Which Nikon super tele?

E

edwarddavies

Suspended / Banned
Messages
44
Name
Edward
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I am in a position where I can finally afford a Nikon super telephoto lens and am wondering what those of you out there who own or have owned them would recommend.

I am considering the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 or the 400mm f/2.8. I am at the moment siding with the 400mm f/2.8 as it seems to be the most versitile when paired with the Nikon teleconverters.

I am hoping to start wildlife photography and perhaps the odd bit of local sports.

Any opinions will be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
Eddie
 
Not a bad place to start......:eek:

As a well known pro recently said to me, I go get a job that requires one of these lenses, get the commission then buy it as necessary.

I recall last year at The Photo Show at the NEC, Nikon had their full line up available for side by side comparison. If they do the same this year a trip might well be worth while before you spend your lottery winnings.
 
Of those two has to be the 400 other than insects wildlife needs reach a 400 2.8 with a couple of teleconverters may 1.4 and 2.0 would be perfect I see no reason to buy the 300 if you do I would go for the f4 for hand hold capability if you are on monopod tripod bean bag there is only one choice the 400 you are a lucky person
 
This guy has lots of experience and sets out info to help you

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-500mm-f4-lens-review.htm

I have a couple of 300mm and a 600mm and a few TC's …. have used them all in combination

The new 300mm f4 VR PF is tempting me ……. in short supply in the UK

are you using a DX or FX body?

most bird shots are crops to some degree
 
Last edited:
Hi Guys,

Just to clarify I have not won the lotto or robbed a bank either! I am looking at used only as my budget won't stretch to new on these (especially the new Flourite 400mm!) I have read a few reviews on the net including the bythom one and photography life one. I was thinking that if I did get a 400mm then I could get the f4 af-s for handholding (I had the AF-D years ago and loved it)

I am using a FX camera (A D800E)

I will be attending the Photography show so will have to pop over and have a play with them :-)

Cheers,
Eddie
 
You could also think about a Nikon 500 F4, its a highly regarded lens amongst birders.
Its what I use, takes the 1.4 converter very well, also its hand holdable with a bit of practice.
 
Bird photography is a b****r …… you almost need three or four plus the TC's - different for tripod, hide, hand holding, walkabout, etc., etc. ……. you can even justify throwing a 80 400mm, 100 400mm and a 150 600mm Tamron into the mix

If I were on a limited budget i would probably look at a new Tamron 150 600mm and a Nikon 300mm f4 with the TC14 and TC20 as a good combination ….. OK no f2.8 in there

It depends on your budget - but I would need to be as happy with a walk around as I am with tripod use … and feel that to get the most enjoyment I need flexibility
 
Last edited:
One thing to mention is the weight difference between the two, the 300 f2.8 is roughly 2.9kg and the older 400 f2.8 is 4.6kg. That extra 1.7kg is noticeable if you are walking a distance. I currently use a 200-400 f4 for wildlife and although it's only 0.5kg more than the 300 f2.8 I used before I feel it's more noticeable as it's 100mm longer. For the things I photograph a 400 f2.8 would make things a lot harder as most of the time I'm crawling about on the ground.

Before purchasing a long lens have a try of wildlife and sports to see if it's for you. It will also give you an idea of what type of photography you want to do, ie if birds/mammals is it from so fixed hide or are you walking about/crawling through undergrowth? Things liked that can make your choice easier. Either lens you can't go far wrong.
 
Last edited:
Think very hard about the weight.

I always used to tell people that the 300mm f/2.8 is hand holdable, the 500mm f/4 is portable but not hand holdable, and with the 400mm f/2.8 you need to employ a porter. Of course that's no longer the case with Canon, since their Mk II super teles have all been on a crash diet compared to the Mk I models, but it is still very much the case with Nikon.

If I were you I would think hard about getting a D7100 or D7200 and a 300mm f/2.8 instead of a 400mm f/2.8. Unless you really need the extremely shallow depth of field you get at 400mm f/2.8 (and you probably don't) or unless you want to be able to show off that you've got the biggest lens (I couldn't possibly comment), that combination will deliver just as good results with a more manageable package, and save you some money too. Just a thought.
 
The new Nikon 400mm 2.8 is much lighter but also very expensive. I would look at the 300mm pf. I have sold my big telephotos and got 2 of these for my wife and myself. Very nice with all 3 teleconverters on both full and crop bodies and SO light!
 
Weight aside (you know how you are going to use it), for wildlife you are going to want reach with a minimum reduction in image quality ... for this the 400 f2.8 is the best of the two, but the 500 f4 has a considerable following amongst wildlife photographers.
Of course there are also the new 150-600 zooms but though much lighter and more convenient do not have the IQ of the serious primes :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
If your in Hendy (looking at your profile), it may be worth your while taking a trip to Carmarthen Cameras. I think they are a Nikon Pro dealer so with a little luck they will have a range of lenses to look at. They also sell secondhand gear, so you may even pick up a bargain.
 
Do you travel abroad a lot? If you do the 600mm and 400m are pigs to pack if you want to taken them on the plane as hand baggage. I use a 500mm F4 which just goes in a think tank airport essential backpack. If its animals then I'd go with the 300mm F2.8, birds I'd go with the 500mm F4, both take the tc's well. Like StewartR says I'd consider picking up a D7100 body and consider it a 24mp teleconverter, especially if bird photography features in your plans.
 
From an acuity point of view the 400 is said to be the best. I use a 400 with a 2.0 TC which gives me 800mm f/5.6 when needed plus with the D800 I can put it on crop mode. It's heavy and pricey but it is a great lens.
 
Thanks for all the help folks, after much thinking I have gone for a 400mm f2.8 which I got at a great price at the photography show on Saturday :-) it is a beast for sure but I am looking forward to getting out there with it. Just got to get a heavier duty tripod to handle the beast!

Cheers,
Eddie
 
edwarddavies said:
Thanks for all the help folks, after much thinking I have gone for a 400mm f2.8 which I got at a great price at the photography show on Saturday :) it is a beast for sure but I am looking forward to getting out there with it. Just got to get a heavier duty tripod to handle the beast!

Cheers,
Eddie
Click to expand...

I have the 400mm f/2.8 as well its a great lens and with a 1.4x converter myself it works just as good as the lens RAW. Enjoy yours ! :)
 
Rented a 400 2.8 E from Fixations this weekend and it's amazing - lighter than the older variant.. Great with the 1.7x but on the D7100 it's a bit tricky due to narrow FOV.

Then I use a DA*300 + 1.4HD Pentax TC + K-3 and that provides fabulous results....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top