VR 300mm f/2.8 vs VR 200-400mm f/4 comparison

Yes this is another which lens to get question. I did a search and did not find this addressed.

 

I am about ready to make the plunge and buy some big glass. I am looking for a lens to give me more reach than

my 70-200 for wildlife photography. I am primarily focused on mammals with only intermittent shooting of birds.

Currently I use a D-300. The two lenses that I am looking at are the VR 300mm f/2.8 (with occasional use of TC)

and the VR 200-400mm f/4. I will at times be packing this lens up mountains. I am confident that it will not be

a problem but of course size and weight are a consideration, but not the overall determining factor. Also note

that my budget does not allow me to go beyond the 200-400mm price. My current assessment is as follows.

 

200-400mm: - more flexibility with respect to focal lengths

- greater focal length

- border line too big to pack all day, probably not shootable from a kayak

 

300mm: - lighter and shorter (more packable (for the trail, easier to handle while on a kayak)

- better aperture at 300mm, equivalent at 400mm

- sharper at 300mm???

- less flexible to change between focal lengths with TCs

 

I see that Bjorn Rorslett has given the 200-400mm rave reviews. He also gave the 300mm good reviews also but

somewhat less enthusiastic. So now to my questions:

 

- Which lens is sharper?

- How does the 300mm with a 1.4 TC compare to the 200-400 at 400mm?

- Which performs better, 200-400 with 1.4 TC or 300mm with 1.7 TC?

- Can you get decent results with the 300mm and a 2x TC (I have read some personal reviews that suggested this)?

- Can I get away with a 1.7 TC on the 200-400?

 

This is a serious hobby but I am not made of money, so any advice from those who have used one or preferably both

would be much appreciated.

 

Thank you for your time.

I have no doubt that the 300VR is sharper at f/4 but by how much --- maybe, 5% or 10% max. The key advantage is the f/2.8 which will give the photog the boost to shoot at lower ISO when the light is dim.

 

The 200-400VR is used widely among the pros for wildlife due to its flexibility and good optics; probably, the best right now among the zooms of equivalent focal lengths. John Shaw uses it for his nature photography work and Alex B. for his mammalian work.

 

See here for Alex's work (take a look at his Alaskan bear work):

 

http://www.alexbernasconi.com

 

TC 1.4 and 1.7 should be fine. On the TC20, focusing becomes sluggish and you need to do manual focusing to get anything done.

http://www.hickingbotham.com/reviews/nikon300200400.htm

I suggest you take a look at this post by Thom Hogan in DPReview a couple of years back:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20713881

 

I have the first AF-S version of the 300mm/f2.8 and the 200-400. For pure sharpness, it is hard to compare a zoom to a fixed 300mm, even though it is one of the great zooms.

 

For serious wildlife photography, 400mm is not going to be long enough. A better combo would be the 300mm/f4 and 500mm/f4 AF-S. The new 500mm/f4 AF-S VR is going to be really expensive. If you don't mind buying used, you have plenty of options.

 

If your choice is restricted to the 300mm/f2.8 and 200-400, I would go with the 200-400 but forget about adding a TC onto it. TCs do not work well with zooms.

The answer to the question can best be answered by renting one, then the other, in situations typical to your planned use. I would suggest renting from <a href="http://www.borrowlenses.com">www.BorrowLenses.com</a>.

 

<br><br>

There is a difference between the 400mm f/4 and the 300mm f/2.8 max, but bigger difference is in size. While you can handhold 300mm f/2.8 for something like birds in flight, the 200-400mm lens is 3.6 inches longer and 1 lb heavier. For best results you might want to use a tripod anyway, but sometimes opportunities only last seconds.

 

<br><br>In my limited experience I used a 300mm f/4 for herons used to human presence in a city's preserve, then a park. I found it suitable when i was able to get within 20-30ft to Great Blue Herons, but generally i wanted a 500mm for egrets, stilts, and cormorants. I was using a D300. Then at the zoo, 30ft away from lions and tigers I found i couldn't fit the lion's head into a 500mm view from a 1.3X sensor of Canon 1D Mark III. 300 mm was nowhere near for the shy finches, and was quite slow to respond to the quick moving sparrows.

 

<br><br>Adding a 1.4X sometimes makes focusing a lot slower, i ended up avoiding it because of that, and then there is some image quality loss, sometimes negligable, but sometimes for a moving objects this can ruin the shot for the unskilled technique.

<br><br>

If you have a 200-400 f/4, chances are the weight will make you wish you had the lighter, shorter, hand-holdable 300mm f/2.8. And then while cropping in Photoshop your 300mm f/2.8 shots, you will wish you had a little more reach so you wouldn't have to make it a 30% crop. What are you shooting? Things change, in any case. 200-400 gives you more variety, and i sure was wishing for variety when i was taking pictures of the birds........ but normally (realistically) you can't get close enough to your subject, so you end up using the high end.

<br><br>

I used 500mm in a zoo, put a 1.4X on it, and still i wished for more (or wondered what using a 800mm f/5.6 would be like). The lens is not the end of the story, your $200 Bogen won't do, the small head-base (on which the head sits) is narrow, and doesn't reach high enouh... Gitzo is nice, expensive, around $700, then your Arca Swiss ballhead will kind-of do but it's a cheaper option, the $600 Wimberly Head is the real solution... but then someone has to carry all this around. My photos with 500mmm f/4 (Canon) and 300mm f/4 (Nikon) are here - <a href="http://www.robertbody.com/answers/new-photos/index.html">My New Photos/</a> (the little camera icon in upper right shows which lens was used and effective focal lens)

 

<br><br>The weight adds up. When I got Nikon F5 camera in 1998, I only kept it for 8 months because its size made it awkward and heavier-than-needed for my purposes of city and outdoors walking. I was happier with F100 for the following 7 years. Really the best advice to expose all the variables would be to rent either lens or one then the other. If 200-400 wouldn't be as long as a 500, if it was the size of a 300mm.... but then you wouldn't get the needed f/4. I enjoyed using the 500mm quite a bit, now i am renting a 300mm for those zoo shots where the 500 was too long, like for the friendly fast moving otters, or the orangutans which are better as a handheld shot, shooting down, 20ft away, or the fast moving squirrel monkeys who come closer than the 12 ft/13ft focusing distance of 500mm (both 200-400 and 300mm focus down to 6-7 ft).

<br><br>

Probably the variety of focal length of the 200-400mm f/4 looks good on paper, but in practice i think the 300mm f/2.8 would yield more success, you can handhold it. Then again...... 70-200mm is more manageable to hold, 300mm is too close... how about 400mm f/2.8? I think price and size wise it's too close to the 500mm f/4. At first i found the 500mm to be too much, wishing for a 300mm. Usually you can't get close enough to animals (small animals, like birds). Nikon's 500mm however is $8000 and hard to find (yet) so.... your choices become limited, that's why I chose to rent the $6000 Canon version (less to buy, less to rent).

I don't go more than 1/4 mile with my 400/2.8 but if you want superb images and can handle using it keh.com has a used "bargain" AF-S (no VR) for under $4000. Their "bargain' is very good, likely a scratched up body with perfect functions and glass.

The 500mm f/4 is not really an option for me at this time. It is not uncommon for me to hike between 10-20 miles with my camera equipment in mountainous terrain. I also on occasion am off trail which means scrambling straight up the sides of slopes. The 200-400mm in combination with a wide lens, tripod, etc and the typical gear that I need for a day in the mountains is pushing it. The smaller and lighter I can be the better. That is why I want to know if the 300 with a 1.4 TC is a compromise over the 200-400 or not. Is there anyone out there that has done this kind of review or has personal experience. I have read some reviews that think the 300 VR is good up to the 1.7 TC with some people saying that you can get away with a x2 TC. If this is the case it would make the 300 VR a longer lens.

 

My main subjects are mammals. I tend only to shoot birds as targets of opportunity and don't focus on them (no pun intended)

 

Your thoughts are appreciated.

I just had a conversation with a sales rep in Talls Camera who mentioned that Nikon is releasing a AF-S VR 80-400 refresh in the fall. I had a similar topic in another thread and at that time we were speculating when and if this will happen. I still need to corroborate this but it seems plausible since the 80-400 already has the VR on it. Maybe this will be a more economical lens for you since you want the higher range. I dont think it is on par with that one, but its also thousands less. My 2c. Peter

The 500mm/f4 is just a bit bigger and heaver than the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR.

I have gone hiking with both (individually, not together at the same time). If I use a long-lens backpack, the weight is not that bad, but I don't go as far as 10 to 20 miles. Of course it depends on your shape. I guess I am in decent shape but not excellent.

 

I have seen John Shaw used the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S with a TC-20E. It is one of the few lenses I would use the TC-20E on, and the TC-17E should be fine. (Essnetially it has to be a tele non-zoom and it must be f2.8 or faster.) But for long hikes, you may be better off with the 300mm/f4. That is why I mentioned the 300mm/f4 and 500mm/f4 combo.

 

If you shoot a lot of larger mammals, the 200-400mm/f4 could work out very well, esepcially on a DX body. I bought it for that and sports.

Thanks everyone for your inputs. I appreciate it. I will have to start posting some of my work here.