D300 plus Nikon 80-400 VR combination (1 Viewer)

[Dave Williams]

For the last year I have been using a D200 with the 80-400VR. I have been very pleased with the results ( my last outfit was a Panasonic Lumix FZ20, so a mega leap forward) but as time goes on you start dreaming of bigger and bigger lenses. However, I have just returned from a trip to the Gambia where the light is so much better ( although this presents problems with deep shade too ) and using my new tripod, even on walkabout, for the first time. I have been very happy with some of the results.
For example:-

But even in Britain you can get decent shots in good light

However, we all know that Britain has more grey dull days than bright sunny ones ! I am beginning to question whether my next move should be to carry on saving towards a Nikon 500mm AF-S II at considerable cost which won't give that much more reach unless I use a converter or should I invest far less and buy the D300 now ( selling the D200 to raise funds)
I have been impressed by the reviews of the D300, particularly the lack of noise at higher ISO. I am thinking I could crop more and get better results than I do now.

Has anyone experienced the D300 + 80-400 combination compared to the D200 with that lens ? Is there any improvement in auto focus operation too ?
Any other apparent benefits ?
Thanks in anticipation.

 

[pe'rigin]

I have been impressed by the reviews of the D300, particularly the lack of noise at higher ISO. I am thinking I could crop more and get better results than I do now.

Rioja,


What a difficult dilemma to be in.


Personally I would keep the D200 and flog the 80-400mm, and invest in the new VR 500mm lens, or F2.8mm 300mm VR with converter.

I wouldn’t worry too much about noise; it’s not the major problem with digital photography. If you can keep in the parameters of light conditions the D200 can cope with then the images are fine, as proved by your examples.

The big problem will be holding the D300 and instantly falling head over heels with the camera.

 

[Outboard]

I found the D200 and the 80-400 a very nice walk around lens and capable of some excellent images. It was however slow to focus on occasion. The D300 is far superior to the D200 in many ways not the least in the focussing depeartment. Heres a thread where the D300 and 80-400 were used together, see for yourself.

D300 and 80-400

 

[Neil]

I would go with the D300 as it will make a big difference to focussing lock-on and frame rate. You'll also get another 2 stops, which with the VR means you won't miss much.
I often shoot at iso 1600 with the D3 and you can do the same with the D300, or even iso 3200 on rainy days.
Neil.

 

[Dave Williams]

Thanks guys. You give me hope !!!

Some points

1) I would keep the 80-400 because it is great for going walkabout and also other forms of photography like sports.

2) The 500mm VR is too dear, I can aim for the last model, available for about £3500 ex Hong Kong.

3) The D300 exchange would cost me about £500-600 at a guess.

The last option satisfies the need for progress even if it delays the purchase of a bigger lens.The pictures on Outboards thread are brilliant, and so is the enthusiastic D300 summary.

 

[Dave Williams]

Just spoken to my local camera retailer. He doesn't think that I would see that much difference between the D200 and D300. It would cost me £729 to exchange there ( I am confident I could get a deal elsewhere for about £550).
He shoots using the D3 and a 200-400VR so he should know what he's talking about. he reckons I would be better going for better glass.
He has offered me the use of a D300 to try with my lens, albeit in the street outside rather than "in the field". I have to say that is the good thing about a local shop.

 

[Outboard]

Just spoken to my local camera retailer. He doesn't think that I would see that much difference between the D200 and D300. It would cost me £729 to exchange there ( I am confident I could get a deal elsewhere for about £550).
He shoots using the D3 and a 200-400VR so he should know what he's talking about. he reckons I would be better going for better glass.
He has offered me the use of a D300 to try with my lens, albeit in the street outside rather than "in the field". I have to say that is the good thing about a local shop.

Lets see. $1799 for a D300 or $5100 for a 200-400VR (don't know the price in pounds). I'd say he has a vested interest in selling you better glass. The D300 is streets better than the D200, I used to miss shots with the D200because it wouldn't lock on to a bird, the D300 is much, much better.

 

[Dave Williams]

I'll give the test a go, but I wouldn't buy the lens from him anyway as there is a much bigger differential between Hong Kong and GB on lenses than on cameras.!
Current british retail shops price for a D300 is about $2200, the 200-400 is $7400. The latest 500mm is $11000.
That's working at $2 to the £1 which isn't the case anymore.

 

[pe'rigin]

Rioja,

Wise move, I would take them up on the offer and see how you get on with the camera. Maybe bring in the D200 and compare.

On the lens, it's difficult as Nikon's prices always seem high to me.

While your trying the camera, see if they have the 300mm in either the F2.8 or F4 and try these guys as well.

As with all these cameras, it's wise to have a budget and stick to it.

 

[Helios]

I would agree with your local camera retailer and go for the 500 prime over the D200 to D300 upgrade. I noticed a definite improvement in my photography when I moved from the 200-500 Tamron zoom to the Nikon 300 f4 prime, but not so when I moved from the D80 to the D300

 

[Outboard]

Yeah Rioja, go for the 500VR, get one for me while your at it.

 

[Neil]

I just spent a week with two D80 users in and around Sydney. One is using the Nikon 300/f4 AFS and the other the 80-400/VR zoom. Neither was able to get on fast action (eg. ducks flying by,red-necked stints in flight ).
If you are mostly photographing slow moving/stationary subjects from fixed positions then go for the 500/f4 ( VR is not necessary as you'll be on a tripod ). If you are a walking around kind of guy go for the D300. Either way you'll want to upgrade the camera at some point. Neil.

 

[mike nesbitt]

For the last year I have been using a D200 with the 80-400VR. I have been very pleased with the results ( my last outfit was a Panasonic Lumix FZ20, so a mega leap forward) but as time goes on you start dreaming of bigger and bigger lenses. However, I have just returned from a trip to the Gambia where the light is so much better ( although this presents problems with deep shade too ) and using my new tripod, even on walkabout, for the first time. I have been very happy with some of the results.
For example:-

But even in Britain you can get decent shots in good light

However, we all know that Britain has more grey dull days than bright sunny ones ! I am beginning to question whether my next move should be to carry on saving towards a Nikon 500mm AF-S II at considerable cost which won't give that much more reach unless I use a converter or should I invest far less and buy the D300 now ( selling the D200 to raise funds)
I have been impressed by the reviews of the D300, particularly the lack of noise at higher ISO. I am thinking I could crop more and get better results than I do now.

Has anyone experienced the D300 + 80-400 combination compared to the D200 with that lens ? Is there any improvement in auto focus operation too ?
Any other apparent benefits ?
Thanks in anticipation.

Rioja.

After looking at the pic of the malachite, Do you need to change anything?
Mike

 

[ruchai]

I have 80-400VR and use it with D200 for birds. I love the combination but am thinking of getting a D300. I do not have problem with my 80-400Vr + D200 combination, I always use ISO 400-800 for birding. I hope to be able to go up to ISO1600 and faster focussing with D300. I shall keep D200 as I do switch from birds to insects in the field. D200 + 108VR macro and D300 + 80-400VR should be very handy. My D200 had passed 20,000 shots and need some rest!

 

[Dave Williams]

Ruchai, pardon my ignorance but I don't know where Sriracha is. It does sound very sunny though. My experience of the 80-400 was much better when I used it on holiday in sunny Gambia. Focusing was much faster because the light was much better. I used ISO400 most of the time too. I considered the new D300 route but invested in a new lens instead..the 300mmf2.8. I am happy with the performance and no longer considering changing bodies. The lens will always be more up to date than the D300 will be in not to long a period of time.

 

[rezMole]

Perhaps you should consider the Sigma 500mm f4.5 prime lens. I have had one for a while now and although it was good with my Nikon D70, it's even better with the D300! You could get the D300 AND the Sigma 500mm lens for a lot less than the Nikon 500mm.

 

[ruchai]

Ruchai, pardon my ignorance but I don't know where Sriracha is. It does sound very sunny though. My experience of the 80-400 was much better when I used it on holiday in sunny Gambia. Focusing was much faster because the light was much better. I used ISO400 most of the time too. I considered the new D300 route but invested in a new lens instead..the 300mmf2.8. I am happy with the performance and no longer considering changing bodies. The lens will always be more up to date than the D300 will be in not to long a period of time.

Where I live is in the tropic but it always cloudy and I shoot under trees canopy. I love 80-400VR the only thing I want to improve is focussing performance of the combination. 600mm f:4 will be too heavy and I could not think of using such canon under trees canopy. With more than 30,000 shots with the 80-400VR with D50 and D200 I know it is the lens to keep for birding. With the top notch focusing moduel of the D3 and D300 it should solve my problem with slow focussing. To me D300 with 1.5 cropping factor is more suitable for birds than the heavier D3.

 

[Dave Williams]

I was an 80-400 fan too, blissfully ignorant of how poor it performed in comparison to an AF-S Prime. There again, I'm a D200 user blissfully ignorant of how much better the D300 might be. Personally, if I was starting over again, I would have chosen the 300mmf4 as my first lens. Small,lightweight,faster focusing, and silent in comparison to the 80-400. It's also less expensive. It can be adapted to use a TC were the 80-400 can't.
The only thing it isn't is a zoom. The picture quality is a lot sharper as a consequence ( so you can get a better crop on the computer) but you are limited in it's use. If we are talking birding photo's when I checked out my collection of photo's I struggled to find any that were not taken at the full 400mm reach.That persuaded me I didn't need it. However, I will admit to having had to take the 1.7 TC off my 300 lens since because I was too close. That was at 500mm reach though. I wish I could let you try my set up to see for yourself ! I found that actually getting your hands on the gear is difficult because most camera retailers don't carry the lenses as a stock item. Consequently you are buying blind and on word of mouth. The only reason I write this is that I found that I had followed the wrong path and am trying to help others avoid it.
I wish I lived somewhere in the tropics right now, it is grey, cold and miserable here right now ! Good luck with your choice !

 

[I4ani]

Rioja,
the 80-400 works with a kenko tc within the usual constraints.(good light and contrast)
regards I4ani

 

[Dave Williams]

Rioja,
the 80-400 works with a kenko tc within the usual constraints.(good light and contrast)
regards I4ani

True I4ani, you can use a Kenko.
How sharp is the image though ?