600 VR and 2nd Lens option advise

[Jared Gricoskie]

I investigating my options for making a shift in my gear a bit and wonder what you folks thought about the idea.

I currently shot with a Nikon 500 f4 AFS II (non VR) as my main lens and find I'm often putting on a teleconverter (1.7 mostly and sometimes 1.4) to reach my subjects (mostly due to National Park regulations where I shot and guide).

Given that fact the 600 f4 VR draws my eye. So thats question one, is a 600 f4 VR that much better than a 600 f4 AFS II that VR and the better resolution/adjustments for digital are worth the addition $3k-4k price. It will always be on a big Gitzo and a full Wimberly II.

So then the next part is I need a secondary lens when subjects move in close. I have a 70-300 for my clients to use but I'm not fond of it at the long end. I also have a 300 f4 that I bought for BIF's but I find I like the 500 f4 better for that so its not used much. A zoom would really be handy and more useful.

I'm thinking about selling the 300 for the new Sigma OS 50-500 for the flexibility to handhold on a second body but at f6.3 I fear those nice blurred backgrounds I love with the f4 will suffer. So the 200-400 comes to mind to give me that flexibility and great IQ with the ability to put a 1.4TC on to cover the range between the 200-400 and the 600. The downside having to put up two tripods to have both available in the high action times like the Elk Rut. I would consider putting on the 200-400 strap on the lens and when I shot putting it over the 600 on the wimberly to handhold.

So that being the case, and money not really being a huge issue what would you do on both cases? (I'm young and self employed so looking for big biz purchases to cut taxes isn't too hard to justify a $12,000 purchase.)

[Van Hilliard]

If money is no issue, I wouldn't hesitate. I've used the 600 and the 200-400 for several years and love the combo. I've never updated to the VR version and don't really have trouble with the lack of vibration reduction. I also shoot Canon and used the 600 canon with IS. When I got my Nikon 600 back recently after a long period in the repair shop, I was expecting to see a difference with the non-VR Nikon not being as sharp as the 600 Canon with IS. Fortunately, that has not been the case. I too shoot with a good carbon fiber tripod and Wimberley head and am very pleased. That 200-400 is the real gem, however. If you get it, I'll bet it quickly becomes your favorite lens. It can be handheld even though it's a little heavy for that. I usually use it on the tripod/Wimberley combo though.

I've used both the 600 and the 200-400 with the 1.4 and 1.7 converters and have been pleased with the results.

[Reza Gorji]

Van: Since you have the TC1.7 and the 200-400, can you tell me if you lose autofocus with the combination. I have the 200-400 and the tc1.4 and very please with it. I rarely shoot handheld as its a heavy lens.

[Gene Potter]

The 600 VR draws my eye as well, but good luck finding one in stock at the major on-line retailers. I check B&H and 17^th Street every week and find this lens in constant backorder. Besides that, I’m not a big fan of VR. I own an array of modern VR lens and have a hard time distinguishing between them and my older non-VR lens. I love my 200 – 400 VR, but get very nice results from my way old 300 f4. I’m thinking if I can find a used 600 ASF-II from a reliable source, at the right price, I’m on it. If money isn’t a problem, get on a waiting list. It’s $10,300 at B&H, a good and highly reliable on-line retailer.