Ziggy- The 80-400 VR focus might be a little slow for birds in flight.
What about the 70-300VR with a 1.4 extender?
If you think the 80-400VR is slow, you would hate the 70-300VR with a 1.4 teleconverter IMO, assuming you could find an extender to fit. The effective aperture at 300mm+TC would be f8. Our own "Telecorder" Dave has used the 70-300VR with both Sigma and Kenko teleconverters (the Nikon versions don't work):
I use to have the Sigma 135-400mm. It was pretty fast in good light. Not as fast in lower light. But, it is smaller than the Bigma. Could probably handhold in good light. It is not a light lens that's for sure, but a tripod would not always be necessary.
It was recently discontinued, but you can still find used copies on ebay.
I don't have the $$$ for the 200-400. I want the lens to shoot surfers and birds.
I hate to be a wet blanket, but that's going to be a problem if you want any kind of decent image quality. Not a lot of $$ and wanting to shoot subjects that require lenses that cost the same as a good used car, are kind of opposed to one another! I shoot sports primarily and know that I'm going to have to spend thousands of dollars on long lenses, etc. to get the kind of shots I want. Even the 200-400 is marginal for me because it wouldn't be very useful for indoor or night sports, which pretty much needs 2.8 just to get by.
With sports for now I use a D300 and 70-200 2.8 (and TC14E when outdoors in daylight). That's the bare minimum and I'm currently saving my earnings for a 400 2.8 (and a D700 as well). The D700 and 400 2.8 are going to run me $10 or 11K. I wouldn't even think of trying to put any TC on a "consumer zoom lens" even if it would work.
I believe most surfing and bird photographers use 500 or 600 mm lenses or a 400.2.8 and maybe a 1.4 or 1.7 TC. Most 2X TC degrade the image quality too much to be of much use, and I wouldn't put a TC on anything other than a 2.8 lens personally (maybe a 1.4 on a f/4 would be acceptable).
I think most 300 f/4 lenses run about $900-1000. You could use a 1.4 on it for a 420 5.6, but would probably have to stop down to f/8 to get good image quality (which would still mean you need to get pretty close to the birds or surfers), but assume you're shooting birds and surfers in bright daylight, should be sufficient.
Unfortunatley, sports and wildlife photography are the two genres that are going to cost you a LOT of $$$ if you want to produce really good stuff.
You don't have to break the bank for wildlife photography or surfing shots.
I got this with the D200 and the 80-400
You can get flight shots with 80-400
The 300mm is an outstanding lens and works well with TCs
The 300mm + the 1.7 TC on the full frame D3
The 300mm f/4 and 1.4 TC on the D300
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Comments
There is always the Sigma 150-500 AKA Bigma
tristansphotography.com (motorsports)
Canon 20D | 10-22 | 17-85 IS | 50/1.4 | 70-300 IS | 100/2.8 macro
Sony F717 | Hoya R72
I have the Bigma and it is 50-500mm.
It's a pretty good lens but not as good as the Canon 100-400mm "L".
A Nikon rough equivalent might be the Nikkor 80-400mm, f/4.5-5.6D ED VR.
Reviews:
http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/253-nikkor-af-80-400mm-f45-56-ed-vr-d-review--lab-test-report
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Make sure you read this thread by our own "Harryb":
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=39768
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I don't have the $$$ for the 200-400. I want the lens to shoot surfers and birds.
Dave- The Bigma is too heavy. I don't want to have to use a tripod.
Ziggy- The 80-400 VR focus might be a little slow for birds in flight.
What about the 70-300VR with a 1.4 extender?
If you think the 80-400VR is slow, you would hate the 70-300VR with a 1.4 teleconverter IMO, assuming you could find an extender to fit. The effective aperture at 300mm+TC would be f8. Our own "Telecorder" Dave has used the 70-300VR with both Sigma and Kenko teleconverters (the Nikon versions don't work):
http://forums.photographyreview.com/showpost.php?p=285182&postcount=15
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
It was recently discontinued, but you can still find used copies on ebay.
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
I hate to be a wet blanket, but that's going to be a problem if you want any kind of decent image quality. Not a lot of $$ and wanting to shoot subjects that require lenses that cost the same as a good used car, are kind of opposed to one another!
With sports for now I use a D300 and 70-200 2.8 (and TC14E when outdoors in daylight). That's the bare minimum and I'm currently saving my earnings for a 400 2.8 (and a D700 as well). The D700 and 400 2.8 are going to run me $10 or 11K. I wouldn't even think of trying to put any TC on a "consumer zoom lens" even if it would work.
I believe most surfing and bird photographers use 500 or 600 mm lenses or a 400.2.8 and maybe a 1.4 or 1.7 TC. Most 2X TC degrade the image quality too much to be of much use, and I wouldn't put a TC on anything other than a 2.8 lens personally (maybe a 1.4 on a f/4 would be acceptable).
I think most 300 f/4 lenses run about $900-1000. You could use a 1.4 on it for a 420 5.6, but would probably have to stop down to f/8 to get good image quality (which would still mean you need to get pretty close to the birds or surfers), but assume you're shooting birds and surfers in bright daylight, should be sufficient.
Unfortunatley, sports and wildlife photography are the two genres that are going to cost you a LOT of $$$ if you want to produce really good stuff.
http://www.jrowphoto.com
http://www.maxpreps.com
I got this with the D200 and the 80-400
You can get flight shots with 80-400
The 300mm is an outstanding lens and works well with TCs
The 300mm + the 1.7 TC on the full frame D3
The 300mm f/4 and 1.4 TC on the D300
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
If cost is a factor, also consider the Sigma 120-400mm OS and Tamron 200-500mm as well. I think both are near $800 or so.
Good luck.
Bugs
Spiders
Flowers