Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED (with or without TC 14) or Canon 400 5.6 L? (1 Viewer)

Hello!

I'm thinking of buying D7100 with AF -S 300/4 (and once the TC 14) or
7D with a 400 5.6 L. I'd like to photograph birds, and - with another
lens - also landscape. The best option would be a Nikon body (wide
dynamic range) with 400 5.6 L Unfortunately, I did not find
comparison these two lenses.

I have to you asking you for help. Perhaps some of you have two sets
or one of them and a friend who has a second one, and can take
pictures (outside) and post a sample? I care about the fact that they
were images of the same object and with the same parameters, if it is
possible Nikkor with TC 14 and without (with samples of 400 5.6 L
total of 3 shots). Nikkor may be mounted on a different body. I would
like to compare sharpness and quality (plastics?) of images .

I rely on your help, I unfortunately have no way to verify both sets.

Could you help me? Thank you very much in advance , because the
dilemma I spent sleepless nights.

Regards!

Hi Yvonne
I know what you mean about sleepless nights over a big decision.
It sounds as if you don't have much if any gear at present if your options are either Canon or Nikon.
If that is the case it's a good place to be as you are not committed. I have had both Nikon and Canon gear and both are very good and to be honest, not a lot of difference between the two if all said and done.
You can't compare between a 400f5.6 Nikon and Canon because Nikon don't make one. Both have 300mmf4's though.
The one thing that I do think is true though is that more people have Canon than Nikon gear when it comes to wildlife photography. Much of this is historical because Nikon didn't cater for wildlife photographer's needs until only a few years ago. Since then, Canon have made more advances in lighter weight longer reach lenses but at a substantial cost. The good news though is that when ever new products are launched second hand availability increases.
There tends to be more Canon gear available on the used market than Nikon and that's were I would be looking to buy. See what's available and then make your decision

Good advice from Dave.

There are some other things to consider. MFD (minimum focus distance) is not so good on the 400/5.6 (at about 3.5m) whereas with most 300mm lenses it is typically somewhere around 2m. This is a big difference and very important if you are photographing small birds that will typically come very close if you sit very still and are well blended into your surroundings (brown/green/camo clothing) or if you shoot from a hide.

I'd also give strong consideration to the Pentax K3 (a better birding camera than anything from Canon/Nikon in that price range) and their excellent DA*300/4 (superb lens). You can also add a Kenko x1.4 TC (very very good for 420mm f5.6) or Pentax-F 1.7x AF Adapter (510mm f6.8) both of which I used and got great shots from (on the inferior K5). I later stepped up to the excellent Sigma 500/4.5 if you later want added reach.

Note I now use Nikon because I wanted full-frame cameras, as opposed to APS-C, for my general use.

There are some brilliant deals on the Pentax K3 (camera of the year 2013 for a number of magazines) and lenses at the moment. If you import from BH Photo & Video in the USA (great company) then you can even get a free US$450 Pentax flash thrown in along with a couple of great Pentax general use lenses for US1,650 (not including the 300/4 of course) !

Canon has been popular with their APS-H cameras which had a 1.25 crop factor that took a 400mm lens and provided the field of view of a 500mm lens. These have been discontinued and it was always a bit of an orphan with all the wide angle lenses for landscape photography being made for APS-C and full frame cameras. This made the APS-H cameras good for wildlife photography with long telephoto lenses but not good for landscape photography.

For bird photography if you end up taking pictures of birds in flight the capabilities of the Canon or Nikon combo of camera and lens in terms of autofocus performance become very important and you can check forums for Canon and Nikon to learn how happy current users are with various cameras and lenses.

Canon telephotos in general are 50% more expensive than their Nikon counterparts. The Canon lenses are lighter but that is a moot point if you cannot afford the additional thousands of dollars they cost.

Also consider lenses like the Sigma 150-500mm which can be bought with either a Canon or a Nikon mount.

Dave, Frogfish, Elkhornsun - thank you very much for your replies! I thought this thread is dead
MFD is important for me - the combo should be universal, because I'd like to photograph also reptiles, butterflies etc. Regarding k-3, I heard about it, it's wonderful camera but not for BIF - not so accurate and fast AF. I don't know if it's right, but... I don't like JPEGs made by Pentax cameras. Why JPEGs? As i told, the camera will be use in different types on photography, also on parties, family meetings or holiday. I don't want to make all my photos in raw and then spent a lot of time inducing RAWs. In such cases JPEGs are enough for me.
On the most expensive Canon lenses, I noticed quite oppossite effect, e.g. the price Nikkor 80-400G is about two times more expensive than Canon 100-400 L.
I thought about Nikon, Pentax and Canon, sometimes I was almost sure what to choose, but immediately change my selection. This decision is very hard for me, because I will be paying off this stuff for a few years and it will have a final decision, without change in the coming years.

The reason the Nikon 80-400 is twice the price of the Canon 100-400 is because it's a new release, the older version which was very slow to AF and noisy was roughly the same price as the Canon ( and a lens I personally don't like at all)
If you are prepared to compromise on reach ( which is the priority of most wildlife photographers, well for small birds anyway, and something you inevitably have to do whatever length you purchase) the most versatile lens you could buy is probably a 70-200. I would spend the extra and buy an f2.8 lens. I have owned boy Nikon and Canon versions and they are both very good and work well with the latest 2.0xTC's. For reach you could then buy a cropped body. Personally I would look for good used versions.
The minimum focus distance is between 1.2 and 1.4 metres across the choice so ideal for butterflies etc, the f2.8 lens produces a superb bokeh so great for subject isolation, it's also fast to autofocus.
Basically, it's a great all round lens, fairly lightweight and one you can use for a multitude of things including family portraits etc. Buy yourself something like a 400mm f5.6 and there is little use other than distant subjects and wildlife.
As for shooting in RAW, it's your choice but converting all your shots to JPEG without spending time editing them is effortless even if it takes the computer a little time to do so. The benefit of having the RAW file is that when you discover you have taken something that might be quite good if you tweak it a bit then having the RAW is a huge bonus.

Been sniffing around some of these cameras for a while but at the entry point. The common advice is put the money into the lens as the camera will always be the cheapest part of the equation to update later.

What do people think of the Nikon 3200 as a cheap starting camera but with a more expensive lens?

YvonnePL said:

Dave, Frogfish, Elkhornsun - thank you very much for your replies! I thought this thread is dead
MFD is important for me - the combo should be universal, because I'd like to photograph also reptiles, butterflies etc. Regarding k-3, I heard about it, it's wonderful camera but not for BIF - not so accurate and fast AF. I don't know if it's right, but... I don't like JPEGs made by Pentax cameras.

Click to expand...

Let me answer the K3 bit first. The guys on Pentaxforums are knocking it out of the park with the K3. I had 2xK5s before I switched to Nikon and had lots of success with them, any AF issues are TBH virtually non-existent unless you are shooting fast action sport or something of that ilk (and that was with the K5 although I still get paid for work on Rugby 7s, X-games etc.) ! The K3 is a brilliant camera - as I think I said a number of magazines chose it their Camera of the Year 2013 .. with good reason.
I seriously would not rule Pentax out for your needs - especially since their fantastic tiny/light lenses are great when you need to carry them around - rather than the usually much larger & much heavier lenses from Nikon/Canon.

If you go to my website link below and find the butterflies - they were all taken with Pentax (as were the macros and birds prior to 2013 too).

Pentax jpgs : Pentax do far less in-camera adjustments to their jpgs than do Canon, for example. So unless you set up the jpg profile in camera (something you can easily do to match the Canon output, if that is what you prefer) you will get Pentax' standard profile. It's easy to customise the jpgs in-camera to the colours/sharpness you want. The cameras don't make too much difference because they are a) based on the manufacturers profile and b) customisable.

RAW. As Dave said, unless you are a pro-shooter who, for example might need to get shots off pronto to his/her editor (and in that case I shoot in both RAW and jpg so I can just use the jpgs first) then RAW is easy.
You will still see the jpg version on your camera screen but can download everything to your computer and let it process them straight off the bat. However if the photos are not for printing but say just for the web .. not worth the effort or disk space and you're better off using jpgs.

rosbifs said:

Been sniffing around some of these cameras for a while but at the entry point. The common advice is put the money into the lens as the camera will always be the cheapest part of the equation to update later.

What do people think of the Nikon 3200 as a cheap starting camera but with a more expensive lens?

Click to expand...

Personally I'd go for a 5100/5200/5300. Much much better cameras (even the older 5100).

Late to the party but for me 400mm f5.6 and even a 100d , which is probably cheapest combo at the moment . Af works OK and camera/lens make lightest carrying pair as well . It even takes a 1.4x !
Pic taken with Canon 100d / 400mm f5.6 / kenko 1.4