Denali National Park: Long Lens - A slightly different twist

[ShunCheung]

<p>Avishek, please keep in mind that Nikon expects to ship the new 200-500mm/f5.6 in mid September. The timing could be wrong for your trip.</p>

[avishek_aiyar]

<p>Hi Shun,<br>

Yes..I probably won't get the lens until late this year, but that's ok. I will probably either live with the 70-200+TC1.4 or get the 300mm f4 as an intermediate. <br>

I can't justify paying the money for the 80-400 for now. <br>

Avi</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Re TC on AFS 80-400: It's best not to have to use it, but I had used both the TC-14EII and TC-14EIII on it. The focussing was fast and the results were acceptable enough. Aperture was f/8, of course. Here's one.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>f/8 1/100s ISO 800</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mary, your EXIF data immediately jump up and remind me why I would rather not use this combo.</p>

<p>The lens is wide open. ISO is already at a moderately high 800. 1/100 sec will only be able to freeze action in very occasional situations. For most wildlife situations, I prefer to use at least 1/1000 sec. Maybe 1/500 at a pinch.</p>

<p>At least for me, success rate at 1/100 sec is going to be very low.</p>

<p>I should point out that Nikon is expecting to start shipping the 200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR around September 17. Unless you are near the front in a pre-order queue, I expect demand on this lens will likely be very high such that you'll need to wait a while for actual delivery.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Shun, as most know, it is "best" not to have to use a TC on any lens (especially not a 2x unless one must use it), and it is best to set the ISO as low as possible. :)</p>

<p>Hwvr, situations vary and one needs to do whatever to get a shot. Wildlife conditions are not always ideal. The opportunity for this shot came up unexpectedly. If had more time, I would have set the ISO to 1600 (or even 3200), then the speed would be higher. The D800 can handle ISO 1600 very well.</p>

<p>You are right that 1/100sec is way too low for action and it is advisable to set a much higher speed.</p>

<p>However, we are not discussing the finer points of photography. The main reason for my post is to say it is OK to use a TC on the 80-400 lens if the situation calls for it, as illustrated by this very acceptable image. It is not helpful to say never.</p>

[avishek_aiyar]

<p>And with the latest and greatest cameras like the D750, I hear that ISO 6400 is as good as the lower ISOs on "old school" cameras like my Nikon D300. So might be possible to get higher shutter speeds. <br>

But honestly, with the 200-500, Nikon is offering something that will replace a lot of lenses for an amateur enthusiast like me. <br>

I am prepared to wait till the end of the year and beyond for that lens and with that lens I see no need for the 80-400 anymore. <br>

That+maybe a 1.4 TC and the "in-built" 1.6x TC of my Nikon D300 and I have a superb range. The only thing probably missing from that package is a modern camera and that is where I have been waiting for the true D300 upgrade forever now. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Avishek, I think you are setting the expectation too high for the 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR. While there are some occasional exceptions, usually you get what you pay for. This lens is Nikon's response to those affordable 150-600mm/f6.3 lenses from Tamron and Sigma. Personally, I would try not to go as slow as f6.3 if possible. AF @ even f5.6 will be inconsistent under dim light.</p>

<p>The 3.5 lb 80-400 is very much hand holdable for birds in flight. The 200-500 is approaching the kind of weight from a 300mm/f2.8. Hand holding it for an extended period of time is going to be challenging.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>But honestly, with the 200-500, Nikon is offering something that will replace a lot of lenses for an amateur enthusiast like me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it is sharp @500mm, it will be a hit. If not, who knows.</p>

[stephen t]

<p>My vote would be option 3. I have the 300f4 and 600f4 and find that the TC1.4 is used often if I don't carry the 600. Keep in mind your shutter speed requirements for sharp images once you start reaching out.</p>

[avishek_aiyar]

<p>Shun: I just checked the weights. W/o the tripod collar, the 200-500 weights in at just over 2 kgs. The 80-400 is ~1.6 kgs....roughly 1/2 kg lighter...not sure if it is significantly heavier than the 80-400. </p>

 

[avishek_aiyar]

<p>Mary: I wouldn't be surprised if its NOT super sharp at 500 mm. If it is sharper than the Sigma 150-500, then in my mind its perfect for me. <br>

I have owned the Sigma and its sharpness @500 though not impressive, is definitely not bad. <br>

At that price point, we really can't expect more. <br>

I guess we will find out soon enough. </p>

[thadley]

<p>Looks like you are getting some fine advice. A system with stabilization is important. You may be wondering why we are talking about buses and walking in Denali. Well, the first 15 miles up to Savage river you can use your personal vehicle. After that, buses are mandatory but you can hop off and walk. After mile 15 the roads are gravel, quite elevated with no protective barriers and when two large 'school-type' buses going in opposite directions meet at a narrow corner , it can take your breath away and you won't be thinking about taking photos. My 70-300mm Nikkor VR on a DX300 (equiv to a 450mm) could barely pick-up a momma bear and her two cubs grazing in the distance and trying to get this through a fairly narrow window on the bus. </p>

<p>The road length through the park is 92 miles and i was somewhat uncomfortable hopping off and hoping to get a seat on the next one. They do make some scheduled stops allowing you to use a tripod but I did not see any animals on those stops so I focused on landscape type shots. Towards the end of the season (mid September) there is a lottery and if you win, you are allowed to take your personal car. </p>

<p>Here is a <a href="http://www.nps.gov/dena/planyourvisit/visiting-denali.htm">link for Denali Park that you might find useful</a></p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Concerning the new 200-500mm/f5.6, I think the right thing for me to do is to comment on its optics after hopefully I get to use it for a little while. At this point there is too much speculation.</p>

<p>As far as hand holding goes, the issues are weight and the distribution of weight. I have hand held the 300mm/f2.8 and 200-400mm/f4, as well as a 500mm/f4 in occasions. The 80-400mm AF-S VR uses 77mm filters. The other lenses all have much larger front elements, and they are longer. When you need to stick your left arm further out to support a heavy front element, you get tired more quickly.</p>

<p>In that sense the 80-400mm AF-S VR is almost ideal for birds in flight, under good light. However, for Denali, your focus maybe more towards large mammals.</p>