Big Prime (Canon or Nikon) views

[Sootchucker]

Hi all, I've been pondering for some time now about the merits of saving up and splurging out on a high end prime. Whilst I shoot Nikon, I guess the question is as relavent to Canon users as well.

Currently I shoot with either DX (D300 or D7000) or FX (D3) bodies,. My longest lens is the venerable Nikon 300mm F4 AFS (I also have the 70-200 F2.8 VR II and a Nikon 70-300 F5.6 VR). I also occasionally use either my TC14E-II (1.4x converter) or the new TC-20E-III (2 x converter - althought mainly with the 70-200).

That means currently for say birding, I have either a 300mm F4 (bare), a 420mm F5.6 (with 1.4 converter with minimal optical loss) or a whopping 600mm F8 (with the 2x converter, but only in very good light as otherwise the AF hunts too much - I guess it's pushing the limits of the lens design to it's limits).

I have been pondering either a second hand 300mm F2.8 VR (at about £3k) or the 400mm or 500mm F4 (at about £4K-£5K). Now having never used one of these monsters, I guess just from their price tag that optically they should be better than my 300mm F4 ? Obvioualy this is an awful lot of money for a single lens and it got we wondering what it's actual advantages would be. As far as I can see it, aside from a stop or two in aperture (F2.8 or F4), is this hugh amount of money justifed in the final shot. i.e. could you have acheived the shot 90% as well with the lesser set up ?

With the converter, my 300mm is a 420mm F5.6, which to be honest isn't a massive difference to the 500mm FL, albeit at a single stop slower. I'm sort of coming to the conclusion that if I were to purchase one of these, a 300mm F2.8 would be the best bet as with the converters it would be a 420mm F4 or a 600mm F5.6 all of which would AF. I don't really think I would need much over 600mm (or 900mm effective on the crop bodies). After all said and done, I don't earn my living from photography and I am just an amateur. I can afford one of the lenses but just need to make make sure I would buy it for the right reasons.

What I guess I'm asking is what are the views of people that have purchased these sort of lenses, did they a) make you a better photographer or b) enable you to get a shot that you wouldn't have been able to before ? I'm not interested in the "my lens is bigger than your lens" syndrome, so the peceived "pro" status that one would get toting a big prime about means nothing to me.

Sorry for the ramble.

 

[pooley]

I wouldn't expect you to see a substantial sharpness leap over your 300mm f4 unless you have a really poor copy.
There's always various considerations to be made such as price and weight but I always found the 400mm f2.8 to be the most versatile. You have up to 200mm covered, can keep your 300mm or zoom with the 1.4 converter and keep that length covered.
The 400mm is a great but heavy lens and with your 1.4 will give you a 560mm and that's only on fx.

In effect, it's a great lens, but will only provide better pictures in respect of being able to use a lower iso and throw the background out further.

 

[desantnik]

Not quite sure what you are asking really?

Are the 300mm+ primes from Nikon or Canon any good? Yes, really good.

What will they do for your photography... give you longer reach at lower f numbers than you currently can achieve, which should yield better images of more remote subjects due to increased focus accuracy. and speed.

The one problem you (and I) face is that to move from where you are is a substantial jump in cost (like upwards of 5 times the cost!). Are the results worth it? Good question - I've used them and I'm not sure I can answer that!

However, I've had some stunning results with the 300 2.8, the 400 2.8 and the 500 f4.... but are they worth the ££££??

 

[artyman]

Normally shooting birds, length is everything and whilst primes are the ultimate, long ones cost a fortune. I've used a Sigma 150-500 for the last three years and it's been an excellent bird lens. I've just changed to a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 which used with a 2X is pretty good, still fairly pricey but not in 500mm prime territory.

 

[Sootchucker]

Thanks for the replies guys. Actually one thing that I may have found is depth of field. I've been looking at a number of images this afternoon (on pbase and flikr etc), that have been shot with long primes, and what seems interesting to me is that an effect of shooting at longer distances seems to be an increase in DOF. Now normal logic dictates that the longer the lens, the shallower the DOF for a given aperture.

However, as I "only" have a 300mm, I typically seem to be shooting at 10-14 feet (or thereabouts), and wide open at F4. At this short distance on the 300mm DOF is incredibly narrow, and quite often I am finding that a birds head is sharp (or the eye) but the bill is soft. It seems that as the typcial shooting distance for the long primes appears to be over say 6-10m, that the DOF at that distance seems to be enough to get the whole head sharp, even when used wide open. Is that your findings as well ?

 

[pooley]

In simple terms, shooting at short distance will provide a narrower DOF and, depending on the distance of the background from the subject, a more blurred backdrop and vice versa.

 

[Canon Bob]

However, as I "only" have a 300mm, I typically seem to be shooting at 10-14 feet (or thereabouts), and wide open at F4.....

If the general conditions dictate that you need f/4 for most of your shots then 600 at f/5.6 is going to be even more challenging.

......At this short distance on the 300mm DOF is incredibly narrow, and quite often I am finding that a birds head is sharp (or the eye) but the bill is soft. It seems that as the typcial shooting distance for the long primes appears to be over say 6-10m, that the DOF at that distance seems to be enough to get the whole head sharp, even when used wide open. Is that your findings as well ?

If the DoF is larger with the longer lens then, with all other parameters being equal, the subject must be smaller in the frame.
DoF is derived from aperture and magnification (image size / object size) and focal length isn't part of the equation.

Bob

 

[lost]

Im lucky to have a lot of L glass but if i was limited to one lens for bird photography i would keep my 600mm f4 i.s every time

Below are 5 reasons why they say a picture is worth a thousand words

Regards

Richard

 

[HoppyUK]

Bob is right about DoF and focal length - if the subject is framed the same size, then DoF stays the same at the same f/number.

What does change with longer lenses is that the field of view narrows, so there's less background visible, and this tends to create bolder/simpler shapes that are less cluttered and distracting, so the subject can sometimes appear to stand out more in a similar way to shallow DoF.

Nice pics Lost/Richard

 

[casts_by_fly]

Im lucky to have a lot of L glass but if i was limited to one lens for bird photography i would keep my 600mm f4 i.s every time

Below are 5 reasons why they say a picture is worth a thousand words

Regards

Richard

That is a fabulous shot. Context, motion, color, depth. All there. Beautiful.

Thanks,
Rick