Need advice: 70-300 VR or 80-400 VR lens (1 Viewer)

[hbreder]

I am looking to buy another lens for my Nikon D50, to add to my 18-200 VR lens. I'd like to take it on trips for bird shoots, but can't deal with packing a tripod. I need the VR feature for handheld shots, particularly for flying birds. Both lenses are getting good reviews. I would prefer the 70-300 lens for ease of use, price and weight (23 oz) but am not sure whether it's any good for bird photos. The 80-400 weighs 5 lbs, is somewhat slower and costs almost 3 times as much, but I am wondering whether in the long run I wouldn't be happier with it. 5 lbs though is a lot of weight! The question is, does the 70-300 lens give me a lot more tele power than my 18-200 lens or is just so so?

 

[DFBHeron]

I am looking to buy another lens for my Nikon D50, to add to my 18-200 VR lens. I'd like to take it on trips for bird shoots, but can't deal with packing a tripod. I need the VR feature for handheld shots, particularly for flying birds. Both lenses are getting good reviews. I would prefer the 70-300 lens for ease of use, price and weight (23 oz) but am not sure whether it's any good for bird photos. The 80-400 weighs 5 lbs, is somewhat slower and costs almost 3 times as much, but I am wondering whether in the long run I wouldn't be happier with it. 5 lbs though is a lot of weight! The question is, does the 70-300 lens give me a lot more tele power than my 18-200 lens or is just so so?

I have the 70-300 VR and like it a great deal, except... I wish I had the 80-400 for the extra magnification power and what I gather is it's compatibility with the TC-14 and TC-201. Alas, I had to settle for the 300 because I can't afford the 400. The 300 is very light though. I just have to take more time to be stealthy and patient. Hope that helps a little.

 

[Rob Chace]

I am looking to buy another lens for my Nikon D50, to add to my 18-200 VR lens. I'd like to take it on trips for bird shoots, but can't deal with packing a tripod. I need the VR feature for handheld shots, particularly for flying birds. Both lenses are getting good reviews. I would prefer the 70-300 lens for ease of use, price and weight (23 oz) but am not sure whether it's any good for bird photos. The 80-400 weighs 5 lbs, is somewhat slower and costs almost 3 times as much, but I am wondering whether in the long run I wouldn't be happier with it. 5 lbs though is a lot of weight! The question is, does the 70-300 lens give me a lot more tele power than my 18-200 lens or is just so so?

Hi,
300mm is still a bit on the short side for bird photography. Many people say, & i agree that the longer the better. 400mm is probably the minimum focal length i would consider for birds. Have you thought about the other alternatives? What about a Sigma 80-400 os, (OS= Optical stabilisation.) which is cheaper than the Nikon equivalent, has faster AF due to the inbuilt focusing motor, & can accept a modified Nikon TC-14e teleconverter. I have tried this combo on my D2x & the OS & Af still work. (Focusing speed is slightly slower when using the TC, but is still acceptable.)
There is also the Tamron 200-500. This does not have any form of stabilisation, but is light enough to handhold & capable of stunning results if you keep the shutter speed up.
The only other piece of advice i can give is to get a tripod or at least a monopod. You will find you will get far more keepers this way.
Hope this helps.
regards Rob.

 

[nitram.bath]

Nikon 70-300 VR

I have this lens and cannot fault it for the price, it gives some stunning shots.
I also use it with the Kenko Pro 300 1.4 Teleconveter, and its fully compatible.
My wife has one of these lenses as well, & also the 80-400 VR which is considrably heavier, she tends to use the 70-300 VR more than the 80-400.

 

[Duke Leto]

You can always plump for an older Nikon 300 IF-ED lens and a sigma 1.4x converter which is an excellent combination and should be picked up on eBay for under $600 or go for a 300 AF-S and a TC14 which again will give you 420mm at 5.6 if your not in need of a zoom. I have owned both combos and can't fault them.
Steve

 

[hbreder]

Nikon 80-400 VR vs 70-300 VR lens

Thanks for all your comments - extremely helpful. I think I have come down to the Nikon 80-400 VR or the Sigma 80-400 OS lens. Both are out of stock, where I checked; so that will give me some more time. If I get the 70-300 lens I think I will always have some regret that I didn't go for the larger lens.

 

[ccsial]

Thanks for all your comments - extremely helpful. I think I have come down to the Nikon 80-400 VR or the Sigma 80-400 OS lens. Both are out of stock, where I checked; so that will give me some more time. If I get the 70-300 lens I think I will always have some regret that I didn't go for the larger lens.

The Nikon 80-400VR weight is 2.9 lbs, not 5. I just put mine on the postal scale to verify it. I can't speak for the sigma but the Nikon does a very decent job.

I have a Sigma 150mm Macro and it is a very good lenes but I don't know anything about their 80-400 from experience.

The VR helps a lot if you like to hand hold. The Nikon 80-400VR is a very nice lens. The Sigma has a faster focus speed (internal motor) and if your doing flight shots you may want to consider that. The Nikon uses the screw focus drive in the camera.

I use the 80-400 on a D200 which I have heard has a faster focus motor than the D50 or D70. I do not know that from experience though.

Be sure to buy from a dealer that will return the lenes if it does not perform to your satisfaction.

 

[mhmyers]

I use the 70-300 VR and it works very well. I often have to crop though and on my 10MP D80, I can still get a decent 8x10- not sure if you have that leeway with 6MP.

The VR wonderful, but it doesn't do much for birds in flight.

Here is a small gallery of photos taken with that lens:


300,000 Snow Geese

 

[hbreder]

I got the weight for the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED Autofocus VR Zoom Nikkor Lens from the Amazon page: Product Dimensions: 6.7 x 6.7 x 6.7 inches ; 5 pounds. But checking on the Nikon website the weight is listed as 47 oz, i.e. 2.94 lbs. This makes my decision much easier (I picked up a 5 lbs bag of potatoes at the supermarket today - it was really heavy when holding it aloft with one hand!) I am puzzled about the price: Amazon lists it at $1,456.52 whereas on ExpressCamera it's $999. I wonder what's the catch? The Sigma 80-400 OS weighs 3.6 lbs. So, if I can get the Nikon for $999, that's going to be my choice.

P.S. I liked the snow geese photos! They may be a little easier to approach (? -perhaps similar to the Canada geese) than the migratory birds on the Connecticut River - tried to get a shot of ring-necked ducks on the river and failed utterly. They were pretty close in a cove but when I slowly, very slowly walked up to where they were in range of my camera (with admittedly only a 18-200 VR lens), they had all paddled out of reach. So, I'd like to get a lens that will assure my success.

 

[mhmyers]

True, the snow geese didn't seem to mind my presence at all. But if you really want a reach, consider a Fieldscope 82 which gives you 1500mm at f/13. Of course a tripod is mandatory but the camera and lens together only weigh 5-1/4 pounds.

 

[hbreder]

Yes, but I'd like the best of both worlds: sharp in-focus pictures and the spontaneity and freedom of handheld shooting.

 

[hbreder]

Update on ExpressCameras: it's a bait and switch site. Terrible ratings, "Do not buy" warnings according to http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Express_Cameras.

 

[ccsial]

Some of the low price lenes are called gray market. This means that there is no USA warranty. I have heard that these product must be sent to Japan for repair, even non-warranty repair.

You might also try B&H photo. They list the with Nikon USA warranty for $1429. The Sigma is $999. I have had good experience with B&H.

 

[Paulo Bruno Lorena]

Nikkor Lenses

I have a 80-400 and I think it is a very good lens. I use it in my 200, my Kodak SLR/n and my F5 ( I still use film and I like the F5 very much) and it works without problem in all this cameras. As you know in the D200 it will be like a 120-600mm in the F5 or the Kodak ( also in your camera). Your 18-200 would be like a 27-300 and the 70-300 like a 105-450. I think there is a big diference: an increase of 75%in focal length from 450 to 600mm. The 70-300 has the advantage (for less powerfull cameras) of having the motor in the camera and the 80-400 is also around 55% heavier (2.9 lb and not 5 lb). Both lens are not very fast (4.5-5.6).The 80-400 can be used in film camears and the 70-300 no.
The VR is designed to compensate the movement of your hands, not of your target: that is why mhmyers said it does not work so well for birds in flight: for that you need a faster lens or higher ISO.
Paulo Bruno Lorena

 

[DFBHeron]

I have the 70-300 VR and like it a great deal, except... I wish I had the 80-400 for the extra magnification power and what I gather is it's compatibility with the TC-14 and TC-201. Alas, I had to settle for the 300 because I can't afford the 400. The 300 is very light though. I just have to take more time to be stealthy and patient. Hope that helps a little.

OK, so I just bought the 80-400VR. Will probably sell the 70-300VR because I can't afford to keep both. I'll post my impressions in difference...