| Moderated by: chrisbet, |
|
|
| 80-400 v 200-500 v 300+1.4tc. | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted by Eric: Mon May 30th, 2016 17:28 | 1st Post |
| Seeing the results that Graham has been getting with the 80-400 and D500 I have to ask ....is the extra 100mm of the 200-500 worth the extra weight? (c.+900g) Taking it another stage further...the new 300 f4 prime is getting great reviews and weighs half the weight of the 80-400! I wonder what the results might be adding a 1.4tc? Would it degrade the 300 too much? Just a thought...800g plays 1400g plays 2300g.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Mon May 30th, 2016 17:31 | 2nd Post |
| Very happy with my 200-500 but I have to say I havent really had the opportunity to test it fully on the D500. I will do that in October when the birds start to migrate south again.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by jk: Mon May 30th, 2016 17:36 | 3rd Post |
| Follow up thought..... The 80-400 and 200-500 seem to me to be either or lenses. I have a 70-200 f2.8 AFS so the 200-500 works well for me. I have the Sigma 80-400 DG OS lens but it is softer and slower than the new Nikon 80-400 AFS so it is probably due for eBay or trade.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Mon May 30th, 2016 17:45 | 4th Post |
jk wrote:Very happy with my 200-500 butI have to say I havent really had the opportunity to test it fully on the D500. I am sure it is a great lens. I was wondering how much the weight might play a part in influencing IQ and preparedness to use it? I realise it has VR or it could be used on a tripod, but it was interesting that Graham opted to use the 80-400, not the 500mm prime ....for operational reasons. I am about to buy a longer lens option, ready for the D500. My thoughts were that I would be unlikely to carry around a 200-500 lens in the off chance there would be an instance that needed it. I would have to set out with the sole intention of using it, to carry 2.3 kg around. On the other hand, carrying a 300+ TC just in case is needed, would be more palatable. Just considering all pros and cons.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Tue May 31st, 2016 02:04 | 5th Post |
| How much do you need to pull in? Presumably the maximum, commensurate with weight, usability and IQ... The D500 has a decent sensor it seems, that should allow heavier cropping than previous DX bodies. Coupled with outstanding higher ISO performance, Iain's comments not withstanding, in which case get a D3200 and save a bunch of cash... I would have thought an f4 300mm + a good 1.4X extender could be a good way to go. Smaller, lighter and a useful combination. F6.3 won't bother the D500 under most conditions, unless you want pix of roosting Blackbirds? The consideration of it being inviting to take out is important, it needs to be your friend, not something you have to endure. That was one reason I parted with my 400 f3.5, it was a good lens but pretty heavy and not sufficiently more pulling power than the 300 f2.8. Better to sneak another couple of yards closer, or ignore opportunities which are out of range completely. That's where fieldcraft comes in, that is zero weight and costs nothing; unfortunately I don't possess it. Phil Tomkinson, http://www.wildsnaps.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk has it in spades and it shows in his wonderful wildlife photography.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Tue May 31st, 2016 11:33 | 6th Post |
Robert wrote:How much do you need to pull in? My kenko tc worked well with previous prime lenses...less so with zooms. So I have little doubt it would work acceptably well with the new 300mm ...giving 420mm (630mm on DX). Add the extra pixel cropping capacity of the D500 and I have a feeling this option would be workable. I also have the feeling ( maybe Graham, Iain and other wildlife shooters would refute or support this notion) that despite the zoom option, with wildlife subjects you invariably use the zoom at maximum setting most of the time...and even then crop. So unless you can afford an 800mm lens or gain access to closer proximity, the wide end of a zoom maybe unnecessary? I would happily take a 700g 300mm about with me 'just in case' I happened on a wildlife opportunity. Maybe I am not very dedicated to the cause. 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Iain: Wed Jun 1st, 2016 10:31 | 7th Post |
| I think you are right about the zooms being at there max most of the time. I have a friend who has gone the other way with a 300 f4 PF and he uses both a 1.4 and 1.7 tc with it, not at the same time, and produces great images using a D7200
|
| Posted by Iain: Wed Jun 1st, 2016 10:40 | 8th Post |
| I should also have said that the reason for me going for the 200-500 was I missed too many shots as things came too close and I couldn't move. So it was either two camera bodies with a prime on one and a 80-200 on the other or the 200-500.
|
| Posted by Eric: Wed Jun 1st, 2016 12:08 | 9th Post |
Iain wrote:I should also have said that the reason for me going for the 200-500 was I missed too many shots as things came too close and I couldn't move. So it was either two camera bodies with a prime on one and a 80-200 on the other or the 200-500. Yes that's the trade off of course. I think if you are a dedicated wildlife shooter, as Robert said 'fieldcraft' would mean you were 'in the know' ....which is short for 'closer than most other people get to the bird'. I cannot remember a time when I didn't need to crop a bird image. Suggesting I've never been too close for my lenses. I cannot see myself dedicating the time, frequency and enthusiasm to bird photography like I used to do 35years ago! Apart from anything else, 20years of sitting on a soft computer chair has poorly conditioned my backside for long sits on those hard wooden hide benches. I could take a cushion ....if no one was watching I think I will try a 300 with the tc on my 750. If the IQ looks good, then adding the D500 would give me the extra 1.5x. I instinctively feel that my wildlife shooting will be a lot more serendipity....out for a walk, visiting a garden or wildlife park...rather than setting out with a day's birding in mind, like the old days. That being the case, the lighter the load the more likely I will carry it with me ...just in case. If I do get the bug again...I can always add or replace it with the heavier zoom. The first check is to see what the tc does to it.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Iain: Sat Jun 4th, 2016 09:30 | 10th Post |
| Reading your last post the 300mm f4 with tc's may be best.
|
| Posted by jk: Tue Jun 21st, 2016 18:33 | 11th Post |
| Got to say that I love the handling of the D500 and 200-500 but I am also using the 24-120 f4 on the D500.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Iain: Wed Jun 22nd, 2016 09:18 | 12th Post |
| Do you think the D500 is a worth while upgrade from the D7200?
|
| Posted by jk: Wed Jun 22nd, 2016 11:48 | 13th Post |
| Difficult one. There are certain things on the D7200 I dont like e.g. the external connector, I prefer a 10 pin as I can rig connections to external devices really easily as I have all the necessary parts. If you dont need the crazy hi ISO or the faster shutter speed and frame rate then there is not a lot to choose. The biggest thing is that the AF unit in the camera is the same as the D5 unit and is faster than the D750/D3/D4 AF units.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Iain: Wed Jun 22nd, 2016 14:17 | 14th Post |
| For me looking at the D500 the only advantage is the new AF, if I need high ISO I've got the D4. So at the moment I don't think it's worth changing.
|
| Posted by Robert: Wed Jun 22nd, 2016 15:14 | 15th Post |
jk wrote:
Bear in mind the reason for the crazy high ISO isn't for the crazy high ISO... The crazy high ISO is a by-product of greatly improved mid range ISO performance.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Wed Jun 22nd, 2016 15:20 | 16th Post |
| The D4 will gove you all you get from the D500 but in a bigger body. I am waiting for end of year hoping for a D900. In other words a FX version of the D500. I dont want the weight of a D5.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Wed Jun 22nd, 2016 15:20 | 17th Post |
Iain wrote:For me looking at the D500 the only advantage is the new AF, if I need high ISO I've got the D4. I ran the D3 and D300 alongside each other from day one. The D300 was supposed to be a pared down D3, but I found a cropped D3 image always matched a D300 image (apart from file size of course). The net result was. I rarely used the D300... and sold it. I am not sure if the same relationship exists between the D4 and D500. Or put another way ...how much better is the D5 than the D4? I would be first deciding if there is anything 'lacking' when using the D4, before shelling out on a D500....but, then, I am from Yorkshire. Having said that, I did take advantage of having the two bodies alongside each other when going to eventing and motorsport... using the 70-200mm (or the 300mm) on the D3 and the 300mm with the D300.. to give a range of focal lengths to suit the occasion.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Tue Aug 16th, 2016 16:26 | 18th Post |
| Anyone want a Sigma 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG OS as I think while it is a smaller and lighter lens than my Nikon 200-500 AFS VR it is now a second string lens for me. . Ebay price indicates about £425  http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/EXC-Sigma-APO-80-400mm-F-4-5-5-6-EX-DG-OS-Lens-For-Nikon-w-BOX-From-Japan-/291844048130?hash=item43f342c502:g:dfAAAOSwdU1W9CrT Probably best for EU users. Reasonable offers considered. Offers in PM if interested.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by jk: Sat Aug 27th, 2016 02:14 | 19th Post |
| This is for Eric. http://nikonrumors.com/2016/08/27/nikkor-200-500mm-f5-6e-vs-nikkpr-300mm-f4e-pf-a-review-and-comparison.aspx/
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Sat Aug 27th, 2016 11:18 | 20th Post |
jk wrote:This is for Eric. Interesting appraisal, which has crystallised my thinking.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Sun Aug 28th, 2016 06:47 | 21st Post |
Eric wrote: jk wrote: What crystals do you have? 200-500 size or 300 size
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Robert: Sun Aug 28th, 2016 07:36 | 22nd Post |
jk wrote:Eric wrote:jk wrote: Agreed, Eric is being naughty, tantalising! LOL Does the 70-300mm f4.5 - 5.6 VR come into this equation? Or it the relatively slow, long end TOO slow @ 5.6. Also, perhaps not sufficient IQ to compete with the 300mm f4? http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm The way I see it is if you have a 300 and a half decent DX body, then that gives you the equivalent of a 450 (almost 500) on FX, which for most purposes is as long as you want to go hand held without a heavy tripod and a lot of preparation. While at the same time the 70-300 on FX gives a useful range without the bulk of the 80-200 f2.8 for less demanding situations. The trend towards better high ISO has the by product of making slower lenses more versatile. The biggest issue remaining seems to me to be the poor bokeh from these slower zooms but that can usually be dealt with in post process.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Sun Aug 28th, 2016 13:05 | 23rd Post |
| From the article it seems that for fastest AF of the two then the 300mm seems faster but for reach the 200-500mm works better but the IQ from both is great.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Sun Aug 28th, 2016 13:59 | 24th Post |
Robert wrote:jk wrote: I decided neither....for the moment. I can achieve 400mm with the Fuji system and I want to make a decision on this system...once and for all. So I am leaving Nikon at home on my next trip. Incidentally I already have the 70-300 (which is a very competent little lens by the way), but no DX camera.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Sun Aug 28th, 2016 16:58 | 25th Post |
Eric wrote:Incidentally I already have the 70-300 (which is a very competent little lens by the way). Do you use it instead of the 80-200 f2.8 in less demanding circumstances? I have the 18-35, 24-120 and the 80-200 f2.8, I feel that 200mm is a bit short on FX. The three lenses together would give me good coverage with useful overlap. AND effectively 450mm on DX if I need it, without the expense and bulk of a 500mm lens.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Sun Aug 28th, 2016 17:42 | 26th Post |
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: Haven't used it since I got rid of the D7000. You are welcome to borrow it and do your own evaluation.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Mon Aug 29th, 2016 04:06 | 27th Post |
| I have a 70-300 f4.5-5.6 AFS G VR and I use it on holiday. It is an excellent lens.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Mon Aug 29th, 2016 05:17 | 28th Post |
| I agree it's produces top quality results sorry I let mine go when I got the 80-400mm AF-S.This from my S African trip with D3X. Attachment: NyalaD3X1374.jpg (Downloaded 35 times)
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Eric: Mon Aug 29th, 2016 05:33 | 29th Post |
jk wrote:I have a 70-300 f4.5-5.6 AFS G VR and I use it on holiday. It is an excellent lens. Agreed. It's a useful lens but I wouldn't add a teleconverter to it! Works well on DX to give 450mm though. The whole question of which lenses to take with you on holiday is a nightmare...it's worse than selecting clothes. I am coming to the conclusion that 300mm is as big as you ever need to carry around. And establishing the lightest package to achieve (say) 18-300 with acceptable quality is my current goal. I could imagine an 18-105 with the 70-300 and a D500 might fit the bill, with the added advantage that the D500 would couple with longer, perhaps better, lenses on specific excursions. I only have the 70-300 of that trio. However the Fuji X system in my bag, covers 18-400. I just need to finally decide if that system is 'right' for me....watch this space.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by jk: Mon Aug 29th, 2016 05:43 | 30th Post |
| You need the Fuji 14mm, it is brilliant for IR as well as normal landscapes. I'm in a similar position to you regarding lens selection but I have the Fuji v Nikon FX/DX dilemna.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by Eric: Mon Aug 29th, 2016 07:26 | 31st Post |
jk wrote:
I find 18mm wide enough for IR. If you go too wide, you can lose some of the impact of the IR effect.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Graham Whistler: Mon Aug 29th, 2016 08:23 | 32nd Post |
| I got a holiday lens for the D500: 18-140mm AF-S f3.5-5.6 DX VR. Very copmact compared to my old 18-200 I had on my much loved and travelled D300. Every bit as sharp as with 140 long enough and edge to edge sharpness with full range and only light stopping down. Down side modest barrel distortion easy to correct in post. Got an as new at barging 2nd hand price! Also for holiday use with my bird interest will be the very compact 80-400mm I keep on about with the x1.4. Look at my recent Owl pix this combo is so sharp!!! Attachment: Eagle Owl 1577.jpg (Downloaded 34 times)
____________________ Graham Whistler |
| Posted by Robert: Mon Aug 29th, 2016 14:48 | 33rd Post |
Eric wrote:
Gosh! Just got in from a hard day humping a lathe into my shed, wasn't expecting that. Thanks, I have planned to go down to Cadwell Park next weekend but apparently we only have one car entered, Michael tells me he may not be needed. I had intended to call round if you were home... That would be good, thanks for the offer, lets see what this weekend brings.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Tue Aug 30th, 2016 07:10 | 34th Post |
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: Have sent you a PM.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Tue Aug 30th, 2016 07:32 | 35th Post |
Eric wrote:Robert wrote: Did you click 'Send' ? 
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Tue Aug 30th, 2016 07:34 | 36th Post |
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: That will teach me not to say I have ...before I have.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Tue Aug 30th, 2016 07:42 | 37th Post |
Eric wrote:Robert wrote: I left it a few minutes in case, UK will let you know later, need to talk with Michael.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by Eric: Tue Aug 30th, 2016 11:53 | 38th Post |
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: Not inviting that many!!!!!!!! 
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Robert: Tue Aug 30th, 2016 15:00 | 39th Post |
| Bloody predictive text, it could start a war one day. Still waiting for a sensible answer from Michael, in all probability yes, will see you on Friday. Will confirm later.
____________________ Robert. |
| Posted by jk: Sun Sep 4th, 2016 09:49 | 40th Post |
| More for Eric. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1obqCxg52Q http://www.backcountrygallery.com/photography_tips/nikon-200-500-vs-300pf-review-and-comparison/
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| Posted by chrishamer: Wed Mar 22nd, 2017 11:34 | 41st Post |
| Not to dig up an old thread... BUT... The 200-500 is still a lens I'm seriously considering, any updates from anyone in the last few months? I've still got my trust 70-200 VR (version 1) which is plenty good for that focal length but not long enough on FX. Is this one worth a punt would you say?
|
| Posted by Eric: Wed Mar 22nd, 2017 16:05 | 42nd Post |
chrishamer wrote:Not to dig up an old thread... BUT... The 200-500 is still a lens I'm seriously considering, any updates from anyone in the last few months? The thread went a bit quiet. Graham Whistler has shown some incredible shots from the 80-400. He regards it highly. Iain has the 200-500 and was pleased with it. But we havent had a head to head comparison. I uppose it boils down to how much you need the extra 100mm reach. And of course the price. As I understand it the 200-500 is quite a bit heavier as well. I have put my Nikon acquisitions under wrap for a while as I concentrate on the Fuji system. It's. Much lighter and less noticeable stealble, hanging round my neck when wandering round cities. But I understand that a D500 with either of these lenses, really would be my alternative.
____________________ Eric |
| Posted by Iain: Thu Mar 23rd, 2017 11:43 | 43rd Post |
| The 200-500 is a great lens and in my opinion better than the 300 +TCs. The weight is more although I don't find it too bad.
|
| Posted by jk: Thu Mar 23rd, 2017 14:06 | 44th Post |
Iain wrote:The 200-500 is a great lens and in my opinion better than the 300 +TCs. The weight is more although I don't find it too bad.Certainly agree with your assessment. My 400mm f2.8 AFS is also very good but mega heavy.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
| This is topic ID = 1320 | ||
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Lenses > 80-400 v 200-500 v 300+1.4tc. | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1166 seconds (69% database + 31% PHP). 295 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2024 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.1166 seconds (69% database + 31% PHP). 295 queries executed.