Nikkor options for photographing birds

[alastair_anderson]

<p>This is an observation about Nikon's pricing policy. Basically I think they've got it just about right - from my perspective, tantalisingly right. I reckon that with the D800's ability to crop, I ought to be able to produce adequate bird pictures with a reach of 400mm. The 400 f2.8 lens and the 200-400 are too heavy and too expensive for me. The 300 f2.8 (which I can use with my 1.4 tc) costs around £4,000, which is also on the expensive side. I can afford the 300 f4, but the lack of VR is too limiting. That leaves the new 80-400 zoom. (I suspect that I'd be disappointed with the IQ of the old one.) In the UK the price is currently almost £2,500. Now everything depends on how good it is. At f5.6 it's barely comparable to the 300 f2.8, but with VR and good light (and in the Kruger park during daylight hours, good light is almost a given) the advantage of speed has more to do with the quality of out of focus area than with facilitating sharpness. I would imagine that it is good enough for my needs. I just hope I don't regret not saving up for the 300 f2.8. Of course the zoom lens wins for versatility. But ignoring that for the moment, is the 300 f2.8 (with tc) £1,500 better than the new 80-400 if it's used for photographing birds?</p>

[djolk]

<p>I use an AF-D 300 f4 and get some bird shots I am happy with. Sometimes I crop them, sometimes I don't.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It's not a real substitute for a long AF lens, but for a little more reach in cases where focusing can be more leisurely, the Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 or the Sigma Mirror 600mm f/8 are easily used with a monopod or tripod. Best part is that you can often get either of them for a couple of hundred dollars.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I bought the just discontinued Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS HSM (equiv. to VR AS-F) for $2500 US, along with a Kenko 1.4x TC for $240. I'm looking forward to shooting wildlife with it on my D300s. Basically I look at it as a 180-630 f2.8-4 lens "system" just by adding or subtracting the TC.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Not having converted to VR/IS myself I would be considering a used 300/2.8 AF-I or -S, but you may even find a used VR I in your price range.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>To follow up on Michael's comment, give serious consideration to the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 <strong>OS</strong>, Alastair - I use the version that's just been superseded by the new "Sport" version along with 1.4x and 2x TCs as my main birding lens, and it never disappoints.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>It depends whether your shooting Hummingbirds or Pelicans! For small, shy birds 300mm + TC is rarely long enough. For big, carefree birds, a 70-200mm is ideal.</p>

<p>When are Nikon going to make my 400mm f4 AF-S VR III?</p>

[dave_wilson1]

I use an old pristine condition 400mm f3.5 Ais ED-IF. If you can live with manual focus, this lens is classic top shelf glass.

Here's a link to an old thread that a few restarted with some D800 shots using the 400mm f3.5. Absolutely stunning

results that some posted. Check it out: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00XHF7

[pontus_wallst_n]

<p>I use the Nikon 70-200 mm f 2.8, and often use it with my 1.8 TC which works fine, and I also crop sometimes. The 70-200 is very sharp and the 2.8 does help when taking images in slightly darker areas....It is a bit heavy, but carrieable. You also have the advantage of being able to zoom out if need be. aa 300 mm fixed lens could meen that you miss getting a shot of a group of birds which only fit within the 70 or maybe 150 mm range, but at 300, you only get 1 or 2 in the frame.</p>

<p>i used to have a sigma 50-500 mm, but it was not very sharp and was limited by a 5.6 aperture at the long end. Also, aparently, it was one of the lenses known for being very unsharp at 500 mm...so as someone said, there was not much point in having the reach if the long reach was anyway mostly going to be out of focus...</p>

<p>Pontus</p>

[johnr78735]

I own both the Nikon 400 f 2.8 VR and the new "80-400 VR II"...and now I am planning on selling my 400...the new 80-400 is that good. I

shoot 2 D800 bodies.

John Rogers

Austin, Texas

[slopoki]

<p>I have been using the 300/4 afs on a D300 for the last 4 yrs. A great light weight lens that works excellent with the TC14E wide open and is very affordable.<br>

http://www.slopoki1.com/Nature</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Great response so far - plenty of food for thought. I should mention that in South Africa last year I was using a 70-200 VR II with a 1.4 tc. Although I did manage to get some good shots, I definitely needed more reach without the tc and was disappointed with IQ with it. But I believe the tc works better with the primes. I'm leaning towards the zoom, particularly after John Rogers' comment above. But at this stage I'm still looking at all options.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>A D7100 gets you even more reach! AF's pretty good too.....:-)</p>

[georges_pelpel]

<p>Bird photography is tough but so rewarding.<br>

I first had a manual 400/3.5 and then a manual 500/4P for many years. Both are great lenses but the lack of AF made in-flight bird shooting almost impossible.<br>

I recently switched to an AF-S 500/4 and an AF-S 300/4. What a difference! Both work fantastic with a TC-14E, and to a lesser degree with a TC-20EIII on the D800. Yes VR could make them better but I don't really missed it.<br>

I honestly think the AF-S 300/4 is a bargain and a must have bird-in-flight lens as it can be easily handheld.<br>

Of course the new AF-S 80-400 VR seems to be a great alternative but is it 3x better than the AF-S 300 (you can fine used mint one in the $800 range) ? </p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>I've been a bird watcher for a number of years, not a twitcher, but I take it seriously enough to have acquired a (second hand) pair of Leitz binoculars (7x35) 30 years ago. Last year for the first time, with the 70-200, I was able to get a few good pictures and it whet my appetite. I'm now torn between the new 80-400 and the 300 f4. I've decided that I'm not worthy of the 2.8 at this stage. (But I haven't ruled out Sigma yet either.)</p>

[johnr78735]

Alastair,

 

I bought the 150-500 Sigma and sold it after a month or so...it was just too soft for my use.

 

John Rogers

Austin, Texas

[alastair_anderson]

<p>John, yes, same thought from Pontus. It seems the 120-300 is better though. Personally I like the Nikkors.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>The 120-300 is an entirely different animal than any of the Sigma 4.5-5.6/6.3 lenses. I traded in year old my Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6 OS HSM when the price came down for the 120-300.</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>I had forgotten what Ilkka had said about tripod shooting yielding sharper images than hand-held VR shots (http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bex9). So I guess for birds one should go for the 300 f4. However the situation that I envisage in the South African game reserves makes using a tripod difficult and for this reason I'm drawn more and more to the new 80-400. That extra 100mm makes it more attractive to me than the Sigma.</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>Actually going by what Ilkka said about preferring a native 400mm lens and taking into account Dave Wilson's comment above, the 400 f3.5 sounds like an excellent buy for birding, but I think for my needs the new VR zoom is the way to go.</p>

[ram_sanga]

<p>I recently acquired the Nikkor 400mm f3.5 AI and have been having some luck with perched and stationary birds. Being old lens, it does have fringing in the high contrast areas., but by F5.6, the images are really crisp on my Nikon D7000.<br /> <a href=" /> <img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5481/9809508776_71d5b51108.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="297" /><br /> Other images:<br /> <a href=" /> <a href="