Nikon telephoto upgrade path for wildlife

DonnaM

DonnaM

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,894
Name
Donna
Edit My Images
Yes
I have the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR and 1.4TC. I was planning to purchase the new Nikon TC-20EIII when it finally gets to the UK to give me more reach.

However, recently I have been wondering if that is the right thing to do and whether I would be better off by trading the 300mm for the Nikon 200-400mm f/4.

With my 1.4TC the reach would be 560mm, so close enough to 600mm. The zoom is 1lb heavier but much more versatile.

So for wildlife shooting, birds in particular, would you think it would be worth spending the extra to upgrade to the zoom or should I just keep to the lower cost option and get the new TC.

I would welcome you thoughts and advice. Thanks.
 
Ooooh now that's a tricky one!

I would have thought having the flexibility of a 2.8 lens could be very useful in certain circumstances (such as shooting in the UK in any month other than the summer ones!)

I think for birds you need all the length you can get.

I would expect III versions of all the TCs to come out at some point. I dont know if the 2x is the way to go - we will have to see. I use a 1.7x on a 400 2.8 and it works very well imo. TC choice is a very difficult matter, and I'm sometimes tempted to buy all three (and then all three of the new ones as well!).

The 200-400 is a great lens, and I know that Andy Rouse loves his. However, I would have thought that a 2.8 prime with a 1.4 or 1.7x TC is a better option for image quality when compared with a 200-400 with a TC. (HoweverI think the 200-400 may be better for long distance travel - e.g. going on safari , because of the weight)

I'd keep the 300 (a great lens!) and have a play with some different TCs. If you buy them 2nd hand you can usually sell them later for about what you paid for them.
 
It is a tricky one!

Do you shoot hand-held much? If so, I'd incline towards the 300/2.8. Personally I find that about the limit of hand-holdability (if that's a word). The 200-400 doesn't sound much heavier on paper, but it's a fair bit longer and consequently your supporting hand has to be further out from the body - and it's too far to be comfortable for me.

(But maybe I'm just a wimp.)



PS If you want to test-drive a 200-400 ..... [/spam]
;)
 
I changed from a 300 f2.8 to a zoom and regretted it, still do.
 
You are Stewart.:lol: I've been handholding the 200-400mm today shooting the Reds. Gets heavy after a while though. ;)
I'm waiting for the 2.0 III to arrive also. Just to see how good the 300mm is with it on. I've seen shots on the net but they are just web size. I want to see what its like in print.
I have only just bought back my 200-400 and am using it more than my
300mm at the moment.
BUT I do love the 300 2.8 and find myself torn at times which to use. The zoom of the 200-400 is without a doubt very handy at times. But as you already know, the 300mm 2.8 is simply superb.
No help at all really am I? :thinking: :D:D


Kev.
 
Getting closer is the problem with wildlife, not being too close.

A big unwieldy zoom that you are going to be using at 400mm all the time? If you aren't using it for birding, what else will you use it for? Its a hell of a beast - you aren't going to take it on holiday as a walkabout!

Why not consider going the whole hog and moving the 500 f4? The best compromise in long lenses...

If you want to sell the 300 2.8, give me a shout :D
 
desantnik said:
Getting closer is the problem with wildlife, not being too close.
Click to expand...

There are times when I have had to zoom out, plus the 6ft close focus is great for Butterfly and Dragonfly shots, but generally getting closer is the issue.

desantnik said:
Why not consider going the whole hog and moving the 500 f4? The best compromise in long lenses...
Click to expand...

That would be a better idea if all you are after is birds, the 500f4 is sharper for shots at distance than the 200-400, plus it only needs the 1.4TC to get to 700mm (f5.6) the 200-400 needs the 1.7TC to hit 680mm (f6.7).
 
I've got the 200-400 which gets used in conjunction with a D300. To be honest, while the versatility of a zoom has been useful at times, 95% of the time for wildlife its locked at 400mm and I wish I'd gone for a prime. I don't get too well with the converters on the 200-400. I'm never very satisfied when the 1.4x is plugged in. As has been said previously in this thread, I'd go for the 500f4 if I was starting off again.

... instead I'm living on bread and water saving for the 600mm prime. You can never have too much reach :D


ps. for reasons I don't understand - attaching the 1.4x converter to the 200-400 locked at max reach gives you 550mm. Go figure?
 
Bluelion said:
I don't get too well with the converters on the 200-400. I'm never very satisfied when the 1.4x is plugged in.
Click to expand...

I use the 1.4TC and 1.7TC on my 200-400 never had a problem, however I try to limit their use to short to medium distance stuff.

200-400 + 1.7TC



200-400 + 1.4TC

 
keep the lens and buy the 2.0 III people are raving about its ability and you will have more options
 
Martyn... said:
I use the 1.4TC and 1.7TC on my 200-400 never had a problem, however I try to limit their use to short to medium distance stuff.
Click to expand...

Well those certainly look great Martyn! Perhaps its poor long lens technique on my behalf, but when I come to process pics I'm never that overjoyed with the teleconverter on. Its obviously more noticeable when pixel-peeping, but neither the sharpness or colour seems quite as good as when using it without the converter.

I was just searching through for an example, but don't tend to keep ones I'm less happy with. I'm prepared to believe its psychological/technique :)
 
Well of course you loose something when you stick on the TC. I always feel like that with them "its OK, but look at what it can do without the thing on!".

Such is life, and physics...
 
Many many thanks to all of you for your comments and advice, it is very much appreciated.

Yes, I have considered the 500mm f/4 but it is just too much money for me to spend right now. Maybe in a year or so I could be able to afford it but not now.

Martyn, your shots, as always, are most impressive and thank you for your comments.

As there seems to be no overriding "go for the zoom" message here, I think I will go down the TC-20EIII route. That leaves me enough money to get a Wimberley as well. I do not own a gimbal yet and I will certainly need one to manage 600mm. And yes I am aware of the Manfrotto 393 as a cheaper alternative.

Thanks again for your valued advice.
 
I definately wouldn't trade a 300mm f/2.8 VR for a 200-400. The 200-400 is massive, and while the 300mm VR is handholdable, the 200-400 isn't. So while it has VR, you'll need a tripod all the time to get the best out of it.
 
I own a 300/2.8 (non VR) and the 200-400 and shoot mostly wildlife, as everyone says it's not the most hand-holdable of lenses (it is possible though) but I just stick mine on a monopod most of the time if walking around with it. the 200-400 is my most used lens by far, IQ is amazing and the close focusing distance is a real bonus. I'll happily use it with the 1.4x and often use it with the 1.7x but the focus isn't as good with that combo in anything less than perfect light. I use it zoomed to 400mm about 70% of the time but I also use it at shorter lengths too.

Since owning the 200-400 the 300/2.8 hasn't been used once if that's anything of a recommendation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top