looong lens for F100/D70

[ken davis]

Greetings all,

 

I'm getting ready to drop some coin on a long lens for bird,

wildlife, and some surf photography. I've been contemplating this

for a long time, have rented some of the equipment I'm considering,

and I've gotten the wife to buy in on it, somewhat. This is the

beginning of a life long dream.

 

So, I'm now going to you, the greatest minds on the topic, for your

input.

 

First, there's a local merchant that has a beautiful 800 f/5.6 lens

that is just awesome. The price is very reasonable, at least for

what I can tell, at <$3K US. It's a bit long, but it's an awesome

lens. Everthing else from 500 and up seems to be the same price or

higher. I know that the 500 f/4 P lens gives me some metering

capability with the D70, I'm quite comfortable with a spot meter so

I'm not sure if it's a trade off giving up millimeters.

 

Second, I'm not independently wealthy, so I'm a bit out of the

running for something like the 200-400 AF-S lens or some of the new

glass. I'd like to do something for around $2,500 tops.

 

So, I'm asking...should I just go for the 800 because it appears to

be a great deal (I think this lens was used twice...no marks

anywhere) or go shorter? Looking for any input on field use,

sharpness, value, etc. Thanks for the help!

 

Ken

[dan_brown4]

FWIW...

 

I had the same desire as you. I started with a 300/4AF-S, got a Kirk plate for it and a Kirk

clamp on a bogen media ball head. So far, it's very nice with my D100 (450mm EFL).

Next, I'll get the TC14E, (630mm EFL). Of course, once you get into it, more FL always

seems better.

[dan_brown4]

If you get the 800/5.6, you'll be shooting 1200mm EFL, which will require a very, very

solid tripod and head, not to mention superlative technique. If you're new to this, I'd

suggest starting with something shorter, maybe 400-500mm.

[ilkka_nissila]

You must realize that a hand-held spot meter will have a very large metering area if you compare it with the view of a 800 mm lens. If you have a bird taking up 10% of the picture area, then your meter is no good. I would just get a lens which has the electronics built in, like the 300/4 AF-S (with RRS, Kirk, or Burzynski collar; don't use the original that comes with the lens), or the 500mm f/4 P or both. And maybe add the TC-14E. You can start now with the 300/4 and TC, and add the 500 mm later. I can't imagine that you would really want to use a 800 mm f/5.6 on the D70.

[frank uhlig]

I am afraid you will use that 800mm, eh 1200mm lens a few times and want to sell it cheap.

 

Don't be sucked under by a humongous lens. Start with a 300mm, 1.5 crop factor, 1.4 TC, all right and enjoy!

 

Have you ever used 24x binoculars? (If anyone makes such) This is your magnification at 1200mm! 300mm = 6x, 300 + 1.5 crop factor = 8x, + TC = 12x.

 

Is that not long enough? Spend the rest of your money on a big tripod and head, another $1,000 by themselves ... And if you really enjoy that length, maybe a 500mm f4 lens someday ...

[ShunCheung]

An 800mm is an extremely long lens for the D70. As I mentioned in another thread, even my 500mm/f4 AF-S is getting to be too long sometimes. A couple of months ago I was photographing some elks which are rather large mammals and my 500mm was simply too long, and I was stuck. That was a problem that never happned before with film SLRs. Moreover, manually focusing an 800mm on the D70 may be challenging.

 

Long lenses are hard to control because of the weight and narrow angle of view. Frankly, it may be difficult to locate your subject when you have such a long lens on a D70. As other people suggested, start with a 300mm/f4 AF-S at about $1000 or so and add a TC-14E II if necessary. AF on the F100 should be excellent but on the D70 may be a bit slow. Go longer once you decide that 300mm is not sufficient.

[Matthew Currie]

I'm not quite sure about the statement "some metering capability" with the 500 f/4 P. As far as I know it has all the electronics needed for matrix metering and programmed exposure on newer cameras. It certainly works that way on an F100.

[joseph_smith3]

I own the 500mm f 4.0 P lens and love it. I use it on my F100 and n90s. I tried it out on a D70 at my camera store last week in that I am thinking of getting a D70. Metering worked perfectly, matrix, spot and center weighted. (If you are going to attach a teleconverter, you might lose some or all forms of metering depending on the tc you buy.) My only reservation is focusing it with the D70 viewfinder. Some of us have no problems, some of us have real problems with focusing any long manual focus lens on the D70 with a viewfinder that in my opinion is poorly designed for long mf lenses. You have to try it out and decide for yourself. You have to have good eyes to do very critical focusing that is required in nature photography. As others have said, the lens will not be your only expense. To use the lens effectively, I use it with a Gitzo 1325 carbon fiber tripod, a gimbal type head, like a Wimberley sidekick or full wimberley or a Kirk King Cobra. At a minimum, you will need a top ball head like a Kirk BH-1 or the new ball head from Really Right Stuff. I would advise you not to buy the 800mm lens for use with the D70. You should be able to get a used 500mm f 4.0 P for about $2200-2500. Joe Smith

[greg s]

Would go with 1 of these two (I have both and use both, often)...

 

* 300mm f/4 + 1.4x TC : advantage = cost and weight. Even though you would probably want to get a longer lens later, you would also probably keep this. At 3 lbs it is very portable, no small consideration. It's a really fun lens to use based on weight and sharpness, takes great pics on a DSLR.

 

* 500mm f/4 AF-I or AF-S : I mention the AF-I (what I have) because it can be found used in your price range. This is what I bought used for $3,050 US. I love it and use it when I won't be moving around a lot, but when I need to be extra mobile I often opt for the 300 + TC

 

I can carry the 300 + tripod for miles with basically no limit. The 500 + tripod I carry about 1/2 mile or so before I put the camera/lens in a pack (needs to be unloaded when I see a subject). Anyway, these are the logistics I work with and I think it's fairly similar for others. That 800mm must weigh a lot... has its uses in some situations, but not particularly versatile. Good luck! -Greg-

[loreneidahl]

A somewhat contrary opinion here.

 

(setting aside metering issues- somebody once told me here on this board that its digital so you dont need to meter - just take another exposure - :) some of the same posters here I think. )

 

 

I have no experience shooting birds. Wildlife, Surfing and watersports yes.

 

For water related activities a longggg lens is desired. 300 is too short as is 500. Ideal range for water sports (surfing, sailboats, etc) is around 1000- 1500mm

 

Somebody made the comment that you would need a sturdy tripod for the 800. VERY True. However -- they seemed to forgot to mention that you need a sturdy tripod for the 500 or even the 300. So thats a mute point.

 

 

A 300 mm lens on the D70 for surfing will not get you inside the curl. (unless your talking tsumani type waves)

 

The money shots for surfing are made with the big lenses.

 

Wildlife - Dont even talk to me about shooting a bear with a 300mm lens or even a bull moose. Need at least a 500mm.

 

 

Again tripods are needed/required whatever size lens. They are also required for some types wildlife shots especially in low light. Dont know about birding as I have no working knowledge.

 

Having rented lenses you probably know what you like and what works well for you from a usability standpoint.

 

My experience has been that the 800/5.6 in the field will be better than a 300/f4 or a 500 /f4 with a 1.4 attached for watersports shots.

 

My concern is that you will get the 300 or the 500 and wish to be longer. Sure adding a TC will help (like suggested ) however the same people that sugested a TC will probably tell also you the the image quality degrades and DOF and OOF is affected and a lower shutter speed/wide apature are needed for equivalent exposures.

 

Lower shutter speeds and watersports should not be used in the same sentence. :)

 

Try the 800 on 24 hour trial. Maybe rent to own. Take it down to the lake or river and photograph the activity. Shoot some seagulls and maybe a sailboat. You'll probably buy the 800.

 

 

Now back to the regually scheduled programming -> Film vs digital and why the d70 is better than the 20d. :)

[ShunCheung]

Sorry Loren, I find your post highly misleading. You certainly need a good tripod for a 500mm/f4, and I use a Gitzo 1325 which is great. With something as big as a 800mm/f5.6, you'll need a 14xx or even 15xx tripod. For a 300mm/f4, only a small tripod is necessary if at all. I have had a lot of success using a 300mm/f4 on a monopod.

 

A 1.4x TC works fine with a 500mm/f4 and gives you a 700mm/f5.6. The big difference is that there are various AF-I and AF-S versions of the 500mm/f4. The 800mm/f5.6 is MF only. AF would make a huge difference if one shoots sports such as surfing, especially considering the difficulty for critical focusing on the D70.

[rick_helmke]

Well, the D70 is NOT better than the 20D....oh wait a minute...I've regularly shot with lenses up to 600mm and can tell you that a 300mm for most nature work is not enough. Birds are too small and how close do you really want to get to a bear, a tiger or some other cranky critter? As for watersports or any other sports, again, 300 is short for football or baseball and near useless on the water. I'd start at 500mm and frankly I think the 800 is going to serve you much better. Heavy? Of course and a good tripod ought to be bought the same day but for reaching out and grabbing a subject and doing it with a nice shallow DOF, the 800 is the answer.

 

Rick H.

[alex_lofquist]

While it isn't AF, it will still allow you to use the green focus indication arrows at the top of your viewfinder. That can be almost as fast as AF with a little practice. It is an exceptionally sharp lens, even with the TC14B converter. (I was even using this lens to view the moons of Jupiter and its bands, a week ago. But that is a different story.)

[greg s]

I will add one other note (based on your use of a D70, I believe). If you have a DSLR I would skip MF and go for AF. I recently sold my much beloved chipped Nikon 600mm f/5.6 (an absolute gem of a lens) solely on the basis of it's being MF. It was fine with a faull frame film body, but once I went the DSLR route I found that I was spending too much time adjusting focus (smaller viewfinder) and even then had some disappointements here and there with some OOF shots. Had a lot of keepers, but missed a few nice opportunities. Since buying the 500mm AF-I the focus has been on the money (even with 1.4x TC) and I can concentrate on metering and composition. I kept the 600mm for awhile, then realized there was no turning back. Sold.

 

All FWIW, there is no absolute right way, just experiences and opinions. With all due respect to the manual focus users... :)

[ilkka_nissila]

The renting idea is good. I feel that you will be really frustrated trying to get sharp pics using the D70 and a manual focus 800 mm lens. I wouldn't attempt it.

 

If you are really set on getting a 800 mm or similar lens, you should consider a D2H body to go with it. That viewfinder will make all the difference in the world in terms of getting your pics sharp. Plus you get metering (matrix, spot, cw). It's probably somewhere to be had at $2000.

 

Another thing is that if you have a 800, you also need a 500 and a 300 and probably a 70-200 to get a useful coverage for many things. An isolated supertele is difficult to use.

[dan_brown14]

I second what Greg S said about the MF v. AF issue with a D70. I sold a 300/2.8 MF

Tokina to finance my 300/4AF. I'm really glad I did because my percentage of in-focus

shot went up manifold, so di dmy shooting enjoyment. MF'ing on a D70, even a relatively

fast lens like an f2.8, is a pain in the best of conditions.

[lex_jenkins]

The potential problem with l-o-n-g telephotos is that atmospheric conditions can interfere with getting good photos. Haze from pollution or humidity or heat waves can make lenses over 300mm practically useless.

 

If you move in close enough to minimize the image degradation from atmospheric conditions, the super long lenses may make for uncomfortably tight compositions - that's assuming they'll even focus close enough to photograph your subject, another important consideration.

 

While I don't dispute Loren's points regarding shooting surfing, etc., where it simply may not be possible to get closer, there are times when it just makes better sense to use a shorter lens and get closer.

 

As for photography of dangerous creatures, there's always some degree of risk. It's not much different from photojournalism in that respect. I'd feel more comfortable photographing grizzlies with a 300mm than I would being a photojournalist in Iraq right now.

 

And there's always the option of guided tours from the safety of tundra buggies and Land Rovers. Even an M1A2 Abrams wouldn't make me feel secure enough in Baghdad.

[vivek iyer]

The 800mm lens could double as a defensive weapon. If you get a chance to see the 800mm f/8 and 1200mm lenses from Nikon, you should. Real loooong barrels.

 

Lex, I hear that the animals from the Baghdad zoo escaped along with quite a few priceless artifacts from the nearby museum. Maynot be worth the visit for wildlife photography.

[james_purdy]

I recently purchased a Sekonic 1 degree spot meter and compared it with the spot metering in the D70 body. The 1 degree meter coverage seems to correspond to the D70 in spot meter mode with a 200 mm lens.

 

I have attempted to photograph bald eagles nesting in central Texas with the D70 and a 300mm f/4 AFS with the TC20E converter. The lens has a Kirk mount on a Hakuba CF tripod with a solid ball head. This setup provides the equivalent of 900mm on 35mm film. Even with spot metering and manual adjustment, the exposure of the spot metering ended up as averaging mostly cloudy sky and little eagle and tree. I am glad that I realized what was happening and overexposed the images by a couple of f/stops. The final results were still softer than expected due to the lack of cable release on the D70. I find that I will have to work on my "long lens technique".

 

Jim

[aaron l]

I have to disagree with Loren's post. Your style of shooting for water sports and wildlife will dictate your use of lens. If you want to truly get inside the curl, you're probably going to be in the water, a completely different situation. From the shore to get that close, I agree you're going to need the biggest gun you can buy. For my shooting, I prefer 500mm film/ 320mm D70 for showing the surfer's line, wave & style. A 400mm with 1.4x on D70 will give you a surfer's portrait, as show by John Eckert in San Diego. I've successfuly shot surfers with a Canon (gasp) AE-1 + 500mm f8 reflex lens (50% sharp, go from there) on an okay pod. It depends on what you're after. For boats & such, get on a slow boat and get closer. Shoot with a 100mm rather than a 500mm if you can haggle it.

 

As far as wildlife, I've shot black bear foraging, elk wandering, moose chilling by the rivir and such with an N80+80-400mm with velvia pushed +2. It sounds idiotic, which in retrospect it was, but it worked! Having the D70 woulda made that photo even easier. If I wanted the face of the bear, the steam coming off the nose of an elk...the longest possible is the only choice. For the moose, I had to back up with my 500mm/film because I was too close for the shot I wanted.

 

All this being said, at the time I would have loved to have an F5 + 300/2.8 or 500/4 for some even better shots. Did I have the $12k for that setup? Heck no. And carrying that stuff? No way. I never would have carried those lenses to get my bear photos up a 4,000m peak for a day hike and never would have had a shot. If you're going to be shooting from the car, have spectacular cash, then buy a monster. If you want to carry it, add the equivalent weight to a pack, haul it around with your pod and then when you're tired and shaky, get the shot. If you can do that, you'll never be happy with anything less.

 

Oh...birds. No lens is big enough to get you close enough to tiny birds. They shrink when viewed through a camera. It's a peculiar law of physics. The only way to defeat it is to have a blind where the bird can't see you, thus defeating that law of physics for a corellary time consuming law.

 

Good luck!

[ken davis]

Thanks again, folks for all your replies. I'm sorry for my late response but I've been out of

commission the last few weeks...long story.

First, to clarify some things. I purchased the F100 ater the D70 for a couple of reasons,

one of them being to use for wildlife (birds) photography. Some day maybe a D2x will find

its way into my bag, but this is what I have for now. I like the D70 for snapshots, some

serious work, etc. but the viewfinder is challenging. The F100 is my bread and butter

camera at the moment and would be the companion to the long lens in the beginning.

 

The reason for the post was to get some advice on long lenses (looking into the 300f/4

now as well) but to also find out if $2,800 for this beast was a good purchase. It seems

like a bargain to me.

 

I do appreciate all the advice on support systems as well. I'm shopping heads and pods

now. The Wimberly Gimbal looks pretty cool, we'll see.

 

Going to Wyoming/Montana/Colorado in July, hoping to get some shots with what ever

system I come up with and the surfers can wait for now. I'll come back to the forum once I

get the setup. Thanks again!

 

Ken