Do I still get 300mm F4

Hi

I have just switched over to Nikon from Canon (my has this now), have a D700. My first trip away with the camera is on Friday to Fraser Island shooting birds and landscape. We are attending a Photographic Workshop. I had ordered a 300mm F4 but suprise suprise it is not here on time.http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/emoticons/sad.gif

I have bought the 70-300 VR to at least try and bridge the gap, however I cannot use my 1.4TC on this, so anyway, I'll do the best I can. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/emoticons/smiley.gif

The question now is, do I continue with the purchase considering I intend to buy the 200-400 F4. Initially, I didn't want to spend the extra money 1st up on the 200-400 (the switch was a little expensive) but leave it to later in the year or early next year.

I have really only done bird and wildlife photography whilst on holiday but after returning from Antarctica would like to do a lot more.

The main question is: Is there any point is getting the 300mm now if I intend to get the 200-400 shortly? I know for birds that a 500mm +TC's is preferred, however the next big trip is to Africa where I thought the 200-400 is more useful. I would also buy a crop body for this trip.

Any assistance, especially from those that have shot with both is appreciated. I realize that the 300mm is easier to handhold and this may be a factor.

Cheers

If this makes it easier for you, some people do have and use both the 300 prime and the 200-400 zoom (apparently).

And if I were you, I would buy the 200-400 first.

If you can afford it, definitely get the 200-400. I'd be surprised if it isn't handholdable, since the 500 f4 is for most people. This is a lens Canon shooters have been craving for years. It has long been a favorite choice of Nikon shooters, even the old manual-focus version. I've read that Art Wolfe relied so much on the old MF 200-400 that when it was discontinued, he bought a second one as a back-up (a smart idea, because it took many years for Nikon to bring out the current version).

Mark the 300 f4.0 will complement the 200-400 which I don't consider a hand hold lens. It is hand holdable for brief time just like the 500. It weighs seven pounds.

Cliff its interesting your thoughts on the 200-400 Before I switch to Nikon I thought it would be my number one lens but after using for a while it didn't work out. Perhaps for mammals would be a better focal length?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred Forns

. . . Before I switch to Nikon I thought it would be my number one lens but after using for a while it didn't work out. Perhaps for mammals would be a better focal length?

---

Alfred,

No, for birds, a lens as short as a 20-400 would never be my first choice. And, of course, as a Canon shooter I have no experience with it. But Mark mentioned Antarctica, where I think it would work as your longest lens, especially with a less than fullsize sensor, and Africa, where the zoom might be very good for large mammals. For shooting birds of varied sizes from a blind it might be excellent. The 300, on the other hand, wouldn't really do much in any of those situations, and in my experience isn't enough length even for flight shots. So I'd put a 500, 600, or 800 first, but between the two options Mark mentioned, the 200-400 seems the better choice. I'd take a 70-200 and a 400 f5.6 over a 300 f4 for medium telephoto, which is in fact what's in my pack, with either a 500 or 600 at the long end and a 24 T/S or 17-40 on the short side.

Thanks Guys for the comments.

@ Alfred- I guess your answer sums up the real question. Is there a place for the 300/4 along side the 200-400/4. Handholding and portability would be it. On the Antarctic trip I never saw the 200-400 being handheld although I wasn't looking out for it. I mainly saw it on a tripod and occasionally monopod. I was never in a zodiac with a Nikon shooter that had one. The poor chap that had it on his D3 outside the bridge when it separated from his camera and fell to the deck below was probably handholding it although I was not there. :( He took it better than I would thats for sure.

I would also use the 1.4TC with the 300/4 to turn it into a 420/5.6 although I suppose Canon shooters would feel that their 400/5.6 would be sharper and faster AF. I have no opinion on this as my Canon lens was a 100-400 on a 30D. My wife now has this lens although she insisted on a 50D to go with it. :D

I guess I do not want to cancel the order for the 300/4 if there will be a use for it. I think the 200-400 would be good value in Africa as a guy that runs safaris told me that the Canon 100-400 would be more use than a 500/4.

I will eventually get a 500/4 for birds however that will have to wait a a bit.

Thanks again

Sound advice Cliff and fully agree with you !!

Hi Mark Interesting I went to Nikon for a year and a half and now back to Canon :) No real problems on the Nikon side just didn't like using a full frame camera and had trouble with lens selection.

Mark, I am in a very similar situation to you (sort of). I'm still waiting for my 200-400 to arrive, and I'm starting to panic since I'm going on a phototrip next week. I currently have the 300mm f/4, and plan to keep it as a more mobile alternative when heading on longer excursions where the weight of the 200-400mm will likely be prohibitive. I use the 300mm with a 1.4TC and there is very little IQ loss. Although I'll likely get a 500mm (or longer) lens eventually, I don't buy into the thinking that a 500mm is essential for bird photography.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Hopgood

. . . I would also use the 1.4TC with the 300/4 to turn it into a 420/5.6 although I suppose Canon shooters would feel that their 400/5.6 would be sharper and faster AF.

---

Mark,

Can't speak for the Nikon 300 f4, but yes, the Canon 400 f5.6 is better than the Canon 300 f4/1.4x, at least for flight shooting, mostly because the 300 f4 focuses much closer and thus has to search more. The one real strength of the Canon 300 f4 is its close focus, which makes it good for butterflies and flowers, where the 400 f5.6 is weak. It's not that the 300 is a bad lens, but with weight and size restrictions for travel, a lens has to earn a place in the bag. If I were traveling by air with a 200-400, I would learn to handhold it rather than also carry a 300 f4--or I would get a 70-200 and a 400 f4 or 400 f5.6 (nothing like the latter in the current Nikon line, as far as I know). Of course, with a photographer spouse, one of you could pack the 300 and the other the 200-400. I have seen people handhold 500 f4s in Antarctica, and did it myself on a recent ocean cruise; it feels unwieldy, but the images were surprisingly good. When the birds get close enough, though, I gladly switch to the 400 f5.6 or even the 70-200. Closer is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Smith.

Mark, I am in a very similar situation to you (sort of). I'm still waiting for my 200-400 to arrive, and I'm starting to panic since I'm going on a phototrip next week. I currently have the 300mm f/4, and plan to keep it as a more mobile alternative when heading on longer excursions where the weight of the 200-400mm will likely be prohibitive. I use the 300mm with a 1.4TC and there is very little IQ loss. Although I'll likely get a 500mm (or longer) lens eventually, I don't buy into the thinking that a 500mm is essential for bird photography.

---

Graham not sure what you mean? You don't think a 500 is essential for bird photography?

Hi Mark - Brissy lad hey?? My old home town :)

I have the 200-400 Vr and the 300 F2.8 - the 300 is my choice for a handholdable walk around lens - or when taking short trips were space is at a absolute premium, I use it with a 1.7 converter and it is spectacular to say the least.

Thanks Lance

I wish I could spring for the 2.8 as well as the 200-400. Perhaps in time. I remember a time when I thought $650 was a lot for a lens. :)

I would also use the 1.4TC with the 300/4 to turn it into a 420/5.6 although I suppose Canon shooters would feel that their 400/5.6 would be sharper and faster AF. I have no opinion on this as my Canon lens was a 100-400 on a 30D. My wife now has this lens although she insisted on a 50D to go with it. :D

I used the 400 f/5.6L with 40D and I will have it on a 50D soon(arriving next week:p), I tried D700 + 300 f/4+1.4X TC and I was really surprised the IQ was in par with (if not sharper than) Canon 400 prime and AF speed was very fast, it works great for large birds like hawks, great egrets and GBH but doesn't have enough reach for small birds, the bird will come out tiny after cropping. So I would totally recommend it but if you want something serious I'd go for 500 f/4 VR. I am going to try 200-400 VR next week to see how it performs with the 1.4TC (naked it is just not long enough). But between 200-400 VR and 300 f/4+1.4X TC just from numbers I'd pick a 300 f/4+TC plus a D300 to take advantage of the crop, it will still be cheaper than a 200-400. If Nikon makes a D700x (24 mpixel D700) things change quite a bit though. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred Forns

Sound advice Cliff and fully agree with you !!

Hi Mark Interesting I went to Nikon for a year and a half and now back to Canon :) No real problems on the Nikon side just didn't like using a full frame camera and had trouble with lens selection.

---

Al, Did you ever try the 500 f/4 VR? May I ask why you didn't like it compared to Canon 500?

Hi Arash Yes Fabs has one and its one great lens !!!

Just went with the Canon because of the overall price difference and the lack of crop factor for the D3. Lens for lens both are outstanding !!!!

Thanks everyone for thier comments. I have just returned from Fraser Island with some great shots. I mainly used the 70-300 Nikkor on a D700. It was not enough length for most of my bird shots, however when I got close enough it was great. I will get both the 300/4 and the 200-400 as I now see them as complemently. For Africa I will take the 200-400 rather than the other.