I am finally preparing for my retirement from business in May to pursue my lifelong dream of nature photography on a more regular basis. My wife has promised to buy me one really good lens for my retirement and I’m looking for recommendations.
I already own a Nikon D7000 camera and a 70-200mm, f2.8 lens with a TC20EIII teleconverter. I have become fascinated with bird photography and would like to do other wildlife if I can figure out how to find them.
With that I am considering the 300mm f/2.8 prime or the 200-400mm f/4 zoom. The difference in price is not enough to change my decision. I will probably be using the lens a lot with the TC which according to the Nikon web site works with no limitations on the 300 but with no autofocus on the zoom.
Your thoughts would be much appreciated.
Posted by Jeff Loomis on February 9, 2011 at 10:22 AM
I don't know if you'll choose the right lens, but it sounds like you chose the right wife.
Seriously, I'm sure you'll get some valuable input from others. I have the 300mm f/4 and use it with a 1.7x TC and this was a big upgrade for me. Having said that, birds still leave me wanting more length at times. The 300mm f.28 is supposed to be a fantastic lens, but you will definitely need the TC frequently. The 200-400 seems to be very popular too and is obviously a bit more flexible. I would suspect that autofucus would work with TCs as long as you are below f/8. If you are looking at the new VR II version, you are actually not that far from a 500mm f.4...
I've had both lenses. I finally sold the 300mm. The 200mm-400mm is one great lens.
Posted by Luke Ormand on February 9, 2011 at 12:19 PM
Richard Ditch uses a 300 f/2.8 + 2X and his gallery speaks for itself.
The 200-400 should work fine w/a 1.4X TC which Charlie VT and Mia have used with great success - Nikon says it's not compatable because it's not guarenteed to work and they don't want to be held responsible if you have some focus problems, but I've never heard of it not working and I (like Jeff Loomis) use a 300 f4 + 1.7X TC
Posted by Douglas Graham on February 9, 2011 at 12:57 PM
You answered your own question, "fascinated with bird photography" get the 200-400mm. The 300mm has some applcation for birds but the 200-400 is much better and treat yourself to the new D4.
Posted by Richard Ditch on February 9, 2011 at 2:42 PM
I have been living happily with the 300/2.8 AF-S and TC20E since 1998 - they stay connected for almost all my bird photography. This is the non VR version of the 300/2.8, and the first version of the 2x. I used this on my film bodies (N90s), my first digital (D70), and now my D200. I also have the TC14E bought at the same time and occasionally have a bird so close that I can swap it in for the 2X.
Used properly image quality is fine and I've had a number of shots taken with this set up published.
Advantages IMO are:
- size and weight are ok that I can hike around with it for hours mounted on a Gitzo CF tripod
- AF works
- close focus without needing to use an extension tube (and note that Nikon does not make an AF tube anyway)
With a VR version and the third generation 2x I'd be even more happy.
The flexibility of the 200-400 is very appealing, and I'd probably survive with it used with the 1.4x. But with avian subjects there's not a lot of need for less focal length. If I had the money I'd probably have the 500/4 and use it with the 1.4x, but then I'd have to deal with the close focus issue.
See my NPN gallery, and portfolio, and my web site, and my blog for as many examples as you care to view.
Posted by conrad Rowe on February 9, 2011 at 6:48 PM
I have photographer wildlife for almost 30 years and my choice would be the 200-400. If your wife can afford it, the 600 is better for bird photography. Just my 2 cents. Enjoy, Conrad
Posted by Glenn Starr on February 9, 2011 at 6:55 PM
Walt,
For my 2 cents worth, which may be over stating its value since I'm not a bird photographer, many of my friends are at one close one owns the 200-400 and he does love it on his D300. However, he is now looking hard at the 600mm f4 just because he needs the reach, and one must consider that most birds in Florida are the size of small mammals. Another point is that, although the 200-400 is a great and convenient zoom, it is not TC friendly and from all I have read, including Brad Hill's input, the 1.4x is as far as you should go. Also, a 2x on an f4 lens takes you to F8 which is the limit of what a pro Nikon body can focus at and may be pushing the D7000 beyond its performance limits. The 300 2.8 with a 2x takes you to 600mm, not accounting for the 1.5 dx multiplier. Probably not helping your decision process much since there really is no clear answer except what your shooting style is and the expectations for the finished product. The last consideration is that no matter how you get to 600mm hand holding and sharp pictures will likely be mutually exclusive. You'll need a really good tripod and head to get you there . Sorry if I further muddled the decision making process.
Wow! Such great input everyone! This gives me a lot to think about. I think perhaps the best thing for me to do is to rent each lens for a while and try it out. I think that is the only way to decide on all these great decision parameters. I now at lease feel armed to go out and test them and know what kinds of things to look for. Thank you all for your great input.
Posted by Ryan Marshik on February 9, 2011 at 11:17 PM
If your passion is birds I think you'll be disappointed with both the 300 and 2-400. Assuming you intent to buy either of these new, you could likely find a 500 or 600 AFS II lens for similar money. The 600 often sells for around $6500 and the 500 for around $5500. No they are not VR lenses, but I've been using a 600 non VR for years, and with a solid tripod, gimbal head, and good technique, you will make some amazing images. The benefits of VR are real to be sure, but in looking at my images, certainly not worth the $4000 upgrade. If I made my living with a 600, I might feel differently.
Good luck and congratulations on you retirement.
Posted by Ryan Marshik on February 9, 2011 at 11:39 PM
If your passion is birds I think you'll be disappointed with both the 300 and 2-400. Assuming you intent to buy either of these new, you could likely find a 500 or 600 AFS II lens for similar money. The 600 often sells for around $6500 and the 500 for around $5500. No they are not VR lenses, but I've been using a 600 non VR for years, and with a solid tripod, gimbal head, and good technique, you will make some amazing images. The benefits of VR are real to be sure, but in looking at my images, certainly not worth the $4000 upgrade. If I made my living with a 600, I might feel differently.
Good luck and congratulations on you retirement.
Posted by Gary Gulash on February 20, 2011 at 7:15 PM
I'll make it brief, get the 500VR.
Posted by Dan Roberts on March 23, 2011 at 8:36 AM
In spite of Nikon's compatibility statements, both the 1.4x and 1.7x TC work fine on my 200-400. With the 1.7 and low light it does struggle with AF. I have the 200-400 because I shoot anything living that comes within range and stays there long enough for me to get it in focus. Plus I shoot a lot from a boat and often can't control the distance between myself and the subject. Every time I shoot bird photography in a reasonably controlled setting such as over a feeder or at a viewing area of a wildlife refuge, I wish I had a fixed focal length lens. Then again every time I pursue my true passion which is shooting birds in flight, I congatulate myself on the wisdom of getting the zoom.
So it all depends on how you plan to use the lens.
Some secondary considerations, you'll get more excersize with the fixed focal length lens as you move around trying to get the right distance for that full frame shot
I have the 300 2.8 and use the 1.4 TC on a full frame camera. It's a fabulously sharp lens, good in low light as well. But today I took delivery of a 200-400. For me in the Florida Everglades a 300 w tc is often too short, but it is also too long at times. We have a lot of close quarters in Big Cypress and so the 2-4 zoom and 1.4 TC will do nicely.
I also have a D7000, but shooting a D3s allows me to crop and still have sharp subjects, and low light capability.
As has been mentioned, it all depends on the area in which you'll work.
Discussion
13 repliesI already own a Nikon D7000 camera and a 70-200mm, f2.8 lens with a TC20EIII teleconverter. I have become fascinated with bird photography and would like to do other wildlife if I can figure out how to find them.
With that I am considering the 300mm f/2.8 prime or the 200-400mm f/4 zoom. The difference in price is not enough to change my decision. I will probably be using the lens a lot with the TC which according to the Nikon web site works with no limitations on the 300 but with no autofocus on the zoom.
Your thoughts would be much appreciated.
Seriously, I'm sure you'll get some valuable input from others. I have the 300mm f/4 and use it with a 1.7x TC and this was a big upgrade for me. Having said that, birds still leave me wanting more length at times. The 300mm f.28 is supposed to be a fantastic lens, but you will definitely need the TC frequently. The 200-400 seems to be very popular too and is obviously a bit more flexible. I would suspect that autofucus would work with TCs as long as you are below f/8. If you are looking at the new VR II version, you are actually not that far from a 500mm f.4...
The 200-400 should work fine w/a 1.4X TC which Charlie VT and Mia have used with great success - Nikon says it's not compatable because it's not guarenteed to work and they don't want to be held responsible if you have some focus problems, but I've never heard of it not working and I (like Jeff Loomis) use a 300 f4 + 1.7X TC
Used properly image quality is fine and I've had a number of shots taken with this set up published.
Advantages IMO are:
- size and weight are ok that I can hike around with it for hours mounted on a Gitzo CF tripod
- AF works
- close focus without needing to use an extension tube (and note that Nikon does not make an AF tube anyway)
With a VR version and the third generation 2x I'd be even more happy.
The flexibility of the 200-400 is very appealing, and I'd probably survive with it used with the 1.4x. But with avian subjects there's not a lot of need for less focal length. If I had the money I'd probably have the 500/4 and use it with the 1.4x, but then I'd have to deal with the close focus issue.
See my NPN gallery, and portfolio, and my web site, and my blog for as many examples as you care to view.
For my 2 cents worth, which may be over stating its value since I'm not a bird photographer, many of my friends are at one close one owns the 200-400 and he does love it on his D300. However, he is now looking hard at the 600mm f4 just because he needs the reach, and one must consider that most birds in Florida are the size of small mammals. Another point is that, although the 200-400 is a great and convenient zoom, it is not TC friendly and from all I have read, including Brad Hill's input, the 1.4x is as far as you should go. Also, a 2x on an f4 lens takes you to F8 which is the limit of what a pro Nikon body can focus at and may be pushing the D7000 beyond its performance limits. The 300 2.8 with a 2x takes you to 600mm, not accounting for the 1.5 dx multiplier. Probably not helping your decision process much since there really is no clear answer except what your shooting style is and the expectations for the finished product. The last consideration is that no matter how you get to 600mm hand holding and sharp pictures will likely be mutually exclusive. You'll need a really good tripod and head to get you there . Sorry if I further muddled the decision making process.
Glenn
Good luck and congratulations on you retirement.
Good luck and congratulations on you retirement.
So it all depends on how you plan to use the lens.
Some secondary considerations, you'll get more excersize with the fixed focal length lens as you move around trying to get the right distance for that full frame shot
I also have a D7000, but shooting a D3s allows me to crop and still have sharp subjects, and low light capability.
As has been mentioned, it all depends on the area in which you'll work.