Looking at Purchasing a Prime Zoom, need advice!

I am looking into purchasing my first prime lens in the next week or so. I shoot a lot of wild life and zoom is important to me. My current lens (f/3.5-5.6 18-300mm) works great but I need to get more clarity on my long distance shots, especially after post shoot cropping; my IQ goes to hell most times.

I have been looking at the Nikon f/2.8 70-200 for my D7000. A friend let me use his for a week and the difference is staggering. I am able to crop and keep my IQ all the time. I am also considering getting a TC-14E II to go along with the 70-200 to extend my range a bit more (500mm).

Does is make sense to consider the new Nikon f/4 80-400 as well? Some of the reviews state this lens is not as well made as the 70-200mm, but it's extremely sharp from end to end. f/4 and a max zoom of 600mm on a DX, does seem like a good thing.

I got into photography 16 months ago as a hobby and have been chasing perfection since day one!

Any thoughts, comments or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Prime means ONE focal length. Zoom means the ability to choose several focal lengths.

Adding a 1.4 TC to the 70-200 will give you a 98-280mm lens, not a 500.

Depending on the situation you find yourself taking pictures in my recommendation would be the longest lens you can afford before you even consider converters,the Nikon 80-400 looks like a good bet,if you want longer and can handle it the sigma 50-500 gets good reviews.

Not to muddy the waters, but you might want to take a peek at Tamron's announced-but-not-yet-released 150-600.

70-200mm, great lens, not a wildlife lens. What's your budget?

480sparky said:

Prime means ONE focal length. Zoom means the ability to choose several focal lengths.

Adding a 1.4 TC to the 70-200 will give you a 98-280mm lens, not a 500.

Click to expand...

My bad, I thought not being a variable lens determined this, I know the 70-200 on a DX is 105-300mm. The TC 1.4 would take away some of the range? Still learning here. Thanks.

mikew said:

Depending on the situation you find yourself taking pictures in my recommendation would be the longest lens you can afford before you even consider converters,the Nikon 80-400 looks like a good bet,if you want longer and can handle it the sigma 50-500 gets good reviews.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I am kind of a label whore and like Nikons lenses; I will take a look into the Sigma. I typically shoot from 40 yards and in, mostly birds at the feeder, deer and other wild life near the woods out back. I was only thinking of getting a TC because of not getting a great shot of a Red Shouldered Hawk over the weekend. Still bummed about it. I truly believe the 70-200 would make the most sense. I may rent the 80-400 this weekend from a local B&M to see how it performs before making a final decision.

480sparky said:

Not to muddy the waters, but you might want to take a peek at Tamron's announced-but-not-yet-released 150-600.

Click to expand...

Not at all, I wanted to get as many opinions as possible. Thank you.

Here are some pics that I took recently. I believe the last shot would have been better with a 70-200 with the better glass after post crop processing.

dramtastic said:

70-200mm, great lens, not a wildlife lens. What's your budget?

Click to expand...

$3k, what are you thinking for a wildlife lens?

Thanks.

Nothing wrong with being a label whore unless of course it makes your photography more difficult,if your main interest will be wildlife the 70-200 and TC will do it but there are so many better longer options out there.

It may be the snow but those shots have a few issues. Blur, colour rendition, background noise. So maybe not the best examples.
If it was mainly birds and sticking with Nikon products I would be looking at the 300mm F4 prime with the Nikon 1.4TC.
For a mix of wildlife I would probably go for the versatility of the 80-400mm zoom.

mikew said:

Nothing wrong with being a label whore unless of course it makes your photography more difficult,if your main interest will be wildlife the 70-200 and TC will do it but there are so many better longer options out there.

Click to expand...

I agree, I have gone from a D3100, D5100 to the D7000. I just have to get my lenses down now. My buddies seem to scoff at Sigma and Tamron.

dramtastic said:

It may be the snow but those shots have a few issues. Blur, colour rendition, background noise. So maybe not the best examples.
If it was mainly birds and sticking with Nikon products I would be looking at the 300mm F4 prime with the Nikon 1.4TC.
For a mix of wildlife I would probably go for the versatility of the 80-400mm zoom.

Click to expand...

I have been having issues with IQ for quite sometime, the first two shots were 7" away, I did shoot them through a window at the time and my ISO was high. The only time IQ was great is when I borrowed my friend's 2.8 70-200. I just don't seem to be able to nail it! It has been a real struggle. The 300mm F4 is nicely priced. Thanks.

Just Google reviews on the 300 F4 or type in Nikon 300mm F4 Flickr. In the end it's the image quality that counts and pictures say a thousand words.

From your last statement i can see where the idea of a 70-200 comes from,you have seen a sudden jump in IQ,that's to be expected but it honestly doesn't make that the best choice for wild life,if want to to make your friends drool go for the Nikon 300 2.8 and converter when needed.

Here's some stuff I've taken with a D7000. There is no problem taking very good wildlife shots with this camera body. All taken with a 100-300mm F4 Sigma.
http://nikonites.com/wild-life/18012-cattle-egret-nesting-season.html

http://nikonites.com/wild-life/18612-australian-kestral-portrait.html

http://nikonites.com/wild-life/18677-mob.html

http://nikonites.com/wild-life/7393-lets-see-some-reptiles-35.html Scroll to bottom of the page

http://nikonites.com/learning-photography/607-post-your-insect-shots-115.html

http://nikonites.com/learning-photography/607-post-your-insect-shots-114.html Dragonflies

For small birds, the 300mm might still be too short depending on your shooting distance. The newer Nikon 80-400mm VRII might do the job as long as you have good light and good technique.

From what I have seen the 300mm takes the Nikon 1.4TC very well with nary a loss in IQ. However, you will lose a stop, down to F5.6. Not a problem except in low light. There is often is a decrease in AF speed with a TC attached. I keep mine on 95% so I guess the slow down in AF isn't significant enough to bother me.

I have the old 80-400 and love it for wild life, but yes you need good light. I too would love a prime lens for wild life. But need to access my budget again after spending a bit of money fixing my car.

Here are some shots from Africa with the old 80-400. So as you can see you can take pretty ok shots with the old 80-400 and even better ones with the newer version

Start saving for the Sigma 400mm F2.8 Scott.

dramtastic said:

Start saving for the Sigma 400mm F2.8 Scott.

Click to expand...

I was looking more at the 800mm from sigma lol


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Vapiano said:

......... I believe the last shot would have been better with a 70-200 with the better glass after post crop processing.

Click to expand...

My 70-300 @ 300 is better than my 70-200 @200 cropped.

dramtastic said:

It may be the snow but those shots have a few issues. Blur, colour rendition, background noise.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to "dogpile" but that third shot, in particular, also has some of the worst chromatic aberration I've ever seen.