Which Tele lens?

[Rob Mckenzie]

Ok...so I wanted to conduct some initial research into which lens to buy. I won't be buying for quite some time yet but I like to have something to work towards. I will be using it for birding photography pretty much exclusively. Would have to be Nikon:

So here we go:

300 f2.8 - then add a 1.4 or 1.7 TC
400 f2.8 - then add a 1.4 or 1.7 tc
200-400 f4 - then add a 1.4 tc

or something completely different.

I guess the obvious choice would be the one that can go the furthest. Also does adding a TC soften the image (visibly) at all. I really couldn't care less about the tech specs of the setup I just wanted to hear from people who have used the lenses in the field taking photos of birds. I have read review after review of people who use the lens for about a day and then write it up.

[Doug Brown]

If I were spending that kind of money, I'd be looking at the 500 f/4 VR. If you know it's going to be a birding lens, 300mm is short. The 400 f/2.8 is a great lens but it's expensive, heavy, and doesn't have much reach. The 200-400 is a great lens from what I've been told, but I still feel that 500mm is the sweet spot for bird photography. A disclaimer: I'm a Canon guy, but I'm sure you'll be getting plenty of feedback from Nikon shooters.

[Nancy A Elwood]

Rob I totally agree with Doug. For birding I feel the 500 is the place to start. For the weight and size for travel it is just about perfect. I got the AFS II model from a friend who was moving to the VR model and it has become my most used lens. I started off many years ago with the 300 2.8, but really for birding, it is too short. The 400 is the same as the 300 and weighs more than the 500. Also, I have the 1.4 TC about 50% of the time with great results. And, do not forget that full Wimberley head. It makes a world of difference!

[Axel Hildebrandt]

I agree with Doug, I use Canon, too, but I almost exclusively use a 500f/4 with 1.4x TC.

[Charles Glatzer]

Rob,

The less you have to use converters the better, with lower resolution and slower AF resulting, especially with the 2x. If birds are your thing go with the longest lens you can afford. For mammals the 200-400 is wonderful offering great versatility, but the AF slows down tremendously with the 1.7x. That said I am currently shooting Canon with fixed prime tele 300/400/500/600 lenses. The 400 f/2.8 is the sharpest followed by the 300/500/600 in order. Because of the very high lens resolution the 300f/2.8 and particularly the 400 f/2.8 is still extremely sharp with converters and both will AF @ 5.6 with a 2x on all bodies, and the MFD is wonderful. Note, the Nikon AF speed will slow down with converters, but not as much as with Canon. The 500mm is a super lens with its longer focal length, lighter weight affording hand-holding, and lower price point making it the preferred choice of many. The 300 f/ 2.8 with converters is my go to lens whenever severe weight restrictions are imposed. I prefer not to use a 2x whenever possible.


Best,

Chas

[Ed Vatza]

Rob,

As I look at the names above, they are all much more experienced and much better versed than I. Also I am a Canon man.

With those caveats, let me give you my experience. I toiled for quite some time trying to make a decision between the Canon 500 f/4 which with a 1.4x TC would give me 700mm effective focal length at f/5.6 and the 300 f/2.8 which with a 2x TC would give me 600mm effective focal length at f/5.6. I stopped at f/5.6 since I use a 50D and 30D both of which are 1.6x crop cameras and both of which lose AF after f/5.6.

I ultimately decided on the 300 f/2.8 because I thought it to be more versatile than the 500 f/4. If it was birds only, I would have gone with the 500 but I wanted a great lens that I felt comfortable with for birds, mammals, butterflies, wildflowers, etc.

While I obviously don't have a 500 to do a side by side comparison, I must say that I have been very happy with the 300mm f/2.8. Almost all the birds I do are with the 2x TC. While I get plenty of criticism of my bird images, I must admit that probably 99% of them are my fault. Not the camera, not the lens, not the TC but ME. I screw up the light. I shoot with a poor background. I don't hit the eye as my focal point. And so on.

So again, I defer to the folks above. They are the experts. I am not. I can only tell that from a Canon users perspective, I am happy with my 300mm f/2.8. If I was rolling in the dough, sure I would also pick up a 500 or a 600 but I'm not. The 300mm without TC, with a 1.4x and with a 2x meet my needs.

Good luck with your choice.

[Desmond Chan]

Not experienced enough as most here but here's what I think:

Assuming in bird photography, reach is of utmost important, then I would rule out 300f2.8. If you want flexibility, instead of changing TCs on your 300f2.8, you may find it more convenient to simply use a 200-400f4 (you can shoot @200 while it's impossible for a 300 to do). 200-400 has a minimum focus distance of 6ft, 300 is 7.2ft, and 500 is 13.1 ft.

If you use a 200-400 with a 1.7TC, you will get almost the reach of 500 + 1.4. A 300 will never get you that. Keep in mind, as mentioned, TCs degrade the quality (perhaps to different degrees depending on the lens they're used with).

Also should be considered is that if you use a 1.7TC on the 200-400, the largest aperture I think is 6.3 but still 5.6 if it is 300 + 2TC. So the AF will be slower, but you can still shoot BIF with it though (been there done that).

One thing, 300 f2.8 plus TC is easier to handle than a 200-400 and, I suppose, a 500, too, because the it will still be shorter and lighter.

If you have the money, I agree with others here that I would rather get the 500 instead of the 400f2.8 prime and use TCs on it.

[Roger Clark]

I have a 500 f/4 and a 300 f/2.8. I always go for the 500 when I can. While some here do hand hold the 500, I find it much better with a tripod. I do most work with the 500 and a full Wimberly. The 300 is much smaller and I can hand hold it for long periods. I take the 300 when I want to travel lighter (also with smaller tripod, no full Wimberly). But for birds, I agree with others, go for the reach.

Roger

[Doug Brown]

That said I am currently shooting Canon with fixed prime tele 300/400/500/600 lenses.

Hey Chas, just curious about why you're thinking of jumping ship?

[Jared Lloyd]

I have the 200-400vr and use it with a 1.4tc on a regular basis. For birds, its just not enough - period. If all you will be photographing are species like egrets, herons, ibises and the like than you can certainly get away with this lens especially in areas where these birds are habituated to humans. However, branch away from this and you will constantly find yourself frustrated by lack of reach. Waterfowl are a great example. Wading birds are not hunted where as waterfowl are and therefore very timid of humans.

With this said, I have no interest in getting rid of my 200-400 lens because the versatility is absolutely fantastic. But, I do so wish I had a 600 to compliment the lens for smaller birds such as ducks.

Jared

[Charles Glatzer]

Hey Chas, just curious about why you're thinking of jumping ship?

Doug,

With all due respect I do not care to rehash this again.

Chas

[John Wilkerson]

Rob I use the Nikon 200-400vr f/4 with the 1.7 tc min app is 5.6 with the tc. I get good results but agree with jared as far as reach is concerned. I had a budget and bought the most for the least, imo. Also I like zoom v. fixed focal length. That said
I would like to have a bit more reach and will make another purchase as the budget allows.

John
________________
www.wilkersonphotography.com

[John Wilkerson]

Sorry that tele should have been 1.4 Tried to stretch it!

[Paul Lagasi]

Hi Rob

My 2 cents as follows:
I've owned a Sigma 50-500 (too many problems, no VR)
Nikon 80-400 (great lens, sharp, but slow focus)
Nikon 200-400 VR (heavy, heavy, mine didn't work so well with 1.4)

Sold them all and bought 105 2.8 macro, 70-200 2.8, and 300 2.8, also bought 1.4,1.7 & 2 TC.
70-200 and 300 work very well with 1.4 and 1.7.
70-200 is a keeper..will never sell this lens...works very well handheld
300 is unbelievably sharp and fast...works best with steady rest

While I am saving for bigger lens, 500 minimum. I can get by.....with the lenses above and the teleconverters, which give me 300 - 600 focal length.

We all make the best with what we have or can afford...

Hope this helps

Paul

[Charles Glatzer]

Hi Rob

My 2 cents as follows:
I've owned a Sigma 50-500 (too many problems, no VR)
Nikon 80-400 (great lens, sharp, but slow focus)
Nikon 200-400 VR (heavy, heavy, mine didn't work so well with 1.4)

Sold them all and bought 105 2.8 macro, 70-200 2.8, and 300 2.8, also bought 1.4,1.7 & 2 TC.
70-200 and 300 work very well with 1.4 and 1.7.
70-200 is a keeper..will never sell this lens...works very well handheld
300 is unbelievably sharp and fast...works best with steady rest

While I am saving for bigger lens, 500 minimum. I can get by.....with the lenses above and the teleconverters, which give me 300 - 600 focal length.

We all make the best with what we have or can afford...

Hope this helps

Paul

Paul,

That is an excellent lens selection. I started out with the 70-200 f/2.8 and 300 f/2.8 as well. FYI-I do not recommend the 1.7x w/ 70-200. The 300 f/2.8 w/wo converters is a a light-weight, very sharp, and hand holdable when necessary wildlife and flight combo. It is a lens I will never give up.

Best,

Chas

[Jerry Clement]

I love my Canon 500mm f4 IS and use it for more than on wildlife. I have discovered it is terrific for compressed landscape images as well as allowing me to move closer to people without invading their space, and their responses are often more relaxed as a result.

[Thonnaksar NOP]

Hi Rob,
I'm a Nikon man and exclusively shoot birds.
I've been using my 200-400 VR for nearly 3 years now and just love it. It's a unique lens, very sharp and works really well with TC-14EII. The TC-17EII still produces acceptable image quality, but I get better results with my Kenko 2x. What makes this zoom lens unique is its minimum focus distance of 1m95 : you always bring home decent pictures of birds (or wildlife) !

I also have the 600 VR. It has an awesome reach and is incredibly sharp compared to the 200-400. It works extremely well with TC-14EII, TC-17EII and Kenko 2x. For me this lens is not hand holdable like the 200-400. I often use it on a monopod with Dietmar Nill head.

Before buying the 600 VR, I have tried the 500 VR which is a great lens. But it doesn't have enough extra reach compared to my 200-400.

Usually, for BIF I use my trusty 70-200 VR+TC-17EII.

As a birder, if I want to go anywhere with only one lens it will be the 200-400 VR. I can't live without this fantastic zoom lens !!!


Good luck in your choice.