decisions decisions - long nikkors

Hairyduck

Hairyduck

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,622
Name
Kevin
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm tempted to get hold of a long lens before the VAT rate changes but what do I go for for wildlife, I have the 200-400 already but I'm tempted by a 600mm too, question is in the VR lens worth the extra cash given you can pick up the previous model for a fair bit less, or would a 500 be a better bet simply from a size and weight perspective?

Anyone got any thoughts on the subject?
 
Hairyduck said:
I'm tempted to get hold of a long lens before the VAT rate changes but what do I go for for wildlife, I have the 200-400 already but I'm tempted by a 600mm too, question is in the VR lens worth the extra cash given you can pick up the previous model for a fair bit less, or would a 500 be a better bet simply from a size and weight perspective?

Anyone got any thoughts on the subject?
Click to expand...

The pure weight of the 600 puts me off, the 500 would be my choice out of the two :thumbs:
 
Can't comment on Nikons Kev but I chose the 500/4 for ease of use, The 600 is another 2kg making it very tough for lugging around and shooting from the car. I know people do, but its not for me.

When I costed up moving across to black lenses rather than white, I was looking at 200-400 and 500 as my working set for those reasons.

You can still add an extender to the 500 if you need the extra reach. The other issue is that if you are trying to do long distance stuff, air quality becomes an issue and you just can't stretch that far (I know from trying some grebe chicks earlier in the year at 700mm on crop body - the midges killed the contrast!)

Most of the working pros I use tend to work with 500 rather than 600 lenses for nature for the ability to handhold for the odd shot if necessary and the ability to carry further - although I know one who works just with the 200-400.

Paul
 
I think I'm thinking along the save wavelength as you guys after looking at the sizes and weights, with a converter on there they'd still have the reach and quality wouldn't be compromised that much I guess.
 
Theres a mention in the new Nikon magazine, that the EDG Fieldscopes can be fitted to DSLR's with a FSA-L2 adaptor.

EDG Fieldscope 85 gives 500mm - 1750mm on FX bodies
EDG Fieldscope 85 gives 750mm - 2625mm on DC bodies

Full metering in Aperture priority and Manual modes, compatable with all Nikin DSLR cameras.



Has anyone tried them yet?
 
I'm guessing the fieldscopes won't be that bright considering the size of their optics?

I found an interesting article on the 600 vs 500 debate here:

http://www.birdsasart.com/b45.html

So I'm still as yet undecided. Problem is 500mm isn't that much more than my 400mm lens so I figured in many circumstances I'd just lug the 200-400 around, I think I'll go and have a look at some and see how much of an issue the weight and handling is for each
 
Kev, I am considering adding a long prime, and as you know I already have the 200-400.

The biggest consideration is the weight and size, I lump my gear quite a distance, I would not want to be carrying much more weight than I already do, so for me it would be the 500, the pure weight of the 600 would make me think twice before taking it out and using it, if it's a chore it would stay at home.

I was (still am to a lesser degree)into astronomy, I have a scope of similar weight to the 600, it is tricky to get the thing mounted (similar QR plate system), and I certainly would not want to carry that weight, mounted on a tripod (as I do now) very far.

The 500 prime will give better definition on distant subjects than the 200-400, however I love the 6' close focus distance of the 200-400, some of the shots in my gallery would not have been possible with the prime, as the subject was too close.

Here is an interesting article on the subject LINK
 
Hairyduck said:
I'm guessing the fieldscopes won't be that bright considering the size of their optics?
Click to expand...

I've just found the Nikon press release for the FSA-l2 adaptor (HERE ) and EDG Fieldscope 85 ( HERE ).

With EDG Fieldscope 85

500mm - 1,750mm
(DX format: 750 - 2,625mm)

f/5.9 - 21
(500mm - 1,750mm)
Click to expand...

435grams (Adaptor) + 2030 grams (EDG Fieldscope 85)

Not the brightest, but with the scope around £1545 and the adaptor another £535, it's not too bad value :thinking: :lol: on paper when compared to the heavyweight f4 prime competition. But would it be any good :suspect:
 
Remember, for wildlife, scopes are only really useful for static birds and not anything moving. Depends what you want to photograph.
 
grumpybadger said:
Remember, for wildlife, scopes are only really useful for static birds and not anything moving. Depends what you want to photograph.
Click to expand...

Excepting the 1 - 2 stop difference between a scope and f4 lens, if scope and normal lens had the same field of view, what makes one better at shooting moving birds than the other. Is it purely down to the avaliable light limitting the usable shutter speed to static objects?


If so, can we put the left over cash towards a D3s for super high ISO to compensate :D
 
singlespeed said:
Excepting the 1 - 2 stop difference between a scope and f4 lens, if scope and normal lens had the same field of view, what makes one better at shooting moving birds than the other. Is it purely down to the avaliable light limitting the usable shutter speed to static objects?


If so, can we put the left over cash towards a D3s for super high ISO to compensate :D
Click to expand...

Agree at the wide end it is only 1-2 stop difference but f/21 at the long end! You'll have a very dark viewfinder.

The other thing is lack of AF will make birds in flight somewhat challenging and you cannot get the shallow DoF often seen on good bird portraits without a wide aperture, whatever the sensor.

For the right application (static birds and ID shots) digiscoping is great but it only covers one small subset of what the average wildlife photographer may wish to consider
 
grumpybadger said:
Agree at the wide end it is only 1-2 stop difference but f/21 at the long end! You'll have a very dark viewfinder.

The other thing is lack of AF will make birds in flight somewhat challenging and you cannot get the shallow DoF often seen on good bird portraits without a wide aperture, whatever the sensor.

For the right application (static birds and ID shots) digiscoping is great but it only covers one small subset of what the average wildlife photographer may wish to consider
Click to expand...


Thanks, makes sence :thumbs:
 
Hairyduck said:
I'm guessing the fieldscopes won't be that bright considering the size of their optics?

I found an interesting article on the 600 vs 500 debate here:

http://www.birdsasart.com/b45.html

So I'm still as yet undecided. Problem is 500mm isn't that much more than my 400mm lens so I figured in many circumstances I'd just lug the 200-400 around, I think I'll go and have a look at some and see how much of an issue the weight and handling is for each
Click to expand...

Interesting read, but for me the 600 is just over the edge of usable. I had the chance to play with a Canon 800/5.6 earlier in the year and the 800g difference between that and a 600 was surprising. It felt better balanced and I did take a few HH shots too. Everyone will have a different view of acceptable and for me, it seems that a 5kg lens is about it.

On the difference between 400 and 500, it isn't huge but it can make a difference (as can 500-600 of course)

I've recently invested in a 400/4 prime to use alongside my 500. I doubt I would ever take both out on the same trip but the 400 is half the weight of the 500 which means it is easier for birds in flight and such and for things like boat trips, small aircraft flights etc. If I am unconstrained, by default is still the 500, but the smaller, lighter option is also great to have...
 
I agonized over the choice between the Canon 600mm and 500mm and opted for the 500mm in the end because of the weight difference.

With the 1.4X converter and the 500mm you get 700mm and little perceptible drop in quality while still retaining AF. With the 2X converter you get an effective 1000mm lens, although you only retain AF on a 1 Series body.

As it is I find the 500mm and camera in a long lens case (worn as a backpack) very tiring on a longish walk and uphill stretches are a killer. In fact I far prefer tp carry the assembled lens and camera in one hand (by the tripod foot) and the tripod in the other, which for some reason I find less tiring, but it's not always practical on a long walk or when it's heavy going.

There's no denying the ultimate reach of the 600mm when you need it, but the weight penalty isn't to be taken lightly.
 
I can't remember whether I have chucked this into one of these "long lens" threads before, but two of my colleagues used 600mm lenses for a round of British Super Bike earlier this year. One was using Canon, the other Nikon.

The general consensus on that warm summer day was that:

1) The lenses really were too bloody heavy (and these guys are used to carrying 2 big bodied cameras with 300 2.8 and 70-200 lenses fitted, plus flash gear etc)

2) At the kind of long distances air/heat distortion/haze was really starting to eat into the IQ.

I appreciate a motorbike won't be startled if you get too close, unlike a bird, but I think point #2 above cannot be underestimated when it comes to looking for stunning quality shots, especially when you are blowing this much hard cash on the gear.

Obviously the pluses are the at these kinda focal lengths the subject isolation is nothing short of amazing, but...
 
I have the AFS II 600 and my fiend the VR - I've been meaning to finish a comparison article on my blog for ages but just not got round to it. But in the meantime, I can tell you this:

The VR is much better balanced so feels lighter and easier to carry. The VR is also a tad longer.

The AFS II can have the focus ring switched off for beanbag shooting, which is brilliant, why they didn't keep that feature for the VR I'll never know.

Both lenses focus just as fast with a 1.4 on as they do without, so you get a VERY useable 850mm f5.6

In terms of image quality...the VR has the slight edge, but in real world shooting there is very little in it. When I've gone out with my friend, both shooting D3's and come back at the end of the day our images look pretty much the same in terms of contrast/saturation etc. The VR is a tad sharper but again, not a massive amount in it.

For me it came down to this...is VR worth £3k (as that's how much more I would have had to put in on top of the second hand AFS II I got from my friend when he upgraded)? The answer was NO. Yes VR on a 600 is very useful, I won't argue that - I've managed a sharp shot handheld with a 1.7x on - which is bloody impressive. If I had unlimited funds would I have gone for the VR? Probably.

But the reality is the older lens is every bit as capable if your long lens technique is up to scratch. And that focus ring feature is a godsend if you shoot from a beanbag.

Personally, a 500 would be easier to travel with but with wildlife you always need more reach so I figured if I was serious about it I'd put up with carrying the 600 around - at first it seemed like serious effort but now I don't give a second thought to carrying it around as I'm used to it. And as you have the 200-400 like me, it doesn't seem worth buying another lens that only gets you 100mm closer.
 
Thanks for the input Richard, I was hoping you'd contribute to this thread as I know you have the last incarnation of the 600 from your blog, as well a the 200-400. It's interesting to know that the newer VR has some advantages, interestingly you can still pick up the older model (brand new) a fair bit cheaper so I guess it's a case of justifying if the VR is worth it or not. I have a bigma too which goes up to 500mm which i generally use if I'm travelling light (well I would use it if my aunt hadn't 'borrowed' it to take to India with her and I'm still wanting more reach even with that)
 
Well new lens is on order should be here tomorrow... down to the gym tonight for me I think
 
The 600, I had a play with both on saturday and came to the conclusion that the 500 didn't offer that much of an advantage over the 400 to justify the cost
 
Hairyduck said:
The 600, I had a play with both on saturday and came to the conclusion that the 500 didn't offer that much of an advantage over the 400 to justify the cost
Click to expand...

Nice :thumbs:

Question for you as you have both the D300 and D3, which gives the better image the D300 or D3 cropped on the computer. I am thinking of a full frame, the D3s has a couple of stops advantage over the D300, I am thinking that at higher ISO a cleaner image cropped would be better than my D300 image.
 
D300 gives a better image I feel, which would make sense as there's more resolution there, the d300 is invaluable for birds and things, the D3 only normally gets used for big animals/architecture/landscapes, I only use it for birds when I know they're going to be very close or the light is fading when the D3 is much quieter at high isos. The D300 is fine upto about 2000 iso, after that I'd probably switch to the d3
 
I had to go to London, but managed it in the end

Edit: I thought you were on holiday anyway, shouldn't you be out taking pics ;)

grumpybadger said:
Well done for finding somewhere with both in stock. Hope you enjoy it!
Click to expand...
 
I've given up looking at the ones on ebay as there's so many fraudulent listings you wouldn't believe. At least the price on that one is realistic they normally start at 1p or something daft

If I'm spending a lot on a lens I want a guarantee with it anyway be it new or secondhand

SussexBlue said:
There's one on ebay atm, # 110466244569
Click to expand...
 
Hairyduck said:
. The D300 is fine upto about 2000 iso, after that I'd probably switch to the d3
Click to expand...
Lordy, I won't use the D300 above ISO800 unless it's really bright out and I need fast shutter speeds. I usually opt for the D3 with a 1.4x on the 600 over the D300 naked a lot of the time. SOmething about the image quality of the D3 that just makes it shine.

Good choice on the lens though :clap:
 
lol, the d300 isn't that bad! Butthen I've only had the D3 a little over a month so it's still new to me
 
Hairyduck said:
lol, the d300 isn't that bad! Butthen I've only had the D3 a little over a month so it's still new to me
Click to expand...
Compared to the D2x/D200's of the world you are right, but against the D3 I find it quite noisey. 3200 is cleaner on the D3 than 800 on the D300. But I'm going off topic now...

Looking forward to seeing your first shots :D

Oddly, I actually find the 1.4 on the 200-400 to work better than on the 600 when using the D300 too?!
 
Damn, this box is going to take some hiding from the missus when she gets home :(
 
lol, I'm sure she'll understand that it's an 'investment'
 
You,ve made a good choice. The 600mm f4 VR is a brilliant lens and works well with the D3 and great with the D300 if you need that little bit more reach. I always use a monopod with mine which works a treat.

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top