Bird Photography -- D7200 300mm f/4 or D610 200-500mm f/5.6?

[evilsivan]

<p>Thanks for the tips guys!</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>if you are shooting BIF, the better AF module of the d7200 would be the way to go.</p>

<p>re: m4/3 and wildlife. sounds good in theory since you can get 200-800mm equivalent with a compact zoom now, but 5.6 on m4/3 isn't like 5.6 on full frame in terms of equivalent DoF. so if you were counting on subject isolation, you might be disappointed, since everything in your focal plane will be in focus. i actually wouldnt rule out a Nikon 1 V3 + 70-300 VR CX for birds as a compact kit due to speedy AF and fast fps, but the Nikon 1's dont do too well at high ISO, even worse than m4/3.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Sebastian, are you renting this lens just for this trip? If so, definitely get something that meets the needs for this particular location. Otherwise, generally speaking, you want more reach for bird photography, and my D7200 + 200-500mm recommendation is a general one.</p>

[bnelson]

<p>As a person who still owns an 80-400mm VRI lens and on a limited budget, I would like to add my 2 cents worth. <br />My last camera purchase was the D7100 and it out resolved the older 80-400mm. My replacement choice in my price range at the time was the Tamron 150-600mm. (The Nikon 200-500mm hadn't come out yet).<br>

This lens has much better IQ than the 80-400 VRI. Along with the lens comes a learning curve. I learned quickly that it is a lens that cries out for a monopod, or tripod. <br>

For the price of a Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm and a D7100 or D7200, you will be money ahead with great lenses and cameras and you can spend the rest on upgraded food and lodgings.</p><div></div>

[bnelson]

<p>This is with a monopod for action</p><div></div>

[bnelson]

<p>Finally, BIF with tripod and inexpensive gimbel head.</p><div></div>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Bill, thanks for the samples. Nice shots. Especially appreciate the bird at full reach.</p>

<p>Yes, BIF is tough, especially at 900mm equiv focal length. At that length, I have real trouble getting and keeping the bird in view.</p>

<p>This one was shot at half that focal length. That feels more comfortable to me.</p>

<p>Heron in flight, Ding Darling, D300, 300mm f/4, 2015. Original image has more bite, and I like that.</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/150208-HeronBIF-DingDarling-D038105.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I do think I see the sharpness difference between the prime and zoom. I think I'm going for sharp. Dieter, if you're still reading, sharpness like <a href="/photo/17687950&size=lg">this one</a> in your gallery.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Test coming up... 200-500mm vs. the 300 f/4 for sharpness wide open at 40-50'.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Test coming up... 200-500mm vs. the 300 f/4 for sharpness wide open at 40-50'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which 300mm/f4 are you testing?</p>

<p>If you have the 300mm/f4 AF-S (non VR, non PF) in mind, a common weakness between that lens and the 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR is relatively slow AF speed. If you are capturing birds in flight, that can be an issue.</p>

<p>For that reason, I think the new 300mm/f4 PF AF-S VR will have an advantage for birds in flight, but it also depends on which camera body you are using. For stationary birds, all three are excellent optically, but obviously there is a difference between 500mm/f5.6 and 300mm/f4.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Dieter, if you're still reading, sharpness like <a href="/photo/17687950&size=lg" rel="nofollow">this one</a> in your gallery.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Made with the D300 and the AF-S 80-400 VR.</p>

[tombest]

<p>Sebastian, it seems that critical sharpness is your 1st criteria as long as that sharpness doesn't come at the expense of slow or inaccurate focus. The shots you have posted here are very sharp and I have a concern that anything less than this level of clarity will be unacceptable. I'm glad you're going to test the lenses against each other but it wouldn't surprise me if you end up with the 300, in whatever variant you have or rent. It's a proven producer for you. That being said, the 200-500 might offer you some shots you might have not been able to capture with the 300 because of the added reach. I'll be anxious to hear the outcome of the test. Will you resurrect this post or start another?</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>"Dieter, if you're still reading, sharpness like <a href="/photo/17687950&size=lg" rel="nofollow">this one</a> in your gallery."</p>

<p>Made with the D300 and the AF-S 80-400 VR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The notion that "primes" are sharper than zooms is very outdated.</p>

<p>I don't evaluate sharpness with a small JPEG image. Below is a pixel-level crop of the image I posted to the current Nikon Wednesday thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ddYD</p>

<p>And this is the image on that thread:

<A HREF="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00ddau-559771884.jpg">

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00ddau-559771884.jpg</A>

<BR/>

It is not the entire FX frame; rather, I have cropped to roughly the DX area. Again, Nikon D750 with the 80-400mm AF-S VR @ 400mm, wide open at f5.6. The key is 1/1600 sec.

</p><div></div>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Tom wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>it seems that critical sharpness is your 1st criteria</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, not that I don't care about other aspects, and I might like to improve on other dimensions, but I don't want to give up the sharpness I'm enjoying now.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Shun, thanks for the example and the pixel-level crop. </p>

<p>You asked which 300 f/4 am I testing? I have the 200-500 on the way from LensRentals. I'll assume that all the 300 f/4 lenses have comparable enough image quality (biggest difference I've seen is in AF performance). So, I'll shoot my 1st generation EDIF-AF lens vs. the 200-500 zoom.</p>

<p>I don't have the whole plan, but here's what I want to explore:</p>

<p> - For my usual 450mm shot: 300 f/4 on DX vs. zoom at 300mm on DX vs zoom at 450 on FX</p>

<p> - For a longer 750mm shot: zoom at 500 on DX vs 300 f/4 on DX and crop the image</p>

<p>Probably all at wide open or one stop down. Just testing image quality, not AF and not handling.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I used to own the first 300mm/f4 AF, which uses 82mm front filters, from 1990 to 2001 or so. I sold it shortly after I had purchased the 300mm/f4 AF-S (without VR). Therefore, I don't have recent experience with that older screwdriver AF lens on modern DSLRs. Optically all of these 300mm/f4 should be fine. I am concerned that AF speed will be problematic unless you use the latest PF version with AF-S VR.</p>

<p>Sebastian, I am looking forward to reading your findings.</p>

[evilsivan]

<p>Just for fun, I am curious, when I am at Oleta River State Park in Florida, hoping catch some birds, I will have the following gear<br>

D750,D7200, 70-200 f4, 300 pf f4, TC1.4II<br>

which lens should I put on which camera to start with? </p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>hoping catch some birds</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Birds come in many different sizes.</p>

<p>In the context of Florida, a typical situation could be something like what I posted to Monday in Nature this week: http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00ddKP<br /> This is the image: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00ddKm-559730884.jpg<br /> I captured that in California, though.</p>

<p>Birds similar in size as the cormorant are common in Florida. I captured that image with a D7200 and 80-400mm zoom @ 400mm. But there are a lot of birds that are significantly large or smaller, and they can also be closer or farther away from the camera.</p>

[tombest]

<p>Ofer, have you been to Oleta before? I'm not sure where you are planning to bird since that park is more of a recreational park. I mountain bike there and they have a nice beach and picnic area but unless you plan on renting a kayak and paddle around the marsh, I don't know how much bird life you will see. If you area planning to kayak, keep your gear to a minimum. If it were me, I'd have the D7200 and 70-200 with the 1.4 on hand if I needed it. But do kayak and camera gear mix? I don't like the odds. There are far better places to find birds down here than Oleta. Better yet, leave your camera gear at home that day and bring your mountain bike. It's a great trail.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[evilsivan]

<p>Hi Tom<br>

I know Oleta is not the best, but its a ten minute walk from my brother's place. I will try to get to some of the places you listed above, but you know how it is with kids and in laws and their kids... come to think of it I'll be happy to drive an hour away from them :-/ Definitely not going to put any gear on a kayak... I think that Wakodahatchee might be ideal since its only 63 minutes according to the google.<br>

Any recommendations for the Vero Beach area?</p>

[rjmelone]

<p>Outstanding shot of the two GBH's Sebastian! Using a Nikon 300 F/4 for bird photography for several years I have to tell you that I am very happy that I switched to the Tamron 150-600mm lens. I use this with a D7000. Do yourself a favor and give the Tamron a look. For around a $1000 its the best 600mm for the price that you can buy! BR, Rob</p><div></div>

[tombest]

<p>Ofer, there is nothing like Wakodahatchee. The birds are close and not skittish. Make sure you see it before you go. There is very limited parking and they open the gate at 7:00 AM. Get there too late and there will be nowhere to park. If the lot is full, Green Cay is about a mile west of there. Distances are a little further since the wetland is significantly larger but birds are plentiful.</p>

<p>In the Vero area, there are a couple of places you could visit. One is called Viera Wetlands and the other is Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. Both are near Melbourne but not all that far from Vero.</p>

<p>Shark Valley is also a must see. From where your brother is, get west and get on the Tamiami Trail (US41). Take it until you get to the entrance. It's part of the Everglades National Park. Sebastian mentioned it and it is well worth the drive. Birds are close and if you're lucky, you'll have to walk around an alligator or two while on the paved loop.<br>

Sebastian, sorry for the momentary hijack of your thread. Happy birding.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<div></div>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>First test result is interesting, very interesting: I have been quite happy shooting my 300 f/4 on my D300 for several years. Most of what I've posted above is with one variation or another on that rig.</p>

<p><strong>First result:</strong> Pixels make more of a difference than zoom vs. prime. That is, shots with the 200-500 zoom on a 24MPx body are much better than what I get from the 12MPx D300 body. From this I conclude that I'll be happy this trip with 24MPx and either lens.</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-D600-200-500Zoom-vs-D300-300-f4-2x.png" alt="" /></p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Here's the test setup:<br>

- shoot from about 50'<br>

- little scene on a table top; white-toy, horse, bird's neck and eyes, and front of basket all in focal plane<br>

- some Christmas lights in the background<br>

- cameras on sturdy tripods<br>

- two LED spotlights give me EV13 on the purple braids, close enough to actual conditions at Wakodahatchee</p>

<p>Overall scene, 200-500 zoom at 450mm f/5.6 on a D600 (DX and 300mm gives same view):</p>

<p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-TestScene-D600-ZoomVR-450mm-f56-DSC0184.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Robert, that's a great shot, and thanks for the Tamron suggestion. Is that shot hand-held? </p>

 

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Thanks, friends, for all the comments and advice. I have test results. My concerns about using a zoom were unfounded; the 200-500 lens will be superior to the non-VR 300 prime that I have been enjoying over the years. At 300mm, VR off, it is just as good as my 300 f/4 AF. And, it's clear that VR helps quite a bit, even in my tests on a tripod. I know VR will make a difference on a monopod or handheld. So, the verdict is to the 200-500 zoom for this year's shooting.</p>

<p>I'll assume the 300 AFS (non-VR) version is pretty comparable to mine. I did not try the new 300 f/4 PF VR lens; that comparison might be different.</p>

<p>I'm going to leave this thread in place for continued comments about birding in Florida.</p>

<p>I'll start a new thread to focus on the comparative test results.</p>