Nikon lens advice

I don't post much but lurk often. I am a state wildlife biologist, and am looking for the perefect lens for wildlife photography.

I'm shooting a Nikon D300 now, and have saved for some quality glass. I aspire to be a full time photographer/writer after retirement... 10 or so years from now.

I have a Sigma 80-400 OS, and it's a good lens for the money. However, I shoot a lot of low light images: deer and elk, so that I really have an envy for more reach and a faster lens.

I am considering buying a used 400mm 2.8 prime and a 1.4x tc. Is there a reputable place to purchase a used lens of this quality?

Also, I'm thinking manual focus is fine as I feel I can get eye sharpness much more consistantly that way. You that have a 400 mm AF lens, do you always use AF and are satisfied?

Any suggestions greatly appreciated!

Joe, have you considered the excellent Nikon 200-400 f4 VR? Tack sharp, fast focusing, very versatile. Also takes a 1.4 very well.

For me, manual focus is out for most wildlife/avian situations. Too many things I do require focusing faster than that. I'll add that today's autofocus systems are tremendously sophisticated, and with proper technique I'm much more confident in the autofocus performance, even on static/unmoving subjects, than I am with manual focus.

We DO love our prime lenses, and I'd be the last to dissuade you from picking up a used 400 f2.8, but one thing that's lost is flexibility. There are plenty of wildlife situations where zooming out on an instant's notice for a compelling environmental image is the real money shot, and with those big primes it's just not an option.

If you do go with the prime, are you thinking in terms of a second body? Keeping the Siggie and the prime/TC on separate bodies would give you the best of both worlds. Well, there is the additional cost factor.

That's how it looks from my perspective. Good luck with the search and decision!

I'll back up Steve's comments from a different (and older) perspective. I've got an old manual 500 f/4 I bought new before AF was a gleam in anyone's eye. It worked fine when my eyes were younger, but along with retirement came aging eyes. It's still fine for static subjects, but next to useless if I have to hurry or if the subject is moving. Just too darned many missed shots. If you bought the manual 400 f/2.8 it might be just fine for now, but I'd be planning to replace it as you age. And take it from me- free dollars are a whole lot harder to accumulate once you retire.

I've had the pleasure of shooting a 200-400, and it was surprisingly bright in comparison to my 500 f/4. In fact it seemed entirely as bright as my 300 f/2.8 (also older manual). Selling both my 300 and my 500 won't generate enough buxx to pick up the 200-400, so I'm saving. I just don't shoot enough wildlife or sell enough stock to feel the expense is justified from the moneymaking potential. But for me the flexibility of a zoom for framing is critical for top quality wildlife images. Great comps always sell better than fang and hair detail from longer lenses.

Great comments, keep them coming. I feel the 2.8 will be more of an asset than VR, I have the 80-400 5.6 Sigma, which I use at 400mm most of the time. The VR while great for static subjects offers little to me for low light subjects that my be walking.

It seems to me that AF causes more missed shots when the subject is in cover, sure in wide open areas it's great. I was just thinking I could get the same lens in mf cheaper...
Hank makes a valid point, I agree "I ain't as good as I once was"... I'd certainly want the lens to be valuable to me 25 years from now... But then I might think all my shots were winners then!

Joe,

I'd also recommend the 200-400mm VR with a 1.4 TC. I have the lens & TC and love it. The images are crisp, lens is fast. I haven't been able to shoot much lately and I am itching to get out and use it some more.

I also have the 80-400mm VR and really like it too and will be keeping the lens because it is lighter for when I just want to walk around and not carry the tripod.

You'd love the 200-400mm.

I don't use manual focus, I use autofocus 99.9% of the time.

Joe,

a few points: VR will still help you when subject may be moving. You could use VR in active mode which is designed for movements. It will also detect if you are panning and compensate for it.

As for not needing AF, with the lens in M/A mode, it allows to switch to manual focusing extremely quickly for that final focus adjustment.

As you may have guessed, another vote for the 200-400. That's the one I'm saving for

cheers,

André

Another vote for the 200-400mm. As for MF in cover, the AF-S Nikons have full time manual override of the AF. It is handy in cover to AF and then touch it up manually before you click.

I too would lean toward the 200-400mm f4. With camera bodies shooting at higher and higher ISO, the f4 will become less and less of an issue. The lens is also more compact and lighter to carry, a big plus. It is a big wad of money though.


Kent in SD

Another vote for the 200-400 VR. I've also got the 500mm VR and 600mm Af-s II and there are many days where I still prefer the 200-400mm because of it's weight and increased mobility. Being able to cover more ground usually results in seeing more wildlife. The 200-400mm VR with a monopod is a great setup for travel and fits easily into a carryon or backpack. The AF is fast and accurate, and the VR works well. It will be pretty much impossible to consistently get the kind of results that you see on NPN with a manual focus lens.

Thanks, so far the 200-400 is the most popular. Anyone have the 400mm 2.8?

IS the 200-400 a straight f4, or does it go to 5.6 at 400mm?

I was really thinking of more reach making the 400 nearly 600 with a 1.4 tc and still have f4 or 5.6.

The 200-400 is a straight 4 and you can use the TC with it no problem...i have a 1.4 practically glued to mine. I echo the previous posts thoughts on versatility, mobility and focusing. It is a great lens that I think would quickly become your favorite for wildlife.

You could probably at least try a Nikon TC-17E on it for a little more reach. The autofocus will slow and probably not work at all in lower light, but it will multiply by 1.7 rather than 1.4. I use one on my 70-200mm f2.8 VR and like it. I think the VR on the 200-400mm is a big advantage over the 400mm f2.8 also. It would allow you to take a very fast shot by simply bracing against a tree or fence post, rather than trying to set up a tripod etc.


Kent in SD

I have the 200-400VR, a wonderful wildlife lens for all the reasons mentioned. I would consider a 300 2.8VR with teleconverters as well over a 400 non VR. I wouldn't go non autofocus, those days are gone imho. Consider that the full frame FX format may be the future of Nikon when selecting focal length, although this is by no means clear.

Hi Joe,

I'll put another strong vote for the 200-400 VR. Probably the most versatile wildlife lens I have ever owned. Zooms simply aren't supposed to be this good!

My experience with putting a TC on the 200-400 differs from that of others. In short, the image quality loss (and degradation of auto-focus performance, both in speed and accuracy) doesn't work for me - I won't use the 200-400 with a TC anymore (I wish I could...but it simply doesn't work for me). In fact, I've never owned a single zoom that does well enough with TC's to please me.

BUT, even without a TC, if you combine the 200-400 with a DX body like the D300, you still have the equivalent of a 600 mm anyway...

If you're interested, feel free to go to the lens section on my website for a lot more information on the 200-400 (as well as several other lens choices). There's also a section on teleconverters. Go here:

http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear.html

(you'll have to scroll down to the lens section - sorry).

Cheers...

Brad

Thanks Brad, I appreciate the advice. Thanks everyone! I can't believe I haven't heard anyone say they own the 400 2.8 and.... Sounds like teh 200-400 is a very impressive lens...

Sorry to not mention the 400mm, Joe. I used to own the 400mm f/2.8 AF-I and later the AF-S version 1. They are awesome lenses and I loved using them. Scary sharp even with TC's. I now have the 500mm AF-S that I use for birds and I used to use it for mammals before I got the 200-400mm. The 200-400mm gives up almost nothing in sharpness and the ability to zoom puts it over the top for mammals. Unlike birds, where you almost never have too much reach, you can over reach on mammals quite often. I keep a 1.4x TC on my 200-400mm almost all the time and it is just about perfect for wildlife other than birds, although it can serve well for birds as long as the distances can be controlled.

Thanks Mike! I've almost made a decision to go with the 200-400, it sounds like it's great for BIF as well.

Joe, I'm a Canon guy, have been since 1980, but if there's a piece of glass that could change my mind it'd be the 200-400. I have several clients who shoot it, and it's the cat's meow for all the reasons already mentioned. It's not often you can find a supertele zoom that's as sharp as most primes. Sharp supertele + zoom versatility = no-brainer.

Thanks Canon guy!!! I appreciate the comment Steve!

a few points: VR will still help you when subject may be moving. You could use VR in active mode which is designed for movements. It will also detect if you are panning and compensate for it.

Sorry, but that's not right. Well, at least not for the lenses I'm using. Active VR mode is made for shooting from moving "support" - meaning from moving boats, cars, or anything that generates vibrations, and it disables panning detection. And in any case, VR can not stop a moving subject. All it can do is (with appropriate settings) help you in panning, but that won't freeze moving legs, heads or the like.

Basil

Thanks everyone.. Basil, I was aware that VR could not help with moving subjects, only a fast shutter speed can. Thanks for the heads up though!

I went ahead and ordered the 200-400 f4 VR..... Since no one conviced me to get the 2.8

Good luck with the purchase, Joe. It's not often someone asks for gear advice and gets a unanimous response from so many people.

It's such a substantial investment to me, I thought I should ask the experts! Thanks everyone.... I hope.......

The 200-400 is a great lens and is quite easy to carry around. It can perform well with TC's but obviously not as well as the lens on it's own. If you visit my blog, on the left hand side there is a 200-400 VR section. Click on that and you can read some of my thoughts on the lens and some examples (with %100 crops) of how I have found it to perform with the 1.4 and 1.7x TC's.