Help With Telephoto Zoom Choice!

Coleman Photography

Im looking to get a new Telephoto Zoom lens. Right now I have the Tokina 80-400 4.5, Its ok, but is just not that sharp unless stopped down to F8 with perfect lighting and even then not the sharpest lens. It almost seems like the sharpness is getting less and less each time I shoot it.

Anyways, I have been checking out a few lens and cant decide. Once I narrow it down to about two different ones im going to rent them first to see which one I like best.

1st lens is the Nikon 80-400 4.5 VR
2nd lens is the Nikon 300 F4 AFS
3rd lens is the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR1 with a Teleconverter.

I would like to have the 400mm but will give up a 100mm for a more sharp lens.

Last few questions anyone using these lens please chime in and post pics taken at large distances. ex, all lens with and or with out tele converters. obviously not the 80-400.

Thanks in Advance.

NeilL

OT (I'm Canonised), but just wanted to say I think the lighting in your avvy is great. If you want to talk about it I'd be very interested.

Neil

chrisjohnson

Coleman Photography wrote: »

Im looking to get a new Telephoto Zoom lens. Right now I have the Tokina 80-400 4.5, Its ok, but is just not that sharp unless stopped down to F8 with perfect lighting and even then not the sharpest lens. It almost seems like the sharpness is getting less and less each time I shoot it.

Anyways, I have been checking out a few lens and cant decide. Once I narrow it down to about two different ones im going to rent them first to see which one I like best.

1st lens is the Nikon 80-400 4.5 VR
2nd lens is the Nikon 300 F4 AFS
3rd lens is the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR1 with a Teleconverter.

I would like to have the 400mm but will give up a 100mm for a more sharp lens.

Last few questions anyone using these lens please chime in and post pics taken at large distances. ex, all lens with and or with out tele converters. obviously not the 80-400.

Thanks in Advance.

Canon guy too so have little experience with these lenses. I don't know of any lens from any manufacturer with an 80-400 scope that gives great IQ - it is pushing the technology too far.

I would be tempted to get a 400mm prime, not being a fan of teleconverters at these ranges. For zoom I think 70-300 is about as much as you can expect with decent quality, 70-200 is better. Probably you need two lenses - sorry!

Photometric

What format are you shooting in DX or FX? The reason I ask is because the 70-200mm VR - 1 is dark in the corners for FX shooting which is why Nikon came out with the update last year.

When I want to see a sample of different lenses, I go to flickr and search out that lens and look at the posted pics from there to help with the decision by seeing pics taken with the equipment over a variety of cameras.

Also, I look at some of these sites:
http://www.bythom.com/
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/reviews.htm

lfortier

All the birds and animals on page 1 -2 - 3 were shot with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 V1 + Nikon 1.7 TC. I'm satisfied with the sharpness.

http://www.leefortier.com/Assorted-Stuff/Latest-Images/1033632_tSBG7#1144686096_5Cv9j

It's a great combo.

ziggy53

I would strongly suggest the Nikkor 300mm, f4D ED IF AF-S plus a TC-14E 1.4x teleconverter. The prime lens by itself is just spectacular image quality and it tolerates the teleconverter very well when you need the extra reach.

AF speed is about the only minor issue in that many other AF-S lenses are faster to focus. This will get worse using the teleconverter.

Best review:

http://www.bythom.com/300afslens.htm

Icebear

With your kit, the 70-200 VRI would serve you well. Can't argue with Ziggy either. I'd avoid the 80-400. If you EVER think you'll move to Fx, spring for the 70-200 VRII. It's my workhorse.

Coleman Photography

Thank you guys, I think im leaning towards the 300 f4. with tele. I am renting it next week to see what I think.

Icebear

Good idea. Try b4 u buy.

Coleman Photography

Well, Im down to either the 70-200 2.8 VR1 + Teleconverter or 300 f4 AF-s + Teleconverter.

anyone want to give any advice on which of these set ups would be best. Sharpest ect. I shoot with a d200. mostly surf some motocross and skateboarding.

ziggy53

Coleman Photography wrote: »

Thank you guys, I think im leaning towards the 300 f4. with tele. I am renting it next week to see what I think.

Coleman Photography wrote: »

Well, Im down to either the 70-200 2.8 VR1 + Teleconverter or 300 f4 AF-s + Teleconverter.

anyone want to give any advice on which of these set ups would be best. Sharpest ect. I shoot with a d200. mostly surf some motocross and skateboarding.

For surf even 200mm plus teleconverter is often too short. 400-500mm is fairly common. For other sports I often see folks with 2 bodies; 1 body with a 70-200mm and another body with a 300mm and sometimes with the teleconverter as well.

Hawkins

70-200 is multiple purpose general use lens capable of teleshooting. 300 f4 is almost a dedicated lens for teleshooting. If the lens is used purely for teleshooting but no other purpose, then 300 f4. if you want shoot, say, portraits, events, etc. then 70-200. I heard that 300 f4 plus a TC-20e III can still have auto-focus, abit slow though.

Simo70

Coleman Photography wrote: »

Well, Im down to either the 70-200 2.8 VR1 + Teleconverter or 300 f4 AF-s + Teleconverter.

anyone want to give any advice on which of these set ups would be best. Sharpest ect. I shoot with a d200. mostly surf some motocross and skateboarding.

I would go with the 300mm f\4 AFS and eventually the TC 1.4. I did it and am very pleased.
For surf you might need a little bit more that the 300 but considering the TC 1.4 and the crop factor of the D200 you end up with a 630mm f/5.6 equivalent on the 35mm.

Here are few samples:

All the photos in the Picasa album are with the TC 1.4.
http://picasaweb.google.com/sbrogini/300mmShots

This is the 300mm at f/4


and here at f/9.5


Hope this helps.

SeOc

If you go for a 70-200mm, consider...
If you go the 70-200mm route, give serious consideration to this lens:

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor


It's a serious pro lens for FX. I have a very brief review here:

http://digitalslrlensesinfo.com/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8g-ed-vr-ii-af-s-nikkor-zoom-lens/

It does feel a little heavy, to me, but that's not entirely a bad thing. I like the versatility of this lens, build quality, and of course the images it produces are what you'd expect from the 'not inexpensive' price tag.

Seamus

Coleman Photography wrote: »

Im looking to get a new Telephoto Zoom lens. Right now I have the Tokina 80-400 4.5, Its ok, but is just not that sharp unless stopped down to F8 with perfect lighting and even then not the sharpest lens. It almost seems like the sharpness is getting less and less each time I shoot it.

Anyways, I have been checking out a few lens and cant decide. Once I narrow it down to about two different ones im going to rent them first to see which one I like best.

1st lens is the Nikon 80-400 4.5 VR
2nd lens is the Nikon 300 F4 AFS
3rd lens is the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR1 with a Teleconverter.

I would like to have the 400mm but will give up a 100mm for a more sharp lens.

Last few questions anyone using these lens please chime in and post pics taken at large distances. ex, all lens with and or with out tele converters. obviously not the 80-400.

Thanks in Advance.

zoomer

You seem to well set up for portraits, whatever you are using is working. Very nice portraits, you should do more of that.

For surf....you probably already know you will not really be happy with any of those choices. What you need is the 500 f4, if possible save your money and wait to get that.
If you really want to shoot surf that is eventually where you will end up...why spend your money on lenses that just are not going to do the job in the meantime...something to mull over.

If you are set on buying a lens now you need the most reach possible so get the 300 f4 and 1.4 teleconverter.
One other option which would be less money than a 500f4 (there should be some good buys on used ones) would be to buy a used or reconditioned D3X. With all those megapixels you would have a greatly increased ability to crop...might make up the difference between the 300 and the 500 lens.

ian408

If you are on the track, I'd suggest the 70-200 for MX. But surf is tricky. There are places where 300 is almost more than you'll need (high tide at Steamers Lane for example) and other times 600 isn't enough (again, using Steamers as an example).

I'm curios. Your signature lists two lenses in about the same focal length--the 70-300 and 80-400. Would you sell one or both?

Coleman Photography

Thank you Zoomer, I have recenty been getting into portraits and love it. But I just love shooting surf, being a surfer myself. Im now shooting for a small East coast surf magazine and just need something a bit more sharp the Tokina 80-400 just is not cutting it. I rented the 300 f4 the past couple of days and im very very pleased with the sharpness of that lens. and have heard and read that it takes the 1.4 tc great.

I would love the 500 f4 but I just dont see that price tag anytime soon.

Coleman Photography

ian408 wrote: »

If you are on the track, I'd suggest the 70-200 for MX. But surf is tricky. There are places where 300 is almost more than you'll need (high tide at Steamers Lane for example) and other times 600 isn't enough (again, using Steamers as an example).

I'm curios. Your signature lists two lenses in about the same focal length--the 70-300 and 80-400. Would you sell one or both?

yes I shoot much of my surf in fl so 300+tc should do the trick for the most part. I would be selling both. I have not touched my 70-300 in like 2 years. was my first zoom telephoto lens. I have been using the 80-400 for about two years now and has been a great lens and has gotten my many surf publications, but im now in need of something a bit more sharp, and after renting the 300f4 the past few days I really like it.

Simo70

The 300mm f/4 is a great lens and I have been using it for more than an year mostly for wildlife photography. You will be pleased with it. As I mentioned on my other post it takes the TC1.4 without any problems and AF is as fast as without it. Not as fast with the TC 1.7 but still super sharp. Not sure about the TC2. good luck.

Zerodog

For all of your surf stuff the 300 will be killer. I think I would struggle with a 300 on DX for MX. You would really have to be in the right spot to make it work well. But with the right spot it would be killer. Just no zoom on that length would be tough in that situation.

zoomer

For real... you could make enough money shooting portraits in a year to buy the 500.
Maybe not the first year but once word of mouth got out there certainly by the second year.
Just do it . Your portraits are very good.
630 with the 300.
1050 with the 500.
That is a huge difference. Don't settle .

ian408

I was going to suggest renting the 300 f/2.8 and the 500 f/4. Both are great lenses (and expensive) to get an idea of the differences both in weight and quality. The 500 would be too much for MX. It would be great for surf.

I will say that shooting a 500 with the 2x on it is hard to keep it steady. You're almost better off shooting at 500 then cropping what you need.

zoomer

I wouldn't use a 2x on any lens...the quality suffers.
Super sharp lenses like a 400 2.8 can stretch with the 1.7.
1.4 seems the best compromise of quality and reach.

Of course a good solid tripod, mount and long lens technique are required to get the most out of it.