New Lens for mammals, thinking of a used Nikkor 200-400

I shoot a lot of mammals like tigers, deer, monkeys, boars, wild dogs, bears etc.. in the jungles of India on a 4x4 vehicle. My current kit so far is a 24-120 f4, 180 f2.8, 300 f4 and a 600 f4. The bodies that I currently own are a D800E and a D7000. I mostly use my 180 f2.8 and the 300 f4 for my mammal shots and the 600 if they are very far. Most of my mammal shots are at 30-100 feet distance at most.

I have been looking for a decent zoom lens to cover this range with VR as the 300 f4 is almost impossible to use on a D800E without VR early morning or late evening when there is maximum animal movement without cranking up the ISO and I find that its almost impossible to hand hold to consistently get sharp shots even at 1/300 shutter speed. The 180 is a bit better and the 2.8 does help at times.

Now I have read very good reviews for the 80-400 G VR. But it costs slightly less than $3000 here in India. f5.6 is also a bit slow for early mornings and late evenings and I have read mixed reports of VR efficacy at 400mm.

Then I have a choice of getting a well maintained almost new 200-400 F4 VR for a little less than $4000. Now I would love a 200-400 VR f4 constant but am concerned if the IQ is not much better than the 80-400. I have also read everywhere that it gets soft at longer distances.

I dont mind spending more and getting the used 200-400 for the constant f4 and probably better IQ till about 100 feet distance. Or is the 80-400 a much better buy with equivalent VR and IQ till about 100 feet and I should forget about the used 200-400.

Any advice will be highly appreciated.

As you have a 300 and a 600, the 200-400 won't add much to your current equipment. A TC 1.4 with the 300 will get you a bit more than 400 in a smaller package. The new 80-400 has gotten a lot of good reviews and would be my choice over the 200-400. FWIW, I sold my 200-400 in favor of a 300 f2.8 as I found that 90+ percent of the time my 200-400 was set on 300mm.

Just a thought, wouldn't you be better off trading your 300 f/4 for a newer 300mm f/2.8?  You would gain in the low
light plus having the VR?  Not sure what the zooms will give you considering the lenses you already have.

PS.  The one time I photographed in India, the 300 mm f/2.8 was the principal lens that I used (either with or without a TV).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/60519499@ ... 058215782/

ricardo00 wrote:Just a thought, wouldn't you be better off trading your 300 f/4 for a newer 300mm f/2.8?  You would gain in the low
light plus having the VR?  Not sure what the zooms will give you considering the lenses you already have.

PS.  The one time I photographed in India, the 300 mm f/2.8 was the principal lens that I used (either with or without a TV).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/60519499@ ... 058215782/

Thank you for your inputs. I have seen that with animals moving about especially tigers, a zoom becomes a necessity more often than not. I have had to change lenses mid way many times coz the 300 was suddenly too long or the 180 too short. So a zoom kind of becomes necessary in the closed confines of a 4X4. Yes I considered a 300 2.8 too, but thought a 200-400 is not much heavier and a zoom as well so may be more flexible for me. Also I am getting it at just over $1000 over the 80-400 G.

Optically the 300 f4 is not too shabby but lack of VR does make it a handful to use especially on a D800E. I was kind of thinking of a one lens solution with a 200-400 on a D800E for 200-600 reach on FX and DX crop mode and maybe a 70-200 on a second D810 or D610.

The biggest problem with what you are suggesting is the use of the 200-400 and the 600. Both are quite big and heavy and carrying and not damaging them while shooting becomes an issue. At this time, the closest I come to using two big heavy lenses is using the 500 and the 200 F2. Juggling those two lenses has been an issue within a vehicle. I don't see how you would juggle the 200-400 and the 600.

My question is would you be better served with a D7100 and the 70-200 F4 for the midrange conditions? Or the D800 on a 70-200 F4 utilizing FX and 1.2x crop mode? (And, yes, I like the F4 version of that lens better than the F2.8 version.)

Anthony Medici wrote:The biggest problem with what you are suggesting is the use of the 200-400 and the 600.  Both are quite big and heavy and carrying and not damaging them while shooting becomes an issue. At this time, the closest I come to using two big heavy lenses is using the 500 and the 200 F2. Juggling those two lenses has been an issue within a vehicle. I don't see how you would juggle the 200-400 and the 600.

My question is would you be better served with a D7100 and the 70-200 F4 for the midrange conditions? Or the D800 on a 70-200 F4 utilizing FX and 1.2x crop mode? (And, yes, I like the F4 version of that lens better than the F2.8 version.)

I agree carrying both on a 4x4 safari can be a bit tough. But then I am planning to leave the 600 behind when on safari and just have the 200-400 on the D800E and use the FX and DX crop mode. The shorter end will be taken care by the 70-200 f4 as suggested by you. Carrying one super tele wont be a problem as I usually have the entire vehicle to my self.

I am a Canon user so I cannot speak from personal experience. However, a close friend has Nikon equipment. We've done several trips together. He has a 200-400, 70-200, 600 and the new 80-400 VR. On a recent trip he took the 80-400 and was very happy with the results. So much so that on the next trip to Africa he did not take his 200-400 and the pictures were really sharp. He is now thinking of selling the 200-400, he is so happy with the other lens. He has two D4S bodies, one with the 80-400 on it and the other with a 24-70 on it. That pretty much covers everything.

Several of his images on both the trips were taken early morning or late in the evening in low light and I think they are absolutely amazing.

Pradeep

I'm not sure you'll be happy with the 200-400 a year from now. Many of us tried it for one or more years and most ended up using other lenses.

We sold both of our 200-400s after using the 80-400 and would not go back.

Jess Lee wrote:We sold both of our 200-400s after using the 80-400 and would not go back.

And the reason for this is that the 80-400 is better lens optically than the 200-400 or was it just the cost and weight issue or something else?

It's just sharper at longer shooting distances and couple that with better portability and easier handling and a lot of Nikon pros, including myself have gotten rid of their 200-400's and are actually happier with their 80-400 than they ever were with the 200-400.

E.J. Peiker wrote:It's just sharper at longer shooting distances and couple that with better portability and easier handling and a lot of Nikon pros, including myself have gotten rid of their 200-400's and are actually happier with their 80-400 than they ever were with the 200-4

I agree with E.J.


I don't know where the pinterest link comes from but after 5 tries I can not make it go away so please ignore it.
Sorry
Jess




http://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/http://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

I have read everyone's comments on this one; I also own the 80-400 AFS, and wanted to see where this was all going before I commented:

1.  I love this lens.

2.  Aside from a quick repair to replace a loose zoom rubber ring, I have shot this lens a lot since I purchased it in early Feb 2013.  Literally, I shoot it every day and I enjoy learning to shoot it.  It is a blast.  Not perfect...but a blast.

3.  It has one weakness.  And Mannus, you touched on it a bit at the beginning of your post:  5.6 is not what any one of wants to be shooting in the low light that we love.  Currently, I shoot the D610...but I am approaching an upgrade to the D750 or D810.  

   a.  My D610 is usually clean out to about 3200...but not always.  So, to be safe, I usually do not go past 2000 ISO.
   b.  And depending on how far the background is behind your subject, the 80-400 image can look a little "cluttery" at times.          

In your tiger habitat, I suppose that you will be in high shade much of the time.  I am not qualified to comment on how your D800E will perform in that situation.    

4.  Bottom line:  So you may have already answered your own question:  5.6 may not do it in that high shade.  I guess it all depends on your DSLR performance.  I feel that if I was shooting tigers in high shade with my D610 and 80-400 AFS, noise would tend to be a problem.

But the 80-400 is so portable and yes....sharp.  

5.  I bet Mark Picard would have something good to contribute here, but right now (late Summer into Fall) it is prime time to be shooting his favorite subject, one of our biggest North American mammals, the moose.

Did I say I love this 80-400 AFS?


Robert

Thanks EJ and Robert for your valuable inputs. The golden hour in Indian jungles where tigers and other large animals are most active in between 6 AM and 7 AM in the morning and between 5:30 to 6:30 PM in the evening. Light in summers is a little better than winters but still I use ISO 1600-3200 with my non VR 300 F4 to get decent shutter speeds.

This shot for example is at F5.6, ISO 3200 with 1/250 shutter speed on my D800E taken at 6 AM. I know VR will help but I guess I will need a F4 for my kind of shooting. 

May I suggest you consider the 200 F2 VR? If you are close enough to shoot tigers clearly with the 200-400 then you should be close enough to use the 200 F2.

Also, the D7000 isn't really state of the art. Consider the D7100 or, if Nikon ever produces another higher end DX consider that camera.

What Tony said or a 300 f/2.8 and TC 14E III

A few more points:

1.  Though I am not absolutely certain yet, It now seems I am beginning to see the Q shutter setting on my D610 is yielding noticeably sharper images (than CL or CH) when I shoot offhand and with VR.  But also, the Q blocks my viewfinder image longer than the C; i.e. it takes longer to complete the cycle and get me back into the viewfinder image.  Not a problem.  More testing to do.

2.  I thought I read somewhere in this thread that there is a question about the 80-400 AFS's VR working as effectively offhand at 400 as it does shorter.  But just scanned thread again and I cannot find it.  Anyway, I do not see any loss when my 80-400 is long....it dampens all lengths for me quite nicely.  I love it.  So, that could make a big difference (on the camera end), as to how many tiger keepers you get.  

3.  Reason I mentioned Mark Picard, is because, from a photography perspective (i.e. lighting), he just may be shooting moose here in Maine, in similar conditions to you shooting tigers over there.   So, when he gets back to the forum, he may have some pointers for shooting in cover with the 80-400 AFS.  Also, now at the "season-changing" from late Summer into early Fall, the light is a lot lower, earlier, here in the north, mid 40's latitudes...and getting lower faster.  It's got to be brighter over there in "tiger country" now....no?  How is it over there?

4.   I do agree that the fast primes are super fine, although I've only had the pleasure thus far of owning/shooting 300 2.8's.  But also, the slight softness of some images (from the slower zoom) is no where near the letdown I get from completely missing the chance to shoot because I was in the middle of changing a prime.  That is when I get wound too tightly to enjoy the shoot.

5.  For me:  Enjoying nature is first.  Enjoying the shoot is second.  Image quality is behind those two...as long as the lens is acceptably sharp in the first place. 

Robert

Thanks Tony, EJ, Jess, Doug, Ricardo and Robert. Your inputs very invaluable and highly appreciated.