Big lenses again (1 Viewer)

monoglypha · Sep 11, 2011

Sorry if this has been asked many times before.
I am looking to purchase a bigger lens in the near future and am unsure what to go for. I am currently using a D7000 with 300 f4 and 1.4 nikon tc. I, like most people want more reach and am unsure whether the 400 2.8 with a 1.7 tc would be a better option than the 500 f4 with my 1.4tc
I would prefer to handhold, use a bean bag or monopod rather than carrying a tripod. I know the 400/2.8 is much heavier but as I have never owned or used a big lens before I am uncertain as to whether this is really possible. I did speak to a birder recently who was carrying the 400/2.8 with him just handheld and he told me it was not too bad to use this way, he was a small framed man in his late sixties and seemed ok with it, he would not let me check the weight of it (think he thought I would run off with it):-O

Thanks
Steve

Duke Leto · Sep 12, 2011

Steve, having a 400/2.8 and being rather a large chap I wouldn't want to handhold my lens for anything more than 30 secs if I want good quality results. It works very well with a 1.4 and 1.7tc, still having mixed results with a 2x.
If you've got the budget for a 400/2.8 I'd go for the 600/4, as you say reach is king especially if you decide to go full frame in the future.
If I was buying a new lens I would probably go 600 then 500 then 400 as every time you put a TC in the way it can only reduce image quality.
For portability on a monopod then I would buy the 500/4 and hope that shutter speeds remain reasonably decent

Dave Williams · Sep 12, 2011

Duke Leto said:
Steve, having a 400/2.8 and being rather a large chap I wouldn't want to handhold my lens for anything more than 30 secs if I want good quality results. It works very well with a 1.4 and 1.7tc, still having mixed results with a 2x.
If you've got the budget for a 400/2.8 I'd go for the 600/4, as you say reach is king especially if you decide to go full frame in the future.
If I was buying a new lens I would probably go 600 then 500 then 400 as every time you put a TC in the way it can only reduce image quality.
For portability on a monopod then I would buy the 500/4 and hope that shutter speeds remain reasonably decent

I would agree with all the above but I would also seriously consider the 300mmf2.8 for true portability. You can add all the TC's, probably with the same results as the 400f2.8. which takes you to 600mm.
The 500mm is too heavy for hand holding for long too. Personally I don't understand why anyone wants a monopod as at least with a tripod you can set your lens down and have a rest without having to hold on to it all the time but that's just my opinion.
cheers Dave

pe'rigin · Sep 12, 2011

Steve,

Agree with what the guys have written.

One thing Nikon could just announce the new 80-400mm VR this month.

A 600mm is a hefty old beast, along with a good tripod, I'm certainly not going to put you off getting one, but they do have pitfalls.

The other thing to note is the launch of mirrorless, we'll have to wait and see the outcome, but on the rumour mill it seems (?) the old AF-I lenses are going to fit, if so then it will be Christmas for a lot of folk who have consigned their old lenses to the attic? Those second hand lenses that can't be shifted are going to rise in value.

Duke Leto · Sep 13, 2011

yes I shouldn't have forgotten the 300/2.8 having used it with TCs recently I found it a superb lens, hand held all day and is extremely sharp, as you say the ultimate portable lens

Jason Bugay Reyes · Sep 14, 2011

Duke and the rest,

I have a question. Can we see the differences when we cropped same image taken with DX and FX camera, the resolution and etc ?

I have been shooting with D300s for 2 years and most of the time my default ISO is at 1600 to get at least 1/80s in the rainforest with my scope at 500mm f5.9 but the output resulted in noisy images especially after I cropped 33% with Nikon Capture NX2.

Any advice ?

monoglypha · Sep 14, 2011

Thanks for all your replies, still not sure I am any further forward with choosing which lens though:t:

pe'rigin · Sep 15, 2011

Steve,

Not easy to choose is it?

I think one of the questions you should ask your self is what type of photography you wish to do? I.e. do you want to wander randomly around and record what you see or are you prepared to sit and wait.

I can’t advise on the 400mm, as I’ve only used it about 5 times, Duke (Steve) owns one so he can tell you.

Rioja owns the 300mm, I make no bones about this, I love this lens, but you already have the F4, so you don’t need it. Briefly you’re gaining a bit of speed.

I have the 6 and 3 so I’m basis. I can’t carry the 600mm around all day, I sit and wait, some days I’m unlucky as the light deteriorates, that’s the problem with digital and large lenses, I am super critical about quality.

I wrote about the mirror-less because I think that potentially these cameras will prove to be a practical solution to many of the problems faced with bird photography.

As regard noise, this should never be a problem with any digital camera as long as the image is kept with the parameters of what the sensor is capable of performing. All sensors have set enlargement factors, go beyond the resolution enlargement requirements and noise appears. Light or lack of it is the major contributor to noise; even diffused light (such as woods or heavy cover) will cause problems, over enlarge this image and your image looks like a Georges Seurat painting! A diffused flash although cumbersome would help.

cagney · Sep 15, 2011

I use a Nikon D7000 with a Sigma 150-500 lens - I get great shots, it's lightweight, CHEAP and I handhold (never use tripod)..
Have a go with one attached in your camera shop.

monoglypha · Sep 15, 2011

pe'rigin said:
Steve,

Not easy to choose is it?

I think one of the questions you should ask your self is what type of photography you wish to do? I.e. do you want to wander randomly around and record what you see or are you prepared to sit and wait.

I can’t advise on the 400mm, as I’ve only used it about 5 times, Duke (Steve) owns one so he can tell you.

Rioja owns the 300mm, I make no bones about this, I love this lens, but you already have the F4, so you don’t need it. Briefly you’re gaining a bit of speed.

T
I have the 6 and 3 so I’m basis. I can’t carry the 600mm around all day, I sit and wait, some days I’m unlucky as the light deteriorates, that’s the problem with digital and large lenses, I am super critical about quality.

I wrote about the mirror-less because I think that potentially these cameras will prove to be a practical solution to many of the problems faced with bird photography.

As regard noise, this should never be a problem with any digital camera as long as the image is kept with the parameters of what the sensor is capable of performing. All sensors have set enlargement factors, go beyond the resolution enlargement requirements and noise appears. Light or lack of it is the major contributor to noise; even diffused light (such as woods or heavy cover) will cause problems, over enlarge this image and your image looks like a Georges Seurat painting! A diffused flash although cumbersome would help.

I think the 600mm may be out of the equation as I like to walk and although i am happy to sit in a hide for a few hours I will probably spend the majority of my time walking. The 300/2.8 seems a good choice as it will work with all tc's which will give me more reach and is fairly light in comparison to some of the others. The 500f/4 will give me the extra reach that i am after but is heavier also would it be fast enough for B.I.F or is that where the 2.8s come into their own??|:S|

RJM · Sep 15, 2011

I think unless you are a pro, spending US$6k+ to gain less than 200mm in overall focal length is a fools game. Your pics will benefit by filling the frame with the bird, NOT standing further off! Better to work on techniques for getting closer. Invest in a compact bird call playback system, ghilley suit or other camo covering, knee and elbow pads and practice stalking, crawling and concealment.

RMWD · Sep 21, 2011

Best long lens

Hi,
I went on a lens journey. Ist the Sigma 150-500, then the Nikkor 300mm F2.8 VR1 and TCiii (very good) but since I have had the 500mm F4 VR2 I just haven't used the 300. I use a monopod with it with a quick release clamp and can handhld for short periods too. On a carbon fibre tripod and gimbal it is sublime but i still handhold and monopod. I am 56 and not strong but I love it.
Take a look at my flickr site if you are unsure. With the d7000 the detail still takes my breathe away.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/

Hope this helps.

Dave Williams · Sep 21, 2011

RMWD said:
Hi,
I went on a lens journey. Ist the Sigma 150-500, then the Nikkor 300mm F2.8 VR1 and TCiii (very good) but since I have had the 500mm F4 VR2 I just haven't used the 300. I use a monopod with it with a quick release clamp and can handhld for short periods too. On a carbon fibre tripod and gimbal it is sublime but i still handhold and monopod. I am 56 and not strong but I love it.
Take a look at my flickr site if you are unsure. With the d7000 the detail still takes my breathe away.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brandon_birder/

Hope this helps.

I went on a similar journey ( I had the Nikon 80-400 instead of the Sigma 150-500) but often use the the 300mm f2.8 VR 1 as it's brilliant for BIF ( assuming the birds are fairly close and using no more than a 1.4TC). The 500mm VR ( there isn't a VR11 yet by the way) is not nearly as easy to use as the field of vision is reduced drastically . Just my opinion of course !

cheers Dave

the black fox · Sep 21, 2011

i am just entering the nikon fray hopefully getting a d7000 tomorrow ,i will probably go for either the nikon 70-300mm vr2 or a sigma 120-400mm depending on funds ,i will still keep my canon 50d and lenses though as i do well with them ,just fancy a change .
the canon higher end bodies 50d/7d etc coupled with a canon 400mm f5.6 prime turn out some good stuff at a reasonable price so that might work out a better choice for you monoglypha also light and easy to carry all day

Dave Williams · Sep 22, 2011

rioja said:
. The 500mm VR ( there isn't a VR11 yet by the way)

Apologies for some misinformation here. I was contacted by PM and told to look in the users manual and to my surprise there, hidden away on page 25 in small print, it tells you that the lens has VR11.( as have the 400mmf2.8 and 600mm f4) This is all the more confusing because there wasn't a VR1 version so they simply called it VR. It was very many months later that the 300mmf2.8 and 200-400f4 VR11 versions were launched with great publicity and I must admit I wondered how much better they were than the VR1 300mm that I have. I have to say I haven't noticed anything and the same applies to my recently acquired 70-200mm f2.8 VR11 as well, so much so I sometimes wonder if VR is actually doing anything as it's so unobtrusive.
cheers Dave

Dave Williams · Sep 22, 2011

RJM said:
I think unless you are a pro, spending US$6k+ to gain less than 200mm in overall focal length is a fools game. Your pics will benefit by filling the frame with the bird, NOT standing further off! Better to work on techniques for getting closer. Invest in a compact bird call playback system, ghilley suit or other camo covering, knee and elbow pads and practice stalking, crawling and concealment.

It's everybody's choice how they spend their hard earned and personally I'm happy with my 10 year old car with stereo cassette player. Others might want to spend money to improve their image on the road.
Bird playback systems are frowned upon in many circles and can certainly cause havoc during the breeding season. Not everyone is fit enough, or willing to put on a ghilley suit and crawl but again, each to their own.
I think if you study your target sufficiently and have patience you can find less physical ways of getting closer.
I have to agree though, a big lens isn't everything by any means but it does give some serious advantages on occasions and I consider the $6000+ I spent for the extra 200mm a good investment in my own personal pleasure.
cheers Dave

the black fox · Sep 22, 2011

rofpmsl here dave ,just a picture in my mind of my ashley walking along the beach at gronant in his portable camouflage hide/suit ,must admit it did the job but i don't think it would suit people of a tender age ,i draw the line at camo clothing ,and i haven't done to bad with just a 400mm lens :smoke::smoke:

RMWD · Sep 22, 2011

the black fox said:
rofpmsl here dave ,just a picture in my mind of my ashley walking along the beach at gronant in his portable camouflage hide/suit ,must admit it did the job but i don't think it would suit people of a tender age ,i draw the line at camo clothing ,and i haven't done to bad with just a 400mm lens :smoke::smoke:

I would agree. Your pictures are amazing. You have much skill and patience.
I did wonder about a camo suit next year.

RMWD · Sep 22, 2011

rioja said:
I went on a similar journey ( I had the Nikon 80-400 instead of the Sigma 150-500) but often use the the 300mm f2.8 VR 1 as it's brilliant for BIF ( assuming the birds are fairly close and using no more than a 1.4TC). The 500mm VR ( there isn't a VR11 yet by the way) is not nearly as easy to use as the field of vision is reduced drastically . Just my opinion of course !

cheers Dave

Dave, I didn't mean to give the impression that the 300f2.8plus Tc's are not excellent they are and when I am too old for the 500f4 I will go back to it.
No what I was trying to say is that the 500f4 is more portable than I imagined and much more manageable than the 400f2 or 600 f4.
Thanks for your repost on VR2. That's how I understood it too.

pe'rigin · Sep 23, 2011

RMWD said:
Dave, I didn't mean to give the impression that the 300f2.8plus Tc's are not excellent they are and when I am too old for the 500f4 I will go back to it.
No what I was trying to say is that the 500f4 is more portable than I imagined and much more manageable than the 400f2 or 600 f4.
Thanks for your repost on VR2. That's how I understood it too.

Stuff the lenses, if you have a spare knee going, it would be much appreciated!

Big lenses again (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that s

Well-known member

Well-known member

Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that s

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread