« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 32 posts | 
by mlgray12 on Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:02 am
User avatar
mlgray12
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Location: Fort Davis, Texas
Member #:01023
Gary Irwin wrote:
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.

But I can still handle the 400mm in field and also save tiny bit more weight with not having 1.4TC - which I use a lot with just 400mm - now 47MP of D850 gives it a lot more reach do to cropping ability - but the flexibility of going from 180mm to 560mm without taking eye of subject is huge advantage - last trip I was backing up and having to remove TC in rain forest as subjects changed - also eliminates having to carry an additional lens in bag - shot this trip with just 3 lens and a TC - 400mm, 105mm Macro and new 24-70mm - - had nothing below 24mm and nothing between 70 and 400mm - and they were missed - dropped my 14-24mm from bag for this trip and it probably would not have gotten much use do to lots of rain and clouds ( was rainy season - making shooting quit difficult at times) Lenscoat rain gear got nice workout and performed nicely
Michael L. Gray
Wildlife and Conservation Bum
 

by mlgray12 on Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:16 am
User avatar
mlgray12
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Location: Fort Davis, Texas
Member #:01023
E.J. Peiker wrote: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.
I agree with EJ - I used my 200-400mm lens (old version - never shot with newer version) while shooting hawks in flight with Alan Murphy - in end no way could this lens compete with 300mm f/2.8 even with TC - especially locking focus on fast flying hawks that were really close or especially when we tested our skills on swallows bussing the decoy owl when hawks were slow - I experimented with lots of lens - even the new 80-400mm seemed to be better ended up using the 400mm f/2.8 - really tests arm strength ( I am over 66) but still I managed - If money were no object probably would have gotten the 300 f/2.8 which Alan uses. I can see how with larger, slower and  further away birds like Swans the 200-440mm might have advantages. I have sold both my 200-400mm and the newest 80-400mm.
Michael L. Gray
Wildlife and Conservation Bum
 

by owlseye on Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:23 am
User avatar
owlseye
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1212
Joined: 4 Jul 2009
Location: Stillwater, MN
E.J. Peiker wrote: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.
Thanks for the note EJ,
I have my 200-400mm lens on a D500. I have tuned it to this body and leave it there. FYI, I carry with me a 2nd D500 and D810. The other lenses in my bag are 20-35 f/2 ART, 50-100mm f/1.8 ART, Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 and 300mm f/4PF. When I'm looking to make the most of a compression landscape, I use the 300mm PF on my D810.... I added all of this other info to emphasize the fact that I have quite a few options. 

To be clear... the 200-400mm on a D500 lens is my primary wildlife set up. I spend most of my effort getting close enough to my subjects so that I do not need to shoot at 400mm. My preference is to shoot in the range of 200mm and 360mm between f/4.5 and f/7.1. As I have stated... this lens is an imperfect solution, but it is the lens I have. I shoot a lot of winter wildlife in super-cold and wet weather, so a robust build is really important to me. Just for comparison's point... My wife has a 200-500VR and D500 that she uses (among other lenses). We have done all sorts of comparisons... real shooting, stuffed animals, and lens charts. In all cases and in varied distances, the 200-400VR is better than the 200-500 at 200mm, 300mm and even 400mm. 

Final point... I am not an apologist for the 200-400VR, and have been critical about it in this thread, past NatureScape threads and on FredMiranda's forum. I DO get frustrated by its inconsistency, especially at 400mm.  In fact, I have been looking for an alternative solution that I can afford for about 2 years now. I sold my first 200-400VR and replaced it with a 300mm f/2.8 AFSII (my 4th 300mm f/2.8 with purchases that began with manual focus versions way back in the early 1990's). Most recently the 300mm f/2.8AFSII outperformed my 200-400 until I put a converter on it (TC14II). At this point I had stop down to f/7.1 before I was happy with the quality. I found myself using the 300mm lens with a converter all of the time and getting frustrated when I needed a wider field of view. 

So here's the rub... what are the "affordable" alternatives for someone willing to spend up to $4400 (includes sale of existing lens) for an all purpose telephoto that will allow you to shoot wildlife and compression landscapes? In my mind there are very few options in Nikon's world... 200-400VR, 300mm f/2.8VRI/VRII + converter, Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8S + 1.4x, and 500mm f/4G. All have issues, pros and cons... 

Final point... while I would love to say that I'm ready to plunk down $12,500US on a 180-400, this would be a lie. I, like many others, are willing spend a decent amount to get a "one lens solution," but anything over $5000 is out of budget for me.

I would love to hear your thoughts and the thoughts of others as it relates to this point, as I know that you have been happy with the 150-600nSport and the 500mm Sport.... for me, I can't have both as I like to carry what I have wherever I go. I've been eyeing Sigma tele's because of my positive experiences with their ART lenses, but I have been nervous about the fine-tuning that might be required to get them to perform at their best.

cheers,
bruce
 

by owlseye on Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:31 am
User avatar
owlseye
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1212
Joined: 4 Jul 2009
Location: Stillwater, MN
mlgray12 wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote: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.
I agree with EJ - I used my 200-400mm lens (old version - never shot with newer version) while shooting hawks in flight with Alan Murphy - in end no way could this lens compete with 300mm f/2.8 even with TC - especially locking focus on fast flying hawks that were really close or especially when we tested our skills on swallows bussing the decoy owl when hawks were slow - I experimented with lots of lens - even the new 80-400mm seemed to be better ended up using the 400mm f/2.8 - really tests arm strength ( I am over 66) but still I managed - If money were no object probably would have gotten the 300 f/2.8 which Alan uses. I can see how with larger, slower and  further away birds like Swans the 200-440mm might have advantages. I have sold both my 200-400mm and the newest 80-400mm.
In some ways, you have made my point... This winter I photographed naturally hunting great gray owls with my 200-400mm lens. Most of the flight photos were shot between 200mm and 300mm because I was relatively close to the animals. The swans I photograph are in large numbers and fly into a pond where I can position myself to catch their flight towards me or across from my position. These flight patterns are somewhat predictable, so I have plenty of time to lock my AF. My former 300mm f/2.8AFSII would not track the swan flights w/ a 1.4x as well as my 200-400VR. While in Bosque two Decembers ago, I brought both lenses and the the 300mm f/2.8 + converter was a giant frustration due to its poor lowlight AF performance. In the end, I used my 200-400 when I needed the extra reach. As for the 80-400, been there and my two test versions chattered too much and were very poor at 400mm. 

As I stated in my response to EJ... I am looking for a solution, but I am not sure that there is a great "one lens" out there that is relatively affordable for people like me... an aging biology teacher with a decent but not overwhelming salary.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:01 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Nikon is way late with an "E" version of the 300/2.8 which should weigh in the neighborhood of 1.5lb less the the current "G" version while improving image quality, AF, and importantly, reliability due to eliminating the electro-mechanical aperture actuation and replacing it with the fully electronic one like the 400-600E lenses have.  Once that is out, I think the clear winner for BIF would be that lens with and without the 1.4x III.  I can't imagine the wait for that would be more than a year.  It's the only one in the bread and butter super tele primes that hasn't been updated yet.  Of course you can expect the price to go up to $8K.

In the meantime, the 200-500, as long as you can handle the slower AF, is probably the best option especially on a camera like the D500 which doesn't utilize the part of the image circle that the 200-500 is weak in.  Alternately, and even lighter, the 300PF with and without 1.4x...
 

by owlseye on Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:22 am
User avatar
owlseye
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1212
Joined: 4 Jul 2009
Location: Stillwater, MN
E.J. Peiker wrote:Nikon is way late with an "E" version of the 300/2.8...

In the meantime, the 200-500, as long as you can handle the slower AF, is probably the best option especially on a camera like the D500 which doesn't utilize the part of the image circle that the 200-500 is weak in.  Alternately, and even lighter, the 300PF with and without 1.4x...
E.J.,
I am surprised that you did not recommend the Sigma 150-600mm Sport as or the 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport (the one lens that continues to tempt me) because of their overall build and optical quality. Other than reaching 500mm, I do not find that the 200-500 is any better for distant subjects than my 200-400 during similar shooting situations.

bruce
 

by Anthony Medici on Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:37 am
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
owlseye wrote:Other than reaching 500mm, I do not find that the 200-500 is any better for distant subjects than my 200-400 during similar shooting situations.

bruce
I would take that statement to mean that you have one of the exceptional 200-400's. Or I would take that statement to mean that your 200-500 needs to be fine tuned better for distance. Either way, as long as your happy and it's working for you, everything's wonderful.

A point about the second possibility, I've occasionally found on all my long lenses that the fine tuning needed to be done at an extreme distance. I usually ended up using a dead tree trunk or the like with grass or brush around it. That way I could tune my lens in the field. If I could tell which direction to move the AF settings under those conditions, I ended up extremely happy with the results the lens/body were giving me. 
Tony
 

by Mike in O on Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:47 am
Mike in O
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2673
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
Another way I like to MFA in the field is to focus on chrome on a vehicle...the purple CA goes away when in focus.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:35 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
owlseye wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:Nikon is way late with an "E" version of the 300/2.8...

In the meantime, the 200-500, as long as you can handle the slower AF, is probably the best option especially on a camera like the D500 which doesn't utilize the part of the image circle that the 200-500 is weak in.  Alternately, and even lighter, the 300PF with and without 1.4x...
E.J.,
I am surprised that you did not recommend the Sigma 150-600mm Sport as or the 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport (the one lens that continues to tempt me) because of their overall build and optical quality. Other than reaching 500mm, I do not find that the 200-500 is any better for distant subjects than my 200-400 during similar shooting situations.

bruce
It's a bit big and heavy for most people for handholding flight also it is f/6.3 wide open which severely slows AF acquisition and tracking for complex flight.  No problem for predictable flyers but not for complex ones.
 

by owlseye on Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:49 pm
User avatar
owlseye
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1212
Joined: 4 Jul 2009
Location: Stillwater, MN
Anthony Medici wrote:
owlseye wrote:Other than reaching 500mm, I do not find that the 200-500 is any better for distant subjects than my 200-400 during similar shooting situations.

bruce
I would take that statement to mean that you have one of the exceptional 200-400's. Or I would take that statement to mean that your 200-500 needs to be fine tuned better for distance. Either way, as long as your happy and it's working for you, everything's wonderful.

A point about the second possibility, I've occasionally found on all my long lenses that the fine tuning needed to be done at an extreme distance. I usually ended up using a dead tree trunk or the like with grass or brush around it. That way I could tune my lens in the field. If I could tell which direction to move the AF settings under those conditions, I ended up extremely happy with the results the lens/body were giving me. 
My 200-500 has been tuned to one D500 (my wife's) and the 200-400 is tuned to one of my two D500 bodies. The 200-500 has the advantage of being well tuned at 200, 300, 400 and 500mm. It is very consistent throughout its range with just a tad of back focus at 500mm. As a result, we generally shoot at f/8 when going out to 500mm. In contrast, my 200-400mm lens is set to "0" MFA because it is exceptionally sharp at 200, 300, and 360mm. At 400mm, the lens back focuses. The back focus is worse on this lens than what I see at 500mm with the 200-500mm lens. When I stop down to f/8 and shoot the 200-400mm lens at 400mm, the lens is sharper than the 200-500VR at the equivalent focal length and aperture. Interestingly, when I use live view autofocus at 400mm and f/5.6, the 200-400VR is much better than the 200-500VR... as you can see, I have done a lot of comparisons between what I own. 

The big issue with the Nikon super tele zooms is that focal length and distance from subject influences autofocus capabilities. It is for this reason that I have been tempted by the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport w/ matching 1.4x. While they are a pain to fine tune, I think that this capability will resolve the issues that I tend to experience with my tele-zooms... 

Portability is a really important factor when I decide to go with a lens. I travel quite a bit and will hike up to 3 miles in hilly areas to shoot. If I can't get landscape and wildlife ready equipment in my F-Stop Tilopa then it will not meet my present needs. It is for this reason that I generally accept the limitations of a zoom and use a crop body rather than investing in a 500mm f/4 lens.

Finally,.. as for my own lenses, I can not say whether I have a good copy or bad copy... however, my first 200-500VR was misaligned and returned, and my first 200-400VR was very soft at 400mm.
 

by DChan on Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:49 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
owlseye wrote:[snip]
Finally,.. as for my own lenses, I can not say whether I have a good copy or bad copy... [/snip]
None of us owns or uses your copy of the 200-400. What matters is it works for you.

I happened to notice that some of the comments about that lens were made by folks who never owned or used a 200-400.
 

by Gary Irwin on Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:03 am
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
DChan wrote: I happened to notice that some of the comments about that lens were made by folks who never owned or used a 200-400.
??? I scanned this thread and it looked to me as though virtually everyone who commented on the 200-400, one way or another, has direct experience with it.
Gary Likes Nature.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
32 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group