A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Nature > Nikon 300 f/4 AFS or Nikon...

Nikon 300 f/4 AFS or Nikon 80-400 VR for birds in flight?

Brian Small , Nov 18, 2000; 11:07 a.m.

O.K., so Nikon just now has these two new lenses out.........the 300mm f/4 AFS and the 80-400mm VR f/4.5-5.6. I have yet to see either lens but am wondering if anyone has seen them and/or tested them? Also, I've read some intitial user reports that the autofocus on the 80-400 is a bit slow because the lens lacks the AFS. I'd like some opinions on the pros and cons of each lens as it pertains to it's potential use as a hand-held bird-in-flight lens. When comparing the two lenses, keep in mind that you can use the TC14E with the 300mm f/4 and thereby have an effective 420mm f/5.6 AFS lens.


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Matt Cox , Nov 18, 2000; 01:21 p.m.

Brian --

Although I have not used the new 300f4 AF-S, I have used other AFS lenses (500, 80-200) and have been testing the new 80-400. Assuming the 300f4 focuses as fast as other AFS lenses (pretty safe assumption), there is really no comparison for birds in flight -- get the 300. On the 80-400, the performance of the VR feature is outstanding, as is the image quality and flexibility of the zoom, but the autofocus is way too slow if the primary use is birds in flight (by my simple tests, AF-S lenses focus twice as fast as the new 80-400). If you want a lens for more than just birds in flight, than the answer may be different.

Matt Cox Parker, CO

Karl Lehmann , Nov 18, 2000; 04:53 p.m.

I'm a Canon user so I can't comment on the AF issue. But I have both the 100-400 IS and the 300/4 IS (plus the 1.4x TC). I find the 100-400 to be far superior for shooting birds in flight - the ability to zoom out is a tremendous advantage. IS (= VR) is a huge advantage too, in fact I'd rate it as more important than autofocus.

So if there's a big difference in AF speed you've got a difficult choice to make. You really should try both lenses yourself if at all possible.

For more comments on shooting birds in flight with the (equivalent Canon) zoom, check out Arthur Morris's site "Birds as Art".

Karl Lehmann Lost World Arts

Scott Fairbairn , Nov 18, 2000; 05:00 p.m.

My local camera shop has the 300f4 AFS.(they were expecting the 80-400Vr to come in but the 300 came instead) While playing in and around the store isn't a real evaluation, it does seem very quick. The close focus to about 5 feet is superb. At this range you would have perfect magnification for shooting small birds such as Chickadees.

edward de bruyn , Nov 19, 2000; 08:57 a.m.

I’m a canon user since a few months (before nikon), I changed because at that moment I would go to a 500 mm F4 and I preferred to go to Canon because it has IS and USM for the other lenses. I’m also glad to have the 100-400 IS and it is very fast in AF mode I used the 100-400 IS on the Farnes Islands for gannets and puffins ( the last one arrive very fast, even against the wind) and I was happy to have 70% (puffins) sharp images. But the 300 mm F4 Canon would even react faster that I’m sure ( maybe closer to 80-90%ore more?). By the way for all other options the 80-400 would be a better choice. the 100-400 nikon seems to have a very good quality and images with stabiliser are faster to make than without ( sharper even at 1/250 or 1/500 at 400mm without tripod --> which is not always possible) I’m sure: the 400F5.6 or 300 f4 will be faster in AF mode ( with F100 ) What I’ve read about the new Nikon 80-400 is that it is a little bit slow in AF ( Compared to the 100-400 Canon, Chasseur d’Image, France) So the best choice will be a 300 mm for births in flight

Tom Shapiro , Nov 20, 2000; 07:02 a.m.

You may want to check out this site for his review on the Nikon 300 F4 AFS.



Andrew Eksner , Nov 20, 2000; 06:36 p.m.

Brian, Check out what Ron Reznick thinks about 300 F4 AFS - http://digital-images.net/Showcase/300f4AFS/300review/300review.html He tested it on birds in flight and was very happy with the results. 80-400 VR is bacically useless. AF is way too slow.

Patrick Bourseaux , Nov 26, 2000; 02:45 p.m.

I have not used the 300 f/4 but if it is as fast as my 400 f/2.8, this is it! I made an extensive test of the 80-400 VR. Great travel lens, but sloooow. The real use of it, as I could see it, is that you don't need to carry a tripod. Unless the subject is moving, you can shoot at incredible slow speed. And the range from 80-400 is just great. So is the image quality. Shot on F5 and D1 and the pics are as good as with the 80-200 AFS.

Dan Smith , Nov 26, 2000; 10:42 p.m.

What kind of fool makes a 'pro' lens that is not up to professional demands? Not only are Nikon years behind Canon in much of their lens technology but the fools come up with their "latest and greatest" that is not able to do the job. Better Nikon should buy a bunch of Canon stuff, spray paint it black & write NIKON on it with white out. That makes as much sense as what they are doing now. It is no wonder we see more and more shooters who need performance going to Canon. They have what is needed and they have it now, not in another five years.

Scott Seigmund , Nov 27, 2000; 01:39 p.m.

"Fools" may be just a little harsh. Brian wants to photograph birds in flight where IS/VR is almost a non-issue. Auto-focus speed will overwhelmingy be the more important consideration. Clearly it is no great trick to get sharp images with a 300mm lens on a tripod, so the ability to hand hold on static subjects or from a moble position becomes the only real difference. Yes, this can be a critical difference to some users but Brian has not made these stipulations.

I recently engauged in a civil and intelligent debate on Nikon vs Canon lenses with a pro photographer friend who uses Canon. To boil it down, there are no glaring differences in the lens selections until you get to super telephotos. Image Stabilization is the one area where Canon have a real lead on Nikon, but to quote my friend, "who can afford an IS Canon lens?". Nikon may well be able to sell a non-VR 300 f4 to many more customers due to lower cost. Many photographers have no need for IS/VR so why suffer the expense? I don't have any hard data, but I would venture a guess that sales of IS super telephotos are pretty small compared to shorter focal lengths. I applaud Canon for taking market risk with new technology as development cost are high and not everything proves out in the market place. Nikon were the undisputed leader in the pro camera field for many years. Canon seems to have acheaved an advantage over Nikon in some areas, but without a Nikon standard for Canon to strive for it is arguable that we would have fewer great products to choose from. People have incredably high expectations of Nikon and are often brutal in their criticism when they don't get everything they want when they want it.

I think the 300 f4S will best serve Brian's need for a moderate cost lens to photograph birds in flight using teleconverters.


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses