« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 32 posts | 
by James Vellozzi on Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:10 pm
User avatar
James Vellozzi
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6299
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Hudson Valley, New York State
Hi
I recently sold my Nikkor 400 2.8 because I simply could not deal with how heavy and cumbersome it was. I spend many hours in the field and along barrier beaches photographing birds in flight, hawks, egrets, etc.. 
Even traveling with the 400 2.8 was just an awful experience. Lastly I realized I never even used it wide open at 2.8. If I am going to be in the field photographing songbirds, or birds in flight I generally only choose days with great light.

So I am in the market for a new lens. I own a 600 F4, which I use for perched songbird photography and the like..

Can anyone recommend a decent lens from Nikon that is versatile, rather fast and pleasurable to walk in the field with ready to capture that passing falcon or a running fox.   Money is not a factor in my decision here.

Thus far I have been reading about the Nikkor 200-400 F4  and also the 200-500 F5.6. I am leaning towards the 200-400 F4. 

Does Nikon have good glass when it comes to their zoom line up? 

Many thanks for your input and perhaps personal experience.

James
James Vellozzi
www.jamesvellozzi.com
 

by DChan on Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:20 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
500 f4.

My 200-400 is fine despite what other say :-)
 

by Tim Zurowski on Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:25 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
James, I know two people that sold their 200-400 f/4 and replaced it with the 200-500 f5.6. They both like the 200-500 better and it is just as sharp as the 200-400. I don't want to get into a debate again about the 200-500 for BIF shooting. All I will say is that for my limited amount of BIF shooting the 200-500 was not great. There are others that find it to be more than adequate. If I was in your shoes, and money was no object, I would get a 300 f2.8 and TC-14E III. I believe that is what Alan Murphy uses for a lot of his BIF shooting, and I think his results speak for themselves ;) If the 300 f2.8 is still too heavy, then the 300 f4 VR PF is a great little lens and super easy to carry around and use for flight shooting.
 

by Anthony Medici on Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:44 pm
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
I would NOT buy the 200-400 for any purpose. It has issues with distance focus. 

In theory, the new 180-400 might work though it is a tad expensive and I'm not sure how available it is as it is so new. (And unreviewed...)

I own the 500 VR AF-S G lens. I will use it for handhelds only when I feel energetic as it is a tad heavy for long use. The newer 500 AF-S E is bit lighter and much more expensive. I personally think 500 is a tad long for flight lenses too.

I have used the 200-500 VR and the 80-400 VR. I find the 200-500 acceptably sharp. I never liked the 80-400 and it was sold rather quickly after I tried it. The 200-500 VR is lighter than the monster (exotic) lenses but it is still pretty heavy. The focus keeps up with most things that fly straight and are slightly slower than small ducks.

My current personal carry around (or flight lens) is the 300 PF VR, with or without the TC-14EIII. When tuned properly, this lens is a great lens for a lot of purposes and it is the lightest long lens Nikon has. I've never had an issue with the focus not keeping up on this lens.

Of course, if you are close, the 70-300 AF-P VR (if you have a compatible body) or one of the 70-200 VR's are great flight lenses too. 
Tony
 

by Tim Zurowski on Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:03 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
I should have waited for Tony's excellent response. I agree wholeheartedly with everything he says :)
 

by Gary Irwin on Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:37 pm
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Hate to say it but Nikon doesn’t really have an ideal BIF lens IMO. I also can’t recommend the 200-400...it’s sharp up close but heavy and AF is a bit sluggish (realtive to a good prime). The new 180-400 is better in every way (handled one on the weekend) but at 7.7 lbs, it’s a brick...only 0.7 lbs lighter than my 600E! At 6.8lbs the 500E might be worth considering...f4 wide open, sharp and blazing fast AF. The 80-400VR is soft at 400 where you’d want to use it. The AF on the 200-500 is too slow for me, and I don’t like being stuck at f5.6. The 300PF is super light, but you’ll probably need the TC14EIII with that, which gets you back to f5.6. Lots of choices, but none of them perfect IMO. I’m waiting to see what the new 300/2.8E looks like if Nikon ever gets around to releasing it.

On the other hand Artie Morris just claimed that, for him, the D5+200-500VR is the best BIF combo you can buy. If the D5 wasn't so stingy with pixels, I'd give that combo a try myself.
Gary Likes Nature.


Last edited by Gary Irwin on Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
 

by photoman4343 on Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:12 am
photoman4343
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1952
Joined: 1 Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
I recommend the Nikon 300mm f 4 AF-P lens both with and without the Nikon TC 14E III. And it is usually mounted on my D 500. I have the latest Nikon 500mm f4 and 300mm f 2.8 lenses, but for me they are too heavy for regular walk around BIF shots. I do use them for BIF when I have them mounted on a tripod and gimbal head. They are really great for raptors. and more controlled shooting situations.

I have friends who use and like the 200-500mm, but they usually use in in good light from kayaks.

Joe .
Joe Smith
 

by Robert on Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:19 am
User avatar
Robert
Forum Contributor
Posts: 799
Joined: 2 Jan 2004
Location: Spring Lake, MI
Artie Morris is now shooting Nikon?!!! I just about spit my coffee out!  :o Next thing I know, someone is going to tell me the poles have shifted.
LOL. Artie made great images with Canon and will surely make great ones with Nikon.
 

by Anthony Medici on Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:25 am
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
Gary Irwin wrote:On the other hand Artie Morris just claimed that, for him, the D5+200-500VR is the best BIF combo you can buy. If the D5 wasn't so stingy with pixels, I'd give that combo a try myself.
Certainly the D5 has the most consistent autofocus of all the Nikon bodies. Additionally, it has two group modes that might help in various shooting situations that none of the other bodies have. And I believe when Artie switched, he wasn't planning to get a 500 or 600, the 200-500 would work for both BIF situations as well as general long lens situations. As for the the 20 mp FX mode and the 14 mp 1.2x mode, both have more pixels than we had available 6-7 years ago on the highest end bodies. It also has, without a doubt, the ability to go higher for ISO than pretty much all the other bodies on the market. 

Of course, the D5 is heavier than the D850 with the vertical release and the 200-500 isn't exactly light so the net carry weight is pretty high.

(I've read some news stories that the poles might shift soon...) 
Tony
 

by Gary Irwin on Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:06 am
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Anthony Medici wrote:As for the the 20 mp FX mode and the 14 mp 1.2x mode, both have more pixels than we had available 6-7 years ago on the highest end bodies. 

Yeah Tony, but I didn't have a 5k monitor back then either! Once I got used to having 36MP on FX, there was no going back to a measly 16 or 20MP, whether FX or DX!
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by Anthony Medici on Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:27 pm
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
Yes, I was considering adding the point that if you had already gone to 36 mp, or the higher 44 mp of the D850, 20 mp seems a tad small. I'm actually using the D5 for some event work (people pictures) where I don't need the resolution and I have the ability to use extremely high ISO. That saves a great deal of storage space for me since taking pictures of jugglers is just like taking pictures of BIF from a frame rate point of view.

Besides, the D5 in FX mode is 1 mp higher than using the D850 in DX mode and 5 mp higher than using the D810 in DX mode. Even in 1.2x crop mode of the D5 is only 1 mp less than the D810 in DX mode. Since I've been willing to shoot both of those two  cameras in DX mode when I don't have enough lens then I'm perfectly fine with the size of the images from the D5 using either FX or 1.2x crop mode. And the D5 gives me that wonderful 3D focusing mode for people, 3 different types of group focusing modes, an 11 FPS shooting rate and the ability to use ISO's so high that my nose bleeds.

So for nature shooting during the day, the D850 and D810's are in use and the D5 comes out to play the first thing in the morning and well into the evening! Especially with the fast lenses I tend to favor using. Of course, it will also come out if I need more than 7 (9) fps and my subjects are close enough that I can shoot in FX on the D5.
Tony
 

by prairiewing on Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:35 pm
prairiewing
Lifetime Member
Posts: 404
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
Location: North Dakota
Member #:00208
The lack of a good manageable 400 mm lens kept me from switching to Nikon for quite a while. I finally succumbed to the 850 (and love it) but still hope for a 400 like Canon's DO or 100-400 as good as those from Sony and Canon. The upcoming 180-400 looks like a great lens but way too heavy for my needs.
Pat Gerlach
 

by Gary Irwin on Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:51 pm
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
prairiewing wrote:The lack of a good manageable 400 mm lens kept me from switching to Nikon for quite a while.  I finally succumbed to the 850 (and love it) but still hope for a 400 like Canon's DO or 100-400 as good as those from Sony and Canon.  The upcoming 180-400 looks like a great lens but way too heavy for my needs.
+1 Couldn't agree more. If Nikon won't release a 400/4PF, I'd take a Sigma 400/4 Art or Sport or whatever.
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by photoman4343 on Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:39 am
photoman4343
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1952
Joined: 1 Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Tony, I really appreciated your comments regarding the options and trade offs among sensor size, crop factors, frames per sec, High ISO, etc for the various Nikon bodies. Perhaps you ought to expand upon this and turn it into a longer article. It will help us in choosing the right camera or cameras to use and how to get the most out of its features. If such an article has already been written I would love to have a link to it. The same goes for other camera manufacturers too.
Joe Smith
 

by James Vellozzi on Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:58 pm
User avatar
James Vellozzi
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6299
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Hudson Valley, New York State
Well thank you everyone for your input.. I suppose I have a lot of thinking to do. Perhaps I will try renting a few of these lenses and seeing how things go.
James Vellozzi
www.jamesvellozzi.com
 

by Woodswalker on Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:53 am
Woodswalker
Forum Contributor
Posts: 432
Joined: 12 Apr 2008
My 200-400 VRII is good for BIF and I appreciate its range, focus speed and F/4 for many other kinds of photography. It's not perfect but grows on you over the years. But as a lens to take for a hike, I think I'd choose the 80-400 or compact 300 F/4 & 1.4 converter.
 

by mlgray12 on Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:32 am
User avatar
mlgray12
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Location: Fort Davis, Texas
Member #:01023
I use the 400mm /2.8 light version - and yes I agree with it hard to handle in field for long shoots and bear to travel with - but until I see some good reports on just how sharp the new 180-400mm really is and how close it gets to sharpness of the 400mm prime I am sticking with the 400mm f/2.8 - Just got back from Ecuador and got some great shots but think I lost VR somewhere on trip but still worked OK ( needs trip to Nikon Repair) Of course VR is always turned off when I shoot BIF - more likely to h7rt than help with shutter speeds over 1/2000 sec

However would point out you said you never used it at 2.8 - I disagree here because the f/2.8 is what really improves focus - makesit as fast to focus as a 300 f/2.8 which is Allan Murphy's lens of choice and even with 1.4 TC it is and f/4.0 lens - the smaller lens at f/5.6 and higher really come in lacking at getting fast focus
Michael L. Gray
Wildlife and Conservation Bum
 

by Gary Irwin on Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:26 pm
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
mlgray12 wrote:I use the 400mm /2.8 light version - and yes I agree with it hard to handle in field for long shoots and bear to travel with - but until I see some good reports on just how sharp the new 180-400mm really is and how close it gets to sharpness of the 400mm prime I am sticking with the 400mm f/2.8
Well the 180-400 is the same length and only a measly 0.7lbs lighter than the 400E, so there's not much of handling advantage there.
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by owlseye on Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:55 am
User avatar
owlseye
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1212
Joined: 4 Jul 2009
Location: Stillwater, MN
I will support the most bashed lens in Nikon's line up... I use the 200-400VR for birds in flight and mammal photography. I do not shoot small birds so I do not have much to say about how well it works for this, but I shoot swan flight shots throughout the winter in MN, cranes in the spring and fall and herons in April. This is all local work and works out to be some 10000+ images a year. The 300mm f/2.8 is sharper than the 200-400 at 300mm (no surprise), but not as flexible. When shooting from a canoe or where animals are move towards or away from you, I'd rather have the flexibility of a zoom than be stuck.

I rarely shoot the lens at f/4... especially on hazy days and on distant subjects. The lens / aperture combination is just not good under these conditions. However, if you stop down to f/5.6 to f/8, you will be fine with distant subjects in marginal weather. I have taken so many pictures all over the world that counters the mythology that the lens is not sharp at a distance. The distance issue is related to a mix of aperture, focal length and atmospherics. If you know your gear, you will know what it can or can not do.
cheers,
bruce
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:44 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
What camera are you using and what are you using your photos for, Bruce?  I have not found that the 200-400 in general is anywhere near capable of resolving anything above about 12 megapixels at distances of over 100 feet and I have tested many of these lenses.  In other words there was no difference in actual detail when using a camera above 12 megapixels compared to one that has just 12mp.  I did test one 2nd generation of the lens that was OK on a D800 but that one was truly an outlier.  This is based on at least two dozen lenses all carefully focus tuned.  On the other hand if you don't need high megapixel final outcomes and use them primarily for the web or small prints then the 200-400 is fine.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
32 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group