
The Yellow Wagtail might have been a disaster !
I must admit though that too many bird photographers ( me included) have a tendancy to be obsessed with fine detail and consequently size, often at the expense of environment and we end up with birds filling the shot with no sense of proportion at all. Robins so big that if one landed on you would probably kill you !

[Rob Chace]

Go for the length, my misses says its very important!
You will probably find that you will be using the 300mm with tcs most of the time. If you can afford it, get a 500mm. Its a lot easier to move back from a subject than it is to creep closer. I have a 600 & find i use tcs probably 50% of the time.

[rdspalm]

I was contemplating a 500mm last October and after seeking advice on this forum chose the 300mm 2.8VR + a 1.7TC. Really pleased with it and yes it can be used handheld. I would not like the idea of lugging around a 500mm & monster tripod with gimbals head.
I reckon the lack of portability would be a major problem.

[RJM]

The Sigma 500mm F4.5 is not much heavier and probably a little cheaper than the Nikon 300mm F2.8 And a new/used Nikon 500mm F4D II can be a good deal if you can find one and is a few hundred grams lighter than the current VR version. The lightest/cheapest 500mm prime is of course the Nikon 500mm F4P I mentioned above but is manual focus only.

That said, I think coming from digiscoping where your minimum effective focal length starts at 900mm and can get as long 6000mm, you will be shocked at the small image scale just 500mm gives even within 20m distance. You will almost always want to use a TC!

cheers,
Rick

[Duke Leto]

Having taken a 300/2.8vr out for a day earlier this year I came to the conclusion that it is too heavy for a days photography if you're only hand holding it, it needs a monopod at the very least and with a 1.4 or 1.7 on really needs a tripod to get the best out of it.
Having said that I'm quite happy to carry a 500 sigma, gimbal head and tripod around all day as it sits nicely on the shoulder, Monster tripods do not weigh much if you look at the latest in carbon fiber technology.
Its really horses for courses.

[revs45]

I was contemplating a 500mm last October and after seeking advice on this forum chose the 300mm 2.8VR + a 1.7TC. Really pleased with it and yes it can be used handheld. I would not like the idea of lugging around a 500mm & monster tripod with gimbals head.
I reckon the lack of portability would be a major problem.

"lugging" the 500mm with carbon fibre tripod isn't really that big a deal, I've taken my setup to some difficult locations without too many problems.

Go big or go home ;)

[rioja]

I took my 500mm on a 7 mile walk yesterday, over the shoulder job on a tripod.Slight lower back pain this morning but nothing too much !
I still maintain if I had one lens to choose I would go for the 300mmf2.8. yes, when it comes to reach the 500mm obviously wins, but there wasn't a worthwhile shot that I would have missed yesterday had I taken the 300mm instead , and with the better field of view and faster focussing I might have picked up some better BIF shots.The 300mmf4 is certainly a superb alternative at a more economic price but the former is a superb 400mmf4 whereas the latter is starting to struggle with TC's especially when you go to 1.7 and beyond.UK lighting is often not going to be the best.
The 500mm is limited in it's use in comparison.You might be able to back off your subject if you stick to birds but what else could you use the lens for ?
The 300mm f2.8 might seem big when you first use it but it does magically shrink after a while. It sits happily on a tripod or over my shouder with a lens strap. It also packs away quite happily into a medium sized back pack like the Think Tank Airport Antidote with the body attached.
Always a difficult call when you are spending a lot of money, one that's worth dwelling on for some time before deciding.
Now. me, do I go for a D300s or wait for the D400 ? Oh to be wealthy !

[Duke Leto]

Are so there is no one real option, don't write off the 500 for alternative uses, I recently had reasonable success with mine and extn tubes taking dragonfly / butterfly shots (see gallery / website). I've also used mine hand held at Bempton (mind you not for too long) these are some of the benefits of the lighter weight Sigma 500/4.5 only a a couple of hundred grams heavier than a Nikon 300/2.8 (and takes a 1.4)

[rioja]

Well we have certainly given Martin food for thought. There are no right or wrong answers, just choices to be made. Everything is a compromise but no matter which you choose you'll be very happy I'm sure !

[Martin Standley]

Well we have certainly given Martin food for thought. There are no right or wrong answers, just choices to be made. Everything is a compromise but no matter which you choose you'll be very happy I'm sure !

Yes thanks guys plenty of food for thought.I agree that there is no right or wrong answers, I guess I was erring on the side of the 300mm and there has been enought positive comments to convince me.
Thanks all for your help.

[rdspalm]

Martin, I'd hate the thought of carrying a 500mm monster around all day unless I was going to a civilized hide like at Titchwell. A 500mm lens is only really suitable for a sturdy tripod with a specialized gimbals type head. If you invest all that money and want decent photos, then its the tripod. I carted my 300mm 2.8VR and TC round Cley in May trying to get a decent shot of the Bearded Tits. I was using a monopod that day which helped but the thought "Why am I doing this?" did occur at times.

I'm going to Hungary birding in 2 weeks and will be taking the photo gear, but I'm not going to become a slave to it. I intend to to use a Kata rucsac to achieve a bit of comfort between shoots.

Richard

[Neil]

The best walk-around combo is one of the Canon 1.6x bodies and their 400/5.6 lens. A lightweight solution that you can hold in one hand and gives excellent results. Have a look at some of the images posted in the Galley.
I love my Nikon 500/4 ED AFS VR and it's the lens I use when going to be in a sitting position for long periods (hides ). A 300 mm is not long enough for hide work. My walk-around lens is the Nikon 300/4 AFS plus 1.4x tele ( I need a new one as mine has packed it in ).
Neil.

[bmarnell]

The best walk-around combo is one of the Canon 1.6x bodies and their 400/5.6 lens. A lightweight solution that you can hold in one hand and gives excellent results. Have a look at some of the images posted in the Galley.
I love my Nikon 500/4 ED AFS VR and it's the lens I use when going to be in a sitting position for long periods (hides ). A 300 mm is not long enough for hide work. My walk-around lens is the Nikon 300/4 AFS plus 1.4x tele ( I need a new one as mine has packed it in ).
Neil.

Nobody mentions Canon 100-400 IS? Neil, Is the 400/5.6 that much better for BIF? I'm thinking of gulls, herons & vultures within 100 metres ,,,

[rioja]

Nobody mentions Canon 100-400 IS? Neil, Is the 400/5.6 that much better for BIF? I'm thinking of gulls, herons & vultures within 100 metres ,,,

The Canon 100-400 IS might well have got mentioned had this been a Canon thread ! Neil added the Canon 400f5.6 but that assumes Martin hasn't got any Nikon gear at all ( which may well be the case).
I haven't any experience of the Canon 100-400 but I would have thought it's a more flexible lens than the Canon 400mmf5.6. Neither are well suited to a TC really. The Nikon 80-400mm can produce very sharp pictures but the AF is slow and noisy and it won't take a Nikon TC.
To be honest, even with a 600mm f4 plus TC you still need to be within 25 metres to get a decent picture IMO .

[Machiel]

Martin,

Have a look at this demonstation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_euUMN-V1s of big Nikon lenses. It will give you a good thought on how large these lenses really are.

I use the Nikon 400mm 2.8 VR when using hides. Sometimes I take it on a walk - I use a lowepro lenstrekker to safely transport it - but it rather heavy when you live in a mountain area and need to go up and downhill.

Cheers Machiel

[Neil]

Nobody mentions Canon 100-400 IS? Neil, Is the 400/5.6 that much better for BIF? I'm thinking of gulls, herons & vultures within 100 metres ,,,

For the fastest solution for flight shots a zoom just won't cut it as AF is too slow. For ground shots the zoom can produce excellent results though.
Neil.

[Bob Thompson]

Brendan,

The straight 400mm f5.6 is faster than the 100-400mm zoom in my opinion. The focussing is slow with a TC1.4x but using the lens on a crop camera (Canon 7D) you gain a 1.6x so no need for the teleconvertor

Bob

[bmarnell]

Brendan,

The straight 400mm f5.6 is faster than the 100-400mm zoom in my opinion. The focussing is slow with a TC1.4x but using the lens on a crop camera (Canon 7D) you gain a 1.6x so no need for the teleconvertor

Bob

Very useful information to me Bob, that combination of camera & lens for BIF. Thank you for thinking about my question.

I knew a little about crop circles but nothing about crop factor during actual shooting ... and just as I was deciding whether or not to opt for Canon 7D! Is cropping on the 7D the equivalent of extra zoom? I use the 40D which has no cropping or zooming until review stage.

[666taz]

Niel you say the100-400mm carnt cut it taking bifs i use mine for those and dragoflys in flight as well it locks on and keeps locked no probs it may focus slightly slower than the 400 prime but not enough to dissmiss it ,also the big advantage of the zoom is it will close focus down to about 1.8m where the prime it 3m so you can get a frame full of insects cheers Phill.

[gandytron]

Martin,

Do you already have a dslr body?

To be honest, if I was in the market for a serous prime lens and was starting with a clean sheet I would probably get a Canon body and the 400mm f4 DO. A mate of mine has one that I played with a few months back - it is amazingly light weight and compact. Early copies had poor contrast and got slammed by reviewers, giving the lens a bad reputation, but my understanding is that now it is a great lens.

If you go with Nikon, I can assure you that the 300mm f4 af-s (whih I use) is a great lens, and still super-sharp with 1.4 tc...but I'm still desperate for the day when Nikon release a 400mm f5.6 VR lens, or an equivalent to Canon's 400mm f4 DO.

Best wishes

Dave

[rioja]

Martin,

Do you already have a dslr body?

To be honest, if I was in the market for a serous prime lens and was starting with a clean sheet I would probably get a Canon body and the 400mm f4 DO. A mate of mine has one that I played with a few months back - it is amazingly light weight and compact. Early copies had poor contrast and got slammed by reviewers, giving the lens a bad reputation, but my understanding is that now it is a great lens.

If you go with Nikon, I can assure you that the 300mm f4 af-s (whih I use) is a great lens, and still super-sharp with 1.4 tc...but I'm still desperate for the day when Nikon release a 400mm f5.6 VR lens, or an equivalent to Canon's 400mm f4 DO.

Best wishes

Dave

The 400 f4 should be a great lens...have you checked the price ?! I'm not sure who buys it as for £100 more you get the 500mmf4.
Stick a 1.4TC on a 300mm f2.8 and you have a 400mm f4 for an awful lot less.
Still expensive though !

[Martin Standley]

Martin,

Do you already have a dslr body?

To be honest, if I was in the market for a serous prime lens and was starting with a clean sheet I would probably get a Canon body and the 400mm f4 DO. A mate of mine has one that I played with a few months back - it is amazingly light weight and compact. Early copies had poor contrast and got slammed by reviewers, giving the lens a bad reputation, but my understanding is that now it is a great lens.

If you go with Nikon, I can assure you that the 300mm f4 af-s (whih I use) is a great lens, and still super-sharp with 1.4 tc...but I'm still desperate for the day when Nikon release a 400mm f5.6 VR lens, or an equivalent to Canon's 400mm f4 DO.

Best wishes

Dave


Dave

I don't have a DSLR body at the moment although all my digiscoped shots are with Nikons.
I do like the way nikons are set out and a semi-professional photographer (non birder)who I know also swears by nikon.


Bye the way I still haven't taken the plunge yet.

Al the best Martin

[gandytron]

The 400 f4 should be a great lens...have you checked the price ?! I'm not sure who buys it as for £100 more you get the 500mmf4.
Stick a 1.4TC on a 300mm f2.8 and you have a 400mm f4 for an awful lot less.
Still expensive though !

The person that buys the 400mm f4 DO is the one who wants to take their lens everywhere - I was astonished that this thing really is a "walk about" lens. Another friend of mine has the Canon 500mm f4 and it's a complete b*gger - I would never contemplate buying that kind of lens unless I was a fully dedicated bird photographer who was looking at spending most of my time stationary, (rather than a birder who wants to be more mobile). My mate with the 500mm came to Cambodia with me - he spent half his time swearing under his breath about the weight of his lens, and missed getting pix of Bengal Florican because he couldn't be bothered to get the big boy out of his back pack!).

Another advantage that Canon has over Nikon (as I understand it) is that Canon's 2x TC is pretty sharp, whereas the Nikon 2x TC is regularly slated for giving poor results (I've not used it myself).

Best wishes

EDIT: Just checked the weight of Canon 300 f 2.8 v the Canon 400mm f4 DO....the 400mm is A LOT lighter (4.3 lbs v 6lbs), the 500mm f4 meanwhile is 8.53 lbs!!!!! The respective Nikons are a little heavier than the Canons.

[rioja]

Very interesting information re the 400 f4. It never occurred to me it would be so light, but there again, as a Nikon user I never looked !
I think you are right about the 2.0x TC too, I have seen some superb Canon results but you rarely hear the Nikon version mentioned .I have certainly been put off buying one.

[gandytron]

These lenses that cost thousands of dollars are out of my league really; my loyalty will go to whoever (Canon or Nikon) first produces a 400mm f 5.6 with image stabilizer. If Canon do it I'll sell my Nikon D90, 300mm f4 & 1.4 TC without much hesitation - it's a nice set up but the AF is slowed by using a TC (as I was reminded today when trying to photograph hyperactive Arctic Warblers).

Another advantage of Canon, I think (?) the crop factor of their DX sensor is 1.6x as opposed to Nikon's 1.5x.... jeeeeez, why am I shooting Nikon?!!

[Neil]

These lenses that cost thousands of dollars are out of my league really; my loyalty will go to whoever (Canon or Nikon) first produces a 400mm f 5.6 with image stabilizer. If Canon do it I'll sell my Nikon D90, 300mm f4 & 1.4 TC without much hesitation - it's a nice set up but the AF is slowed by using a TC (as I was reminded today when trying to photograph hyperactive Arctic Warblers).

Another advantage of Canon, I think (?) the crop factor of their DX sensor is 1.6x as opposed to Nikon's 1.5x.... jeeeeez, why am I shooting Nikon?!!

I think there is a Canon 400/5.6 for sale here. Would be a good choice as you don't need Image Stabilising with modern cameras. Neil.

[gandytron]

I think there is a Canon 400/5.6 for sale here. Would be a good choice as you don't need Image Stabilising with modern cameras. Neil.

Thanks Neil,

You're saying that we don't need IS because...? The quality of top end DSLR bodies at high ISOs is so good now that you can shoot in poor light and high ISO speeds without a problem?

Does this mean that the age of IS/VR will soon be over? And that Nikon will never bother producing a 400mm f5.6 vr because the VR will be redundant??

Thanks

Dave

PS I'm hugely impressed by your digiscoping work elsewhere on the forum

[Neil]

Thanks Neil,

You're saying that we don't need IS because...? The quality of top end DSLR bodies at high ISOs is so good now that you can shoot in poor light and high ISO speeds without a problem?

Does this mean that the age of IS/VR will soon be over? And that Nikon will never bother producing a 400mm f5.6 vr because the VR will be redundant??

Thanks

Dave

PS I'm hugely impressed by your digiscoping work elsewhere on the forum

Dave,
Basically , yes to the first part and don't hold your breath on Nikon coming out with any tele 5.6 lenses with VR.
The old iso 100 is now the new iso 800 ( up until recently it was 400 ) and with the D3 it's been 1600. With the D3s apparently it's iso 3200 ( low to no noise ). I have VR on the 500/4 and 300/2.8 and usually have it switched off as it slows the AF down a tad and is a bit noisy. I don't have it on the 300/4 with 1.4x and I find I don't miss it very often and when I need more speed in low light situations I'm happy to see a little more noise to keep the shutter speeds at 1/800th second plus. (90% of my flight photos in the Gallery are taken with the VR off).
Neil.