What lens for birds and other wildlife?

Get Sigma 120-300 / 2.8 Digital Series and matching Sigma 1.4X tele-converter.

If your plan is for wildlife esp. birds you'll want the longest lens that you can afford. Zooms are nice for composition and creatures that allow you to get very close. Most birds do not let you get close and for those that do seagulls, pigeons, etc you can use your 18-200 VR.

Out of all the lenses you mentioned the 300mm AF-S will have the best optics (not sure how it stacks up to 200-400mm but that's out of the question anyway). The Sigma is pretty heavy so what you gain in OS still requires some type of support for long outings. The 300mm AF-S is hand holdable though I use a monopod when possible. 300mm works well with TCs. From word of mouth I hear the 50-500mm DG lens is sharper than the newer Sigma zooms. For what it's worth I'd go with the Nikon 300mm AF-S + TC or Sigma 50-500mm. Get a Bogen or Gitzo monopod and start shooting. My preference is for good optics over utility (e.g. zoom) and if I have a zoom lens for wildlife I'd be at the far end most of the time so makes sense for me to get the tele prime. For sports rather than skiddish wildlife I can see the purpose of a zoom.

Good luck.

I have a Sigma 50-500 mm that has been doing a pretty good job for wildlife. I'd really like more focal length, but everything else is way too pricey to justify.

BTW, a solid tripod is an absolute must! I have a Manfrotto carbon fiber with a fluid damped Manfrotto head. This combination works fine, and is not a compromise.

300mm or 400mm manual Nikkor and a TC convertor to get you out there and most bang for the buck...

denny

Richard, You can also check into some of the older Nikon AF-I series lenses.

I have a 300 f2.8 AF-I, and a 500 f4 AF-I. The AF-I lenses offer fast enough focus, and are considerably less expensive then any of the current lenses of this speed.

The only drawback is if they need repairs, there is a limit on what can be repaired because Nikon does not supprt this series of lenses any longer.

But these lenses work great for me!

If you want to go the Manual lens route, look at a 500mm f4 P lens. This lens is a sharp lens also. And as others have indicated, and tripod is a must for any of this large glass. Good luck in your search.

Serious glass for bird and wildlife photography will cost serious money. My advice would be to save up for the AF-S VR Zoom- NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED. Long, fast, primes would be better, but why don't you try the 200-400mm first and then if bird/wildlife photography becomes your passion, you can start looking at prime lenses. If not, the 200- 400mm lens holds it's value well for resale.

My response is based on your statement of wanting serious glass. If you are not serious, there are lots cheaper options which will seriously compromise the ease of capture and quality of your images.

Save up, Richard. I know it is hard, but it will be worth the wait.

You'll want at least the Nikkor 500mm F4, with a good tripod and a gimbal head for what you've described. Okay, you can't afford that now, it took me a long time too! Just keep in mind that what you're buying now will be temporary so you should consider the resale value for when you make the big step.

Ideally,
birds = 600mm/4
large wildlife = 200-400VR


Compromised solution:
birds = 200-400VR + TC14IIE + DX platform
large wildlife = 200-400VR


Highly compromised solution:
birds = 300/4 + TC17IIE + DX platform (viewfinder will not be bright enough and you'd be struggling with AF when bird is in shade)
large wildlife = 300/4 should be fine as long as you are willing to take a little more risk getting closer
Fantasy solution:
birds = 400/2.8 (without TC) = bright viewfinder and higher shutter speed at lower ISO
wildlife = 400/2.8 (take a few shots before I get killed because this lens cannot be handheld)

About that Sigma 120-300mm/2.8 HSM (no OS, by the way), it seems attractive based on the specs. But, as you may already know, maintaining an extremely tight tolerance for adhering to the design during manufacturing is very costly; and, it gets even costlier when a partially manufactured product has to be rejected because it is not within the tolerance range. Only the really anal company, so to speak, is willing to do that and that's why their products cost more. Based on my own experience and others experience, Sigma's tolerance range for maintaining the product to specs during manufacturing tends to be wider than Nikon or Canon. As such, I suggest getting the lens from a nearby store and returning/exchanging when you find something wrong. Check the outer ring of your images from your sample lens carefully. If they are too soft shot wide open, you might wanna think twice.

Hi Dick, you have gotten some good advice. The minimum focal length you will need is 300mm and longer is better, like 500mm. I prefer Nikon lenses, like the Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AFS paired with the D 300, that took the sample image below, That green heron was only about 8-10 yards away from me and I still cropped away 30% of the right hand side of the image. I would not have gottten the shot with the older AF version of the lens because of its slower AF. I wished that I had my 500mm with me for a heron shot 10 yards away. This is why you need long focal length lenses and tcs. The advice about the Nikon 500mm f 4.0 P lens is very good. This lens is excellent. It is chipped or electronic. You will have to focus it manually on your D 300 and this is not a problem. If action shooting is going to be your focus, then you need to save up for the AFS lenses. Joe Smith

Good choices: Nikon 500mm f4 P, Nikon 300mm f4 + TC-17E, Sigma 120-500mm OS. As mentioned above, you would be wise to get a pro class tripod and ballhead. The tripod contributes more to sharpness than the lens when you get to these magnifications. I use a Gitzo 1325cf + AcraTech ballhead. It is decent.

Kent in SD

Thank you all for the quick responses so far! As I kind of expected, you get what you pay for! I know that a better tripod(I have an old bushnell now) is in the future and I may have to take the plunge for the 200-400 Nikkor VR zoom. What I don't want to do is buy a "lesser" lens and then kick myself for not just buying the "correct" lens in the first place. I also have to live with this financial decision with the other person(wife) who I'd like to continue living with:-)!!!

>>I've read quite a bit about the 80-400mm VR Nikkor, but I'm concerned about it's autofocus abilities

If you use the focus limit switch, it focuses fast and accurately.

Elliot, thank you and that is interesting. The 80-400mm looks like a reasonable choice. How does the focus limit switch work? Does it limit the focus to a certain range? And, does anyone else have a comment about this specific lens?

I just did some quick reading about the focus limit switch and I have answered the question. Same comment from a reviewer on Amazon.

It is quite well known that the 80-400mm VR lens auto focuses slowly. When it first came out in year 2000, I tried it at a camera store on an F100, which had Nikon's fastest AF module at that time. The noisy AF from the 80-400 reminded me 1st-generation AF from the late 1980's. I immediately realized that it wasn't a lens for me.

If you are serious about bird photography, stick with the DX format for the extra reach and aim for at least a 500mm/f4. Even the 200-400 is going to be too short; I have one and know that very well. There are various ways to get to 500mm/f4. The cheapest way is the manual-foucs P version. That and the 80-400 are fine for stationary subjects. If you need to get into birds in flight shots, you'll be talking about some fast AF-S lens.

If you don't want to spend a lot of money immediately, try a 300mm/f4 AF-S perhaps with a 1.4x TC, but you'll quickly realize why serious bird photographers use 500 and 600mm lenses.

"What I don't want to do is buy a "lesser" lens and then kick myself for not just buying the "correct" lens in the first place."

Understood, however 'correct' is in the mind of the beholder. The 'correct' lens for me may be the wrong lens for someone else. For example Arthur Yeo's fantasy lens turned out to be not a good choice for me because I prefer much more mobility than a 400mm f/2.8 permits, and it turned out that there were very few situations where I could use the lens' maximum aperture because DOF is so shallow. The f/2.8 aperture was more burden than useful to me.

A few questions to ask yourself:
are your skills good enough to justify the expense of a modern high-end lens?
have you had enough experience photographing wildlife to know what you want from your lens?
are you comfortable taking a hit on depreciation if the expensive lens isn't right for you and you re-sell it?

If you've answered 'no' to any of these questions you're a good candidate for older used lenses. Try several and re- sell the ones that don't work for you, it's likely that you can re-sell for little $$$ loss and while using them you'll learn how important the lens' various features are to you.

For example
is AF important to you, or is manual focus OK?
what about AF speed?
how important is weight and ergonomic design?
how important to you is the maximum aperture?
how often is the minimum focus distance a problem?

These are all individual considerations and there's no single right answer. Once you know what features you want and what works for you you'll have a better idea what the "correct" lens is and you'll make a better purchase of an expensive lens.

Shun and Doug, thank you for the input and suggestions. At this point, I have the desire and interest to become a better bird and wildlife photographer, but I lack the experience. I understand very well what you mean by learning your equipment and what works for me. I have experienced this with my 80-200 VR which I've found to be quite good for some situations but limited for others. I think that is why I don't really want to start by spending a lot of money, but I also appreciate the quality of excellent construction and I was worried about making a compromise for price that I would regret. Looking for used lenses is an excellent suggestion and I'll definitely start searching in that direction. Again, I appreciate all of the good advice! This is what makes this forum so great!

I use 300mm 2.8af-s, 500mm 4.0af-s,200-400mm and TC17IIE. They all "handholdable". 300mm2.8af-s is the fastest; 500mm4.0af-s is the best IQ; 200-400mm more flexable. 300mm2.8af-s lens only cost 1/2 the price of 200-400mm or 500mm.

I use a D200 with an older Nikkor 400mm f5.6 ED-IF on a Gitzo 1327. Its manual focus but for getting am image of birds in trees I think its better than AF but still a dark view finder. I would like more focal lenght and speed so I am looking at the Nikkor 500mm f4 P which I believe would better suite stationary shots vs the Nikkor 300mm AF-S f4 and tc. IMHO you should get a good tripod and head (read the tripod section on www.bythom.com) first then build techique before you purchase a big lens. You might look into renting a few lenses to see what fits you best.

Dick, long lens technique is very important and it requires a good tripod and a ball head or a gimbal head no matter what lens you get. Factor in the cost of a good tripod and ball head. Read this link for long lens technique: http://www.naturephotographers.net/ejp0801-1.html

All of us are trying to tell you how to avoid some of the costly mistakes some of us--namely yours truly--have made. I started with a Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AF lens for general nature work in Yellowstone. After one outing, I added a well used Nikon manual focus 400mm f 3.5, for general nature and shorebirds. Then I traded up for a used Nikon 500mm f 4.0 P lens and used it for birds with two tcs, the tc 14B and the tc 301, for 7 years. That is when I bought a good tripod, a Gitzo 1325- and my images improved dramatically. Then I went digital with a D 200 and now a D 300. When I got interested in action stuff, I switched to the 300mm AFS f 4.0 and just recently the 500mm AFS f.4. You can get a used 500mm f 4.0 P for around $2000-$2200. It is a great birding lens with a camera like the D 300 with a above average viewfinder if your eyes can handle mf. I am 65 and wear tri focals.

IMO you do not need VR in that you will be using a tripod for most of your shots. Not having VR keeps the costs down. If I had the money to buy the 200-400mm VR, I would buy the 500mm VR instead for birding. I believe the costs are about the same. Now if I were going to africa for a safari, I would probably get the 200-400mm VR.

Joe Smith

Unfortunately, a 500mm/f4 AF-S VR is quite a bit more expensive than the 200-400, approximately $7900 vs. $5200 at this point. Given that the 500mm/f4 VR is new, its price probably has some room to drop.

The longest lens you can possibly afford. 300mm is barely adequate for large birds. I've used my 80-400 and it's so so, but a 500 (+ TC ) on a D200/D300 will make life much better for you.

" long lens technique ... requires a good tripod and a ball head or a gimbal head no matter what lens you get. "

That's the conventional setup. I'm using a lightweight 560mm f/6.8 with shoulder stock & monopod, total cost excluding camera body is about US$1000. I rarely use a tripod.

Stay away from Sigma glass. I had the 120 300mm and found it to be quite fragile. Stick with Nikkor glass.

I've tried both manual focus and autofocus. Manual focus would result in about 20 - 30% in focus, while autofocus got me 70 - 80% in focus. Nothing's more frustrating than having to delete a great shot that's out of focus. Go with autofocus.

I've used telephoto zooms and straight telephotos with 1.4X teleconverters. I had no problem with the telephoto with teleconverter - this combo was certainly flexible enough for my needs. Also, it's often cheaper and more rugged.

What focal length? With your D300 DX body, I would think a 400mm with a 1.4 or a 1.7 teleconverter should have enough reach.

Richard, if you go for a good, used, AF 300 f/4 (non-AFS), this lens will will be a great start and is usable with 1.4x and even 2x teleconverters, not overly heavy, well balanced and with an arguably much better tripod mount than the AFS model. Shouldn't cost you much so you could still budget for longer and faster if you need to. Good solid monopod with the Bogen (Manfrotto) Long Lens Monopod Bracket would also be my recommendation -- this bracket is inexpensive alternative to Wimberley, the European Manfrotto ref. model no is MN393, can't remember what the Bogen ref no is.

The Bogen ref. no is BG3421.

It depends a bit on your approach. If you can set up hides and have some control over your location you might be able to get away with a shorter focal length. However, for most bird photography, as others have said, there's just no substitute for focal length and the longer the better. Having experimented with a 300mm F4 AFS, I doubt a 200-400mm would often be enough, even with a DX camera. The 600mm F4 is a very big, heavy lens and for field work, and especially if you have to carry it any distance, the 500mm F4 with the option of the 1.4x converter is probably a better bet. Autofocus will be invaluable for moving subjects, but the manual version with the contacts (P) is much cheaper. Allow a significant part of your budget for a decent tripod and head.

Douglas, great shots! Who makes the lens? Dave, I'm getting an uncomfortable feeling about Sigma for this purpose. Peter, your points are well taken and the 300 f4 with teleconverters will surely be in my thoughts as well as good solid support. I'm still mulling over the 80-400mm Nikkor zoom based upon a bunch of customer reviews I've read today. Seems like the AF works fairly well with the limit switch on and I still kind of like the idea of the flexibility of the zoom. I'm not ready to sink 6-7 grand into a lens and I think the 300 f4 or the 80-400 zoom would be a good start. I'm pretty much convinced that I should stick with Nikkor glass for it's higher quality and resale value. The quest continues:-)!

Joseph, nice article from naturephotographers.net, thank you! I just did this car technique last weekend to get some shots of an eagle on a deer carcass. It didn't work out quite as well as the author mentioned.

Richard, it's a Leica lens first sold in 1971. Totally manual with a very quick sliding focus. If you find one with the Visoflex mount it can be adapted to nearly ANY SLR camera. The Leica-R mount version is easy to adapt to C**** cameras, and with minor surgery can be adapted to many SLR mounts. If the camera has a good viewfinder you won't miss the lack of AF. Here's detail from one of the above photos (shutter speed was 1/125 sec IIRC):

Sorry, the photo.net software has re-sized the detail picture. Here's the link to the detail picture:

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/artiodactyls/dash01crop.jpg

Most browsers will try to re-size the picture to fit the screen, be sure you enlarge it to full resolution.

another 100% crop:

http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/phasianidae/witu19crop.jpg

Douglas, thank you for answering. No wonder Leica has such a sterling reputation. I'm sure that those copies that are still out there aren't just hanging around waiting for someone like me to come along!

Hi Richard,

I have the experience with three different longer lenses....

1, 300mm AF-S f/4 Nikkor - wonderful prime at give or take $ 1,000 used. 2, Tamron SP AF Di LD (IF) 200-500mm f/5-6.3 - under $ 1,000 new & a zoom 3, Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 - - a lot of money new or used

The 300mm AF-S f/4 is a great lens. I still have it & won't give it up due to the fact that it's hand holdable, though I prefer to work off a tripod. You can easily use it with a TC. It's a great lens.

The Tamron is a cheaper built etc lens, but it's a good way to learn & getting started - - I have many wonderful shots taken with that lens. I just wanted more reach. It now lives with one of my friends.

Sigmonster is out of your price range & hard to locate. I would not recommend it as a beginner lens.

Good luck

Lil :-)

"I'm sure that those copies that are still out there aren't just hanging around waiting for someone like me to come along!"

Check the big auction website.

Nilkon 70-200 2.8 VR with 1.4. Very sharp!! And very fast focus. I would rent different ones before spending the money to see which one you like best.

There are few wildlife photographers who still use a MF lens. Doug Herr and Norbert Rosing are the ones I know of, although Norbert is exceptionally well known for polar bears. Actually, he still uses films for his professional work.

Having said that, not many mortals can use a MF long lens successfully in the field under pressure, let alone making a living from MF lenses. Don't say I did not warn you, so don't get too sentimental.

Back in the 1990's, I was reasonably happy with the 500mm/f4 P on film bodies. I was restricted to still subjects but it worked out ok. I took that lens to Africa and quickly realized that I couldn't even follow focus on a few slowly walking lions. That prompted me to upgrade to the AF-S.

Before the 500mm/f4 P, I had a 500mm/f8 mirror lens. A slow 500mm lens simply did not work for me as I had a hard time focusing it, and a very slow f8 lens forced me to use high ISO film and a slow shutter speed.

If there were any good $1000 solution, nobody would be dumb enough to spend close to $10K on those f4 AF-S VR super-teles.

Shun and Arthur, I appreciate what you are saying. I read Ken Rockwell's review of the 80-400mm VR zoom this evening. He has a lot of positive things to say about it. Most importantly it's high quality glass and distortion free images. He talks about the slow AF since it's not an AF-S lens but says the AF function tracked moving subjects well. He also made the point that if it were AF-S it wouldn't be selling for the relatively reasonable price that it currently can be purchased new. It seems that most customer reviews of this lens are favorable and with all lenses you have to understand their technical limitations. Most of my shots for now will be stationary or slow moving large birds, deer and possibly some smaller birds. I'll be fortunate to get good shots of birds in flight, but I'd like to work in that direction. This seems like a good place to start as I like the flexibility of a zoom and I'd like one capable of producing nice sharp images. Just thinking out loud here...thanks to all for the great input!

Shun I respectfully suggest you are saying more about your camera's viewfinder and lens ergonomics than about manual focus per se. A lens with rotating-ring focus would be my last choice for an active subject if I had a sliding-focus option. I was also dissatisfied with the 500mm f/8 reflex (nikkor).

Here are a few photos (on film) using a sliding-focus lens and ISO 64 film:

http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/laridae/blsk00.jpg
Note that the skimmer's eye is in focus, not the near wingtip.

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/carnivores/coyo02.jpg

http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/mall00.jpg

http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/pelecanidae/awpe00.jpg

a few from my digital camera:
http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/come12.jpg

http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/come13.jpg

http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/hirundinidae/clsw01.jpg

http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/phalacrocoracidae/dcco00.jpg

digital camera with a good viewfinder and rotating-ring focus:
http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/cago01.jpg

http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/ruhu01.jpg

I would guess that rather than being dumb, people who spend close to $10K on those f4 AF-S VR super-teles are more likely unaware of how big a role ergonomic design and the viewfinder play in their ability to focus a lens manually. What baffles me is how few people are complaining about the poor quality of modern cameras' viewfinders, but if they haven't been exposed to better viewfinders they wouldn't be aware that anything better was possible.

I recently purchased a used 80-400 VR Nikon lens. Trying to see if birding is right for me. So far my results have been mediocre, but I would attribute that to my skills and technique, or lack thereof. I'm relatively happy with the lens. I have noticed 2 problems. The noise of the lens focusing seems to be very loud, and with the VR on and in a hand held shot I seem to have lost a bit of one image... Look at the player's right arm... Not sure if it's a shutter speed issue or a VR issue.

Douglas, beautiful examples! I feel that my D300 viewfinder is very sharp and I have not had a problem focusing my 18- 200 VR zoom manually. In fact under some circumstances, like when there are small branches around a subject such as a squirrel, manual focus is the way to go. However, the 3D tracking with 51 point AF on my D300 locks on to moving birds and airplanes very nicely. I also get what you are saying about the sliding focus. It makes a lot of sense that it would be faster and more accurate when you become accustomed to the lens.

Red, thanks for your input. What was the shutter speed for that image and how far out were you on the zoom? I think that both the arm and the other child are blurred because of a slow shutter speed. Also, there is no grass in focus near your subject so it may be a combination of issues with slow shutter speed plus a handheld shot.

Dick, I have two friends who bought the Nikon 80-400mm lens. Both were unhappy with its AF performance for birds, even large wading birds and semi stationary birds. Both found it just OK for mammals. I have another who uses the Sigmn 50-500mm lens. It is OK if you know how to maximize its use--never add a tc until you have fully zoomed out to 500mm. If you need more reach then add a 1.4x tc. But do not add it until you reach 500mm.

In my earlier post I meant to say, I would buy a 500mm f 4.0 AFS (not VR) for about the same price as a 200-400mm f 4.0 VR. Shun was right to point out the error--VR costs a lot more. And I still could be wrong on my pricing as I am going from memory.

I have taken award winning wading bird shots with my 500mm f 4.0 P lens with the help of the tripod and a Wimberley gimbal mount. Yes, AFS is easier to use, and I am glad I have one now, but for 7 years I survived w/o it.

Joe Smith

Joseph...hmmm, and I was just thinking I should get out my Visa card! Well, I'm still thinking!

Data for my above pic is:

f/7.1 1/100sec. ISO-200 +2 EV stops (Did this due to the strong back light for some detail in the shadow areas of the faces) Focal length 180mm (270mm effective due to the 1.5x on my D300) Center weighted average metering

I only kept the image because I liked the implication of movement, as he is throwing the ball, I know technically there is alot wrong with the image but it kind of had some appeal to me.

Another image (cropped) from the 80-400mm VR with significant sharpening, also handheld, not really happy with this one either... but I'm learning to use this lens and trying to capture better images.

Well, I just read 27 customer reviews on the B&H website for the 80-400mm VR. 25 out of 27 were very positive. One of the negatives was from someone who had the AF lock up in cold weather. The consistent theme seems to be that it produces sharp images and that you can "work" with the slow AF. I may be convinced.

Red, thanks for supplying the data. 1/100 is too slow for ball throwing and running kids...I think that's where the arm went:-)! The nice thing about the D300 is you can push the iso up and still get very nice images. This may be of some help in lower light with this lens. I think you're on the "getting used to it" curve and from what I'm reading you'll be seeing better results in time. If I buy this one I'll put up some examples after I learn to use it.

Douglas, back in the 1990's when I was using the 500mm/f8 mirror and 500mm/f4 P, I was using an F4 body. No reasonable person would complain about the quality of the F4's viewfinder. If a slow manual-focus 560mm, f6.3 lens works for you, great for you. That is clearly not the way to go for me. In particular, for moving subjects, I would much rather pay attention to the ever changing composition than constantly adjusting focus manually. But this is Richard's thread, and I am merely providing my input. Obviously he needs to decide for himself under his constraints.

And to Richard, to put it bluntly, I wouldn't depend on Ken Rockwell's web site on information about photography.

Red, 1/100 sec is way too slow for shooting sports. I would open the lens all the way up to f5.6 and boost the ISO. I would try at least 1/1000 sec.

Shun, I appreciate your opinion. So far, I'm leaning toward the 80-400mm VR but...I'm not in a hurry!

Richard, the 80-400 VR is not a bad lens. Personally I cannot tolerate its slow AF. Additionally, because of its design: the lens' barrel expands by a lot when you zoom to 400mm and contracts towards 80mm, it is not a solid build. A friend of mine took it to Africa and it dropped about 1.5 feet onto the metal floor of a Land Rover, and the lens split in half. However, he liked it so much that he simply bought another one.

Additionally, AFAIK this lens is a bit soft beyond 300mm. But obviously I don't own one so that I don't have personal experience with it.

If you want good Nikon lens reviews, try Bjorn Rorslett:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/VR80_400_review.html

and Thom Hogan:

http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm

Those two are widely recognized as Nikon authorities.

The 80-400 VR is a lens Nikon should upgrade to AF-S, newer VR and a better tripod collar, but who knows when they'll do that.

Richard, Spend $75.00 and rent the 70-200 2.8 vr and a 1.4TC. I don't think you will find a sharper lense anywhere. If you go briding in the State Park type places you can get pretty close to the birds. They are used to people and do not spook as easy, so the 200 on a D300 is more than enough reach. I use it all the time for inflight bird shots and airshows. It's tack sharp always (when I use it right!) But if nothing else rent before you spend that much money on any lens. Lensrentals.com is a great place to rent from. Great customer service and big inventory of lenses, There are a lot of other out there to.

Mike, may I suggest you to read my head-to-head comparison between the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR with the TC-14E and the 300mm/f4 AF-S?

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00G5ff

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00CZeE

Richard

I use a Nikon 300 f/4 AF-S alone and with TC 14E II and TC 17E II teleconverters. Image quality is very good, and the price point is reasonable.

You could get the 80-400 for a similar price point to the 300 and 1.4. You'll gain VR, zoom flexibility, but have a slower AF and IMHO a slight drop in image quality.

The 70-200 - which I have - is probably not a good alternative for birds. Image quality is fine, but you really want 400- 500mm or longer for birding.

The 200-400 is a first class lens - reported by some to be the best zoom made by Nikon. But it has a price to match. It does work with the 1.4 - and in decent light the 1.7 teleconverters. But it is big and heavy - definitely not a "take it anywhere" lens.

The two good budget zooms are the Sigma 50-500 and the Tamron 200-500. I have the Tamron and it is remarkably good for a lens under $900. At 500mm it is f/6.3 - and better if you stop down a little. The weight is very light - about the same as the 300 f/4. I find the image quality of the 300 f/4 and 1.7 TC to be just a little better in the 500mm range, but the difference is very small. My wife's images with the 200-500 have been finalists in two birding photo contests.

There are a couple of things to note about the Tamron 200-500. The lens hood is almost 7 inches long, and the lens extends when zoomed to 500mm. So the entire rig is nearly 24 inches long - not a tool for small spaces. Also note that it demands long lens technique at longer focal lengths. I see a notable difference in images based when I use long lens technique. Due to the long lens barrel and hood, it vibrates with the shutter release if you do not use good LLT. This applies most to distant targets. Inside 50 feet the lens is awesome, but there is a bit of a dropoff outside 150 feet. You can handhold this lens due to the light weight, and if you support the lens barrel with your hand, images are very good.

The Nikon 200-400 was within our budget, but we felt it was just too heavy for my wife to use. My wife is using the Tamron 200-500 lens on the Markins M-10 ballhead by itself and with the Wimberley Sidekick. Everything is on Gitzo 3 series legs.

The best lens is the one is the one you have with you. Your 18-200 fits the bill nicely. Going longer, you have a lot of choices but the Tamron 200-500 is worth considering.

Eric

Thank you all for the continuing comments. And thanks, Shun for the links to two excellent reviews. They both seem to get to what my conclusion is so far...the 80-400 is very good optically if you can adjust to the slow AF and some other small quirks(tripod collar, finger pinching). So, optically I can see why so many people give it good marks.

Eric, I hadn't really considered looking at Tamron...I'll have to do some reading.

Shun Cheung wrote: "No reasonable person would complain about the quality of the F4's viewfinder."

Compare the F4 viewfinder to that of the Leicaflex SL then you may express your opinion of who is a reasonable person.

Lots of good advice here, Richard. Someone has already mentioned it, but I would like to stress that if you want to shoot wildlife in the wild, outside from zoos or any kind of controlled conditions, your skill as a naturalist will be far more important than your equipment. And that kind of skill costs a lot of work, study, and time spent in the field... That is to say that in my opinion it is not wise to suggest a top of the line lens to start with this kind of photography. With DX the 300/4 afs is a good compromise, and I have used use all Nikon TCE converters effectively (the 2X is more difficult and i seldom manage to get really good results, but sometimes it happens). I always had a lust for that old 560 Leitz used by Douglas Herr and finally bought one a couple of months ago. I choose the Novoflex mount as I will presumably use it more often on a tripod, from hides. So far my experience has lead to not very brillant results, I have yet to master the thing as it handles very differently from the 300/4 afs which I know rather well having used it for years, and the finder of my D200 (similar to the D300) while above average does not seem good enough for it. Also, I have yet to spend the big money for a definitive tripod setup and this may be another reason for my initial difficulties. Here are a couple of rather good ones, Good luck, Marco

dinamic

dinamic2

Very nice shots, Marco! And thank you for the comments. My wife tells me that I have to learn to be much quieter and stealthier in the woods if I'm going to be a good wildlife photographer. I'm willing to learn as I get a great amount of enjoyment from it. I've taken some lucky shots with my 18-200 VR. Here is an example...

Lovely photo and very nice colors, looks like you managed to get really close to your subject! Marco

Shaun, have you do those test with the D300?or D3? Maybe it's just me, but I really could not see enough difference between the 300 and 70-200 to really matter. Also, with birds in flight, the zoom is nice to have. If you only shoot standing birds or other slow moving things, then the 300 or another fixed lens would be the way to go. I find it very hard to get good shots of in flight birds with a fixed lens if they are changing direction much. You need to be able to adjust as the bird does. It's no different then shooting airshows. One would have a hard time shooting only with a 300mm they would miss a lot of shots. And as I said, I just don't see enough difference in Shaun's test shots to give up the zoom. I guess the dream would be to have both in the bag....big dream for me!

Marco, the fawn was about 50 feet away and I was very lucky that it just walked almost up to me!

Of all wildlife photography, I believe birds in flight (bif) is probably the most challenging without an AF lens; especially, when the bird is flying at an angle that is towards you and away from you. Worst case scenario is when they are flying directly at you. If the bird's flight path is parallel to you, it's more than possible for MF to catch some good ones.
Overall, I am not saying it is impossible to do it with a MF lens, it is just that much more difficult. I am sure if we try hard enough and have enough luck, we can photograph birds with a 85mm/1.4AFD. But, how is your success rate? So, we're talking the right tool vs is it possible, aren't we?

Arthur, someday, with a lot of practice and the right equipment I hope to acheive what you have demonstrated here so beautifully! I think that being able to do this is another challenge in life that holds tremendous personal satisfaction and pride of accomplishment! Your shots are flawless!

Thanks for sharing these!

Dick

" the finder of my D200 (similar to the D300) while above average does not seem good enough for it. "

I have not seen a D300 viewfinder so I cannot compare the two but if it's like the D200 viewfinder it's not what I'd consider particularly good, and I expect that this camera is better suited to AF. If it is above average this speaks volumes about the average viewfinder.

Mike, try to take a closer look at your images shot with the 70-200mm VR + TC-14E. In my opinion, that combo is not even sharp when the lens is wide open at f2.8 for an effective f4. However, sharpness improves dramatically if you close down by just 1 stop to f4 for an effective f5.6.

I have repeated that test with the D100 and D2X. I currently have no access to a D3. I do have a D300, but that is also a 12MP DX, just like the D2X. I doubt that there will be any difference. Additionally, it is well known that the 70-200 VR has poor edge performance on an FX DSLR. When I get an FX body, I will repeat that test.

In any case, a 300mm lens is barely sufficient for a lot of wildlife shots. If you stick a 1.4x TC onto a 70-200, you'll be using its longest end all the time anyway. A better zoom for flight shots is the 200-400, which I have, but that is hard to hand hold.

Attached is an egret in flight shot captured with a D300 and a 300mm/f2.8 AF-S. I have to admit that I have been totally spoiled by AF-S and the ever-improving Nikon AF since 1998. For me, this kind of results is now totally routine and expected. I do have an unfair advantage of living near the coast in California so that there are plenty of birds and plenty of good light.

Nice examples, Shun. I'm feeling that I have to start somewhere and see where it will lead me. I think I should stick with Nikon glass and I'm impressed with the image quality of the 80-400 VR zoom. Many people have commented in customer reviews that with the focus limit switch on using the lens on a D200 or D300 the AF works fairly well. I have not been impressed with the sharpness of the images from any of the 3rd party manufacturers that I have viewed and I want the flexibility of a zoom. So, I think that I'll be ordering a new 80-400mm VR soon. I'm sure that it will be the beginning of a long list of lenses over the next few years. This has been a very helpful discussion...thanks to all!

Richard, I did use a friend's Sigma 50-500mm briefly a couple of years ago. I posted some comparison images in the following thread: http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Gdym

At $1000, the Sigma is actually not too bad, but any 500mm, f6.3 lens is going to have a lot of limitations regardless of whether it has the Sigma, Nikon, Leica ... logo on it.

That friend has since upgraded to the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S and an D3 body.

And, I'm sure he loves that combo! For me, for now, too rich for my blood!

Shun, I looked at your examples and I think the Nikon was superior.

Douglas--those images are beautiful and the "old-school" style of photography very appealing. Have you moved to digital capture (yet)?

"Douglas--those images are beautiful and the "old-school" style of photography very appealing. Have you moved to digital capture (yet)?"

I've been using the Leica DMR digital back on the R8 body since March 2006

new photos this year
new photos in 2007
new photos in 2006

this has been a fascinating discussion for me because i've been wrestling with the same issues and some of the same choices. i have to admit, it hasn't resolved anything for me yet -- but it does bring a lot of great information together in one place.

i've handled the 80-400mm VR lens, but just noted this morning at the store that it's f/4.5-5.6, and it has a very plastic-y build -- although it does seem to be (at least marginally) hand-holdable. besides that one, the 300mm f/4 appeals to me, as it appears not to be substantially more awkward to handle than the 80-200mm f/2.8 lens i already use. my other frequently used lens is the 70-3090mm f/4.5-5.6, incidentally.

i would love to have extra reach, so 400mm has it's appeal. on the other hand, while i can already go 300mm, with a prime lens i'd feel less concerned about using a TC, while making the lens only somewhat more difficult to work with.

that's a paramount concern for me, since i value mobility highly. while i have a quite servicable tripod, when i work i like to keep moving. i suppose that comes from my journalistic roots. i like to go for a spontaneous image whenever possible.

more posters talked about gear than technique, and that's fair enough -- that was the gist of the question. but there's obviously far more to a successful outing than the gear one carries. and that's where i get stuck trying to work through the various trade-offs.

richard, i'm very interested in which way you finally decide to go -- so please keep us posted. and have a great holiday weekend!

Right out of the camera Nothing done except resizing to post. Spoonbill about 75 yards away. Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 w/TC 1.4 ISO 200, 1/1000 @ f/6.3

Sorry did not load I'll try again

Mike, if you would like to know how sharp the 70-200 VR + TC-14E combo is, test it in a more controlled environment such as with a still subject. Compare images with the lens wide open at f2.8 (effective f4), f4 and f5.6. It would best to have a 300mm/f2.8 and 300mm/f4 around for comparison.

As I said earlier, the 70-200 + TC-14E combo is pretty good once you stop down. The problem is that we don't always have the luxury to stop down a long tele.

I'll try to address this topic in another thread.

Shawn I not trying to argue the point of sharpness of the 300 f/2.8 or any fixed lens. They are very sharp, no question about it. My last picture was just showing that the 70-200 can be just as sharp if you hit it right. My only point, IMHO, that I was making is that if you want to shoot birds in flight (in flight being the key word) then a you are going to miss a lot of shots with a fixed lens that you could get with a zoom.... a zoom you can hand hold pretty much all day. If you are just after wading birds or nesting birds, then yes the 300 or 400 + is what you want.

Also, IMHO, again, I think real world testing is the only testing that is worth anything. Controlled testing using brick walls and 100 % crop is great if one likes 3 foot wide pictures of brickwalls. Yes you will see every problem with a lens using the brick wall, and other extream crops of objects, you will not notice it (99% of average viewers) in a wedding photo, the bird in flight or the Air Force Thunder Birds at 500 MPH. To me, that is the true test of a lens... what real world pictures look like not what a 100% crop in a lab looks like. No one buys those.

By the way the last pic you posted was great. That is about as sharp as you will ever see!

Mike, what I am pointing out is that the combination of the 70-200mm AF-S VR and TC-14E wide open at f2.8 will never give you a sharp image under any circumstance, and that is a combo that costs over $2000. To me, that seems to be a very heavy price to pay for mediocre results.

Having said that, I do occasionally use that combo myself, but I always stop down by at least a stop to f4 for an effective f5.6, where sharpness improves dramatically. Your example is actually stopped down by 1 2/3 stops. Unfortunately, we frequently don't have the luxury to stop down a long tele. That is why I usually carry a longer lens.

Additionally, most people prefer a 300 to 400mm lens for hand held bird flight shots. That is why you cannot take advantage of the 70-200 zoom because you'll be using it at 200mm all the time anyway, even with a TC. Your spoonbill image is a very good example of that situation. See all the empty space behind the bird? You can clearly crop tighter.

An exception is Arthur Yeo's eagle shots. I believe he used the 200mm/f2 AF-S for some of those. Somebody was actually feeding those eagles and that was why he managed to get so close. For truely wild birds, 300 to 400mm would be much better.

William, with my limited experience, I like to keep moving as you do. That is a great consideration in my lens choice as well as the ability to zoom. I have seen a lot of examples with the 80-400 VR handheld and they are nice crisp shots which is what I'm after. I'm certain that there are a lot of ways to get there, but I'm leaning heavily in the direction of the 80-400. I'll be on vacation in the woods for the next 2 weeks with no computer. So, I'll let you know what I decide when I return. Again, thanks to all of you who participated in this very helpful discussion and put up such great shots!

For anyone interested in more photo examples with the 80-400 and more opinions, check out this link...

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/80-400_45_afd_vr

And here is another link with some good information and nice examples...

(link)

Wow, this thread is huge! My two cents' worth: if you own a D300, you can take advantage of the fact that it will allow metering with non-CPU lenses. When we're talking about long teles, AF adds a LOT to the price. You can buy used manual focus long superteles with EXCELLENT optics for a fraction of the cost of a new (or even used) autofocus lens. If you are willing to do all of the "work" of focusing yourself, you could get a first-rate lens for the price of a mediocre lens that autofocuses.

Considering also the low noise levels of the D300, I would suggest that if you are serious about *bird photography* you might look for a MF 600mm f5.6 AI/AIS. You probably can find one for $1300-1500. The optics are excellent and you can carry it in the field without hiring a porter to do it for you. The potential drawback is that given its 5.6 aperture, focusing in dim light can be a challange. That's undeniable. But if you shoot a continuous series while focusing you can almost always end up some good images. And you can even get flight shots, though yes, with MF it's harder.

Meanwhile, the 80-400mm. is a good lens, although a little "long of tooth" in terms of some aspects of its design. Its performance at 400mm. f5.6 is not all that great---however, over time I discovered that in many cases, the "softness" one sees in images shot at these settings comes from small focusing errors, not optical flaws. At 400mm. f5.6 there is virtually no depth of field and if focusing is the least bit imprecise the image will look soft.

Overall, however, this is a capable workhorse lens that is amazingly versatile. I never regretted buying mine.

Thanks, Doug for the input. After all of my reading I really think the 80-400 is my best choice. There will be more in the future, but it seems now like a good place to start.

I think you are making a mistake, Richard. You obviously have the talent to take advantage of a lens far more worthy than the Nikon 80-400mm. Save up and get the serious glass.

Once, in class, when I challenged the opinion of one of my professors at Brooks Institute of Photography, he said something to the effect, "The school of hard knocks is a difficult school, Mr Hooper, but a good one. Knock yourself out"