Hi friends
I had some discussion here earlier about options for longer lenses for bird photography. After lot of deliberation and budget consideration, my choice boiled down to the following:
1. Nikon AF-S 300 f4+1.4x Kenko MC4 DGX or 1.4x Kenko Pro 300 TC (can't afford the Nikon 1.4x if I get 300 f4)
2. Nikon 80-400 VR
I understand that sharpness and lens performance is quite closely related to camera body. So with my D90, which one would offer me better IQ at the longest end? Primarily I am a nature and Bird photographer, so my subjects are always on the move.
I have also heard that 80-40VR functions with a 1.4x TC in good light. So it appears to me to be more versatile. Moreover, as I shall be joining to separate instruments for option 1, I think there will be more chances of alignment problems and which may result in loss of IQ. Finally, I intend to use a Monopod, but hand holding I find to be most comfortable.
Thank you
I would go for the bigma (Sigma 50-500mm OS version, or 2nd hand non-OS version)
I second that - the new Sigma 50-500mm OS is the best choice, easily beats the 80-400 in all aspects. Except the weight, that is. Freakkin heavy <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1331852424' post='16752']
I second that - the new Sigma 50-500mm OS is the best choice, easily beats the 80-400 in all aspects. Except the weight, that is. Freakkin heavy <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[/quote]
Nah... the Nikon 20-400mm f4 is freakin' heavy <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
compared to that even the bigma is portable <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Sorry, but 50-500OS would be costing me about $600 extra, way beyond my budget and I am little jittery about buying Sigma lenses as these are reported to be varying widely from copy to copy...
[quote name='Chhobiwala' timestamp='1331864606' post='16758']
Sorry, but 50-500OS would be costing me about $600 extra, way beyond my budget and I am little jittery about buying Sigma lenses as these are reported to be varying widely from copy to copy...
[/quote]
Nikon lenses can vary widely from copy to copy too. And the 50-500 old and new are so superior for your purposes than the Nikon 80-400mm, that that may have a bigger impact than copy variety.
Even though the 300mm f4 is not the sharpest 300mm around, I think the 300mm with 1.4 TC may still beat the 80-400mm, but at only 420mm and without VR it is the least flexible option.
The Tamron 200-500mm has decent optics too, but at least with the Canon version its AF is making it quite a dog to use. The Nikon version using the internal D90 motor may well behave a lot better. Lacks image stabilization too, of course.
[quote name='Chhobiwala' timestamp='1331864606' post='16758']
Sorry, but 50-500OS would be costing me about $600 extra, way beyond my budget and I am little jittery about buying Sigma lenses as these are reported to be varying widely from copy to copy...
[/quote]
I don’t really have lots of experience with BiF, however I’m a huge fan of aviation shows and obviously trying to optimize my kit for capturing jet fighters, sky divers, etc. From my experience – Sigma works really well, it’s tack sharp up to 400mm and okayish in 400-500mm range (still much better than 80-400 at maximum zoom). Also what I did notice, that screw-driven lenses really suck when you need to capture and track a fast moving object, so Sigma’s HSM shines here. The drawbacks compared with 80-400? It’s much heavier (ok, not as heavy as 200-400, but it *is* heavy), and it has a fugly bokeh. The latter is not an issue for BiF, however something to keep in mind for the ground shots.
BTW, a bit surprised regarding the price difference – in UK and Hong Kong N/80-400 and S/50-500 cost the same.
[quote name='Chhobiwala' timestamp='1331839035' post='16741']Finally, I intend to use a Monopod, but hand holding I find to be most comfortable.[/quote]
Consider a Pana G3, GH2, or GX1 plus the Pana 100-300, a reasonably lightweight setup providing an effective focal length of 200-600mm costing less than say a Nikkor 80-400VR alone. Probably best to look around on web sites where the "ornithomaniacs" meet to see whether you like the results obtained with such systems.
This topic caused me to register, after lurking for years. I have the D90 and 80-400VR. The 80-400VR is fun to use, but it's quite unsharp at 400 wide open. At 400mm and f/8 it's usable. It's also very slow to focus, so tracking in birds in flight is not possible. And it hunts, which can be painful as it's so slow focusing.
I almost always shoot handheld, though I did experiment with a tripod. I got passable results setting it to f/7.1 @ 400mm, but I'm an amateur, shooting for my own enjoyment.
On the other hand, I think you can good results if you know what you're doing. I bookmarked this site years ago as someone who knows how to use the 80-400.
http://www.pbase.com/ole_thorsen/bird_favourites
Here's a crop, from when I had a D80 (10MP).
![[Image: DSC_0238.JPG]](http://home.comcast.net/~djsperry/DSC_0238.JPG)
I've been anxiously waiting for the rumored 80-400 replacement.
Thanks everyone...
Well, I have read a number of reports but none seems to mentions that 80-400 is that soft at the Max reach. So it can be problem with the copy or may be anything else. The link shared by djs is an example of the lens' capabilities.
But with 300 f4 I am sure to get a much better IQ, but I was wondering about the flexibility...zooming gives a great advantage in composition....