Full frame or 300mm 2.8 VR

Printable View

09-05-2013, 03:19 AM
Tiago Caravana

Full frame or 300mm 2.8 VR

Hello Naturographers,

I currently use a NikonD7100 with a Nikon 500mm f4 VR. I'm very pleased with the combo, it really produces images with top detail but in some situations the reach is to high (when very close to big birds or for some action shots). Therefore I'm thinking of increasing my kit with a:
.Nikon D3s
or a
.Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR
It seems to me that the first option is better as I would have a DX (D7100) and FX (D3s) camera. One for reach and better definition and the other for low ISOs and action shots. It would also be cheaper.

I believe many of you already had similar doubts. What do think/advise?

Thanks
09-05-2013, 09:15 AM
David Stephens

I'd go with the 300mm, but seriously think about an f/4. Carrying both a 500mm and an f/2.8 300mm can drag you down. I carry my 500mm and a 70-200mm f/4, along with my 1.4X and my 2.0X TCs. That gives you tremendous flexibility to get the focal length that you need. A second body for the shorter lens is nice for making quick switches.
09-05-2013, 09:57 AM
Tiago Caravana

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Stephens

I'd go with the 300mm, but seriously think about an f/4. Carrying both a 500mm and an f/2.8 300mm can drag you down. I carry my 500mm and a 70-200mm f/4, along with my 1.4X and my 2.0X TCs. That gives you tremendous flexibility to get the focal length that you need. A second body for the shorter lens is nice for making quick switches.

Thanks for your reply David!

I believe the 300mm f4 doesn't have the same quality has the 500mm f4 and it also lacks VR. Don't know if you agree...

The weight question, price and possibility of using higher ISOs directs me to the used D3s solution. My biggest doubt is that it only has 12Mpx, but I'd keep the D7100 for reach and possible crops situations.
09-05-2013, 11:01 AM
David Stephens

Look at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0 for comparison of the f/2.8 and f/4 IQ at f/4. They're very comparable; however, I agree, lack of VR on the f/4 is a serious shortcoming at these focal lengths. Still, the weight of your rig is going to be a serious issue as you haul it out in the woods. Another alternative is a 70-200mm with and without a teleconverter. The high-ISO performance of the D7100 is strong enough that you can generally work with f/4.

The only reason that I see to consider a new body is to have a second body for quick change. I often find that I need to switch quickly from my 500mm or 500mm with a TC to a much shorter FL because a large animal is approaching. I do have my 500mm mounted on my full frame camera, but only because the full-frame (it's a Canon) has much better AF. You'll find yourself gravitating toward the camera with the superior AF.
09-05-2013, 08:06 PM
Ashley Cohen

It's a tough Choice, if you got a D3s, consider the fact you'd have to learn all the positions of the controls, work with the shallower DOF on full frame images and you'd probably end up loving it more than the D7100 as it's one **** of a camera, with speed of shooting and buffer far out weighing the D7100. I've seen it with my Dad once you go to a pro camera it puts it in your head that what you've got doesn't compare. I'd play it safe go with the lens option for flexibility. It's your choice, the 300mm F4 is a good choice as it has a really nice close focus and is easily hand holdable, My dad has one and I've used it. The 300mm F2.8 VR would give you some fantastic results though price wise you'd end up saving more getting a D3s so it raises the question once again if money is an issue.

I'd say if u only want 300mm then go for the 70-200mm VR and use extenders or the 300mm F4.
09-06-2013, 01:41 AM
Markus Jais

I agree about the advice with the weight. I have the Canon 4/600 II (about the weight of the 4/500 VR) and the 4/200-400 1.4x. Carrying both is a pain. I wouldn't want to miss any of those lenses but for longer walks when I need the 4/600 I will seriously consider bringing my 4/300L IS as a shorter lens and not the 200-400. Only for cases where I don't expect to use the shorter lens much, though.

If I remember correctly, Nikon has a new patent on a 4/300 VR. I would expect one to be announced in the not too distant future but nobody knows any specific date.

If you want more flexibility and don't need f2.8 or f4 the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S NIKKOR (the new version!) might be a good choice. Would be a great lens for large mammals and birds that are close. Very sharp lens.

Is the D4 an option? If you can afford it, I would choose that one over the D3s as it has a bunch of improvements.

Markus
09-06-2013, 04:52 AM
Ashley Cohen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Jais

I agree about the advice with the weight. I have the Canon 4/600 II (about the weight of the 4/500 VR) and the 4/200-400 1.4x. Carrying both is a pain. I wouldn't want to miss any of those lenses but for longer walks when I need the 4/600 I will seriously consider bringing my 4/300L IS as a shorter lens and not the 200-400. Only for cases where I don't expect to use the shorter lens much, though.

If I remember correctly, Nikon has a new patent on a 4/300 VR. I would expect one to be announced in the not too distant future but nobody knows any specific date.

If you want more flexibility and don't need f2.8 or f4 the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S NIKKOR (the new version!) might be a good choice. Would be a great lens for large mammals and birds that are close. Very sharp lens.

Is the D4 an option? If you can afford it, I would choose that one over the D3s as it has a bunch of improvements.

Markus

I forgot about Nikons new 80-400mm VR, that would be a great alternative, I would certainly go for that one, even if the price is a little higher it's still lighter and cheaper than the 300mm F2.8 VR!
09-06-2013, 08:13 AM
Ulli Hoeger

Just to throw another option in the mix ......

The brand new Sigma 120-300 2.8 "Sports series" lens.

- Good performance reviews and reports so far
- OS(IS)
- flexibility only a zoom can provide
- tunability via the optional USB docking station

Ulli
09-06-2013, 03:59 PM
Tiago Caravana

Thanks to all the contributions to this "brainstorming". I have a lot to study now... ...lots of good ideas.

A friend of mine also pointed the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 as the last post states. The full frame D3s or D4 is still bubbling I'm my mind also...
09-06-2013, 04:29 PM
Ashley Cohen

Well if you could afford a D4 I'd go down that route, or even the D800 for ultimate quality. it's a great wildlife camera if a little slower. Saying that the D4 would complement your D7100 excellently. The new sigma 120-300mm OS is meant to be much better than the older OS one. I owned the older OS one it was good but heavy! Worked well with the 1.4x to a point but the 2x was a no go really.
09-06-2013, 06:31 PM
David Burren

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashley Cohen

The new sigma 120-300mm OS is meant to be much better than the older OS one. I owned the older OS one it was good but heavy!

I have (and love) the 120-300mm OS S (the current model) but it's definitely a heavy beast. Heavier than the previous version I believe.
09-09-2013, 06:23 PM
Tiago Caravana

I decided for the Nikon D4! Now all I have to do is sell some stuff, spare some money and buy it as cheap as possible...

Thanks for the feedbacks!
09-27-2013, 10:38 AM
Tiago Caravana

Here I am again. It's really a hard decision and believe me that I normally always know what I want. The problem this time is that what I want doesn't exist yet... ...I need a camera good for low light situations, action shots and I'm a pixel detail freak. The attention to detail in 100% crops drives me to the D800e, but I'll probably lose some action shots comparing to the D4

Moneywise I'll save some money to buy other lens going to the D800. I understand the D4 is blazing fast but I'll miss the detail that I love so much in my photos.
09-27-2013, 11:03 AM
David Stephens

OOF details are no good. Fast tracking AF beats pixel counts all the time, when shooting action. Don't buy an landscape body to shoot action.
10-02-2013, 05:41 PM
Tiago Caravana

Thanks David! I bought the 300mm F4 (it didn't arrive yet) to pair with my 500 f4 and I'm going to go slow, experimenting and understanding my needs...
10-28-2013, 06:16 AM
Tiago Caravana

Hello,

Many thanks to all the contributions.

I received a used Nikon 300 f4, but it had a problem thus it didn't work with teleconverters, so I returned it. In the meantime I tested it without TC and it was a nice lens (but the lack of VR was a pain).

All things balanced I still had the need for a solution that could:
1. better the low light photography
2. give me more speed for action shots
3. for some situations give a bigger FOV than my D7100 + 500mm f4

:cheers: This weekend I managed to buy a used D4 with only 26.000 photos taken for a good price (in terms of the prices we have in Europe) :cheers:

Definitely this is the best solution for my problem. The D4 is from another dimension, I'm only affraid I'll get to additcted on its capabilities, having difficulty to use the "more pixels on the bird" D7100 solution...
11-25-2014, 01:06 AM
Tiago Caravana

Full frame or 300mm 2.8 VR

Hi there!
It's true I did got addicted to the D4! I do carry the D7100 as a backup, but never used it again.
Even the number of pixels and the reach capability of the D7100 seems overrated when you compare the quality of the FF D4 pixel quality
But the biggest thing is to be able to use ISO6400 with the same results I get from the D7100 @ ISO640
The worst thing is that I'm getting up a lot sooner, leaving home at night but starting to photograph before sunrise with magic light and trying to get action shots as my great objective, since I have more speed