Would a better lens give me sharper results?

[hbs]

<p>I’m looking for advice on what would be the best lens for me for wildlife photography, particularly birds. Image sharpness is my main concern. My camera is a D300, and although I realize I should use a tripod, most of my shooting will be pretty spontaneous, therefore handheld, so VR is of high interest. If shooting with a high quality shorter focal length lens (e.g., 200 mm) and cropping/enlarging gives a sharper image than shooting with a lesser quality 400 mm lens, I would definitely go this route. I’m also willing to shoot at high ISO and remove noise later if necessary using NeatImage in Photoshop. I doubt that much of my printing will be any larger than 8x10. My maximum budget is about $2K, but naturally if I can get away with less that would be great.<br /> <br /> An example of a shot using my Sigma 120-400 f/3.5-5.6 OS HSM is attached (400 mm, 1/3000 sec, ISO 800, f/8, handheld, OS on, 100% crop). This is taken directly from the raw (NEF) image selecting a 700 pixel region with no processing. It’s not nearly as sharp as I’d like; I assume this is due to the lens and not the simple lack of any post-processing sharpening.<br /> <br /> <br /> The lens I’m thinking of is the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR – either alone (and cropping/enlarging to “simulate” a 400 mm focal length) or with a 1.7 or 2X teleconverter. My basic question is whether this lens (either alone or with TC’s) would give me substantially better sharpness than what I have? If not, what other options do I have within my budget?<br /> <br /> <br /> Thanks.<br /> <br /> Harvey</p><div></div>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Harvey,</p>

<p>VR is a useful aid for when shutter speeds fall below typically the region of approx. 1/100th and slower. For the types of exposure you have posted here any lens with VR is not going to assist you any more than a non VR lens.</p>

<p>From your 100% crop I'd have to say that chances are it's your handheld technique that is dulling the sharpness of the image. If the bird here is anywhere near the centre of the frame (ie. not framed close to the extreme edges of the frame where IQ might suffer) then a shutter speed of 1/3000th combined with a steady hand should be plenty enough to render a crisper shot. The use of a mono-pod or better still a tri-pod is going to be just about mandatory for gaining acceptable results at focal lengths of 400mm on the DX format. From my own experience, I can happily use my 300mm f/4 on a D700 handheld but the same lens on the D300 as a handheld proposition was not workable given my own technique limitations.</p>

<p>Aside from technique you my want to consider the Nikkor AF-D 80-200 - why pay for VR if you primarily don't need it? (ps. unbiased comment as I do own the 70-200mm VR lens) I have not tried your Sigma 100-400mm lens, however, any IQ sharpness improvement between say.... the 70-200 VR Nikkor and your Sigma is not going to be detectable unless you keep the lenses steadier than the posted crop above. I'd try the 80-200mm Nikkor and crop down and keep the change over the 70-200mm VR lens.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Let's start with the best option within your budget - 300/4 AF-S with 1.4x extender - it doesn't have VR though. I don't have the 70-200/2.8 but if you do a search here on PN, you'll find plenty of info on its performance with a TC - opinions vary and whether or not you are satisfied with the performance depends on your standards. I don't know how close you can get to the birds that you are shooting, but 200 is generally way too short - the above image is a prime example that 400 isn't sufficient to fill the frame (the entire bird fills at most about 1000 x 1000 pixels - that's 1MP) - with 200mm the entire bird wouldn't cover more than about 500 x 500 pixels. You will likely find that you still will be cropping even when you shoot a 400mm or longer - starting at 200 thus isn't really an option. High ISO will often be necessary anyway - and don't expect miracles from noise reduction - it always comes at the price of softening the details too.</p>

<p> </p>

[mart_e]

<p>I just got myself the Nikon 105mm Micro/VR - and have been testing it with a new D90 this week.<br>

One thing I have noticed is that shots with VR below 1/100 definitely gain sharpness, but trying some comparisons with opening up aperture to retake the same shot to get me back to 1/100 has produced slightly sharper images.<br>

I'm not sure whether VR therefore results in slightly softer images (although sharper than may have been possible at same settings)<br>

Probably partly my own bad techinique (this is my first VR lens) - but VR is not a panacea for sharper images - I think it comes down to technique more than anything else.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Personally, I regard 1/640s as the slowest shutter speed I would hand hold my 300/4 AF-S with TC-17EII attached - usually I try to have at least 1/1000 or even 1/1200s. Whenever I need slower speeds than, I switch to the 80-400 VR. Most birds move around just enough that shutter speeds below 1/250s lead to motion blur anyway.<br>

Mart, give the VR a little time to settle...</p>

[joemikel1]

<p>I use a nikkor 80-400 VR on a D300. I'm very happy with that combo. I have never used it on monopod or tripod, as I can handheld it all the time, it's not expensive and the IQ is really nice. </p>

[hawkman]

<p>Harvey,<br /> The crop you posted is not sharp at all for a perched bird. <br /> The best lens Nikon offers currently for in flight and landing shots for under $2K is a 300 f/4 AF-S+ 1.4X TC. It is good for amature/hobby bird photography but it is <strong>not</strong> for professional work. <br /> Here is a near 100% crop with D700.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/birds/DSC_0938.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="666" /></p>

[hawkman]

<p>Sorry the full size attachment is here,(crop resized from 1200 pixels to 1000 pixels)</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>If you are going to be printing 8x10 then it would be better to make 8x10 test prints and see if they are sharp enough. Often an image may not look great when viewing 100% crops but regular print sizes look just fine.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I wonder about the softness in the image, particularly as I've been considering that lens. As Mathew asked, is the section taken from the center or the corners?</p>

<p>For bird photography, a lens that stops at 200mm is not a good idea, even if you're planning to use a TC. The current Nikon 80-200mm is a particularly bad idea if you sometimes shoot birds in flight -- it lacks AF-S, so that autofocus is relatively slow. (I have that lens -- I don't use it for birds.) On the other hand, I've heard only good things about the 300mm AF-S with a 1.4X TC. Also, note that the Nikkor 80-400mm VR, which some of the responders above have praised, doesn't have AF-S, so that there are users who don't find it necessary.</p>

<p>I use a modest Nikkor 70-300mm VR AF-S, which yields sharper results than you showed with the Sigma. Since a TC is not recommended for this Nikkor, the focal length is very short. The main virtue is light weight, which is helpful in waiting at the ready for a shot. The attached image is a 100% crop from the center.</p><div></div>

[hbs]

<p>Here's the full NEF image reduced to 700 pixels wide using bicubic sharper in PS CS3. My subject is pretty close to center.</p><div></div>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Harvey,</p>

<p>Clearly the cropped bird is in the lens' sweet spot and thus lens sharpness should be close to it's peak at this point. A handheld shot pointing a physically long'ish 400mm lens upwards like this on a DX format body is going to be problematic at best and nearly impossible to gain consistant results in between the occasional decent results. I'd say there is no editing sharpening technique / proceedure that is going to bring you the results you want from images like the one above.<br>

Like everything in life, photography is just another set of compromises. You can either shoot handheld with a shorter (200mm lens - 300mm at a stretch) and crop your subject matter out of a frame or you can use a support and a longer lens like your current Sigma lens to gain similar sharpness to your results. Alternatively you can improve your hand held technique with longer focal lengths and keep your interest pricked in shooting your birds whilst being free of the tie down that supports represent. </p>

[hbs]

<p>I really hadn't considered the 300 mm f/4 AF-S with (or without) a TC. If I get the IQ I want at a price I can afford, then I guess I'd be willing to give up VR and zoom is not that critical. I assume more of you have this combination on a D300 -- do you have any other advice or maybe some more examples (with settings)?<br>

Thanks.</p>

[2Oceans]

<p>Harvey, I agree with Hector and before you spend another dime on a new lens I would reassess and make sure you have good long lens technique. Remember with the dx format you’re shooting with a 600mm equivalent lens and VR, IS, OS or what ever acronym is used for a particular lens system does not ensure sharpness. Additionally the noise and or pixilation I see creeping into the sky in your cropped image obliterates any resolution that you might expect to see from the subject. This is not due to the resolving ability or lack there of from your lens. In the other two images there is little to none of this in the out of focus regions. The Sigma 120-400 is a fine lens. I am pining badly for a Nikon 200-400mm f4 VR but I have been looking very carefully at your Sigma lens and have a colleague who owns one in a Canon mount. Aside from my basic prejudiced toward Nikon lenses and Nikon build quality the Sigma seem to be very good. The 80-200 and 70-200 are completely different lenses than the zoom teles that go to 400 or 500mm. Beyond 200mm the Nikon 300 f4 and 500 f4 long lenses will often resolve better but they are something to drag around together whereas your Sigma can easily be schlepped around and with good technique might meet your needs out to 400mm. Finally, I seriously doubt that cropping an image shot at 200mm to a 400mm angle of view will get you where you want to be. Good hunting. Andy</p>

[slopoki]

<p>Harvey,<br>

You need to get in closer to your subject to fill the frame as much as possible.<br>

For shorter lenses I use my van as a blind and shoot through the window. It doesen't bother the birds as much as standing in the open.<br>

Any lens will work if you can get close enought to fill the frame. I use the 70-200/2.8 with and without TC's for close work but if I had the 300/4 I would prefere that. I realize that most shooting situations will not allow you to get that close using these shorter lenses and the only solution to that is a longer lens.<br>

Here's one taking with the 70-200 @ 12ft away out my van window.<br>

<img src="http://slopoki1.smugmug.com/photos/604630334_tjfT2-XL-1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

This one using a 75-150 w 14x @ 14ft<img src="http://slopoki1.smugmug.com/photos/584832775_btgZp-L.jpg" alt="" /><br>

70-200 w 17x @ 16ft<br>

<img src="http://slopoki1.smugmug.com/photos/468507319_RDkYY-L.jpg" alt="" /><br>

70-200 w 17x @ 12ft<br>

<img src="http://slopoki1.smugmug.com/photos/468515457_pegX3-L.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Shooting info can be seen here <a href="http://www.slopoki1.smugmug.com/gallery/2743415_2LxRf#609351772_RqP7K">http://www.slopoki1.smugmug.com/gallery/2743415_2LxRf#609351772_RqP7K</a><br>

mouse over the picture a click the info button on the right.<br>

Good luck.<br>

<a href="http://slopoki1.smugmug.com/Nature">http://slopoki1.smugmug.com/Nature</a></p>

[hbs]

<p>Andy, the original shot was made at 1/3000 sec with OS (VR) on so I expected the effects of any lens motion to be minimal. Overall, I'd classify my lens holding as pretty good - I don't shake or have any tremor (even at 65). The pixelization you refer to in the original photo is just noise - this shot is 100% (saved as a 700 x 700 image) - I didn't do any processing or noise reduction so as not to confuse issues.<br>

I guess things boil down to one question -- if I had had the 300mm f/4 with TC and tripod mounted it, would I have gotten much sharpness improvement using the same settings (f stop, ISO ,and shutter sped)? At 1/3000, could I even have cheated (and handheld) and still gotten better results?</p>

[tpernal]

<p>Here's a shot I took last year with my D200 (have a D300 now) and my 300 f4 + 1.4 AF-S TC. ISO 400 f7.1 1/1600. I have been considering selling the 300 and buyin the 70-200 2.8 VR and adding a 2.0 TC. I figured that the enhanced speed of the 70-200 + the VR advantage would really pay off with a 2.0 TC. After reading some of the previous posts, I am rethinking this option. Any input on keeping the 300 and just adding a 20.TC would be greatly appreciated.</p><div></div>

[peter_kervarec]

<p>Harvey, Did you focus on the bird or the tree branch? as the moss on the front of the branch looks sharper on my monitor than the bird ? Could be that the bird is on the outer zone of DOF. I dont think the DOF at 400mm F8 would be more than a few inches. Just trying to eliminate another possible issue.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Andy, the original shot was made at 1/3000 sec with OS (VR) on so I expected the effects of any lens motion to be minimal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, that is a totally wrong assumption. Harvey's first image is actually an extreme crop from roughly 1/30 of the original image area. That means your 400mm lens is the equivalent of a 2240mm lens due to the crop; on top of that is the 1.5 crop factor.</p>

<p>If image sharpness is indeed your main concern, these will be important factors:</p>

<ol>

<li>Always use a sturdy tripod. If that means you'll miss some shots, so be it. Proper camera/lens support is the #1 factor for sharp images with long lenses.</li>

<li>If you shoot small birds, get a camera brand 500mm/f4 or 600mm/f4 lens. Yes, some of those are very expensive, but the manual-focus Nikon 500mm/f4 P is quite reasonable in the use market.</li>

<li>Do not put a TC onto a zoom such as the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR (I have a lot of respect for Thom Hogan, but he is wrong about this issue). Doing so you'll turn a $2000 zoom into the quality of a cheap zoom. In that case you might as well stay with a sub-$1000 Sigma 500mm zoom. You'll end up with mediocre quality either way, but at least you save some money.</li>

<li>Learn to get closer. Cropping out 1/30 of a DX frame area is not the way to go. If you cannot use at least 50% of the frame on the D300, just don't bother with the shot. Keep in mind that 50% of the D300 frame means you are down to only 6MP.</li>

</ol>

<p>Otherwise, if you insist on hand holding a long lens, to be blunt, you should not even mention image sharpness.</p><div></div>

[Jerry_]

<p>To answer the original question: yes. A Nikkor lens usually has better "glass" and the results, with all conditions equal, may be better.</p>

<p>Please check: some Bird Folder images at</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=679986">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=679986</a></p>

<p>The Bluejay was taken with a AF 80-400mm VR Nikkor lens</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8974873">http://www.photo.net/photo/8974873</a></p>

<p>and the Woodpecker image was made with Nikon D80 and a older AF 75-300mm f4.5~ Nikkor lens</p>

<p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5789368">http://www.photo.net/photo/5789368</a></p>

<p>You may see some improvement using a monopod or tripod as well.</p>

[tpernal]

<p>Shun: Thanks... In responding to the previous posts, you helped answer my questions.</p>

[ecnhoffer]

<p>Harvey:</p>

<p>I have more images such as yours than I would like to admit. But using all of the technique suggestions mentioned above (using a tripod, getting closer, spot focusing on the subject, control of aperture and shutter speed, etc) resulted in much improved images. In short, the equipment is less a concern than proper technique.</p>

[robert_delaurentis1]

<p>When dealing with learning how to accomplish sharper, better image quality, I've found renting lenses provides the best answers possible to the perennial question "will "x" lens give me sharper results." Now that there are several excellent rent-by-mail options, its easier than ever to get one's hands on equipment that would otherwise be out of reach.<br>

In my own exploring, I've found that many of the oft-repeated suggestions are true: but renting allowed me to find which things worked for me. I was able to downsize my aspirations quite a bit as gaps in my knowledge were filled in.<br>

Bob</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I agree 100% with Shun. I finally have a very good tripod and head and a 500mm f4 P Nikkor.</p>

[mark_davidson1]

<p>+1 for Shun.</p>

<p>A support is almost mandatory for sharp images.<br>

I learned this back in the 70's, when I decided out of sheer perversity to shoot a project entirely on a tripod using a 35mm lens. Minolta XG-M 35 2.8. What I found, despite my enormous confidence, experience, youth and vigor, was that the tripod shots were demonstrably sharper than the hand held ones. EVEN WHEN SHOOTING AT 1000/sec!!! This was visible in 11x14 prints at full frame, not some digital file at 400%.</p>

<p>Lesson learned. Sharp images can only come from a supported camera. (That also explains the mirror lock up fans out there)</p>