Would a better lens give me sharper results?

[hawkman]

<p>Harvey,<br /> There is no need for tripod to obtain a razor sharp in flight image with 300 f/4 +1.4TC, tripod is necessary for 500 f/4 and 600 f/4 lenses due to weight but not for 300/f4, many birders use 200-400 f/4 HH in the field with excellent results. With correct gear and technique you should be able to obtain razor sharp images HH consistently. Also VR/IS is only useful for perched birds, you should turn it off for in flight shots. <br /> I can tell many users here are not bird phorographers. If you want solid advice about gear and technique checkout the <a href="http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/index.php">BPN forum</a>, with good gear and lots lots of practice you can get images close to the ones posted on that forum.<br /> From your post either the optical quality of the Sigma lens is very lousy or you have a back/front focus issue. Have you ever tested your lens for back/front focus? Checkout this link <a href="http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf">http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf</a><br /> <br /> Here is an example of in flight with Canon 40D + 400 f/5.6 (640mm FOV) HH 1/1000 sec f/7.1, see the water drops. </p>

<p> </p>

[hawkman]

<p>Here is the attachment </p><div></div>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Re 70-200 VR and TC's and the D300. I nearly always use the lens clamped to a heavy tripod with a pro ball head. I do find that with the TC-14E, the images from 70-200 are still very sharp. I am quite satisfied with those results. </p>

<p>But, I recently acquired the TC-17EII. I am not so happy with the 1.7. That makes the lens an F4.8, wide open. Stopped down a couple of stops, it sharpens up on the D300, but I have to say that I was expecting more in the way of sharpness. And, with the 1.7 one is getting down to F5.6 before sharpness starts to get into the reasonble, but not great realm.</p>

<p>Bigger disappointment with the current 70-200 2.8 VR is its poor performance in the corners on FX sensors. I bought this lens three years ago in anticipation of using on the eventual introduction of FX. Too bad Nikon did not make the lens to be superb on anything but DX. So, although I now have a D700, the 70-200 only gets used on the D300.</p>

<p>So, I suggest if you are thinking of a new lens, plan on getting one that will accomodate any new bodies in your future. Glass lasts longer than camera bodies which will come and go. The new 70-200II is about a $2,400 lens, but presumably will be fine on FX. I would stay away from the current 70-200 VR unless one intends to always be a DX shooter.</p>

<p>Just my $.02.</p>

<p> </p>

[josephbraun]

<p>your shot just looks out of focus to me.. also, you didn't need such a high iso 1/500 or 1/1000 would have stopped the action just fine.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>I shot a Canon but recently I have had experience with these birds. They are Tree Swallows and they quite small. To get the full image shot as show I would guess you were about 20 feet away. At F8 and 400mm your depth of field was about 2.5 inches. With such a shallow depth of field you have to be very careful on your focus. If you focused on the branch the bird in question is likely on the edge of the depth of field.</p>

<p>Since the bird was not in flight you could have used a slower shutter speed. For a shot like this with your gear I would have aimed for about 1/800" shutter speed. That would have allowed you to stop the lens down at least one stop, possibly two. At F16 (two stops) your depth of field would have been about 5.5 inches. A tripod or mono pod would have helped but that said I have gotten sharp images with my 400mm lens hand held.</p>

<p>For your image the best result would have been achieved with carefully focusing on the birds making sure both were in the depth of field. I would have then stopped down to F11 to get a little more depth of field. I would have used a mono pod to allow a slightly lower ISO setting to reduce noise.</p>

<p>Bellow is a picture I got earlier this year. In this case I was trying to get the bird in flight just before It landed on a birdhouse. Exposure was 1/800", F22, ISO1600. My 100-400mm lens was set to 235mm. Aperture, ISO, and focal length was set to get maximum depth of field. High Speed Flash was used for fill light. Camera was mounted on a tripod while I waited. Most shots I made were rejected because the bird was blurred, just out of the frame, or had already landed by the time I tripped the shutter. Results were quite good after cropping and noise reduction. Picture is directly from the raw file.</p><div></div>

[heartyfisher]

<p>It does look slightly out of focus .. maybe you have a slight back focus issue? The branch where the other bird is seems sharper? maybe you have just focused on the branch?.. support is also really important at these focal lenghts ...</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Can't comment on your technique as 1/3000 sec should be enough to prevent most camera shake. But on my perusing several lens testing sites your lens just doesn't test out as being very sharp at 400mm. So it might not be your technique as much as your lens that's the problem. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1184/cat/31">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1184/cat/31</a></p>

<p>(if you're unfamiliar with this site just click on the "blur index" graph on the right and a pop-up window will appear with sliders allowing you to check the lens sharpness at various focal lengths and apertures)</p>

<p>Both the Nikon 70-300: <a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13</a></p>

<p>and the Sigma 300 f2.8: <a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/227/cat/30">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/227/cat/30</a><br>

are sharper at f8 that the 120-400 at 300mm f8.</p>

<p>But my personal favorite is the Sigma 100-300 f4 since I used to own it (I sold it since I virtually never used it since I don't do birds). <a href="http://photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/369-sigma-af-100-300mm-f4-nikon?start=1">http://photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/369-sigma-af-100-300mm-f4-nikon?start=1</a></p>

<p>Even with the Sigma 2x tc on it was still very sharp wide open at f4 (f8 with 2x).<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/sigma_100300_f4_lens_test">http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/sigma_100300_f4_lens_test</a></p>

<p> </p>

[hbs]

<p>Thank you to all for your comments, suggestions, and advice. I'm not sure what my next step will be, but I certainly have a lot of things to consider and to try. When I get that perfect bird shot (and hopefully more than one), I'll be sure to post it in my gallery.<br>

Harvey</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>While I don't know the lens, your ISO 800 will generate some softness. I would try shooting at ISO 100 or 200 and either open your lens or slow your shutter speed down, and perhaps get a tripod to steady the lens. I from my point of view your ISO is the biggest difficulty and before I spend money on more hardware, I would try slight revised shoot conditions. Steven</p>

[rjm photo]

<p>Arash<br>

Thanks for the tip on the BPN Forum. Some fantastic work there....quite a few very nice images with Nikkor 300 F4 AFS....quite a few with 300mm F2.8 Nikkor.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>

<p>Hi Robert,<br>

The 300 f/4 + 1.4X TC is actually pretty good combo for both D700 and D300, it is very portable and light. It doesn't quite match the 200-400 VR for tracking in flight shots but it is still very good, especially for perched birds. I hope that Nikon comes up with an updated 80-400 with VR II, nano-crystal coat and AF-S, it will be a very nice portable lens.<br>

I am not a fan of short fast lens + aggressive TC for birds, by the time you add the 1.7X and 2X AF and IQ will take a big beat and keeper ratio will be very low. I'd go for 200-400+1.4X TC over 300 f/2.8 with 1.7X or 2X any day. </p>

</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Harvey, your next step should be very simple.</p>

<p>If you still believe that sharpness is your main concern, start with a good tripod. A tripod is not only to support the weight of a big lens but also provide a stable platform for your camera/lens set up. Otherwise, if you still prefer the flexibility and convenient of hand holding long lenses (as I do shooting birds in flight), just accept the fact that you are going to get a high percentage of unsharp images.</p>

<p>After that, get yourself a long tele that is at least f4. There is absolutely no reason to use ISO 800 under broad daylight to photograph a bird that is perching on a tree; as a result, you are introducing a lot of totally unnecessary noise and loss of contrast into your image. Part of your problem is hand holding, which forces you to use a very fast shutter speed. For a stationary bird, 1/500 to 1/1000 sec should be more than sufficient when you use a tripod.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd go for 200-400+1.4X TC over 300 f/2.8 with 1.7X or 2X any day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While neither one of those combos is ideal so that I tend not to use either one (I have all of those lenses and TCs), personally I have more success using a 2x TC on the 300mm/f2.8 than using any TC on the 200-400. Nikon's 300mm/f2.8 is optically so excellent that it is still quite decent with a 2X TC.</p>

[rene gm]

<p>If you look here<br>

<a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1184/cat/31">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1184/cat/31</a><br>

you see that the Sigma is not very good at 400mm. Add a little focus problem and the ISO800, and you get the above result. You need to stay below 250mm for the very best results with this lens.<br>

Actually, I think that the image quality is quite decent, even at 400mm. Just get a little closer to the birds, and do not view at 100% (which would be a HUGE print), and you will be OK.</p>

[hawkman]

<p><em>therwise, if you still prefer the flexibility and convenient of hand holding long lenses (as I do shooting birds in flight), just accept the fact that you are going to get a high percentage of unsharp images.</em></p>

<p>That is not true, I have shot at least 30K photos of birds in flight over the past 5 years with mostly Canon and Nikon gear, I have used tripod in maybe 5% of these shots, I go shooting with some of the folks from BPN, none of us uses tripod for 400mm and f/5.6 lenses. For many situations you can't even carry or use a tripod. It takes practice but none of us gets a high precentage of unsharp photos as you suggest. There are some 200+ BIF shots in my gallery and better ones on my website and over in BPN forums, some of this work has also been published ( so they must have been sharp enough for the reviewers), only a few were on tripod with Wimberley head (with 500 f/4 IS). <br /> <br /> Also, I find servo tracking unnactable with 2X and 1.7X TCs based on my field experience with these lenses. IQ with 2X is always suspect no matter how good the lens is. Opinions vary, again if OPs concern is birds I would suggest looking at the <a href="http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/index.php">BPN </a>forums, as lot of people here don't know what they are talking about. Bird photography is not landscape photogrpahy with lens on tripod and manual focus.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Arash, bird photography is not only limited to birds in flight. I typically don't use a tripod either when I shoot birds in flight because I need the flexibility and mobility, and I can accept a tiny bit of blur for flight shots as a tradeoff; afterall, the bird is moving fast, anyway. However, for birds on a tree as in the OP's example, there should be no excuse for not using a tripod.</p>

<p>Just because some of us don't agree with you and what you learn from the BPN forum doesn't mean we don't know what we are talking about. There are plenty of fine bird photographers in photo.net. In particular, since you are so demanding on the optical performance for lenses and have rejected a lot of brand new lenses from B&H, I find it strange that you are so casual about proper lens support.</p>

[william-porter]

<blockquote>

<p>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). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Harvey, I'm not a Nikon shooter so I don't have specific recommendations regarding lenses. But I do have a question - and a couple of thoughts.</p>

<p>My question: Why did you shoot at 1/3000th sec? Seems unnecessarily fast to me. If you had taken this shot at around 1/800th sec (~2 stops slower), and at f/5.6 rather than f/8 (which I think would have easily been sufficient depth of field, given that you were apparently a good ways from the birds), you could have dropped your ISO to 400 and probably gotten better detail. Remember, higher ISO doesn't just mean more noise, it also usually means some loss of detail.</p>

<p>Shun Cheung says, "for birds on a tree...there should be no excuse for not using a tripod." Seems a tad dictatorial to me. Tripod often does help, if you can get the bird to sit still long enough to find it and focus. I know that the really serious bird photographers will stand around all day with their tripods, or in their blinds, and I'm very impressed by their dedication. But if you DON'T want to be that patient and if the birds aren't sitting still, a tripod is sometimes more trouble than you can deal with. I've shot whooping cranes from a moving boat crowded with other folks where a tripod was simply an impossibility. You do what you can do.</p>

<p>This shot of a <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/wmb.porter/20070109AtTheLake#5018224204466944850">pelican landing on the water</a> was taken with a Pentax K10D (built-in shake reduction turned ON) and a consumer-grade Tamron 75-300 zoom (possibly with a 1.4x teleconverter - can't remember), ISO 200, 1/400th sec, f/13 and handheld. In retrospect, f/13 was probably a mistake - f/11 would surely have been just as good given my distance from the pelican and would have allowed me to increase the shutter a bit. It ain't going to win a prize, but it's sharp enough for me to make a nice print. </p>

<p>Back to you, Harvey. I think you are right (in your subsequent post above) that, with your focal length at 400mm, a shutter speed of 1/3000th sec should have been fast enough to eliminate the effects of camera shake AND subject movement (in a perching bird, anyway). Assuming that you have good technique holding the camera, I think you could have slowed your shutter down to 1/800th sec. My guess is that the problem in the shot you posted is (a) unnecessarily high ISO and (b) the simple inability of the lens to resolve more sharply at this distance from the subject. Don't expect everything to look terrific when you crop aggressively. If you want the bird to fill the photo, you're much better getting the bird to fill the frame when you take the shot - or as close as you can. If you crop, crop sparingly. Put the world's telephoto greatest lens on a tripod, shoot at ISO 100, and photograph the trees on a distant mountain - and you're not going to be able to enlarge the photo to see the veins in the leaves on the tree! </p>

<p>You ended your question with the words, "...within my budget." If you're aiming at greatness, well, perhaps you'll have to spend more money, get that great tripod, and spend more time, too. But if you're aiming more modestly to take <em>better</em> photos, I am quite sure you don't have to spend $5K to do so!</p>

<p> </p>

[hawkman]

<p>Hi Shun<br />First I was not refering to you when I said some people don't know what they are talking about, you certainly know, although I disagree about need of tripod to produce razor sharp images, just look at the sample I posted it doesn't get any sharper than that! I saw some comments about manual focus in the thread, that is a no no for birds.<br />And yes, as you know I am very picky so I must be happy with my HH results ;) I assure you, you can produce razor sharp in flight and landing shots with good HH technique. I honestly believe tripod is not the OP's problem, problem is focus or lens, just my experience. If I can produce sharp images HH, there is no reason OP shouldn't.</p>

<p>Best,<br />Arash</p>

[kludge]

<p>If a tripod is out of place for your shooting style, perhaps a monopod? As several others have said, getting a stable platform is WAY better than getting a better lens. You can keep a monopod attached to the camera, collapsed, and it's almost as portable as no support. Just extend when you see the opportunity knock, and you get most of the benefit of a tripod without most of the disadvantages.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>Here is another 100% crop of a shot with D700 and 300 f/4 AF-S + 1.4X TC HH, note that also light is not perfect but it is tact sharp. With a good lens, good AF and good technique HH is not a problem.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Image sharpness is my main concern.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All of my comments in this thread are based on the OP's clearly stated objective, and his initial desire to buy better optics to get sharper images.</p>

<p>If you are more a casual photographer or it is more important for you to "get the shot" rather than getting the most sharpness out of your camera and especially lens, hand holding is perfectly fine for a lot of people as demonstrated by the various examples in this thread.</p>

<p>However, whenever people are deviating from the base ISO under broad daylight to bump up the shutter speed to get around camera shake, you are clearly making a compromise. In my case, I have enough trouble getting totally sharp images (to my admittedly high standards) with a super tele (e.g. 500mm, 700mm) on a sturdy tripod, hand holding is pretty much out of the question for me.</p>

[hbs]

<p>Let me provide a little more information. I realize the settings I was using weren't the greatest - I was with a bunch of birders, carrying a pair of [Nikon] binoculars around my neck and carrying the camera and big lens as well. We went to about 4-5 venues over a period of about 2 hours. I was constantly changing settings when I saw the pair of Tree Swallows and took the shot quickly before they flew away. This was my first away-from-home serious birding expedition so it was a learning experience for me.<br /> <br /> As far as the cropping goes, my original photo was meant to only be illustrative of my concern over sharpness - I would rarely if ever crop this much for an actual final product. I've had this concern for a while - most of my shots with this lens aren't nearly as sharp as I'd like.<br /> <br /> I'm also quite surprised (and pleased) at the response that my question received. Again, thank you to all especially Shun for whom I have a lot of respect. As a result of this, I will look into all the issues that were raised. I will certainly try using my tripod (and monopod) more frequently. The great thing with this hobby is the ability to learn, both from your own mistakes and from the advice and experience of others. I'm also likely to add something to next winter's Santa list, a new lens as soon as I can decide which one (very likely a Nikon 300mm f/4).<br>

<br /> Harvey</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Arash, it is possible to get images of birds with a manual focus lens. Very hard in flight maybe but I have been happy with a few of my images using a 500mm f4 P plus TC-14e with my D700 and a good tripod. There are many ways to get good images and not all of them require AF. I have seen many good images created before the introduction of AF. Maybe not as easy or as high a success rate but certainly possible. Personally for me sharp = good support + good lens.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I do think that with long lenses, there is a substantial difference in the quality of results when a tripod is used on a relatively stationary target. With a tripod under the lens, since the lens doesn't jitter so much you can point the AF sensor more precisely to the target, and of course you can stop down the lens which reduces the effects of focus errors and also improves overall image quality, as pointed out above. The compositional accuracy also improves. High shutter speeds do not help with composition nor with focusing; a high speed will reduce the effects of subject movement and camera shake but even the use of modern autofocus can be tricky and require a lot of attention if you want consistent results. If the subject moves erratically within the frame because of camera instability this will not get you consistently correctly focused images.</p>

<p>I'm amazed at how some people will hand-hold a lens like the 200-400/4 e.g. at a concert, wow at its image quality yet the images show softness at small web image sizes. Of course, mobility is important also but I'd be hesitant to say that optimal sharpness can be obtained with long glass without a tripod. Even with VR and a monopod, results are not typically as good as with a good tripod.</p>

[m_allegretta]

<p>I use the very fine 70-200 ED without TC with a monopod, and I am very satisfied with the image sharpness at 200mm and other settings. I use VR on occasions when handholding the lens, but not always. IMHO VR was not meant to be a crutch.<br />Vibration Reduction can help a little - 1, maybe 2 f/stops. Nothing beats a STABLE mechanical platform and highest possible shutter speed, especially when judging lens sharpness.<br />But, my opinion of sharpness may differ from another person's. I don't examine photos under a microscope. I look to make a good image that clearly communicates my idea.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"...Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR – either alone... or with a 1.7 or 2X teleconverter ... 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?"</em></p>

<p>It seems most of the comments above deal with technique and do not specifically address your questions. I owned a Bigma 50-500mm for about 6 months. Although I got good results with it on prints up to 8 x 10, I found that my Nikon lenses in general gave more detail, specifically my 70-300mm VR at 300mm cropped to the Bigma's 500mm equivalent gave more robust color and detail, especially fine detail than the Sigma. Although Nikon's 70-200mm is a superb lens, IQ willl suffer a bit when used with the 1.7 and especially the 2X and you will likely end up with similar results to what you are getting now. </p>

<p>I sold my Bigma and replaced it with Nikon's 80-400mm. IQ on the long end is noticeably better. A used 80-400mm is not much more expensive than the lens you have. If the 80-400mm is not within your budget, Nikon's 70-300mm VR (VR version only) is an excellent choice. Keep in mind that <strong>no </strong>lens will give you the results you are looking for unless you get close enough to your subject.</p>