Advice on Nikon lens options...

[Morkel Erasmus]

Hey folks...I would probably get a VERY mixed batch of feedback here, but it's worth a shot nonetheless.

I am in the process of making the switch from Canon to Nikon. How or why is not the point of this thread .

I need to get some constructive advice from current Nikon users on what choice to make regarding the long focal length. Here is my situation...I mostly shoot wildlife, landscapes and avian. When in the field, I focus on wildlife as well as avian, although wildlife will probably edge slightly ahead if I had a brilliant sighting of each on either side and had to choose which sighting to 'work' .

Now, here is my current setup (Canon):
Canon 7D, Canon 40D both with grip (thus, all APS-C sensors)
10-22mm USM
70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM
100-400mm L IS USM
300 2.8 L IS USM
1.4x-II and 2.0x-III TC's
580EX flash

Here is what I am getting with the switch:
Nikon D3s, Nikon D7000 with grip (to have an FX and DX option)
TC-14E-II teleconverter
SB900 flash
14-24mm f2.8 (for landscapes and nocturnal shooting)
24-70mm f2.8 (for landscapes, general portraiture and travel)
70-200mm f2.8 VR2 (for close-range wildlife and other portraiture)
NOW comes the big choice. I will most probably only be able to take ONE of the following:
200-400mm f4 VR2
500mm f4 VR
600mm f4 VR

I have worked with the 200-400 (VR1) before and loved it. Exceptional for the kind of wildlife shooting I do...in certain locations like Botswana and the Sabi-Sands/General Kruger area. Paired with a DX body I will have some extra reach when needed, and I've heard it gives reasonable results with the 1.4xTC. Problem is that it will probably leave me wanting in wide open areas like the Kalahari or Etosha and certain sections of the Greater Kruger Park, areas I frequent and intend to frequent in the future. It will also leave me wanting when shooting birds (especially since I visit a lot of birding spots on weekends during the year when I am not in the bush). If I will end up pairing the D7000 with 200-400 most of the time then I will feel that I am not using the D3s for what I am getting it for.

The other option is then to go for a prime. The 500mm is quite handholdable from what I understand...and with the 1.4x it can give me up to 700mm on the FX and 1050mm effectively on the DX. The 600mm is huge, but will give me the advantage of getting up to 840mm on FX and 1260mm effectively on the DX. My thoughts were that I can fill up the "gap" below the 500/600 with the 70-200 on the DX with/without the TC when needed...

The other problem is if I take one of the primes I will probably end up purchasing the 200-400 someday as I do love that lens...Then having a 600 would be better than a 500 as you're not getting that much extra reach from 200-400 to 500.

That being said, I have gotten quite used to using the Canon 300 prime with/without a 1.4TC on the 7D, thus I am used to about 480-672mm effective focal length. This makes me think that I would be well off with one of the primes on the D3s, rather than the 200-400 which might leave me a tad short.

Lots of things buzzing around my head. Logic says get the 600 and then later when I have recovered from living off bread and water for a few year get the 200-400. Getting both the 200-400 and 600 would be awesome, but then I would have to sell my home, car and wife...hehe.

Looking forward to your thoughts!

[Giulio Zanni]

I know that is not a pupolar choice, but I am enjoying using my 400/2.8 VRII + 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0II TCs.
I can assure you that the 400/2.8 coupled with the new 2.0II is very sharp.
I did not particularly like the 70-200/2.8 and ended up selling it and getting the cheaper 70-300 VR which is a light weight amazing lens also for BIF.
I sold the D300, which I did not like at iso higher than 400. I am not sure to what extent the D7000 is an improvement over the D300. As my D3s is in for repair, I am currently using a D700, which is very good, but still not a D3s. I think that there is no substitute in the Nikon line-up for the D3s, which is one of reasons for which I moved to Nikon.
The 200-400 would be nice for shooting from hides or from where you can not move. However it is a bit short on the long end and it doesn't work particularly well with TCs. I think that a zoom like a 100-400 is what is missing in the Nikon system. If you could wait a bit, Nikon is supposed to announce new bodies in the near future.

Giulio

[Vivaldo Damilano]

Morkel, it’s difficult to choose. All are great lenses!! They each have their place and you will always miss one of them if you don’t have it.
I have used all three long lenses and love them all In the end, I let the 500 go and kept the 600. The 200-400 and 600 make a great combo. I am very used to the 600’s weight and find I am very happy with the extra reach it gives ESP with FX camera's. I normally find that the 200-400 is too short but when I need it, it's really useful and comes in hand very often, especially with bigger game. I also had a D300 and sold it, as I was always using the D3. Personally I much prefer FX, even though I loose some reach.

I would consider the a 500 if you only going to get one lens. I loved the lens with the D3s – it’s perfect for birds and wildlife and more manageable than the 600.
The other thing to consider is the weight of the kit you will have to carry around. I flew to Chobe last week and carried two full bags of equipment which weighed a ton. Although once I got to Chobe, I was glad I had my two big lenses, each on it’s own D3 & D3s.

Good luck choosing, either way you will be happy.

[Bill Jobes]

I also made the switch from Canon to Nikon a couple of years ago.

Here's another option for you to consider, which is my current 'long lens' setup.

I've owned three 600mm, one 500mm and the 200-400mm. They are all fabulous lenses; but kind of heavy, relatively speaking.

I am thrilled with this setup: The new Nikon 2.8 300mm VR II, coupled with the new Nikon TC-20E III. This gives me a razor sharp 600mm with half the weight of the 600's.

And, with a slight TC modification, I can stack the 1.4 and 2X TC's to get to 840mm.

I'm several months into this experiment, and feel no yearning to return to the 600mm lens.

[James Shadle]

No question the 500mm.
With the 70-200 VR2 and a good converter you will have the 200-400mm range covered.
The 500mm is lighter than the 600mm and performs well with TCs.

If you were avian primarily I would suggest the 600mm.

[Morkel Erasmus]

Thanks for your thoughts, Gents. Must say I am leaning towards that 500...

Would you say that the 500+1.4 on the D3s would be sufficient for most birding (ito the size of birds...raptors are easier than sparrows obviously)? Obviously I can put them on the D7000 is the light is decent and the distance is far...:2

[James Shadle]

Yes a D7000, 500mm and 1.4 will put you up close and personal with raptors.

[Morkel Erasmus]

Thanks...I meant for smaller birds...a large bird fills more of your frame than a small one so you don't have to crop as much. I was enquiring about the use of a D3s with 500+1.4 from eg a hide or pondside for birding...will one always need to revert to the D7000 in cases where the birds are generally 30-70m from you?

BIF specifically...

[arash_hazeghi]

Morkel,

Don't waste your time and money, get the 500VR. It just rocks on that D3s, hand holding is fantastic too (better than current Canon 500 MKI), excellent AF.

All the D3S shots on my website are made with 500VR. If you want BIF samples I can post some here. 600 is great too, but most people can't handhold it for extended periods (including me).

If you are serious about flight photography with high IQ you need to delete the idea of using a 2X TC.

You are stepping up from a Kia to a Porsche

[Michael_Loizou]

I would also look at the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS rather than the 70-200mm f2.8 VR2
Works really well at 600mm on my Canon and on a friend's Nikon

[Morkel Erasmus]

Thanks Arash and Michael.

Arash, would love to see some examples, if you don't mind posting them here.

Keep in mind I will not be using it exclusively for BIF as I would want it to be my go-to lens for wildlife as well...but at 500mm on the FF body I am quite comfortable that it won't be 'too much' glass for mammals and I can always add the 1.4x TC if needed. I also tend to prefer handholding when shooting BIF as I like being mobile around a site.

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash, would love to see some examples, if you don't mind posting them here.
.

Here you go



D3S 500VR +!.4X TC

[arash_hazeghi]

D3S 500VR + 1.4X TC

[arash_hazeghi]

D3S + 500VR

[arash_hazeghi]

D3S + 500VR This is close range flight which really stresses the AF. ISO 2000, no NR applied. DR is exceptional.

Good luck with your purchase, I hope the advanced gear will bring new opportunities for you to make excellent photos.

[Morkel Erasmus]

Thanks Arash...stunning examples...all @ ISO-2000?

Have you traded in your 1Dmk4 yet??

[Steven Kersting]

The difference between 500 and 600 is really pretty negligible. Arash has shown how good the 500 can be and portability/flexibility should be a consideration.... I like the idea.

On a D3 500mm, or even 700mm (500+1.4) will be short for small birds at any real distance (+100ft), at least that's my experience. But I don't think there's really a "solution" for that other than more MP/FOV. You have that covered with the 7000, kind of.

I don't like the 7000 next to a D3...Handling/ functions are way different and it is less capable for BIF/action stuff. Have you considered the D3x instead of the pair? You do loose a little high iso capability and a backup body, but you gain better handling/performance over the 7000 and you get even more MP/FOV when cropped down.
I'm not "suggesting" it as I haven't used a D3x myself, but I'm also changing bodies (D3 died) and this consideration is weighing heavily...I'm currently waiting to see what the D4 will be.

[Deborah Harrison]

I sold my 200-400 and replaced it with the 500 - a move I don't regret. Shooting mainly in Botswana but also Kenya I found I was using the 200-400 mainly at the 400 length. So, go for the 500 and use a multiplier with the 70-200 if you need the in between range.
As for shooting birds....you won't regret the move, my success rate of tack sharp BIF has improved dramatically since making the switch to Nikon although there are certain aspects of Canon I miss. Your lens choice is essentially the same as mine although I have since got the 24-120 which I really like and is lighter than the 24-70.
If in doubt about lenses, any place in your area where you can rent lenses for a week or so to try in the field. That might help you although, IMHO the 500 is the way to go

[Randy Stout]

Morkel

Lots of good advice above. I will throw in my .02

Tried the 200-400 in Florida for the large,slow birds there, too short and didn't like TCs

Used a 500 AFS-1 for 2 years, worked well with combo of d300, d700, TCs

Have had a 600VR for 9 months. Have not picked up the 500 since I got the 600.

You know what i shoot, mainly larger birds, loons, cranes, ducks, but some song birds.

I don't shoot handheld, so the weight was not an issue.

If you are going to travel a lot, 500VR with TCs and DX and FX bodies would make a very nice kit. The 600 is big, won't fit most bags including the large Think Tanks.

No perfect answer, but if big critters are in the mix, 500 sounds like the right compromise to me.

Cheers

Randy

[Harshad Barve]

Do consider , 600mm will give you 44% more image size than 500mm , It will matter most if you are using FX bodies

At your young age 1 or 1 1/2 Kg should not be a problem in weight for you , 600/F4 of Nikon is razor sharp , few images made under 1/50 of sec

D300 , 600mm, F8 , 1/20 in rainforest

[Harshad Barve]

Please note this is tiny bird , 13 cm

D300 , 600mm, F8 , 1/20 in rainforest

[Steven Kersting]

Do consider , 600mm will give you 44% more image size than 500mm

Not to quibble, the 600 is a fine lens. But the FOV for a 500mm is ~5* and for a 600mm it's ~4*. Not the same as 40% more as if one used a 1.4x. The 500 w/ 1.4 would =700mm w/ ~3.5* FOV. (horizontal estimates, sensor dependent)

Doubling the focal length (halving the FOV) would get you a 100% increase in size (2x). At 750mm you would get ~50% increase, and at 600mm ~20%.

What is confusing is that different lenses can have different magnification factors. But these lenses have the same magnification factors (from what I can find). What you are getting by going to 600mm is essentially just a ~1* FOV crop. IME it's just not that big a deal.

With the 500mm; using a 1.4x, switching to the D7000 body (or cropping a D3x image ) will all result in greater image resolution (MP/FOV) than switching from the 500 to the 600 on the D3 body would.

This is all just of the top of my head, if I've made any errors I'm sure Roger will correct me.

Very nice pics BTW.

[arash_hazeghi]

Thanks Arash...stunning examples...all @ ISO-2000?

Have you traded in your 1Dmk4 yet??

most are 1600. last one 2000.

Hahah I have too much investment in Canon gear now

[Morkel Erasmus]

Thanks for the varied responses everyone.

Stephen - I am not in a position to wait too long and the D3s is still a stellar camera which should serve me well for quite some time. I have considered the D3x but the funds available will not be enough to get both the D3s and D3x...

Harshad, remember those shots, you made the 600 shine...

For now I am really considering the 500...got some feedback from a local guy who has used the D3/500mm/1.4xTC in similar situations where I will find myself...still good to get everyone's 2c!

[Chris Poole]

If you have the cash and a strong back, the 600 as it's tack sharp. But me, I'd go with the 500.

[Steven Kersting]

Thanks for the varied responses everyone.

Stephen - I am not in a position to wait too long and the D3s is still a stellar camera which should serve me well for quite some time. I have considered the D3x but the funds available will not be enough to get both the D3s and D3x...

D3x+D700??
But, I certainly wouldn't complain about a D3s + D7000.
I'd buy any of the pro bodies without question, but you might want to play with (rent) the DX body under consideration before committing. ( I *REALLY* don't like the D7000 handling next to the pro bodies, I much preferred the D300's handling)

If there is any chance you can get some "hands-on time" from the local guy I'd definitely go that route. Or maybe rent the final lenses for a weekend before committing.

[Morkel Erasmus]

Thanks Chris and Stephen.

Don't have the bucks for a D3x/D700 combo .
I took delivery of most of my items on Friday and am looking forward to becoming better acquainted with them

[Marc Mol]

Have only just seen this now (a little late) Morkel.
I sold my 200-400 VRI a few years ago for the 500VR , and another point worth mentioning is in the handling dept, I found the 200-400 quite front heavy and even though the 500 weighs a bit more, I condsidered it more comfortable to hold.
You know we have discussed this very option more than once, and your 500VR decision is one you won't regret.
Welcome to the D3s/500VR club.