Long Zoom Choices

[d_syd]

<p>I know these "Which Lens?" posts get tiresome, but I'm really hoping to get some of your valuable opinions here.</p>

<p>My shooting interests are diverse, and I have not yet become specialized or preoccupied with any one type of photography. I mostly shoot outdoors, nature, animals, birds, some sports (like the occasional rodeo, again mostly outdoors stuff). The only indoors stuff I would do with a long lens is maybe a kid's Christmas concert or something like that.</p>

<p>I have the range covered from wide angle to 200mm on my D300. But I find that 200mm just isn't long enough at times. I can't afford the long, fast top-line Nikkor lenses, and most of them are like carrying around a bazooka anyways. So at some point I'm realizing I will have to compromise on one aspect or another- speed, range/length, stabilization, or AF speed. My current candidates are the Sigma 100-300/4 which I've read very good things about, and the Nikkor 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR. The Sigma will probably cost less but is only a bit faster and only 300mm (50% longer). The Nikkor has the range and VR I like, but is slow in max aperture and AF.</p>

<p>The Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR is a gorgeous lens, and would be a welcome replacement for my cheap-o 55-200 VR. But getting that with a teleconverter to get some extra reach puts me quite a bit over my price range (In Canada that combo would be about $2500+/-, I needing to keep it well under $2K)</p>

<p>Any feedback? Especially if you've used either or both of these lense, or even just general observations?</p>

<p>P.S. I live in a rural area so it's not all that easy for me to just run out to a local camera shop and try them out. And even if I do drive into the nearest city the stores there will not likely have one (or either) in stock.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>I have a D300 and when I want to go "long" use a manual focus Tokina 80-200mm f2.8 with an old Kiron 2x four element extender. I think I have maybe $200 total in the setup but it produces decent images--not as good probably as the thousand-dollar plus Nikkors not bad. With the 2.8 Tokina it doesn't hurt so much when you attach an extender that takes away two stops.</p>

[d_syd]

<p>Thanks for that Wayne. I am not familiar with that lens but have heard mostly good things about Tokina, and 2.8 is pleanty fast enough.I'll have to look into that option as well.</p>

<p>I should add that I want my next lens to be a step up from the entry level/consumer grade/kit lens class that I already have. I have learned that glass is where you want to invest and to always push yourself to get the best you can possibly afford. So those who might suggest the Nikkor 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR, for example, while it's rates respectably I'm going to plead lens-snob-wannabe there and say I'd like something a little closer to pro grade. Though I'm sorely aware that true pro grade on long Nikkor zooms is out of my budget (such as the 200 - 400 VR).</p>

<p>Anyone out there using a Kenko Pro 2X TC on a Nikkor AF 80-200/2.8 ED?</p>

[nick_davis]

<p>I sometimes use the nikon tc-201 on my 80-200mm f/2.8D when I don't have my 300mm f/4 AF-S with me. Metering and focus are manual but the quality is acceptable. </p>

[stanleys]

<p>I would lean towards the 80-400mm Nikon. I don't have one, but have used it several times and been pleased with the results (I have no un-real AF expectations, and was was very happy with the VR, colour and contrast). I own the 70-200VR and 1.7x TC, and they are good, but not as good as the 80-400mm IMO.</p>

[d_syd]

<p>Stanley- wow, that's somewhat surprising to me. So I guess it's the TC that is "levelling the playing field" in this regard, right? It's just that everyone seems to rave about the 70-200, and I didn't really think that the 80-400 was quite in the same league optically (I mean more in terms of sharpness, colour, and contrast. I'm pretty sure the 80-400 can't produce the bokeh that the 70-200 is capable of).</p>

<p>So if that's the case my Kenko Pro 2X with a pro caliber 80-200/2.8 way not be the best way to get to 400mm. Rats, I was starting to like that option. I would have everything my heart desires except the VR. But the speed, at least when shooting 80-200 without the TC, would probably balance out the lack of VR. As I understand it with a 2X TC my max aperture would effectively go from 2.8 to 5.6, so I would need plenty of light or a tripod...</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 300/4 AF-S is a great lens with a reasonable price; I use mine a lot and it has never disappointed me in any way. (I use the Burzynski tripod collar which I can highly recommend - in the US it may be easier to get a RRS or Kirk collar. The original Nikon collar is too flexible and makes the lens very sensitive to mirror vibrations and wind, so include the price of a new collar into the lens if you do a lot of tripod based work at intermediate speeds (1s to 1/100s).</p>

<p>I don't recommend using a TC on the 70-200.</p>

[d_syd]

<p>Thanks Ilkka. Yes, I see the 300mm/4 can be had well in my price range and have heard great things about it. I've just lately experienced the revelation of accepting that I'm a lazy photographer and that constantly changing lenses and repositioning myself for shots is not my bag when very good zooms are available. After a recent trip to Europe where I shot a fair amount with primes, during the post processing I strongly felt I should be dubbed Sir Crop-alot, and I'm not too happy about it.</p>

[bsd230]

<p>I think both are very good choices. I like the 100-300 Sigma and have heard really good things about its IQ. THe 80-400 would probably be a better buy since it gives you quite a bit more range. If you are primarily shooting outdoors it should be fast enough for most situations. The VR will certainly help you shoot at some slower shutter speeds. The VR in the 80-400 is even better than the VR in your current lens I believe. Another choice would be the 70-200 Sigma and you could add a TC, but it doesn't have VR. The 80-400 would be a tough one to beat for all around.</p>

[stanleys]

<p>I'm the 70-200mm's biggest fan, it rules. If I wanted to go longer regularily, I would buy the 80-400mm.</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>The 300 f/4 Nikkor is a fine lens and will take a 1.4X TC for that little extra reach.</p>

[truman_le_sueur]

<p>Hummmm... You want cheap, lightweight, more than 300mm, and a terrific image quality. If you can live with manual focus consider the 400mm f/5.6 non-IF ED Nikkor. Very hand-holdable, $400 or $500 used, and image quality rated extemely high. Only problem is it's extemely rare - available only 4 or 5 times a year on the big auction site. I do have one but you couldn't pry it from my cold dead hands ;) </p>

[d_syd]

<p>Thanks Truman, and that's another interesting option. But I didn't really say "cheap", or at least I don't consider anything up to $2000 to be cheap. I just was trying to say the serious pro caliber Nikkor longer lenses with fast apertures are out of my range, and in this I mean the $5K and up lenses. I'm enjoying the feedback, and so far it seems the 80-400 VR is the forerunner.</p>

[john_newell2]

<p>Not a zoom, but I've had wonderful results with the 300mm f/4 AF-S with the TC-14. Sharp and contrasty both ways and tolerably fast while staying reasonably compact and manageable. They're what I grab when I need something longer than the 80-200mm AF-S zoom.</p>

[rayyeager]

<p>Hi D. Just be aware that the Nikon 80-400mm is quite slow focusing. Birds and sports will be a challenge. I know, I know, many people have gotten great results with this lens. But it requires good technique. I replaced it after one day with the Nikon 300mm F4 and the 1.4 extender. For me, it was just too slow for capturing birds. My Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 also works great with the extender.</p>

[mlg28]

<p>I just bought a used Nikon 300 mm f/4 AF (not AF-S) for $550. It was optically, mechanically, and aesthetically flawless. I use it for the purposes you describe. Yes, it's not that big an increment over 200 mm, but for shooting kids' soccer games that 50% increase makes a huge difference.<br>

It's not <em>that</em> heavy or big. It doesn't hurt much more than my Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8 (also bought used, $450.) And while I really can't use it for an indoor school play with my D200, the extra stop of high-ISO performance of your D300 may make it possible for you.</p>

[AndyMiller]

<p>Hi there, on your D300, the 200 mm is effectively a 300 mm. I have recently switched from DX to FX - D300, 200 and 2x replaced by D3 and D700. I have the 70-300VR, 80-400 and 300 f4 all of which I used on my DX bodies. If I were you I would have a serious look at the 80-400 - effectively 120-600 with DX crop. Indoors I would use 800 or 1600 ISO on a D300 as that ( high ISO) is one of the D300's strengths.</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>D Syd, finding a quality longer zoom that doesn't break the bank seems to be a common issue with us Nikon owners. I bought the 80-400 VR last year to use with my D300 and I have discussed it in detail here...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Sgyg">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Sgyg</a><br>

Everything that you have read about the slow AF, compared to an AF-S lens, is true. And, it is truly not a low light lens. But, I have been able to take wildlife action shots and sports shots in good light, handheld, by learning how to use it. It's optical quality is very good. I believe that it is optically superior to anything available from a third party for similar money.</p>

[d_syd]

<p>Wow, a lot of votes for the 300/4 here. So I guess the big question is just how slow is the 80-400 AF, and will it really be that bad for my shooting style. Because the 80-400 at 300mm is probably 5.6 max aperture, but with VR able to get back up to 2 stops (Nikon I think claims 3) I'd have to say it's pretty much a wash on light/speed between the two. </p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>D, just as a point of illustration, this is a shot that I took last fall with the 80-400 on my D300 at my daughter's high school powder puff football game. This was at f6.3, 1/1600 sec, iso 400, 240 mm, handheld, VR on, single focus point on the ball carrier.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>constantly changing lenses and repositioning myself for shots is not my bag when very good zooms are available.</em></p>

<p>I don't think any one of us is in the changing lenses for fun business. Nonetheless if you want good results, you have to do what you have to do.</p>

<p><em>Because the 80-400 at 300mm is probably 5.6 max aperture, but with VR able to get back up to 2 stops (Nikon I think claims 3) I'd have to say it's pretty much a wash on light/speed between the two.</em></p>

<p>This is not a correct analysis of the problems that typically arise in your applications. Subject movement is typically the problem, and VR won't help one bit with that. It'll only help stabilize the camera but there are other means of achieving that (tripod, monopod, good hand-holding technique etc.). The difficulty is how to get high enough shutter speeds to stop movement while using the lens at an aperture where it renders a good image. The 300/4 AF-S delivers consistently very good results at f/4. With any of the variable aperture zooms, you'd probably have to stop down 1-2 stops and still not quite get an image as clear as with the 300/4. And when you shoot at f/8-f/11 you'll typically see subject movement turn into blur. With a non-AF-S lens there will be more missed shots in sports type scenarios though it has to be said the D300's Multi-CAM 3500 makes them focus better than they do with many older or lower-tier bodies. The variable aperture zooms are just not the right ticket for shooting potentially moving subjects at 300mm. If you want to try your luck, by all means, but many of us have been there, tried them, and now use fast glass because the other option just doesn't work. An indoor Christmas concert would be totally out of the league of the variable aperture zooms; in fact the 300/4 is also probably too slow for that unless you get a D700 or equivalent.</p>

<p>The question was common when photo.net was created - and the correct answer hasn't changed much from the days when Bob Atkins first wrote online articles on the topic. Photo magazines have the habit of suggesting ridiculously slow long zooms for these applications and they do a great disservice to their readers.</p>

[d_syd]

<p>Illkka- Nice point and I don't know why I didn't think of that. So as the story unfolds, I got so many responses recommending the 300/4 and I stumbled across what I thought was the perfect opportunity- a mint 300/4 for US$699 asking price. But now here's the twist:</p>

<p>When I looked a bit closer it turned out to be the older non AF-S version. But it includes a rear loaded Nikon CPL and a front Tiffen UV filter. So since the older version seems to be as good optically as the current version, but the AF is slower, which levels out the playing field somewhat compared to the 80-400 VR...now what's the verdict?</p>

<p>I may have to post that specific question in a new thread in hopes of getting Shun to chime in on this, since from other threads I've seen he's not the 80-400's biggest fan.... at least compared to the current 300/4.</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>D, it is a tough choice. Do you think that the zoom is important to you? If you are looking for a high optical quality longer lens, you'll be pleased with the 300 f4, but most of the feedback that I have read concerns the AF-S version. There are advocates for both choices here on PN. It was another PN member who convinced me to buy the 80-400 last year. He waited a year to buy it because of negative comments here on PN. He is very pleased with the lens. Thom Hogan's review was helpful for me and realistic. It has limitations, which I have tried to honestly point out in my comments, but you can achieve some very nice results if you learn to work with it.</p>

[john_newell2]

<p>Thom Hogan has a nice pair of reviews of both the current 300 f/4 AF-S and its immediate predecessor. He felt the focusing speed wasn't much different. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 300/4 AF is a fine lens optically and mechanically but its autofocus is slow, loud, and it fidgets when tracking a moving subject. In practice I only used it as a manual focus lens as I found the AF not satisfactory (at the time I had an F90X). The current AF-S 300/4 (which I now use) autofocuses slower than the 200/2, for example, but it's quiet, has full-time manual focus (so you can just turn the ring any time to adjust focus) and the accuracy of tracking moving subjects is good. Perhaps the current bodies can drive the 300/4 AF better than my old F90X.</p>