Change of gear advice:

Hi:

I need some good advice.

I do 99% bird photography. I use my (2007) Nikon  300mm F2.8 VR 1 + 2X teleconverter , Nikon (version III ) on a Gitzo tripod with a gimbal mount..... with my terrific Nikon D500.

Generally thrilled with the quality.....considering I use a 2X t.c. ! ( and I love the reach, for birds ! )

Now , I'm getting older....and lugging the gear is getting tougher.I am on tripod all the time, basically, because that's what I want !
To make things easy....but.....to lighten my load:I was thinking of selling some of the gear and getting:

The new Nikon 300mm F4 PF and the latest version Nikon 1.4X teleconverter....OR:

...just the Nikon 200-500mm.

With the D500's capabilities...... I'm not too worried about stops of light (loss)....my main concern is loss of reach !
What to do..... make the change....or soldier on for now, and just do less bushwacking with my current gear ?

Many thanks !

Chuck.

The 300PF + 1.4x is much lighter and smaller and still gives you very good image quality as long as you do a proper AFFT on the combo.  The 200-500 gives you a bit more reach but is also heavier and tougher to handle.  There is a pretty big difference though for birds between 420mm and 600mm that will be really noticeable.  But if you don't need a ton of megapixels, you can always use the 1.3 crop factor (on top of the 1.5 that's already there in the DX sensor) available on the D500 which still gives you around 12mp with an effective reach of about 585mm...  So unless you are making big prints and if you really want to lighten the load, my choice would be the D500 with 300PF + 1.4x III and then switch to crop mode or just crop in post when you need to get a little tighter.

Thanks so much !

As far as weight is concerned.....

I just checked...and the combo I use is "only" 2.1 lbs heavier than the 200-500mm alone

So....for now.....seeing how I love my current gear..... for a 2 lb. difference
...lol....I'll still hold off until I'm a bit older !

Thanks again !

Chuck.

For me, this is an easy one to answer. If weight and size are paramount, then nothing comes close to how small and light the Nikon 300 PF is. The IQ is quite good, both with and without the TC, and on your D500 it will be a 450mm or 630mm. So not even close to what you were used to with the 300 f2.8 and 2x. However you say 99% of your use is for birds. I own the 300 PF and did own the 200-500. From my experiences the 200-500 IQ is easily as good as the 300 PF and probably even a bit better. So even without the 1.4x you are at 750mm on your D500. Many people are getting excellent results with the 200-500 and the TC-14E III, so now you are at 1050mm with the D500. The 200-500 is not nearly as light or as small, but it is still very easily hand held. Lastly, the versatility of having a zoom for many situations when photographing birds can be priceless! The only reasons to not go with the 200-500 in your situation would be slightly slower AF and larger size and weight. While I really like my 300 PF, there is no question for what you indicate your needs are I would choose the 200-500 every time for bird photography. Nikon really "hit it out of the park" with this lens when you consider price and IQ.

Hi Chuck, I am 74 and have the same problem. With my D 500, I now use my 300mm f4 PF with a 1.4x tc a lot. I also have a Nikon 300 f 2.8 VR, but it feels like it weighs as much as my 500mm f4 for my old and weak arms and shoulders.

Considering your carrying system too if you are making a change. My Black Rapid Sport strap makes carrying my D500 plus long lens a lot easier on the body.

Joe

I have the 300PF and the 1.4 TC. My own experience is that this combination is better than the 200-500. I did a lot of testing with the 200-500 but it never matched the 420mm combination. Yes it’s a very nice lens and excellent value but for me not as sharp. I returned it and bought the Sigma 150-600 Sport.

Mike's experiences with his Nikon 200-500 is not the same as 6 people I know that own and use the 200-500. I can only conclude that he had a "bad" copy. I too have used both extensively and can assure you that the 200-500 matches the IQ of the 300PF and likely exceeds it. Talk to Stuart Clarke and see if he will post some of his sharpness examples from his 200-500, both with and without the 1.4x TC. You will be truly amazed!

To follow-up with this. Here are some examples from the "other" people I know who use and love the Nikon 200-500. Note that some of these are also with 1.4x TC on the lens. These are all top notch bird photographers and would not be using this lens if it was not excellent IQ. Let your own eyes be the judge

http://www.mikeashbeephotography.com/Re ... -rJ7c62c/A

http://www.mikeashbeephotography.com/Re ... -X9HDv7p/A

http://www.mikeashbeephotography.com/Re ... -b8SB5k9/A

http://www.mikeashbeephotography.com/Re ... -Lw52Ng5/A

http://www.raincoastphoto.com/Port-foli ... -kwwgFst/A

http://www.raincoastphoto.com/Port-foli ... -zSzQfRh/A

http://www.raincoastphoto.com/Port-foli ... -KKgMvgB/A

http://www.raincoastphoto.com/Port-foli ... -PhKtnxT/A

https://nahanni.smugmug.com/NewImages-2 ... -rbRHwkn/A

https://nahanni.smugmug.com/NewImages-2 ... -DJc7prj/A

https://nahanni.smugmug.com/NewImages-2 ... -ZFqK8zD/A

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=275223

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=274987

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=274922

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=274639

I first tried the Nikon 200-500 on a bird shoot at Tunkwa Lake in June of last year, and my initial impression was very favourable. When I returned home, I moved into dragonfly mode when I normally use my Nikon 300 mm f4. However, I decided to try the new 200-500 on these guys and was basically blown away with the sharpness at 500mm. https://nahanni.smugmug.com/NewImages-2 ... -BB5GxDM/A .  It was every bit as sharp as my Nikon 500 f4 prime lens or as my 300 PF. I continue to use it when I am shooting birds from my blind where I am equally satisfied with it. https://nahanni.smugmug.com/NewImages-2 ... -pwvkZmW/A . I love the zoom feature of the lens because I can set up for the small birds at 500mm and pull back for the larger birds.

My only concern is the performance of the lens for birds in flight, especially at greater distances. I have had reasonable success at a location where the waterfowl  fly by at close range, but during a recent trip to photograph owls in flight, I was not happy with the results. In my opinion, it appears that the 200-500 does not acquire focus as well as my 500 prime.  Common sense would tell you that there is no way that an  $1800 lens can perform as well as a $10,000 lens!  ($ Cdn)  Having said that,  I realize that there were many factors at play here, some of which would have caused issues with my 500 f4. I will continue to test the 200-500 before I put my 500 up for sale. The other point I should make is that I have not tested it enough with the 1.4TC to allow me to make any comments on that.

I have the same issue as Chuck and Joe...I am over 70 and this gear gets heavier every year .  It's not just the lesser weight of the lens, but moving from my 500 to the 200-500 also allows me to turn in my Gitzo/Wimberly combination for a much lighter tripod/head combination. I am even checking out the Sony A7R III body with the Sony 100-400 lens as an alternative, but that will take some very thorough research and testing. I love my 300 f4 PF, but for birds I want more length than it gives me. I would agree with Tim that if I had to choose between the two for birds, I would take the 200-500 over the 300PF.
Hope this helps.

Cheers, Mike

chuckkl wrote:Hi:

I need some good advice.

I do 99% bird photography. I use my (2007) Nikon  300mm F2.8 VR 1 + 2X teleconverter , Nikon (version III ) on a Gitzo tripod with a gimbal mount..... with my terrific Nikon D500.

Generally thrilled with the quality.....considering I use a 2X t.c. ! ( and I love the reach, for birds ! )

Now , I'm getting older....and lugging the gear is getting tougher.I am on tripod all the time, basically, because that's what I want !
To make things easy....but.....to lighten my load:I was thinking of selling some of the gear and getting:

The new Nikon 300mm F4 PF and the latest version Nikon 1.4X teleconverter....OR:

...just the Nikon 200-500mm.

With the D500's capabilities...... I'm not too worried about stops of light (loss)....my main concern is loss of reach !
What to do..... make the change....or soldier on for now, and just do less bushwacking with my current gear ?

Many thanks !

Chuck.

Having gone through this transition when I just couldn't carry my 300mm f/2.8 up and down hills following wildlife, I first got the 300mm f/4 (which, like the 2.8, I occasionally used with a 1.4TC or even the 1.7TC) and more recently got the 200-500mm f/5.6, I would agree with the comments by others.  And if, as you state later, can still deal with the 300mm f/2.8, I would say that it is the best option, much faster focusing and great for low light.  Both the 300mm f/4 and the 200-500mm can be quite sharp (Mike's photos are ample proof of how great the 200-500mm can be), but, at least in my hands, don't focus near as fast as the 2.8.  Last trip with my 300mm f/2.8 was trying to keep up with a mountain lion going out to hunt in Patanognia.

My only comment is that, for me at least, birding starts at 500mm on DX. As nice as the 300PF is to handle, it’s still too short even with the TC14EIII. The 200-500VR could be a slightly better choice in that regard - minimally acceptable reach in a reasonably light-weight package - but even then you’re going to be shooting at 500mm most of the time. For fun, I might even consider the Tamron 150-600 G2. The one thing in common with all of these light-weight options, though, is they all need decent light to perform well.

I shoot birds with the Tamron 150-600G1 and it is fun. Is it as sharp as the 500/600 primes, no but when you are in your seventies it allows one to stay out there enjoying the chase and the wildlife experience. I paired mine with the Nikon D7200 and have had lots of joy shooting with it. It is just so easy to use and handhold and the zoom does come in handy to extend the usefulness of the lens.

Below is a link to a series of bird shots with the above combo. I had Tamron Australia fine tune my combo to be at its best at 25 feet at 600mm and it has been going well for me. I am wondering about the new G2 version but am not sure it is worth the effort to upgrade.

http://img.gg/8499elU

Kim wrote:I shoot birds with the Tamron 150-600G1 and it is fun. Is it as sharp as the 500/600 primes, no but when you are in your seventies it allows one to stay out there enjoying the chase and the wildlife experience. [snip]

E.J. Peiker wrote: [snip] So unless you are making big prints and if you really want to lighten the load, my choice would be the D500 with 300PF + 1.4x III and then switch to crop mode or just crop in post when you need to get a little tighter.

Sort out your priorities. Compromise if needed.

And I'll just keep lifting weights
 


PS I think this is the second thread on basically the same issue in less than 5 days.

DChan wrote: PS I think this is the second thread on basically the same issue in less than 5 days.

Yeah but one is Nikon centric and the other is Canon centric

I'm trying to make my walks lighter too.  I don't think you're going to notice too much of a difference between an extra pound or two.  It's the fact you are having to carry the gear in your hands or on your shoulder (via a tripod) that can wear on you.  I think what will make more of a difference is to carry your gear in a compact backpack.  Get a really compact lightweight tripod.  Take out your camera only when you come upon something worth photographing.  It has to be a compact backpack and not some big one that can move around, otherwise it will still feel bulky and straining over a long walk.  

The Think Tank Glass Limo has worked great for me.  The backpack hugs the back (with room for air-flow) and is slim in shape.  The strap could use some more padding if I really load up.  Find a backpack that works for you as your body is unique to you.  As for lenses, I know people who use the Nikon 200-500 and get great photos.  I think you may miss the flexibility by going with a fixed 300 f4 + 1.4x.  But seeing how the D500 probably has different crop factors for more reach, maybe that will do since you mostly do bird photography.

OntPhoto wrote:I'm trying to make my walks lighter too.  I don't think you're going to notice too much of a difference between an extra pound or two.  It's the fact you are having to carry the gear in your hands or on your shoulder (via a tripod) that can wear on you. [snip]

Well, then use a small trolley. I've seen people use that when walking on a trail.

Nikon 500 is about one pound heavier than its 200-400. When shooting them handheld, yeah, I can feel the difference given also that the 200-400 is shorter which also helps.

DChan wrote:

OntPhoto wrote:I'm trying to make my walks lighter too.  I don't think you're going to notice too much of a difference between an extra pound or two.  It's the fact you are having to carry the gear in your hands or on your shoulder (via a tripod) that can wear on you. [snip]

Well, then use a small trolley. I've seen people use that when walking on a trail.

Nikon 500 is about one pound heavier than its 200-400. When shooting them handheld, yeah, I can feel the difference given also that the 200-400 is shorter which also helps.

  I know one photographer that uses an old baby stroller to lug his gear!  The disadvantage to this as well as the backpack versus a BlackRapid Strap or even the camera on the tripod over the back is the time to setup.  Many times one sees wildlife and has to get a shot off in a couple of seconds.  I have missed photos while getting my camera out of my backpack.

  The new Nikon 500mm f/4E FL is 6.8 pounds, so lighter than the old 200-400mm lens (7.4 pounds) and new 180-400mm (7.7 pounds) though the latter includes the weight of a 1.4TC.
 

I do what Wilson says and now carry my gear in a smaller Think Tank backpack, but there are issues with that:

1) I cannot always have all the gear I want with me; and
2) I run into the same issue that Ricardo mentions; i.e. missing shots because I am not ready to shoot.

It's fine for situations where you are going to a location to shoot or setup, but for general walk around shooting, it does not work well.

Tim Zurowski wrote:I do what Wilson says and now carry my gear in a smaller Think Tank backpack, but there are issues with that:

1) I cannot always have all the gear I want with me; and
2) I run into the same issue that Ricardo mentions; i.e. missing shots because I am not ready to shoot.

It's fine for situations where you are going to a location to shoot or setup, but for general walk around shooting, it does not work well.

I know this one photographer (new guy) who carries everything but the kitchen sink as he doesn't want to miss anything. He has a 500 f4, 300 2.8L and a zoom I think and maybe 2 camera.  When I see him, I think to myself 'wow, you'll learn eventually you do not need to carry all that stuff'. Haven't run into him for awhile but I bet he likely isn't doing that anymore.  Use what you have and no need to cover everything when you are just shooting locally.  I can understand if you are on a once-in-a-lifetime trip but still...

I have learned a long time ago, you'll never get every shot.  Not possible.  And you don't have to.  When I'm not at that location - guess what - I'm missing a ton of shots there.  It's not going to change my life.  What can I do about it?  It's like running into fellow photographers and birders who say, 'you should have been there as we saw this great....".  I can't be everywhere.  Every day I am missing a ton of photo ops.  That's just a fact of life.

If I am looking for an active subject, I will carry my gear in hand or on a tripod. But more often than not, I am only walking around and looking for something to shoot.