Is there a Nikon equivalent of the canon 400mm f5.6?

jetpack

jetpack

Messages
929
Name
Lyle
Edit My Images
No
Folks,

I'm considering a move from Canon to Nikon, purely on the fact I like the look of the shots that I see from Nikon users. I shoot primarily nature but occasionally landscapes.

I currently own a 5d mk3 with a 400mm f5.6 which has served me well. I had considered getting an improved body or a 300mm f2.8 but more recently I've decided to go for a Nikon d810.

My question is what telephoto lens can I get that's the equivalent of the Canon 400mm. There's a 300mm f4 but fro what I've read and seen it isn't quite in the same league. Ideally I'd like the Nikon 200-400mm but it ain't cheap!

Any input would be great.
 
The Nikon 300mm f4 plus the TC14Ell does very well

I have always read good reports of the Nikon 300mm f4 and I use mine all the time and find it very good, I would never sell it unless Nikon updated it to VR spec and then probably not as it's a bargain at current prices …… and it compares well with the Nikon 300mm f2.8VR, "like for like"

I have no experience of Canon since the A1
 
jetpackjack said:
Folks,

I'm considering a move from Canon to Nikon, purely on the fact I like the look of the shots that I see from Nikon users. I shoot primarily nature but occasionally landscapes.
Click to expand...

A 5d3 is a capable body. If you feel you cannot get the results with it, you won't with the Nikon either. Master the art of light and subject matter.

jetpackjack said:
I currently own a 5d mk3 with a 400mm f5.6 which has served me well.
Click to expand...

Stay with it and improve your results with what you have.
 
Thanks for the responses. I had heard the 300mm f4 does well with the converted so I could essentially get 420mm at f5.6 so that's a good suggestion thanks BillN_33. I also hear good things about the 80-400mm VR markyboy.1967.
 
ST4 said:
A 5d3 is a capable body. If you feel you cannot get the results with it, you won't with the Nikon either. Master the art of light and subject matter.
Stay with it and improve your results with what you have.
Click to expand...

I didn't actually say I couldn't get results with my 5D3. If you look at my photostream you will see that I have got some great results with it. I also feel I have a pretty good handle on how to use the light and the subject matter that I shoot. I appreciate the 5D3 is a capable body, one which I thoroughly enjoy using, I just prefer the images that I see taken with a Nikon camera and I feel they are more what I'm looking for from my photography.

RichardTaylor said:
Why not go better than a Canon 400 f5.6 fo to a AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f2.8E FL ED VR, if you want to go Nikon?
Click to expand...
If I had that kind of money then I wouldn't hesitate but they're £10k !
 
No offence, looking at your photostream, the strong images (of which they are many) will be no better or worse with the D810. With the weaker ones the improvement needed will come from you, not the gear. You'll find a D810 will probably give a better dynamic range but won't perform as well at high ISO's. Just keep shooting what you have is my view
 
ST4 said:
No offence, looking at your photostream, the strong images (of which they are many) will be no better or worse with the D810. With the weaker ones the improvement needed will come from you, not the gear. You'll find a D810 will probably give a better dynamic range but won't perform as well at high ISO's. Just keep shooting what you have is my view
Click to expand...
Youre kidding right, the d810 or the D800 for that matter blows the 5D3 out of the water in the high ISO stakes, my next door neighbour owns one and to my eyes its at least a full stop behind my D800 and every single review website on the net will back that up, if you choose to beleive DXo they score it as 2,853 the D800/810 to 2,293 the Canon
 
The 300mm f/4 and 1.4x converter do work well together use to own them awhile back, Personally I would say just keep your 5D3 and invest in better glass! You have a top notch camera body as it is, just put that money you was going to spend on the D810 into improving the glass, thats where your notice the different in your images.

Also here is the DXO comparison of the 5D3 with D810/D800 : http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...S-5D-Mark-III-versus-Nikon-D800___963_795_792
 
Go for it. It's your money and only you know what you see in the Nikon D810 images that you prefer over the 5D3.

They are both great cameras. D810 better in some aspects 5D3 better in others. If dynamic range and high ISO are what you're looking for then the 810 is hard to beat. If I shot loads of landscapes I would buy one myself. That and a 14-24 would see me right. I don't at the moment so think my 5D3 is a better allround camera for MY photography.
 
Does the choice between the D800/D810 versus the 5Diii depend on what you shoot the most - I have seen some marvellous high ISO 5D3 bird images
 
jetpackjack said:
My question is what telephoto lens can I get that's the equivalent of the Canon 400mm.
Click to expand...
Simple. There really isn't one.

Yea, you could use a 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC, but you could be doing that now with your Canon rig and you have chosen not to. The Canon 400/5.6 would blow away the Nikon 300/4 on terms of sharpness and ficus speed.
 
jetpackjack said:
I didn't actually say I couldn't get results with my 5D3. If you look at my photostream you will see that I have got some great results with it. I also feel I have a pretty good handle on how to use the light and the subject matter that I shoot. I appreciate the 5D3 is a capable body, one which I thoroughly enjoy using, I just prefer the images that I see taken with a Nikon camera and I feel they are more what I'm looking for from my photography.
Click to expand...

This is an odd statement. You can't really tell what camera was used to take an image. Especially these days when everything has had some post processing done. I imagine the difference is in your mind, not an actual difference.

Can you post an example of a Nikon image that you feel has something your Canon image does not, and also post an image of yours for comparison?

I'm fairly certain we can set your mind at rest that there is no practical difference, and images you take on a Nikon will probably look identical to those you are currently taking on a Canon.

If you feel images your seeing are somehow better than yours it's almost certainly down to you, or something you are doing rather than the camera.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the responses, it's good to get the conversation going. I'll respond to Pookeyhead as I think I could explain more what I mean. I follow Ben Andrew on Flickr and he's one of my favourite wildlife photographers - there are many more great ones but I'll go with him for now, his stream is here. His shots have this lovely colour and detail as well as a great looking bokeh. He uses a D800 and mostly a 200-400mm f4 and gets these kinds of images:

All rights reserved by Benjamin Joseph Andrew

13950166696_5140371d4c_z.jpg


12516599434_600aca1f95_z.jpg


14904698570_02f0315ae1_z.jpg


All rights reserved by Benjamin Joseph Andrew

There are also a few others I follow on Flickr that I like and when I ask it's always Nikon:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/old-man-george/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/46670550@N08/with/8109989599/
 
StewartR said:
Lighting. Composition. Timing. Lens (a bit). But NOT the camera.
Click to expand...

Thanks Stew, you still don't think it's the camera despite the reviews online?

I like my 5dmk3 a lot and know my way around so if I could achieve this without having to fork out an additional £10k for the Canon 200-400mm I'd be a happy man. I'm pretty sure you know your lenses with your background, is there a lens you would recommend that would get me what I'm after without having to make the switch?
 
Do you want to move to Nikon because of the price of the Canon 200 400mm lens, does it cost £10k? …… twice the price of the Nikon?
 
jetpackjack said:
Thanks for all the responses, it's good to get the conversation going. I'll respond to Pookeyhead as I think I could explain more what I mean. I follow Ben Andrew on Flickr and he's one of my favourite wildlife photographers - there are many more great ones but I'll go with him for now, his stream is here. His shots have this lovely colour and detail as well as a great looking bokeh. He uses a D800 and mostly a 200-400mm f4 and gets these kinds of images:

All rights reserved by Benjamin Joseph Andrew

13950166696_5140371d4c_z.jpg


12516599434_600aca1f95_z.jpg


14904698570_02f0315ae1_z.jpg


All rights reserved by Benjamin Joseph Andrew

There are also a few others I follow on Flickr that I like and when I ask it's always Nikon:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/old-man-george/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/46670550@N08/with/8109989599/
Click to expand...

I've met Ben on several occasions, and George is a good friend of mine who I regularly go out with to take photos.

The answer is not the camera, sure they both use a D800 but both are talented, spend hours researching techniques, researching locations, hours out in the field shooting at the right hours for great light at every opportunity they get and both have a fantastic knowledge of post processing. I've seen the images George produced on a Olympus e620 and nikon d7000, and they were fantastic too.

The d800/d810 is not going to give you better images than what is possible with your 5d3. Yes good cameras give you an advantage if you know you are doing with it. Great glass would help your 5d3, if you did want to go with a d800/d810 you would need some great glass to get the best from it.

Think of it this way is it the camera that makes Danny green, Andy rouse, David clapp, joe Cornish etc etc great photographers? No it's talent, knowledge, experience, endless hours of waiting for the right moment to get in the right place at the right time.

A well known photographer once said it's the 10 inches behind the camera that makes the photo.
 
rob-nikon said:
I've met Ben on several occasions, and George is a good friend of mine who I regularly go out with to take photos.

The answer is not the camera, sure they both use a D800 but both are talented, spend hours researching techniques, researching locations, hours out in the field shooting at the right hours for great light at every opportunity they get and both have a fantastic knowledge of post processing. I've seen the images George produced on a Olympus e620 and nikon d7000, and they were fantastic too.

The d800/d810 is not going to give you better images than what is possible with your 5d3. Yes good cameras give you an advantage if you know you are doing with it. Great glass would help your 5d3, if you did want to go with a d800/d810 you would need some great glass to get the best from it.

Think of it this way is it the camera that makes Danny green, Andy rouse, David clapp, joe Cornish etc etc great photographers? No it's talent, knowledge, experience, endless hours of waiting for the right moment to get in the right place at the right time.

A well known photographer once said it's the 10 inches behind the camera that makes the photo.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I really didn't want to start stirring up a conversation about it not being the equipment but more the photographer. I work hard at my photography and I feel I currently get good results, I've spent countless hours honing my photography and working at improving my technique. I can simply see something in Ben and Georges photographs that I like more than what I get despite composition, light and Exif data. Now if it is post processing then that's something else entirely and something I can always improve.

Joeturner11 said:
:agree:
Just put the money towards a new bigger lens and get out there shooting.
Click to expand...

What lens would you go with Joe?
 
you could wait for the new sigma slr or old one to drop in price, but I don't know if sigma have the long primes or zooms for your needs
would give you a different look anyways
 
To be honest, I think you find once you start shooting with the d810... your shots will look absolutely the same as the shots you took with the 5d3.

If I was Ben Andrew I'd be a little peeved at your posts referencing him, giving the camera the credibility and not him!
 
jetpackjack said:
Thanks for that. I really didn't want to start stirring up a conversation about it not being the equipment but more the photographer. I work hard at my photography and I feel I currently get good results, I've spent countless hours honing my photography and working at improving my technique. I can simply see something in Ben and Georges photographs that I like more than what I get despite composition, light and Exif data. Now if it is post processing then that's something else entirely and something I can always improve.



What lens would you go with Joe?
Click to expand...

Photography isnt a precise science, its an art, with artists producing the final image. You cant replicate piece for piece the equipment and expect identical images. Its technique, shooting style and post processing. Everyone does it differently.
 
Not sure what rentals cost, but maybe you should rent the odd Canon long lens, their 600mm is supposed to be one of the best around, find a good bird hide on a day with good lighting and see what you think
 
BillN_33 said:
Not sure what rentals cost, but maybe you should rent the odd Canon long lens, their 600mm is supposed to be one of the best around, find a good bird hide on a day with good lighting and see what you think
Click to expand...
Much as I'd like to agree with this, I think it's a little misguided. The OP has a 5D Mk III and a 400mm f/5.6 L. That's a GREAT combo. The only things he'd get from a 600 are IS, an extra stop of aperture, and some extra reach, and we haven't heard anything to suggest that any of those factors are of particular concern to him.
 
StewartR said:
Much as I'd like to agree with this, I think it's a little misguided. The OP has a 5D Mk III and a 400mm f/5.6 L. That's a GREAT combo. The only things he'd get from a 600 are IS, an extra stop of aperture, and some extra reach, and we haven't heard anything to suggest that any of those factors are of particular concern to him.
Click to expand...

When I moved up from 300mm to 600mm my Duck shots improved no end

Sure.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've had a look at the various flickr streams and to be honest, I'm not sure what the difference is you are seeing. The images are all of a very high quality, and the only areas I can see that may be different would largely be down to lighting conditions at the time the shots were taken; maybe the lens has the capability of opening up a bit wider to create some cleaner backgrounds but to my eye, there's not much in it.

I would argue your puffin profile here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mclyle/14303219680/

Is comparable to the Pochard image in terms of detail and colour rendition. Obviously the lighting conditions differ and it looks as though the Pochard may have had some careful processing to pick out some more feather detail, but I can't see swapping systems will make a great difference. That's just an outsider's opinion though, I'd love to be able to tackle these type of shots, but I definitely need a bigger lens :)
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
To be honest, I think you find once you start shooting with the d810... your shots will look absolutely the same as the shots you took with the 5d3.

If I was Ben Andrew I'd be a little peeved at your posts referencing him, giving the camera the credibility and not him!
Click to expand...

StewartR said:
Hear hear!
Click to expand...

Why twist what I'm trying to discuss here? I've referenced him as one of my 'favourite wildlife photographers' earlier on in the post and have congratulated many times on his excellent photography. Look through his Flickr stream and you'll see countless comments from me and not once do I say anything like "nice one Ben, your camera is outstanding".

I'll thank you all for your input but unfortunately it has gone off topic as I see too often on this forum. I know how to take photographs, I understand the camera, the light, the techniques etc. I personally can see the difference between the results you can get with varying set-ups so I'll leave it there.
 
TimmyG said:
I've had a look at the various flickr streams and to be honest, I'm not sure what the difference is you are seeing. The images are all of a very high quality, and the only areas I can see that may be different would largely be down to lighting conditions at the time the shots were taken; maybe the lens has the capability of opening up a bit wider to create some cleaner backgrounds but to my eye, there's not much in it.

I would argue your puffin profile here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mclyle/14303219680/

Is comparable to the Pochard image in terms of detail and colour rendition. Obviously the lighting conditions differ and it looks as though the Pochard may have had some careful processing to pick out some more feather detail, but I can't see swapping systems will make a great difference. That's just an outsider's opinion though, I'd love to be able to tackle these type of shots, but I definitely need a bigger lens :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Timmy, much more constructive than some of the other comments. I appreciate you taking the time to compare the two shots and giving feedback.
 
jetpackjack said:
Why twist what I'm trying to discuss here? I've referenced him as one of my 'favourite wildlife photographers' earlier on in the post and have congratulated many times on his excellent photography. Look through his Flickr stream and you'll see countless comments from me and not once do I say anything like "nice one Ben, your camera is outstanding".

I'll thank you all for your input but unfortunately it has gone off topic as I see too often on this forum. I know how to take photographs, I understand the camera, the light, the techniques etc. I personally can see the difference between the results you can get with varying set-ups so I'll leave it there.
Click to expand...

Right getting back on track.... I've had a look at your Flickr (I'm guessing the link above is to you Lyle?) and you have some great images there. It looks like you great some great detail in the images. Looking at your red squirrels, red deer and puffin images it's looks like the light was quite flat at the time (nothing wrong with this if that's the light you have available) but composition/subject wise they are very good. A little bit of great light and you would have some wow images there. When I saw some of your sunrise/sunset images they are stunning and draw me in to look at longer. Other things I noticed was bens images you linked to above all shallow depth of focus, this of course is a benefit of full frame with open apertures. Perhaps this is something that you may want as your lens is max f5.6 (?) compared to bens at f4 and George's at f2.8.

If you were to move to nikon for the d810 you are looking at £2.7k for the camera and preferably £2.5-3.5k to get good quality lenses for it. What I think people have been try to point you towards is although it's your money changing from canon to nikon or nikon to canon is an expensive task and sometimes for little gain. I could understand if you wanted to move to get a used nikon 200-400 at 1/3 of the price of the canon 200-400 new. What I think people have been trying to say is although you may notice slight differences your viewers/public probably don't. The only really way to test if there really is a difference is shoot the same images in the same light/conditions/settings. At the end of the day it's your choice and your money so you can do want makes you happy and gets you out there, whether that's nikon or canon, to get the shot that's the most important thing.
 
jetpackjack said:
Why twist what I'm trying to discuss here? I've referenced him as one of my 'favourite wildlife photographers' earlier on in the post and have congratulated many times on his excellent photography. Look through his Flickr stream and you'll see countless comments from me and not once do I say anything like "nice one Ben, your camera is outstanding".

I'll thank you all for your input but unfortunately it has gone off topic as I see too often on this forum. I know how to take photographs, I understand the camera, the light, the techniques etc. I personally can see the difference between the results you can get with varying set-ups so I'll leave it there.
Click to expand...
But taking all that into consideration, changing to a d810 will make no difference.

What you're seeing is the difference between photographers, which is infinite.
 
From and equipment perspective, it can be all about the lens available, new and used

I have thought about moving from Nikon to Canon to get the Canon 600mm lens ….

Nikon colours can be and are different from canon jpeg colours … when you get into RAW anything goes
 
rob-nikon said:
Right getting back on track.... I've had a look at your Flickr (I'm guessing the link above is to you Lyle?) and you have some great images there. It looks like you great some great detail in the images. Looking at your red squirrels, red deer and puffin images it's looks like the light was quite flat at the time (nothing wrong with this if that's the light you have available) but composition/subject wise they are very good. A little bit of great light and you would have some wow images there. When I saw some of your sunrise/sunset images they are stunning and draw me in to look at longer. Other things I noticed was bens images you linked to above all shallow depth of focus, this of course is a benefit of full frame with open apertures. Perhaps this is something that you may want as your lens is max f5.6 (?) compared to bens at f4 and George's at f2.8.

If you were to move to nikon for the d810 you are looking at £2.7k for the camera and preferably £2.5-3.5k to get good quality lenses for it. What I think people have been try to point you towards is although it's your money changing from canon to nikon or nikon to canon is an expensive task and sometimes for little gain. I could understand if you wanted to move to get a used nikon 200-400 at 1/3 of the price of the canon 200-400 new. What I think people have been trying to say is although you may notice slight differences your viewers/public probably don't. The only really way to test if there really is a difference is shoot the same images in the same light/conditions/settings. At the end of the day it's your choice and your money so you can do want makes you happy and gets you out there, whether that's nikon or canon, to get the shot that's the most important thing.
Click to expand...

Some really good advice there thanks rob-nikon and yes that's me Lyle. I think it may be the shallower dof that I'm looking for which I can't get from the 5.6. I do agree though that it's a big chunk of cash to drop on maybe a small gain which is a decision I'll need to justify.
 
jetpackjack said:
Your post count is pretty high, I wonder how many others you've insulted on here.
Click to expand...
Sorry, how have I been insulting???

I'm saying the differences between photographers are I infinite, in that two photographers with the same kit, photograph the same thing, and they'll still look different.

I'm trying to save you money by helping you realise the kit won't make a difference.

What did you think I was inferring?

Jeez, people are getting touchy on here of late.
 
I think Lyle thought you meant the difference between him and the other photographer was infinite.

Anyway some great shots Lyle. Keep up the good work.
 
odd jim said:
Sorry, how have I been insulting???

I'm saying the differences between photographers are I infinite, in that two photographers with the same kit, photograph the same thing, and they'll still look different.

I'm trying to save you money by helping you realise the kit won't make a difference.

What did you think I was inferring?

Jeez, people are getting touchy on here of late.
Click to expand...

OK mate, maybe some crossed wires there...although I did read it to my Mrs and she agreed. It sounded like you were saying that my stuff was so poor it could never be as good I.e. an infinite gulf between the two photographers! We've got a 2 week old baby, maybe we need sleep.

I now see what you're saying and thanks for the response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top