flatlander

Thanks for all the responses. I'll probably go ahead and buy the AF-S version and just wish I had the Canon IS version.

It would be hard to start replacing everything at this point. From a cash flow basis it would be devastating. But everytime I see that IS lens I'll just mutter "aw shucks" and go on....

I've been able to capture a lot of good images with the F4P AIS version to date and look forward to the AF version.

I did find an excellent AF-S (not AF-S II) for a fair price.

One more question - if I buy a used US 500/4 AF-S will Nikon USA work on it ok if I'm not the original owner?

Thanks to all.

Charlie

I know this is a Canon forum and my intention is not to flame a Nikon

vs. Canon war. That said... ( posted this to the Nikon forum, too).

I have the Nikkor 500/f4P AIS lens now. I've been comparing the

Nikkor 500/4 AF-I, AF-S and AF-S II lenses and thought I'd look at

the Canon equivalent. I was shocked at the price difference.

New AF-S II (US) is about $7,500 or so. Gray is about $5,800. NY

prices.

I just looked up the Canon 500/4 IS USM - it's about $5,500 (US) and

gray is about $5,300. And this is image stablized!

Does anyone here know why the significant difference in price? Are

they optically similar in quality/resolution/contrast etc?

If any of you have shot both I'd like to hear your impressions on

both.

Charlie

I know this is a Nikon forum and my intention is not to flame a Nikon

vs. Canon war. That said...

I have the Nikkor 500/f4P AIS lens now. I've been comparing the

Nikkor 500/4 AF-I, AF-S and AF-S II lenses and thought I'd look at

the Canon equivalent. I was shocked at the price difference.

New AF-S II (US) is about $7,500 or so. Gray is about $5,800. NY

prices.

I just looked up the Canon 500/4 IS USM - it's about $5,500 (US) and

gray is about $5,300. And this is image stablized!

Does anyone here know why the significant difference in price? Are

they optically similar in quality/resolution/contrast etc?

If any of you have shot both I'd like to hear your impressions on

both.

Charlie

Jemini:

Thanks for the samples of your Sigma. Also - nice website. Very well presented! What tools did you use to develop it?

I will consider the Sigma. I'd like to use a 1.4 TC (I have the Nikon TC-14E) and would be concerned about AF with the Sigma's 4.5 + TC as you mentioned in your review.

The price sure is inviting, though!

Regards,

Charlie

I currently have a Nikkor 500/f4 P AIS lens. I want to upgrade to AF

and am looking for a good used lens.

My primary purpose is wildlife but might also use it some for sports.

For those of you who have used the AF-I and AF-S versions, is the AF-

S significantly faster than the AF-I? I know the AF-S II version has

some benefits of new materials, etc. and is lighter.

Any idea what the market price is for these lenses in good

condition? I have seen the AF-I version sell for $3,300 - $4,000.

Regards,

Charlie

Cham, Shun - thanks for your input.

I pretty well settled on the 500/f4 AF-S II decision. It's good to hear it confirmed. I do a lot of hiking with my 500/f4P now, I have the Sidekick, etc. It a compact system (weight, size) given the focal length.

Just to keep this thread on track - I am also seriously considering the 200-400 for sports and wildlife. Sounds like a great range, and the VR is quite helpful.

Good shooting..

Charlie

I came close to buying one of the used legendary 200-400/4 last year but backed out. I shoot both wildlife and sports. I have a D1, D100 and the D1X, although I don't find myself using the D1 much any more.

I have the 500/f4P and am at a crossroads. I like the idea of having the VR in the 200-400.

I am about to sell off the AIS 500/f4P for a 500/4 AF-S II. Coupled with the TC14, it is a great combo. I sure wish it was VR.

I have shot a lot with the 80-400 VR and the VR helps.

A question to you seasoned wildlife folks: If you can have only one long lens - would it be 500/4 or the 600/4? I am concerned about the weight of the 600 vs. 500. I don't shoot birds very often.

Thanks,

Charlie

I've heard of others making lens hoods out of Tupperware or other similar bowls. The trick is to find the right size and depth. Perhaps a trip to the local thrift store with a tape measure?

You could then spray paint it flat black.

Jason:

I have this exact setup. It works great compared to a ball head alone.

The sidekick is smooth and makes the camera/lens very well balanced. It's all I use for the 500/4P now. I use it for all my wildlife shooting, including birds.

As far as manual focusing the 500 - fast moving bird photography is difficult with any manual focus lens. So you develop methods to get good, sharp photos, practice a lot and realize that you probably won't get as many shots as the person next to you who has the AF-S or USM lens. (You won't have the investment, either.) Bird photography is much easier with the sidekick than with the ball head alone.

For me, the sidekick was an excellent investment. I like the idea of being able to use the ball head and the sidekick in the field. I use the ball head alone for the smaller lenses and slip the sidekick on when I pull out the big gun. It's great having the flexibility.

The sidekick is a great addition to handle the 500/4 whether you shoot birds or not.

Charlie

As a Nikon user for years, having started with the FM2, FE2, etc. and going all the way through F5's and then the D1, D100, etc. I have very mixed feeleings. I have professional friends that are moving from Nikon to Canon for various reasons, including the Digital direction and the lens lineup.

As a professional wildlife photgrapher it is very nice to take advantage of the lens multiplication factor. My 500/f4 is now a 750/f4 and quite light at that. Wideangle is a problem and a pain, however.

I have a lot of very good f-mount lenses I've collected over the years that work on my D1 series bodies - both MF and AF. I applaud Nikon for retaining that mount and allowing me the opportunity to use all this nice glass.

That said, I am also concerned about the image quality. This is a very competitive business. If I am using a D1x or D1h and my counterparts are using a 1Ds and producing better results - well, guess who's going to do better overall in the long run?

Does Nikon think it can retain image quality with a smaller sensor? I don't understand the technology in depth but have to think that a larger sensor will produce better results - other things being equal.

My take on this is that Nikon just doesn't have the product to build yet but will be forced into the market with a full-frame sensor. If they don't, they will be limiting their own future.

Think of all the professionals in the field, the press, studios, etc. that will look at the overall offerings and start moving. It has happened quite a bit already.

If your specific market is highly competitive then you have to respond. If your final product doesn't require more than what a D1 series provides then enjoy the used market as other Nikon users sell off their equipment for Canon.

I am going to look seriously at the Kodak 14n so I can use my current lenses. I am somewhat suspect, though. I have been talking and pricing the Canon line. I hate the thought of switching but will make that decision if Nikon doesn't clear up their intentions fairly soon.

Charlie

I use Sandisk Ultra 512 cards in my D100, D1, Canon S40, etc. Also use the IBM 1 GB microdrive.

I would guess that the PNY 512 would work fine.

You can get the Sandisk Ultra 512 for $150 or less if you shop around.

The Sandisk Ultra might be a bit faster but that may not make much difference to you for casual shooting and downloading. When you shoot action sports and transfer the data frequently then speed does matter.

Charlie

There are lots of Peterson Field Guides as well that are quite good. Everything from birds, mammals, trees, insects, flowers, etc. Some are by geographic area. Audobon also has a series of guides.

If you know the specific area you are going into, contact your state or local Extnsion Service - usually tied to a major university and/or agriculture service. Also the State Game and Parks service. They either have or can point you to a wealth of information about the local flaura and fauna, including where to go, times of year, etc.

You local library should have lots of reference mateial as well.

Do Google.com searches for help.

Get in touch with a local photo club - they can point you to reference material. That goes with the local bird watchers, garden clubs, etc.

There is a wealth of info out there.

Charlie

I just looked at B+H at the price of a Nikkor 600/f4 AF-S II vs. a Canon EF 600/f4 IS USM.

Nikkor - $8,999 (AF-S II but no VR)

Canon - $7,199 (USM and IS)

I am "assuming" they are equivalent optically. If anyone knows differently, please let me know.

This seems to be a significant difference.

Charlie

I guess I should do a comparison of new and used lenses between Nikon and Canon to see how that comes out.

Another question - does Canon have the same USA vs. Gray market issues of service like Nikon does? My understanding is that Nikon repair centers in the USA will not repair non-USA warranty items.

Does Canon have the equivalent the Nikon Professional Services (NPS)?

Kent - I, too, have the 80-400 VR and use it a lot. I sold my 80-200 AF. I sure wish the 80-400 was AF-S, though.

There is the new 70-200 G AF-S VR ED IF (abcdefg...)lens out. And a new 12-24 lens coming. They are on the Nikonusa.com web site. Bjorn R. has a review of the 70-200 on his site at http://www.naturfotograf.com

Thanks, Charlie

Matthew,Bob + Leif - thanks for the constructive feedback. That is what I was looking for.

I don't need to switch at this time - my primary bread + butter is not with photography and I am generally happy with my equipment. I'll continue to upgrade over time.

I can understand how certain features such as the TC's and IS could make a difference.

At the same time, some of my most prized shots have been with my FM2n and AIS glass.

Others?

Regards,

Charlie

I am not necessarily considering switching - I'd be hard pressed to do so unless there was a significant benefit or if the newer Canon IS-USM lenses were significantly less espensive than the Nikon equivalents.

I am mainly interested in hearing from those that have switched or are seriously considering it to find out their reasons.

Thanks again,

Charlie

I am a Nikon user and have been for years. I currently have quite a

few manual and AF bodies including the F5 and now D1 and D100 digital

bodies. I look forward to Nikon releasing a full-frame digital body

(some day?) I also have a full suite of good Nikkor glass from 17mm

up to 500/f4, both MF, AF and AF-S. My primary shooting (not my

primary profession) is nature/wildlife and lots of other things in

between including sports and family. 90% of my shooting is now

digital.

I haved seen multiple posts for Nikon gear that people are selling

saying they are moving to Canon.

I have never looked at Canon very closely (except way back in the TL

days) and haven't kept up with all the advancements in bodies and

lenses. I know Canon has a good range of IS + USM glass and just

recently released the 1DS body (full frame CCD) and believe it sells

for around $8K?

Without starting a brand war, what are the primary reasons for so

many folks moving to Canon? Is it cost? Quality? Features?

Customer service? A combination?

If you have switched, why? If you are contemplating switching, why?

I would hate to think of selling all my Nikon gear and replacing it

with Canon. There must be some good reasons for folks doing it,

though.

Thanks,

Charlie

I am in the same camp as Alex. I have the 500/f4P that I use with my F5, D1 and D100. I also use the TC-14E (modified for AIS lenses). The 500/f4 and the TC-14 are very well matched.

I also have the 300/f4 AF-S and use the TC-14E on it as well.

I have the TC-20E but prefer not to use it as you loose image quality along with 2 stops.

I found my 500/f4P for just under $2,000 and is in mint shape. They're out there is you are patient.

I have been eyeing the legendary Nikkor 200-400/f4 AIS as well but they go for $3,500 - $5,000. Rolland Elliot can modify them with the P chip. (In fact, he had a 200-400 w/P chip mod for sale a couple weeks ago.)

I'd love to have the 500/f4 AF-S for birds but right now can't justify the near $3,000 extra for one.

In my opinion, the 500/f4P is the best buy out there when you conside the focal length, excellent image quality, and weight.

Be sure to get a sturdy tripod and good ball head or Wimberley head for it as well. I use the Arca B1 with the Wimberley Sidekick for the 500. The handling of the Wimberley with large lenses is awesome compared to a ball head alone.

Charlie

Your depth of field required will dictate the fstop. I would suggest that you shoot in aperture preferred mode.

Are you finding pretty bad color casts with the lights in the gym?

Can you shoot with flash? You can either remote a flash (or two) with radio slaves or use a projected flash (fresnel lens) in front of your camera-mounted flash when using a long lens. Shooting with a flash will help balance the color as well. If flash is allowed, I try a camera mounted flash first.

I would try a SB-80DX alone first as a test. If that isn't doing it then try projecting it.

You'll also find that the flash will be close to dumping the full charge each time and you'll probably want to get a Quantum battery and the right adapter for the flash so it recharges faster and lasts longer.

I shoot in gyms all the time for highschool basketball and use a camera mounted SB-80DX (on D1 and D100). It shoots across court just fine. I typically shoot at f4 to f5.6 for some depth of field. You may need a smaller aperture to get the depth you need in a group shot when shooting a long line or multiple rows of cheerleaders.

Can you get permission to get up closer and use a wider lens?

My $.02

Charlie

I am about to spend $2,000 to $3,000 on a 500mm lens. I shoot F5, D1

and D100's now. I once had a Nikkor 500 f4P MF lens and wished I

still had it many, many times since it is so sharp - even with a TC14.

But I would prefer an AF version of this 500mm lens. Unfortunately,

I can't afford the NIkkor AF-S 500 f4 version. I have 5 kids and a

wife to feed.

So, I started looking at the Sigma 500 f4.5 HSM lens. The price is

near $3,000 (seen it for less used).

Has anyone compared these side-by-side? Any good comparisons out

there? I know the Nikkor 500 f4P has a great reputation. Would I be

giving up significant image quality by going to the Sigma HSM 500?

I'd be gaining a bit more flexibility in shooting with the AF.

Thanks for the feedback...

Charlie