Nikon lens for general nature photography

C

canaryherd

Suspended / Banned
Messages
70
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there. I'm sure this subject has come up a million times before but I haven't been able to come up with a search to dig up any old threads. So apologies if this is a hackneyed question.

I have a D700 with the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. This has been a great general purpose combination. Now I'm looking to do some general nature photography and figure it's time to invest in a longer lens. I was under the impression that the standard lens would be the 200-400mm. But after looking over the Nikon range I think the 300m f2.8 may be a better bet: it's about 800 quid cheaper, one stop wider and the difference between 300 and 400mm seems minimal. With a 2x converter I can get an effective 600mm f5.6(?) with not too much drop in quality. Obviously if you follow this logic then the 400mm is even better but it's another 2.5 grand and a bit rich for me.

Is the 300mm a sensible choice? Or should I stick with the 200-400? Or (even better) is there an obsolete alternative I could consider? :shrug: I'm sure there are sigma or tamron alternatives but I've enjoyed piecing together a matching set.

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Andy
 
I had the 200-400mm. great lens. I sold it, missed it, so bought it back from the person I sold it to.
Then I sold it again. It's one of those lenses. Superb quality, great optics, but I kept going back to my 300mm 2.8. and 70-200mm. I then bought the latest Nikon 2 x and that for me was the decider to sell it.
That combo is superb.
I do sometimes miss the zoom facility and have even considered getting the latest vrII version, but I have resisted.
I just know that in a few months time, I will look at it and think 'I never use it' and sell it. As I said, it's one of those lenses. Or maybe it's just me and what suits me for my type of shooting.
Get the 300mm and 2 x converter. You won't regret it. :thumbs: b****r, you've set me thinking about the 400mm 2.8 now.That would be nice with the 2 x. :bang: :D

Kev.
 
canaryherd said:
Hi there. I'm sure this subject has come up a million times before but I haven't been able to come up with a search to dig up any old threads. So apologies if this is a hackneyed question.

I have a D700 with the 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. This has been a great general purpose combination. Now I'm looking to do some general nature photography and figure it's time to invest in a longer lens. I was under the impression that the standard lens would be the 200-400mm. But after looking over the Nikon range I think the 300m f2.8 may be a better bet: it's about 800 quid cheaper, one stop wider and the difference between 300 and 400mm seems minimal. With a 2x converter I can get an effective 600mm f5.6(?) with not too much drop in quality. Obviously if you follow this logic then the 400mm is even better but it's another 2.5 grand and a bit rich for me.

Is the 300mm a sensible choice? Or should I stick with the 200-400? Or (even better) is there an obsolete alternative I could consider? :shrug: I'm sure there are sigma or tamron alternatives but I've enjoyed piecing together a matching set.

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Andy
Click to expand...


The 300/2.8 is lighter than the 200-400, and with the 2xTC will as you say give you a 600/5.6, if you put the 1.4TC on the 200-400 you will have a 560/5.6.

With either you are getting some hefty kit (weight and bulk) compared to what you have.

Of the two the 300/2.8 plus TC would be my choice.

I have a 200-400 and use it a lot for butterfly and dragonfly shots (6' minimum focus distance) and some birding from the hides, however I also have a 500/4 which gets more use for the majority of my birding stuff because of it's longer reach.
 
On the (slightly) cheaper option - considered an m42 an look for a 300mm tair? approx 80 ukp on ebay, and between 5 and 15 for an adapter...


One I've been eyeing but wont be able to get is the siggy 50-500.

Only thing is you'd on ff so not sure how these would perform. Might be worth checking with a lens hire company to try them for a week first?
 
how about a 300/f4 AF-s with a 1.4? Lots of people shooting that as an inexpensive, but great IQ lens. I've got the AF version and will get the 1.4 soon (have shot a little with it). Really nice setup for casual pictures.

Or, the 120-300 2.8 Sigma would be another option in that range and there is a 1.4 for it also.

thanks
rick
 
Im in the same boat just now. I sold my 500f4 which was a big big mistake however im now in the position to start looking for another. If i buy the 500f4 then i will get a 1.4tc however im having bad thoughts about getting a 400f2.8 and adding the new 2xtc ( TC III).

I bought the 500f4 before as it could be easily handheld compared to the 400 but now with the fantastic 2xtc available and knowing just how good the 400 is then its making my decision so much harder.
 
Thanks to everyone for such great feedback! It's given me the confidence to go ahead and lay out a chunk of cash with the confidence I'm not going to regret it later :).

The 400 f2.8 seems the best balance of reach, quality and aperture but unfortunately it's over my budget (unless anyone wants to sell :thinking:?!). So I think I'll go for the next best the 300 f2.8, and maybe add a 1.4x to my 1.7x. The 300 should also be great for my daughter's football matches as well.

I'm off to New York in a couple of weeks, so I'm going to check out B&H to see if it's any cheaper over there, otherwise I guess I'll wander over to Grays of Westminster. Both great places to shop, but couldn't be an more different :lol:!

Best,
Andy
 
Give http://www.berger-bros.com/ a go. I bought my 200-400mm from them. Saved a fair bit. The owner was extremely helpful. I've got his email address somewhere, should you need to contact him.

Kev.
 
Thanks for the recommendation Kev. Please drop me his email address if you can find it.

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