Decision help for nature/wildlife photography: go long or quick?

ripclaw said:
About Hong Kong: I wouldn't have any ethical problem with that, but I'm wondering how it would go with warranty and also import taxes. Don't they slap something like 20% on top of it?
Click to expand...

Onestop price, what you see is what you pay, (delivery is usually 4 days), warranty would require return to them I believe. The only repair mine has needed is cleaning the contacts with a pencil rubber, seems to be the most effected by dirty contacts of all my lenses, but it does get a lot of use.
 
Martyn... said:
Gem the 2xTC will stop your 300 f4 auto focusing, I am sure Canon lenses will not AF past f5.6, a 2xTC will increase your f4 by 2 stops, plus your IQ would really suffer, stick to the 1.4xTC.
Click to expand...

Thanks Martyn - I am aware of the limitations, the 2x is just something to keep in the bag - sometimes for me a poor shot is better than no shot ;)
 
gembobs said:
Thanks Martyn - I am aware of the limitations, the 2x is just something to keep in the bag - sometimes for me a poor shot is better than no shot ;)
Click to expand...

I would urge you to try one before you bought one, my opinion is that the 300 f4 + 1.4TC cropped on the computer would give better results.

In fact I think Stewart may rent them, worth hiring one once you have the 300 f4. :thumbs:
 
Ach, this is driving me nuts. Budget's gone to hell a long time ago, and now I'm almost convinced to get a new afs 300/4.

Last question (maybe...): what are you guys using the 300/4 for apart from birds? Also, is it realistic to even use it handheld at all, e.g. if you were using it for a portrait shot? Or is it more or less impossible due to the lack of VR and you absolutely have to use a tripod?

Michael


PS: and there's also still the 70-200/2.8 VR....
 
ripclaw said:
PS: and there's also still the 70-200/2.8 VR....
Click to expand...

The 70-200mm is generally too short for wildlife. Great for everything else though mind. And the 300mm f4 should be perfectly fine to handhold. I handhold my 300mm f2.8 +1.4X TC, so the f4 version should be no problem. :)
 
ripclaw said:
Ach, this is driving me nuts. Budget's gone to hell a long time ago, and now I'm almost convinced to get a new afs 300/4.

Last question (maybe...): what are you guys using the 300/4 for apart from birds? Also, is it realistic to even use it handheld at all, e.g. if you were using it for a portrait shot? Or is it more or less impossible due to the lack of VR and you absolutely have to use a tripod?

Michael


PS: and there's also still the 70-200/2.8 VR....
Click to expand...

I use it for insects/dragonfly/damselfly 5' close focus helps, have done some portraits hand held, no problem @1/400 .... moral do not come on here and expect to stick to a budget :D

If you genuinely feel that you will be hand holding most of the time the 70-200 is probably the answer.
 
Well my current lenses are mostly short and my current tripod is rubbish but i'm about to order the redsnapper with ballhead, so I expect my workflow to change towards using the tripod more often than now.

And yes Martyn, you could not be more right about the budget... an SB-600 has now also creeped on my wishlist (not for wildlife obviously). But then again, other people drive phallus shaped sportscars for 10x the money... at least that's what I tell me to justify spending the money ;)

If the 300 had VR it would be a no brainer really. Time to strengthen those forearms I guess...
 
hmm.. beginning to think I got a very good deal on my AF300F4 which I picked up off ebay for £300. it's as sharp as a sharp thing and the build quality will shame your other lenses. you can use it hand-held but try to keep the shutter speed above 1/500 for safety. you can make use of nikon's handy auto iso though, to push up the iso rather than let the shutter speed drop.

dave
 
Anyway ... back to the reality of your original post :-) perhaps there is too much 'diversion' in this thread to be actually useful to you. A 200mm or 300mm isn't gonna do it unless you are strictly stickin' to zoo or back yard shooting of you pets. Doesn't matter how 'sharp' a lens is ... they are too short to give you consistently decent shots of wildlife.

So, for your budget the best option is not a short, fast lens, you'll lose too much in cropping, but rather use the decent ISO performance of your D90 and get a good long zoom for flexibility. The slowness isn't a huge issue if you exploit ISO and at 100m the DOF is gonna be very narrow if you shoot 2.8 ;-) so you need to stop down.

I've used most of the viable options, mainly in Canon but also now in Nikon, and the Sigma 150-500mm OS is the best all round choice. Just stick in in AV and f8, up your ISO to get the shutter speed you need, learn how to use a long lens to avoid shake (vital!) and let the excellent OS settle and shoot away.

And if you want to use it on a tripod you should probably try the Red Snapper combo first before throwing your money down. A long lens like this will show up any 'bargain' issues in tripod and ball head build. Better get a £50 Manfrotto monopod, ***' I am actually surprised myself how good the OS is for hand-holding.

It's not the best option and it has compromises, but you are not spend £6000 ... you are spending £600 so you have to accept them! Will do a great job.
 
condyk, thanks for getting me back on planet earth :) I can get a bit carried away when I dream of new gadgets ;)
so after hours and hours of forum crawling, review reading and soul searching i've come to a somewhat sobering conclusion: I will spend a lot more than I planned.... but not for the long lens but instead will try to get a good 70-200 VR and TC14 or 17.
Here's my reasoning:
- it will offer me more utility on the long run
- it's a top notch lens that i can also use for landscape and portraits
- according to several sources it works very well with the smaller TCs and even decently with the TC20
- as it is a major investment for me I don't want to compromise now with going for the sigma and later go through the same process again...

according to Thom the lens is almost as good as the 300/4 with the TC14, so that would mean I can have both of what I wanted. Effectively covering 70-300 or even 400 with a good nikon lens sounds like a good deal to me.

I'd also like to thank all you guys (and gals ;) ) in this thread for their opinions! Have only recently joined the forum but I have to say this has been one of the most helpful ones I've ever been part of.

Cheers!
 
To be honest while that is a fine lens it's been widely rumoured to be up for replacement. One view is that is nothing new, the rumour has been around a while, but I think of late it just feels more likely. It's a judgement call innit? I think the issue is partly with performance on FF. It's one of the reasons I didn't go that route a while back myself. If it is replaced it doesn't become a bad lens overnight. Depends how much concern you have for likely depreciation. If it's a long term keeper it's not an issue. It's heavy so that's also something to consider.
 
All true. I've read the rumours about the replacement and tbh. the only thing I could think for them to add would be VR II, not much else that's not already in there? And yeah, if anything I'm planning to buy something for the long term, which is why I was aiming for the VR model vs. the older ones. Also, I'm not so sure about the AF speed on the D90 with older non AF-S models. It's fine with my 50mm AF but it's probably break into a sweat over moving 2kg of glass... I might have the same problem of course ;)
Will try to find a dealer in London this weekend who has the AF-D version in stock so I can get an idea about the AF speed.
 
So, here's the surprising conclusion to my compelling tale... I bought the 70-300 VR. Yes yes yes I know.... here's why:

I went to visit Greys of Westminster today and spent some time in their shop, comparing lenses on my D90. Now, this was all handheld and the weather was overcast at that time. Not a good f2.8 weather so I tested on f4 which I assumed would be better anyway.

At first I had a look at an 80-200 AF-D. Built like a tank. Took some test shots at f2.8 and f4 (shutter was something like 1/160-1/200), I'd say the environment wasn't ideal light-wise, but realistic for what I'd like to use it for. No monopod/tripod, left that at home. Result: sobering. I was expecting the world from that lens (and I assume on a tripod it probably is as sharp as people say) but instead it grew very soft towards 200mm.

So I tried the exact same shots with the 80-200 AF push/pull (I admit I actually like that setup) and it was a similar picture, although it was sharper than the AF-D.

Now I just wanted something to compare them with so out of interest I asked him to get a 70-300 VR. And I am not kidding: _all_ the shots were better. And let's not talk about the focus speed on the D90, as this one is AF-S. Also it is of course so much lighter.

Then, cause I wanted to see it it was really VR that did it all, I had a shot at the 70-200 VR/2.8. Oh my god. What a lens. I LOVE it. Sharp, quick, everything. Oh and bulky and heavy of course. But I would go as far as to say it is worth its insane price. This was just for comparison though, as I neither want nor can spend that money at the moment.

Then had a play with the 35mm/1.8 and I love that one too. On my list now.

So, in the end I spent about 6 hours shooting with the 70-300 and I don't regret it one bit. Easy to handhold, stable, sharp around 200mm, nice bokeh at f5.6, I really can't complain at that price.

So, if Nikon decides to grace us with a VRII version of the 70-200 I'll start looking for a used VR version, until then it is going to be the slower zooms (12-24, 18-105VR, 70-300VR) and prime lenses for me.

I'm not sure if the test shots are of any great use to anyone, they were taken handheld so they would only be as good as my hand, which of course is a grade of measure for me but might be useless to anyone else. The guy at Grey's agreed with me about the softness though.

Oh, and as a final word, Grey's is a beautiful shop and the service was great. As much as I like saving a buck from Hong Kong, it's worth supporting these kind of shops.
 
Well, if you hadn't mentioned wildlife that would have been my first suggestion. I had one and after coming from the A1 Canon 70-200mm 4.0 IS L I expected to be disappointed. I wasn't! Very natural lens, nice to use, light, well made, good price. I replaced it with a 150-500mm OS which is probably not quite so brilliant but it does 500mm well and that is a huge different in safari shooting - I missed my Canon 400mm and had to cover the longer range.
 
Yeah it really is great value, I totally wasn't expecting that. Would have been kind of cool if it took TCs, but I fear I'd have to shoot straight into the sun to get enough light for that then...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top