A good friend is coming to Yellowstone with me this June for a photo workshop with Dale Franz. She wants to get a longer lens, and would like opinions on these, of which she can buy ONE. she knows my thoughts, but would like various opinions comparing them for all-purpose use for animals :
(She has shorter lenses for landscapes, and a D200)
- Nikon 500 mm (not the VR)
- nikon 200-400 VR
- nikon 300 F 2.8 VR
- TC's as needed
Thanks in advance for those to take the time to respond and share their thoughts and opinions - much appreciated from both of us!
Sandy r
I shoot Canon, but I believe the focal length suggestions will be the same. The 200-400 is certainly a versatile lens and will be used for a lot of animals relatively close to the road or overlook. However, there are a lot of times when long lenses like a 500, or even a 500 with TCs will be needed. My first trip to YS I had a Canon 100-400 and did OK. My next trip I had the 500 with TC and used it a lot.
If I had to choose one I would go with the 200-400 for the versitility to capture the closer subjects and crop for those further away.
I second both Ed and Charlie's recommendations. I just switched to the 200-400 zoom, and it's great - for closer animals, I get the shot while I watch the longer lenses trying to pull back. But, when I add a 1.4x to the lens, it looks pretty darn good, too, so I catch up to some of the longer lenses that way when I need to.
The problem may be in finding a 200-400 as they seem to be pretty scarce in the U.S.
I have a D200. I'm extremely happy with it. If I feel the need for better and more complicated, I trot out my old warhorse F100, shoot film and scan.
I would choose the 300 VR (if I had the $$!!) with a 1.4 TC, or even a 2.0 TC. It won't give you the reach of the other two, but it costs less and has better bokeh. With a 2.0 TC and the D200 APS sensor, you would have (or can talk yourself into thinking so) an effective 900 mm reach. And it will shoot better in poorer lighting conditions, most importantly. More animals are seen at dawn and dusk than at any other time—notoriously bad times for autofocus and underexposure, both noisy sins in digital images.
Hi, Philip - thaks for your tthoughs! Yes, this will be my third workshop with Dale. I still hope to do the Stallions and Sage Grouse one too.
VERY talented guy!
Sandy r
It's a little slower at F5.6, and bigger/heavier, than the 200-400, but you might want to consider the Sigma 300-800. It will be sharper at 800 than any of the others with a TC, has decent autofocus, sharp enough to be used with a TC for up to 1600mm manually focused, and has some serious advocates. You will need to consider upgrading the support system, since anything less than a Gitzo 1548 or a new 5530 or 5540 series and a Wimberly Gimbal (or if you are light on cash, a Manfrotto 393) would be inadequate.
There is a bird photographer in the Philipines on another forum that gets breathtaking images with this setup, enough to convince me I don't HAVE to by Nikon gear, especially when they don't have anything close to this in versatility while producing reasonable image quality. If you do a google search on this lens (Sigma 300-800 or Sigmonster) you will find many happy campers and few detractors.
Beware of reviews that claim that the lens is soft at the long end - nine times out of ten image softness is due to vibration-induced blurring, not optical quality.
A downside to the Sigma is that Nikkor glass will almost always have higher resale value.
One more consideration is that you might want to rent some of these so that you can make an informed decision. With the prices of these things hovering around the price of a decent used car, it makes sense to spend a couple of hundred dollars to be certain that you are getting the right solution.
Posted by Paul Inglis on March 20, 2008 at 12:30 PM
200-400mm f/4 VR!
I have shot with this lens exclusively for a year now and often have a 1.7x TC attached to it and it still auto focus's. The sheer quality of this lens is amazing. (with the 1.4x TC attached it is flawless!)
I've had a 300mmm f/2.8 - beautiful lens but very heavy for if focal length. Superb quality though.
I've shot with a 500mm f/4 and now switching to the 500mm f/4 VR - This is also a superb lens but sometimes 500mm can be too much, if you catch my drift.
So if I was to choose one - it'll be the all-rounder! I love the zoom capabilities aposed to the fixed focal length!
200-400mm f/4 VR!
Superb all round lens in my honest opinion! My only choice when shooting mammals!
PS - It also the lightest of the three!
EDIT: The 200-400mm f/4 VR + 1.7x TC = 650mm before you even add the D200 crop factor to the equation!
I ordered a 200-400 f4 VR in late January and just got it a week and a half ago. I'm impressed with it. I've used on both a D3 and D300 and the way it can reach out when on the D300 is interesting.
Discussion
10 replies(She has shorter lenses for landscapes, and a D200)
- Nikon 500 mm (not the VR)
- nikon 200-400 VR
- nikon 300 F 2.8 VR
- TC's as needed
Thanks in advance for those to take the time to respond and share their thoughts and opinions - much appreciated from both of us!
Sandy r
If I had to choose one I would go with the 200-400 for the versitility to capture the closer subjects and crop for those further away.
The problem may be in finding a 200-400 as they seem to be pretty scarce in the U.S.
Nancy
I would choose the 300 VR (if I had the $$!!) with a 1.4 TC, or even a 2.0 TC. It won't give you the reach of the other two, but it costs less and has better bokeh. With a 2.0 TC and the D200 APS sensor, you would have (or can talk yourself into thinking so) an effective 900 mm reach. And it will shoot better in poorer lighting conditions, most importantly. More animals are seen at dawn and dusk than at any other time—notoriously bad times for autofocus and underexposure, both noisy sins in digital images.
Is this the Pigeon River Dale Franz?
VERY talented guy!
Sandy r
There is a bird photographer in the Philipines on another forum that gets breathtaking images with this setup, enough to convince me I don't HAVE to by Nikon gear, especially when they don't have anything close to this in versatility while producing reasonable image quality. If you do a google search on this lens (Sigma 300-800 or Sigmonster) you will find many happy campers and few detractors.
Beware of reviews that claim that the lens is soft at the long end - nine times out of ten image softness is due to vibration-induced blurring, not optical quality.
A downside to the Sigma is that Nikkor glass will almost always have higher resale value.
One more consideration is that you might want to rent some of these so that you can make an informed decision. With the prices of these things hovering around the price of a decent used car, it makes sense to spend a couple of hundred dollars to be certain that you are getting the right solution.
I have shot with this lens exclusively for a year now and often have a 1.7x TC attached to it and it still auto focus's. The sheer quality of this lens is amazing. (with the 1.4x TC attached it is flawless!)
I've had a 300mmm f/2.8 - beautiful lens but very heavy for if focal length. Superb quality though.
I've shot with a 500mm f/4 and now switching to the 500mm f/4 VR - This is also a superb lens but sometimes 500mm can be too much, if you catch my drift.
So if I was to choose one - it'll be the all-rounder! I love the zoom capabilities aposed to the fixed focal length!
200-400mm f/4 VR!
Superb all round lens in my honest opinion! My only choice when shooting mammals!
PS - It also the lightest of the three!
EDIT: The 200-400mm f/4 VR + 1.7x TC = 650mm before you even add the D200 crop factor to the equation!
Sandy R