Nikon 300 f2.8, Nikon 400 f2.8 or a Nikon 200/400 f4 for shooting wildlife and birds in Malaysia

ndwgolf

ndwgolf

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,692
Name
Neil Williams
Edit My Images
No
I am in the market for a long Telephoto lens and thinking either fixed 300 or 400 f2.8 or get something a wee bit more versatile with the 200/400mm f4............what do you guys think?
 
How about the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS? The new one is weather sealed as well. It may be an option if you want fast but versatile, obviously at the loss of 100mm at the long end compared to the 200-400. On the other hand add a 1.4TC to the mix and you end up with a 200-400 equivalent which is still super sharp (mine loses no sharpness with the 1.4TC, it loses a reasonable amount with the 2xTC)

I took mine to Southern Africa in April and it performed stunningly. All the animal photos in this thread were taken with it (using a combination of naked, 1.4 and 2TC). That reminds me, I need to finish that thread...!
 
It depends if you primarily need the reach, or the versatility of a zoom. What will you be shooting, at what distances & in what light conditions?

If budget (& weight) aren't a problem, you can't do much better than the 400mm F2.8 for birds! (works very well with the newer 2xTC111)
The 200-400mm is obviously not quite as fast, but has a good range.
The 300mm F2.8 is a fantastic prime & works well with the 1.7TC too.

What body are you using btw.
 
Last edited:
For birds I'd prefer a 500mm f/4. The new 80-400VR might be worth a look too if you don't want too much bulk.
 
For birds you surely want all the reach you can get. One of the best things about a 500mm f/4 is how good a 700mm f/5.6 it makes with a 1.4x teleconverter fitted.
 
OldCarlos said:
It depends if you primarily need the reach, or the versatility of a zoom. What will you be shooting, at what distances & in what light conditions?

If budget (& weight) aren't a problem, you can't do much better than the 400mm F2.8 for birds! (works very well with the newer 2xTC111)
The 200-400mm is obviously not quite as fast, but has a good range.
The 300mm F2.8 is a fantastic prime & works well with the 1.7TC too.

What body are you using btw.
Click to expand...
I am currently using a D3s but waiting for a D4X if Nikon ever make one.
At first I was thinking of the 300 f2.8 as I believe you can shoot that lens hand held..................not all day long but maybe possible to hang on a spider with something else around your neck. The 200/400 f4 was going to be my first choice 12 months ago when I planned a trip to Africa but that trip was canceled so I decided to wait.
I live in Malaysia and travel every two months to anywhere and everywhere in and around SEA with Photography in mind 100% of the time.
As far as budget is concerned I am cool with buying Nikon gear
 
Amp34 said:
I took mine to Southern Africa in April and it performed stunningly. All the animal photos in this thread were taken with it (using a combination of naked, 1.4 and 2TC). That reminds me, I need to finish that thread...!
Click to expand...
Wow you have got some fantastic photos here..........good job
 
I shoot general wildlife with Canon and use the 300 2.8 (with1.4 and2x tc) its great, as you say easy to handhold
But as Stewart says if you are after birds you need all the reach you can get and a 500f4 would be better
 
As you already know I nearly bought the 200/400 last year but my concern is that once you add the converter you are now at f8 and also a softer picture.................I have the 2 x TE and used it on my 70/200 in Lake Toba but the pictures were very soft so my thinking is go with a prime and then if I use a TE I will still be at f5.6 and a better chance of getting sharp pictures
 
The 2x will give better results in terms of IQ on the 300 f2.8 than the 200-400 f4, though I wouldn't want to hand-hold it for very long - would need a monopod at least.
I haven't used a 500 f4 but it's a heavy beast by all accounts.
 
gramps said:
I haven't used a 500 f4 but it's a heavy beast by all accounts.
Click to expand...
It certainly is. I haven't heard of people switching from Nikon to Canon simply because of the weights of the respective 500mm lenses, but if you're a confirmed 500mm shooter then it really wouldn't be a stupid thing to suggest.
 
Been chatting with some other photographers on a Malaysian forum and there thoughts are 300 f2.8 with an extender. But my gut is saying 500 f4..................... but I really don't know why. The 300 seem the more practical as far as you can also use it for shooting people and wildlife whereas the 500 is basically for shooting wildlife.
I think I need to go to the Nikon store and try and get a feel for these big lenses to see what I am getting myself into
 
ndwgolf said:
Been chatting with some other photographers on a Malaysian forum and there thoughts are 300 f2.8 with an extender. But my gut is saying 500 f4..................... but I really don't know why. The 300 seem the more practical as far as you can also use it for shooting people and wildlife whereas the 500 is basically for shooting wildlife.
I think I need to go to the Nikon store and try and get a feel for these big lenses to see what I am getting myself into
Click to expand...

On the basis that you are going to be dropping between £4k and £6k on a lens then I'd very much recommend actually going and looking in detail. Ideally you only want to buy once (unless you are looking to have 2 or more at any one time) rather than making a mistake - and you might also be best off to try a rental on what you think is your preferred option - usually £150-200 well spent to make sure, as you'll lose much more than that if you just re-boxed a mint lens bought in error and sold it on.

I really struggled with the decision between a 300 f2.8 and 200-400 f/4 when I moved to Nikon having owned a 300 f2.8 IS on the Canon system. In the end I went like for like and never really regretted the decision to go with the prime and the 1.4x and 1.7x converters. That said I was shooting some sports as well as wildlife and had no interest in small bird photography.

You can handhold the 300 f2,8 in the Nikon system - for quite a while - although I'd use a monopod or gimbal if I was doing aircraft / birds in flight all day (above shoulder use). Not sure on the 200-400 but it does look more of a length to support. The 400mm f2,8 really needs a support for anything other than a quick grab shot and the 500mm sits between the 300 and 400 for weight. For wildlife I'd go 300mm, 200-400mm or 500mm (but only if your subject is exclusively small birds/mammals), for sports go 400mm.

Any of those primes will take a 1.4x or 1.7x with little loss in quality - even the 2x MKIII copes well if you expose accurately, and of course with a D800 (which I think you currently own) you can always crop in heavily to make up for being a bit short in length.

HTH
 
Last edited:
I used to own the 300mm 2.8 on a D3 and you'll find yourself disappointed (generally speaking, especially for birds) with the focal length. Add a 1.4 or 2x (forget the 1.7) and it gets better but obviously maximum aperture will be compromised.

I traded my 300mm for a 400mm 2.8 as my shooting changed from rallying (where a 300 is ideal) to track, where generally more length is required. It's an incredible lens. Takes a Teleconverter well but is also very, very heavy! I could hand hold the 300mm all day long (the most current VRII version) but moving to the 400mm has meant the recruitment of a monopod to daily shooting. I believe it's Nikon's second heaviest lens behind the 600mm f/4 and heavier than the 800mm f/5.6?

I still feel that if I was shooting wildlife I would prefer something like the 500mm f/4. With a 1.4 and 2x TC you could easily use these on a 70-200mm 2.8 if you need something wider while keeping ultimate image quality shooting a 500mm f/4 without a TC.

Just my tuppence.
 
Thanks David
We have a large Nikon service center in KL with all the lenses that Nikon have ever made so I will go in there and try out a few of these lenses in there shop and see what way I want to go...........I am now leaning at the 300mm f2.8 but will google the hell out of it and look at some reviews on utube as well. When I was looking at the 200/400 about a year ago I was also sold on the Wimberly Gimbal head..................is that still the "Bees Knees" of the Gimbal heads??
 
I think you need to identify exactly what subjects you're after. 'wildlife' is a very varied term, as can be 'birds'.

Look at the number of top level wildlife photographers who use the 200-400 on full frame before you dismiss it in favour of a prime. Of course, if you're after small birds you're after, then a 500mm makes a lot more sense, but if it's larger animals (and even some birds) which you can get reasonably close to, then I'd be getting the zoom, no questions asked.

Take a look at the work of Andy Rouse - a big fan of the 200-400 (first Nikon, now the new canon beast), or maybe drop a PM to Will Nicholls on here and do some research into how close you can get expect to get to your subjects
 
pooley said:
I think you need to identify exactly what subjects you're after.
Click to expand...
Mike you are 100% correct; but to be honest I have no idea what I want to shot, I just want to shoot something different to what I am shooting now............people and landscape see here http://www.neilsphotography.co/
Last year I was meant to do a African safari but it just never happened and at that time I was going to get the 200/400mm f4.
I have only been doing photography for 3 years now and have recently seen so many fantastic pictures of eagles and owls and the like, that I fancy trying my hand at that. When I was in Langkawi last year I had a chance to shoot eagles fishing but the longest lens I had then was my 70/200 and never got one picture that you could say "wow I like that".
Anyway I will take a look at these recommended websites...thanks for sharing them
 
Well I went to the Nikon store and looked at all the long Telephoto lenses. My gut is now leaning towards the 500 f/4 with possibly getting a 1.4 converter, I have a 2 x converter already but been advised that the 2 x on the 500 f4 aint going to work. Still no word on a new D4 yet so will just go ahead and get the lens and use it on my D3 until Nikon get there Sh*t together and give us a D4X/s.
I also think the D4 has a in camera function to go from FX to DX which would make the not needing a converter ............is that correct?
 
ndwgolf said:
My gut is now leaning towards the 500 f/4 with possibly getting a 1.4 converter, I have a 2 x converter already but been advised that the 2 x on the 500 f4 aint going to work.
Click to expand...
If you're using a D3, a 2x teleconverter will work fine.

In basic terms, consumer grade bodies will be able to AF if the maximum aperture is f/5.6 or better; so with an f/4 lens they will AF with a 1.4x teleconverter but not with a 2x teleconverter. Pro grade bodies can AF with a maximum aperture of f/8, so they will still work with a 2x teleconverter.
ndwgolf said:
Still no word on a new D4 yet so will just go ahead and get the lens and use it on my D3 until Nikon get there Sh*t together and give us a D4X/s.
Click to expand...
What do you think a D4X/s (whatever that is) would give you? If you want a higher megapixel count, why not use a D800?
ndwgolf said:
I also think the D4 has a in camera function to go from FX to DX which would make the not needing a converter ............is that correct?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The D4 has a DX crop mode like the D3. It will throw away 55% of your pixels to give you a smaller field of view as if you were using a lens which is 50% longer. So your 500mm lens will look like it's 750mm but you'll only have about 7 megapixels in your images. (Doing this with a D3 you'd only have about 5 megapixels.) If you like the sound of the DX crop mode, why not buy a good DX body like the D7100 instead?


With respect, you're talking about spending £5000 on a lens and potentially the same again on a body if you want something better than a D4, but you don't seem to be very well advised as to what the gear could do for you. You might want to take a step back and ask for more general advice, rather than fixating on the lens choice.
 
I had a d800e before and sold it after a month just didn't like the feel of it
I know what body I want D4? Just trying to make my mind up on lens
Just so I got my head around this if I got a 400 f2.8and used that with a 1.4 converter then the fastest f stop would be 5.6 is that correct?. If that's the case then the 500 f4 would be better.....right
 
ndwgolf said:
I had a d800e before and sold it after a month just didn't like the feel of it
I know what body I want D4? Just trying to make my mind up on lens
Just so I got my head around this if I got a 400 f2.8and used that with a 1.4 converter then the fastest f stop would be 5.6 is that correct?. If that's the case then the 500 f4 would be better.....right
Click to expand...

A 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC would become a 560mm f/4
A 500mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC would become a 700mm f/5.6
A 600mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC would become a 840mm f/5.6

A 400mm f/2.8 with a 2x TC would become a 800mm f/5.6
A 500mm f/4 with a 2x TC would become a 1,000mm f/8
A 600mm f/4 with a 2x TC would become a 1,200mm f/8
Check out this article - http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/h7ruielh/using-teleconverters.html
 
Last edited:
This has really screwed things up.
I have fallen in love with the new Canon 200/400mm with the built in 1.4 converter which basically makes it a 200/600mm f4. My question is can I get a Nikon to Canon mount so that I could still use my 14/24 and 70/200mm Nikon Lenses on the Canon Body? If so I may switch depending on what pro DSLR model Canon have out right now.
 
ndwgolf said:
This has really screwed things up.
I have fallen in love with the new Canon 200/400mm with the built in 1.4 converter which basically makes it a 200/600mm f4. My question is can I get a Nikon to Canon mount so that I could still use my 14/24 and 70/200mm Nikon Lenses on the Canon Body? If so I may switch depending on what pro DSLR model Canon have out right now.
Click to expand...

Yes you can mount Nikon lenses on Canon bodies. In fact Canon shooters specifically like to do that with the 14-24mm. You can pick them up for as little as £7-10 on Amazon but the Novoflex is highly regarded.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/724050-REG/Novoflex_EOSNIK_NT_EOS_NIK_NT_Lens_Adapter_for.html

BUT - whilst it might be good for the 14-24mm, it is mainly because Canon shooters are using it as a landscape lens, or certainly in situations where manual focus is not an issue. Using the adaptor and a Nikon lens renders AF and any VR unusable. So I'd say that the 70-200mm isn't a good candidate to use on a Canon body via the adaptor..

If you really like the 200-400mm Canon then you really have two options given you are looking to shoot wildlife and particularly birds.

- Run a dual system with a Nikon body to drive your 14-24mm and 70-200mm and a Canon body to drive the 200-400mm IS
- Switch completely to Canon

I can certainly see the attraction of the 200-400 with the 1.4x (although the price is eye watering) - and if you were a pure wildlife photographer who wants to work exclusively with one body then it might be worth the investment. Personally I'd be more inclined to use 2 bodies, with the 70-200mm on one, and the 200-400 on another with a 1.4x either permanently attached or as an option if required depending on what you are shooting.
 
Last edited:
Wait to check out the new Tamron 150-600?
 
Here are a few birds that I shot yesterday in Seckichan West Malaysia. I was using my D3s with a 70/200mm with 2 x converter. I just couldnt belive how short 400mm is and also how soft the pictures look with the 2 x converter. I enjoyed myself taking these pictures but I am obviously using the wrong tool for the job so about time to fix that and go and get myself a 500mm f4
A white one
dlwt.jpg

A yellow one
7h5m.jpg

A blue one
rqnq.jpg
 
StewartR said:
For birds you surely want all the reach you can get. One of the best things about a 500mm f/4 is how good a 700mm f/5.6 it makes with a 1.4x teleconverter fitted.
Click to expand...

Was going to suggest this too.

Was shooting in Singapore a couple of months back using a 500mm. For the majority I used a 1.4tc on top.

F4 (and 5.6 w/TC) was more than enough for the frequently overcast conditions, would have struggled with a 300 or 400 length. If you're going to use the TC anyway you may as well go for the 500 and then get a TC for even more reach.

All of these shots taken within spitting distance of Malaysia.

This shot is at 700mm wide open

Olive Backed Sunbird by ACW#, on Flickr

Crop of the above shot, only real issue is slight noise from the camera, no lens issues. 500mm with the TC still retains good detail.

Olive Backed Sunbird by ACW#, on Flickr

Another 2 crops after shooting wide open at 700mm.

Stork Billed Kingfisher by ACW#, on Flickr


Black Crowned Night Heron by ACW#, on Flickr​
 
Last edited:
A potentially money saving idea... Have you tried your existing lens line up on a 1 series body using an FT-1 adaptor? I had a play with this a week or so ago and my ghast was well and truly flabbered! Even with a relatively pedestrian 70-300 VR zoom it was impressive and with a 600mm f/4 (and a 1.4x telecom), it was verging on the ridiculous - even using VR and high ISO, camera shake was a problem though, 600x2.7x1.4 ain't easy to hand hold!
 
ndwgolf said:
^^^^^ WOW thats the kind of shots I would like to take......what camera body are you using??
Click to expand...

EXIF says Canon 7D so 500mm becomes 800mm, plus 1.4x TC and it becomes 1,120mm.
 
ndwgolf said:
^^^^^ WOW thats the kind of shots I would like to take......what camera body are you using??
Click to expand...

Thanks Neil, David has beat me to it, but yes a 7D. I also have a full frame camera, but the difference in reach when using the 7D and it's 1.6x crop sensor is just ridiculous. As David said, using a crop is giving me over 50% more effective reach. Considering you are also using full frame, if you are keeping the lens mainly for birds, 500 or 600 + a TC really is a must.

Your D3S is better than both of my cameras (7D and 5DII), so teamed with the right lens your results will be great.

If shooting general creatures, the bare 500mm can still give an interesting perspective on animal shots. The one below was at 500mm, I couldn't adjust my distance between the subject, but I still think it produces useable results.


Mandrill by ACW#, on Flickr

I see you have a second body and a 70-200 2.8. IMO this and a longer lens would be a great combo, no need for a 3/400 2.8. If you have the 1.4 and 500mm, the 1.4 can go on the 70-200 should you ever need it and you still have the 300mm focal length covered. Can't say I particularly miss the 300-500 range. Even when previously using the Sigma 150-500mm zoom, 99% of my images were at the 500mm end, and the rest were 150mm.
 
Last edited:
1395398_10200219635168291_1643416905_n.jpg


This picture that popped up on my FB feed (from Singapore) sums up the length most of the birders there like to use :lol: thought it was relevant so sticking it up here in the thread.
 
Thanks for all the replies guys I have decided to get a new 300 f2.8 today and will play with that with various extenders on my D3s. Once a new D4 comes out I will get that plus maybe the 600 f4 if birding is what I really want to do
 
Nice - it's a great lens and works well with TC's :)
 
I have either damaged the lens mount on the body of my D3s or on the lens so I am taking them both to the Nikon centre in Kl today to see whats wrong.
When I switch from landscape to portrait the camera just freezes up maybe the D3s doesn't like the weight of the new lens :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top