Wildlife Lens Recommendation for Nikon

01/26/2007 10:43:20 PM · #1

I am researching long zooms and have a few ideas, but would love input from anyone using a long telephoto lens for wildlife or other moving distant targets. Sigma seems to have quite a range of interesting lenses, I saw a Tokina ATX 100-300 f/4 advertised, and then there's the Nikon 80-400 VR, but I'm not sure VR helps that much if the subject is the one moving (I almost always shoot handheld, so VR is intriguingfor other reasons). Budget is not infinite but I do have a birthday coming and am not above using it ;-)

Long, fast and affordable ... I know, I can have 2 out of 3, right?

jbsmithana

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

01/26/2007 11:43:45 PM · #2

I've been doing this type of photog for a while now and can tell you that the best option is the Nikon 200-400 f/4.o VR but it cost just over 5k. I use my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR with a Nikon 1.7x TC quite often now but have used a Tamron 200-500 in the past. I have even used the Tamron with a Tamron 1.4x TC which gives me over 1000mm eqivalent. The Tamorn is obviously not a VR but costs under $1,000 for quite a range.

My first choice would be a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR with a Nikon 1.7x TC which will give you an f/4/8 at 340mm. Second would be the Nikon 200-400 f/4.o VR but it costs $5,000. Third woudl be the Tamron 200-500 for under $1,000 that will offer quite a range at a low cost but require at least a monopod, which is what I shot mine with most of the time.

If interested in the Tamron I happen to have just posted mine for sale here:

Tamron 200-500

I'm about to post it on e-Bay, likely Saturday.

Message edited by author 2007-01-26 23:51:26.

_eug

Nikon D50

01/27/2007 12:43:38 AM · #3

I used my Tamron 28-300 with good results while on safari in Kenya.

01/27/2007 12:45:35 AM · #4

Thanks for the feedback :-)

$5K is NOT an option right now unless I suddenly win the lottery! No matter how good 400mm at f/4 sounds [nice to dream, though]. I can't buy anything just yet so don't hang onto the Tamron lens on my account. Hadn't thought too much about the TC option but will add it to my ponderings.

01/27/2007 10:07:00 AM · #5

Originally posted by _eug:

I used my Tamron 28-300 with good results while on safari in Kenya.

Very nice results. That one's not very pricey, either. How does it do in less sunny places? And how often did you want an extra 100mm or so?

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

01/27/2007 10:50:28 AM · #6

Bjorn Rorslet's site; Google for naturfotograf.com has good, hands on, field evaluations of many of the popular lenses made by Nikon over the last 35 years, and is an excellent guide when hunting for Nikon lenses. One of my friends told me about the site, and it has been a very useful tool for me when looking for lenses. It has averted me from buying several which I would have been very dissapointed with, and led me to get several which I am very pleased to put on my camera. He also posts info about teleconverters and their effect with different long lenses.
I have a Vivitar 400 5.6, a Sigma 400 5.6 a Nikon 300 4 IF ED, and a Nikon 70/300 D ED. The Nikons make better quality images than either of the 400's with the subject area cropped to the same size, with better CF control, contrast, and sharpness in every case. All except the zoom are older MF models, so it may not be a good comparison. The old ED IF has some fungus in it, and will still outshoot the 400's.

Message edited by author 2007-01-27 10:55:11.

Ivo

01/27/2007 10:53:13 AM · #7

Originally posted by MaryO:

I own the 80-400 Nikon VR and quite enjoy it. I find the lens can give quite good images though it gets a bit soft on the long end. The focus mechanism is a screwdrive and quite slow at times. The VR is adequate though I understand the technology is inferior when compared to the present VR system offered by Nikon. Overall, the lens is due fo an upgrade from Nikon as it seems to be lagging and becoming dated.

If I was to do it again Hmmm....I think I'd go prime at 300mm and get a teleconverter for those long shots. Why the prime? Grit, snow, moisture and so on are just realities when tracking furry and feathered creatures and primes are less likely to get "gummed up by these truths". Why 300mm? 300 is adequate for most walkabout wildlife shots and anything longer should be on a tripod, hence the TC. Anyhow, just a though and I hope it helps.

Here is the 80-400 lens page that may give you an idea of what can be acheived. Nikon 80-400 VR

Lytro Illum Light Field Digital

01/27/2007 11:23:28 AM · #8

Originally posted by Ivo:

Here is the 80-400 lens page that may give you an idea of what can be acheived. Nikon 80-400 VR

You do have a stunning shot on the very first place on that page ;-) I saw it earlier and am quite impressed, although my husband swore the horse was lying down and the lady standing up and you just rotated it. He's not very helpful sometimes!

I guess I'm leery of a prime because sometimes I get lucky and a bird flies towards me and I want to be able to pull back the lens to keep the whole bird in the frame. usually when I'm out in a wetlands area where I can't move much without stepping into the swamp. Bigger birds, obviously.

The 80-400 VR lens is on my short list and I did go to Bjorn Rorslet's site to see what he said, and the thing that worried me was he said it tends to hunt a bit in AF, though he was mostly positive about it.

Keep those opinions coming :-)

yakatme

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

01/27/2007 11:40:33 AM · #9

I have the Nikon 70-200VR and I love it.

I have the Nikon 80-400VR and I like it a lot.

I've used the Tamron 200-400 (I think that was the length) and it didn't even come close to the image quality of the Nikon 80-400VR.

I've used the TC17 teleconverter with the Nikon 70-200VR and hated it enough to return it and buy the Nikon 80-400VR.

_eug

Nikon D50

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/27/2007 04:44:07 PM · #10

Originally posted by MaryO:

Originally posted by _eug:
I used my Tamron 28-300 with good results while on safari in Kenya.

Very nice results. That one's not very pricey, either. How does it do in less sunny places? And how often did you want an extra 100mm or so?

Ah well. Kenya was a learning experience. Learning the limitations of the lens, flash, etc.

We had a couple occasions where I'd wish I had more reach, but with our being able to get up close with many animals, it tended not to be that great an issue. In low light it does tend to be tougher to AF and motion blur can be an issue if you're not careful to do a shutter speed of 1x-2x focal length.

hotpasta

Nikon D800

01/27/2007 04:56:59 PM · #11

I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 which I LOVE! It is sharp as a tack, fast focusing, and solid. I attach a 2X converter and end up with a 140-400 (200-600) on my Nikon D200 and that's at F5.6. With the converter it's not as sharp in my opinion, but pricewise...try and buy a 600mm F5.6 and you'll need to sell your house.

I also have a Sigma 50-500 which I took to Kenya and it was superb. It's heavy! But the resuts are sharp and there's so much quality all the way from 50 to 500.

Lately I have been thinking of getting the Sigma 100-300 as the reviews are amazing. Many wildlife people have them and they are quite reasonably priced. It's an F4. With a 1.4 converter, it would make a great lens for all sorts of things including sport and wildlife.

I love all of my Sigma lenses. I know that Nikon make some that I would prefer, but for the money and the difference, it's not worth it to me. In some cases, I think the sigma lenses are better.

wavelength

01/27/2007 05:05:47 PM · #12

Another thing to consider is the Sigma 80-400 OS

It will save you some $$ over the Nikon, but will probably not be quite as sharp. A 2x TC makes either of these a 160-800mm f/9-11, which is adequate for brighter days and tripod use. At this range, as has been mentioned, you'll really be wanting a solid tripod anyhow.

Message edited by author 2007-01-27 17:07:25.

01/27/2007 05:49:01 PM · #13

More choices! This is all good info; thanks :-)

The 3 Sigmas are all similar in price at around $1000 from what I've seen; I would probably want a TC at some point if I got the 100-300 f/4 so technically that one will cost me more in the long run, but f/4 at 300 sounds pretty sweet. The Bigma has a killer range and the OS is appealing on the 80-400, but then there's the {{{Nikon}}} 80-400 VR. Decisions, decisions.

At least I think I have it narrowed down to those 4. I think ...

jbsmithana

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

01/28/2007 12:48:08 PM · #14

Originally posted by yakatme:

I've used the TC17 teleconverter with the Nikon 70-200VR and hated it enough to return it and buy the Nikon 80-400VR.

Robert - what did you not like about the 1.7 TC? I'd be inteerested to know what you like better about the 80-400 VR. I seem to get pretty good results and at less than a third the cost of the 80-400 VR so I decided to go that way.

Just curious.

01/28/2007 06:33:32 PM · #15

How much difference does Sigma's DG coating make in practical terms, does anyone know? Will I regret it if I get a lens without it?

wavelength

Lytro Illum Light Field Digital

01/28/2007 10:43:43 PM · #16

Originally posted by MaryO:

How much difference does Sigma's DG coating make in practical terms, does anyone know? Will I regret it if I get a lens without it?

The DG is a rear element coating on the lenses that decreases flare and ghosting in digital cameras due to reflection off of the sensor (actually the glass covering it). This is fairly important, especially in high-contrast situations and when your lens is pointed anywhere towards the sun.

Guess that throws out my Sigma 80-400OS, sorry I didn't notice that before.

yakatme

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

01/28/2007 10:55:25 PM · #17

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Originally posted by yakatme:
I've used the TC17 teleconverter with the Nikon 70-200VR and hated it enough to return it and buy the Nikon 80-400VR.

Robert - what did you not like about the 1.7 TC? I'd be inteerested to know what you like better about the 80-400 VR. I seem to get pretty good results and at less than a third the cost of the 80-400 VR so I decided to go that way.

Just curious.

Hey JB, I found that that combo produced very soft images no matter what aperture or focal length I tried. This challenge entry was taken using the Nikon 70-200VR and the TC-17E.

I didn't come out as sharp as I expected it to even though I got a few comments saying that the focus was on. The last commenter, Gatorguy, caught it though. That is one of the better shots of many in which I was very disappointed.

One important point in defense of the teleconverter to mention is that I wasn't using a tripod much at the time. I did try bracing the lense and camera on rails and posts though but it didn't make a difference.

Still, I can get better shots using the 80-400VR with or without a tripod.

edit to add: I just added a lot of bird photos to my Wildlife folder today. All of the ones added today (mostly white birds) were taken either with the 70-200 or the 80-400.

Message edited by author 2007-01-28 22:57:46.