Confused about telephoto choice

gustafson

Senior Member
I'm having a NAS attack these past few weeks and feel compelled to purchase a long lens, mainly for birding with DX cameras. Short-term plan is backyard birding, but hoping for something I don't have to replace as my hobby grows. My budget is $500, and I'm looking for an option that lends itself to shooting handheld. Would appreciate if fellow Nikonites could weigh in on the options that I'm considering (please steer me away from bad choices!) and rationale (please correct any incorrect assumptions):


  • 300 f/4.5 ED-IF AI-s MF (+modified TC-16A for limited AF): I already have this, but my copy is faulty and doesn't focus at infinity. Peak sharpness is supposedly at f8, which limits utility, esp. with TC added.
  • 70-300 AF-P f4.5-6.3 DX VR: Briefly owned this but returned due to AF being a bit off. Better usability than the 300 f/4.5 ED-IF, but not impressed with sharpness beyond 10ft. Slow speed at long end = grainy images.
  • 300 f/4 AF-D (screw drive): Hoping this will be sharp enough wide open and work with a 1.4x Kenko pro or TC-16A (or both stacked) for added reach. Will have AF at 300 f/4 and 420 f/5.6, and possibly at 480 f/6.4, 670 f/9
  • 300 f/2.8 ED-IF MF (+modified TC-16A for limited AF): Haven't tried this, but hoping it will be sharper and afford better noise control.
  • 400 f/5.6 ED-IF MF (+modified TC-16A for limited AF): Haven't tried this, but the 300 f/4 with 1.4x TCs is generally recommended instead

How would you rank these? Or if you had to pick one, which would it be? Or do you know of a superior option in this price rance? Can't wait to see the responses.
 
I have the 70-300 and use it on both my D7100 and D750 and really do like it on both. One thing you have to do with all your lenses on your D7100 is to fine tune them. It really does make a big difference.
 

gustafson

Senior Member
Thanks for your vote for the 70-300 - was it for the FX or the DX version? I was referring to the new 70-300 AF-P VR for DX in my post. It's a bit slower than the FX version at the long end (6.3 vs 5.6), and there's no way (yet) to turn off VR on the D7100. The AF is quick and quiet and the lens handles really well. However, sharpness just wasn't satisfactory - I was able to get slightly better results with fine tuning (+5) on the D7100, but since I hope to use it on the D3300 as well, I end up returning it and may play the lotto again and hope for a sharper copy!
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I haven't used any of these lenses. I own the FX version of the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. Just used it this weekend and must be careful to try and avoid f/10 because of chromatic aberration.

My guess would be to go with a prime especially if you are looking to shoot at 300mm. My copy of the zoom has decent sharpness up until around 280mm, but it does leave me wanting a 300mm prime. However, I don't know anything about the lenses you have listed. And if one of the prime lenses works with a TC, then all the better!
 

gustafson

Senior Member
I HAVE A AF-S 70-300MM 4.5-5.6 G ED, FOR FAST ACTION IT IS THE ONE I CHOSE. HAND HOLDING IS NO PROBLEM. IT WILL PROBABLY GO ON MY NEW D750. I DID SEE THIS: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G DX AF-P ED Zoom-Nikkor Lens - Factory Refurbished with Pouch + Hood + Filter + 3 Pop-up Flash Diffusers + Kit

Thanks for the heads up. The link appears to be for the non-VR version that Nikon is bundling with its entry level DSLRs to keep costs low. If that was the VR version, I'd be all over it at that price


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

gustafson

Senior Member
I haven't used any of these lenses. I own the FX version of the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR. Just used it this weekend and must be careful to try and avoid f/10 because of chromatic aberration.

My guess would be to go with a prime especially if you are looking to shoot at 300mm. My copy of the zoom has decent sharpness up until around 280mm, but it does leave me wanting a 300mm prime. However, I don't know anything about the lenses you have listed. And if one of the prime lenses works with a TC, then all the better!

Didn't know about CA at f10 on the FX version of the 70-300. Thanks for the heads up!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks for your vote for the 70-300 - was it for the FX or the DX version? I was referring to the new 70-300 AF-P VR for DX in my post. It's a bit slower than the FX version at the long end (6.3 vs 5.6), and there's no way (yet) to turn off VR on the D7100. The AF is quick and quiet and the lens handles really well. However, sharpness just wasn't satisfactory - I was able to get slightly better results with fine tuning (+5) on the D7100, but since I hope to use it on the D3300 as well, I end up returning it and may play the lotto again and hope for a sharper copy!

Sorry, I have the FX version.
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
I'm totally spoiled by my 200-500 5.6 Nikkor... but it is expensive.

I have shot with the Nikon DX AFS VR 55-300 and with the Tamron SP 70-300 4-5.6.
And have shot them with my D5100 mainly, by the time I picked up my D7100 I had the 200-500 and have not used these other telephoto's much since then.

I would say that AF is a very good thing for shooting birds - obviously can be done manually but you'll need to get very good at it and will miss lots of shots.

I started with an older Tamron 200-400 and it got me hooked on shooting birds. It is older but was functional. CA was an issue but correctable.

Have you considered the used superzooms. I see Sigma and Tamron XXX-600 lenses on offer now and then. I bought that 200-400 used for less than $200 from KEH on a trip stateside.
 

gustafson

Senior Member
I'm totally spoiled by my 200-500 5.6 Nikkor... but it is expensive.

I have shot with the Nikon DX AFS VR 55-300 and with the Tamron SP 70-300 4-5.6.
And have shot them with my D5100 mainly, by the time I picked up my D7100 I had the 200-500 and have not used these other telephoto's much since then.

I would say that AF is a very good thing for shooting birds - obviously can be done manually but you'll need to get very good at it and will miss lots of shots.

I started with an older Tamron 200-400 and it got me hooked on shooting birds. It is older but was functional. CA was an issue but correctable.

Have you considered the used superzooms. I see Sigma and Tamron XXX-600 lenses on offer now and then. I bought that 200-400 used for less than $200 from KEH on a trip stateside.

Thanks for the guidance. I have considered the superzooms, but was under the impression they were way over my budget, too soft at the long end, and too heavy to shoot handheld. But I guess I need to revisit the assumptions or accept the compromises.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Fortkentdad

Senior Member
Thanks for the guidance. I have considered the superzooms, but was under the impression they were way over my budget, too soft at the long end, and too heavy to shoot handheld. But I guess I need to revisit the assumptions or accept the compromises.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If budget is not your limiting factor, and you are prepared to deal with the weight of these supers then that is the way to go for sure.

Cannot speak to the hand hold-ability of the Siggy's or Tammy versions but I know my Nikkor 200-500 works hand held very well. I do have a monopod equipped with a Jobu gimbal adaptor head for hiking with my big lens - it does get tiring holding it in position. I was focused on some Osprey the other day, waiting and waiting for it to take flight. Get too tired, take a break - then the bird flies. But the monopod is more for the weight (while waiting and hiking) more so than clarity. Asking which super zoom is better is like asking about which truck, Ford, Dodge, Chevy ... each have their loyalists. Nikkor is more expensive than the entry level Siggy and Tamron, but Siggy has a more expensive version too.

The earlier generation super zooms can be had at considerable discount used - the newer ones I think are better, it is up to you if they are worth the cost upgrade. Given the cost of these lenses you may wish to rent one for a weekend. I know at one store I frequent you can rent to try and if you buy the cost of the rental is taken off of the purchase price... I suspect there must be more than one store with that policy.
 

gustafson

Senior Member
If budget is not your limiting factor, and you are prepared to deal with the weight of these supers then that is the way to go for sure.

Cannot speak to the hand hold-ability of the Siggy's or Tammy versions but I know my Nikkor 200-500 works hand held very well. I do have a monopod equipped with a Jobu gimbal adaptor head for hiking with my big lens - it does get tiring holding it in position. I was focused on some Osprey the other day, waiting and waiting for it to take flight. Get too tired, take a break - then the bird flies. But the monopod is more for the weight (while waiting and hiking) more so than clarity. Asking which super zoom is better is like asking about which truck, Ford, Dodge, Chevy ... each have their loyalists. Nikkor is more expensive than the entry level Siggy and Tamron, but Siggy has a more expensive version too.

The earlier generation super zooms can be had at considerable discount used - the newer ones I think are better, it is up to you if they are worth the cost upgrade. Given the cost of these lenses you may wish to rent one for a weekend. I know at one store I frequent you can rent to try and if you buy the cost of the rental is taken off of the purchase price... I suspect there must be more than one store with that policy.

Good to know the 200-500 f5.6 is handholdable. And great suggestion on renting - would have never occurred to me but makes so much sense.

I briefly researched superteles some time ago, but wasn't able to zero in on a lens, mainly due to limited information. Guess its time to take another look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Good to know the 200-500 f5.6 is handholdable. And great suggestion on renting - would have never occurred to me but makes so much sense.

I briefly researched superteles some time ago, but wasn't able to zero in on a lens, mainly due to limited information. Guess its time to take another look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have hand held my Tamron 150-600 a lot.
 

jay_dean

Senior Member
I'm guessing VR is a must if the plan is to handhold or use a monopod?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nope, it'll slow the AF down slightly. I always handhold and never have mine on unless i'm shooting something quite slow and at a shutter speed lower than the focal length, and then i don't always follow that rule. Thats generally what i do for helos and prop planes. For birds VR is always off
 
I'm guessing VR is a must if the plan is to handhold or use a monopod?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I occasionally use the VR but most of the time I do not. I usually shoot at a fast enough shutter speed that is it not needed. I do love shooting it with a monopod and gimbal but a lot of that is for the weight. I am old.
 

gustafson

Senior Member
That's great to know that VR isn't needed when shooting birds handheld. Guess I was concerned about noise due to high ISO to keep the shutter speed fast enough to prevent blur and shake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

jay_dean

Senior Member
That's great to know that VR isn't needed when shooting birds handheld. Guess I was concerned about noise due to high ISO to keep the shutter speed fast enough to prevent blur and shake.
If i go birding i use a D7200 and Nikon 500mm f/4, i go with a shutter speed of 1/1000-1250th, auto ISO and stop down to f5.6. If the subject is close i can drop down to 1/500-800th. On a close subject ISOs over 1000 are very usable, start heavy cropping and thats a different matter. This is a 8.5 pound lens but i find it handholdable and i dont work out or anything, so if you're even moderately fit superzooms and most primes are handholdable. If you're an OAP then ok, you might have trouble;)
 

gustafson

Senior Member
If i go birding i use a D7200 and Nikon 500mm f/4, i go with a shutter speed of 1/1000-1250th, auto ISO and stop down to f5.6. If the subject is close i can drop down to 1/500-800th. On a close subject ISOs over 1000 are very usable, start heavy cropping and thats a different matter. This is a 8.5 pound lens but i find it handholdable and i dont work out or anything, so if you're even moderately fit superzooms and most primes are handholdable. If you're an OAP then ok, you might have trouble;)

Nice! I've read great things about the 500/4 for birding! Didn't realize it weighed over 8lb Which version is yours? Good to hear that even these heavy lenses can be used to shoot handheld. How do you carry it?

Guess I should go to the local camera exchange and size up some of these in person. I briefly owned a 300 f/4.5 and 80-200 f/2.8 and felt they were too heavy to lug around, so I'll have to approach this with an open mind @Fortkentdad 's idea of renting a big lens for a day and seeing how it works out is a good one.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

jay_dean

Senior Member
Nice! I've read great things about the 500/4 for birding! Didn't realize it weighed over 8lb Which version is yours? Good to hear that even these heavy lenses can be used to shoot handheld. How do you carry it?

Guess I should go to the local camera exchange and size up some of these in person. I briefly owned a 300 f/4.5 and 80-200 f/2.8 and felt they were too heavy to lug around, so I'll have to approach this with an open mind @Fortkentdad 's idea of renting a big lens for a day and seeing how it works out is a good one.
I have the VR1 version and use the BlackRapid Yeti strap with it and don't really feel the weight tbh, but thats just me. If you found the other lenses a bit heavy then maybe you've found your weight limit. Everyones is different i guess, and finding the weight you're comfortable with is going to be important.
 
Top