Best route to quality at 300mm plus (for <£1300)

[jon_savage]

<p>Hi All,<br>

I have a D90 and I have recently sold my Nikon 70-300 VR and put it towards a used Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR. No regrets so far! Other lenses I have are the kit 18-105 and the 50/1.8.<br>

I now wish to look at getting something in the 300mm plus range. I have £1000 - £1300 budget and my current plan is to get the Nikon 300m f4 (£980) and the Nikon x1.4 teleconvertor (£320), would that make a 420mm f5.6 and the 1.4 usable on the 70-200?<br>

My priorities are image quality and focus speed rather than convienience (size, zoom, weight..). My main use for the telephoto is motorsport and sometimes wildlife. So while I wouldn't turn down VR I'm not sure it's a priority as I tend to shoot moving objects and a higher shutter speed.<br>

What I don't know are the relative qualities of this option verses the others, e.g. the 80-400 VR nikon (£1150).<br>

The 120-400 OS Sigma (£600) gets good reviews (some better than the nikon 80-200 VR) and then there is the 150-500 OS Sigma (£750). Their advert shows that has just got a Digital Photo/Practical Photography gear of the year award. Am I wasting money on the Nikon brand teleconvertor when I can get the Kenko Pro one for a lot less?<br>

I guess the 300 f4 with and without x1.4 should be best IQ. Any advice on relative IQ and better options to consider would be appreciated.<br>

Thanks for reading!<br>

Jon (UK)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>With regards to the choice of TCs, I dare not say too much, I only have the Nikon ones. I've used the 300 with the TC14 for sports (powerboats, on a D300), and had little issues with AF speed. Birds, too, no problems. I haven't used the 300/TC14 combo on my D80, only the TC17. The lens without TC was absolutely fine - mind, the D80 has same AF as D90.<br>

The Sigma lenses are getting some good reviews, and I'm sure those are fine lenses. But the 300 f/4 is a seriously solid built optically great piece. If you do not the convenience of zoom, the AF-S 300 f/4 and TC14E will not disappoint. At all.</p>

[walterh]

<p>I know sports is where you want AF but in some situations you can manage quite well with an MF lens. The approach is different like you might be forced to shoot from a different spot where you can pre-focus or similar, but on the other hand a used 300mm F2.8 AIS lens give you better separation than a AFD f4.0 lens.<br>

Again - not that this would be the typical approach (that would be the 300mm f4.0 AFD) but perhaps worth some thinking if this would fit your style if you can live with loosing some shots. I am certain you will get plenty of recommendations on AF lenses :-)</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>From everything that I have read the Nikon 80-400 would be a mistake and I will lump all the Bigmas with it. The Nikon 300mm f4 (AF-S if you can afford it) and the TC-14E would be the best of your choices. I have considered all the possible options in this range myself, but for soccer.</p>

<p>For motorsports my preference is manual focus. I currently use the Nikon 400/2.8 AIS and Nikon 200/2 AI for motorsports (and all sports at the moment) primarily on a D2X. I still hear from too many pros that they often turn autofocus off for motorsports. I do have the autofocus converter Nikon TC-16A which makes a very significant improvement on panning images but I do turn it off for head on shots. For your budget not only can you consider the Nikon 300/2.8 AIS but you could also consider the 400/2.8 AIS. I am not sure if these would be useful for your wildlife images or not. The TC-14E would work well on your 70-200/2.8 though.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Your current plan for 300/4 AF-S + TC 1.4 is excellent + an after market collar if you intend to use it mounted - or do what I do and add a rubber stopper between the lens barrel and the foot.</p>

<p>Or you may opt for 500mm Ai-P if you can live with manual focusing. I use both of these lenses, both produce very pleasing images as stand alone and combined with the 1.4 TC E II The 500mm Ai-P will require an extra sturdy support system ie. heavy duty legs and ball head.</p>

<p>I find VR only useful when shooting at shutter speeds of <1/125th or there abouts. For motor sport and wildlife you will be using shutter speeds well beyond this level.</p><div></div>

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>Perhaps the new Nikon TC III converter will actually be such a breakthrough as to render the 70-200 VR good for everything from 70 to 400 mm? Who knows - if I'd be on the market for a long lens, I'd wait for reviews of that new TC.</p>

[peter k]

<p>Hi John, I have the 300mm f:4 AFS lens with the 1.4 Nikon TC it gives excellent results. Tried the Kenko converter and image quality was unacceptable. Peter</p>

<div></div>

[alvinyap]

<p>Jon,<br>

I use the 300/4 AFS + TC14EII as my longest combo, it does not dissapoint in reasonable light. It also focuses insanely close (1.5 meters) I love it. Yes, the 1.4x TC14EII will AF with the 70-200vr... but I'm not a fan of the 70-200+1.4x IQ unless stopped down, especially at the long end.</p>

<p>Here's some samples from my gallery for the 300/4 + TC14EII:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10188536<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10188538</p>

<p>VS 80-400 VR - I've only used the 80-400 for 3 days, optically I think the 300/4 + TC is a hair better compared to the 80-400 at 400mm, at those focal lengths it's all about getting stability for your shot (wide open here... I rarely get a chance to stop down). AF is definitely faster on the 300/4 for tracking; racking from infinity and back is quite slow for both lenses - with the 80-400 definitely glacial. <br>

Can't help with the sigmas sorry... must admit the superzooms there are very tempting for the price!<br>

That said, I won't mind using the 80-400 if I know there is a need to re-frame a lot. It is not a bad lens, just a lens that doesn't fit my shooting style.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Alvin</p>

<p>PS: It's times like this I wish we had an equivalent to the 100-400IS - that is one sweet lens ;)</p>

 

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>OK - I'll chime in . . . .<br>

First up - stick with he 300mm AF-S f/4 idea.<br>

Secondly - for a TC, I would say go with the Nikon TC-14E or TC-14E II, but if money is tight you can go with the Kenko TC 1.4<br>

Here is my shot from this week's Wednesday thread.... Shot with the D300 & that combination.<br>

<img src="http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p313442417-4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[jon_savage]

<p>Thanks all for the responses. The new Nikon TC III converter sounds interesting and I think I'll wait for the first reviews of that. I assume one downside to that is I probably can't afford any other 2.8 to use it with other than my existing 70-200.</p>