Super Telephoto
Dick on Aruba
Registered Users Posts: 3,484 Major grins
Good glass comes with a heavy price tag. If you invest heavy in a lens and you make good use of it, well…consider it the “fruits of your labor”.
The thing is: If you swing with your credit card, you may at least expect some superb quality for your investment. Hereunder two lenses I looked up at B&H. The difference in price is not small so I’m looking for some advice and samples. Here the two lenses:
Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 600mm
f/4D ED-IF II Autofocus Lens - Black
@ B&H $8,999.95
Sigma Super Telephoto 800mm
f/5.6 EX DG APO HSM Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D
@ B&H $6,479.00
Anybody?
Dick.
The thing is: If you swing with your credit card, you may at least expect some superb quality for your investment. Hereunder two lenses I looked up at B&H. The difference in price is not small so I’m looking for some advice and samples. Here the two lenses:
Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 600mm
f/4D ED-IF II Autofocus Lens - Black
@ B&H $8,999.95
Sigma Super Telephoto 800mm
f/5.6 EX DG APO HSM Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D
@ B&H $6,479.00
Anybody?
Dick.
0
Comments
Of the two I would say the Nikon 600mm hands down. From the user reviews I've seen the 600 works better with TCs. The nikon will also hold its value better.
Whenever anyone is considering getting a super tele I advise them to carefully consider the decision. Next to getting a new car it will probably be your most expensive purchase. Toting one of these bazookas wll also change your shooting habits. In addition to the lens you will be dropping at least another $1000 + for a tripod and head to support it.
When shooting it you have to use the right long lens technique or you will end up with a lot of soft shots even when mounted on a tripod.
Shooting with my 500mm has been a real learning experience and a very expensive one too. I love it and I'm satisfied with the results, but its a decision you want to think about very carefully before you jump in.
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!"
I'm well aware of the above. It will not be a temporary hype that put me in a debt just for ending up selling it.
Nothing comes for nothing that's for sure. I even consider a trip to the USA to snap some shots and to borrow / rent a lens like that just to make sure it's what I really wand. It's true that the investment is a large one but consider this:
My car drives +35 miles with a gallon, I spend less than $3 on alcoholic beverages in the last 28 years and all the our kids did leave the nest. I can't remeber one day in my life that I was without work and provided well for family and non-family.
Now it's my turn to be in the spotlight and I'm blessed with a wife who's supporting me in this all the way. I feel I urned it and I really wish that more people I know starting to feel te same way.
So...Nikon 600mm you said?
Dick.
Thomas Fuller.
SmugMug account.
Website.
You sound like me Dick. I busted my hump for 40+ years, my nest is empty, my house is paid off, the grandkids have college funds, and my wife supports my passion for photography. Its our turn to have some fun.
Enjoy your long glass and let me know how you like the 600. I may have to sell my 500 and go up a notch.
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!"
So what do you plan to shoot? 200mm is a big difference. Prior to buying a lens I will look into MTF charts just to see how competing/like lenses resolve. My experience is that all top of the line pro lenses are all equally sharp (there will be a difference but that difference is insignificant). So a 200mm pro level Sigma or Tamron or Tokina is equally as sharp as a pro level Nikkor.
Typically, OEM lenses will focus a tad faster than third party and OEM pro lenses are more robust then their third party counterparts. So a lot of the price difference goes into that heavy-duty engineering. Do you need that engineering? Probably not ... usually only press photogs that shoot everyday in run-n-gun scenarios need the extra robustness. 200mm and $2,500 is a lot of glass and a lot of monies for lenses which may be comparable in sharpness.
As a Canon user, I don't have a dog in this fight ... just want to add what I found to be generally true. To be honest you probably will be quite happy with either lens ... (but may be wondering what the image would look like with that extra 200mm ... or ... if that Nikkor lens would have focused faster ...)
-Gary-
Unsharp at any Speed
You're my friend harry
Thomas Fuller.
SmugMug account.
Website.
Thanks Gary for your valuable input.
200mm is indeed a big difference.
I have to speak for myself here but as a mainly nature shooter, closeness to the subjects is everything to me. A nice well exposed and sharp capture will be the crown of your efforts. I love nature and love to be close with the things I love. I find it hard to verbalize in English (I’m Dutch) the “high” of a successful nature shot.
I think 600mm will cut it for me. In combination with a 1.4 or 1.7 TC, the fun never ends. I can not say that money is not a subject because it is, but…you know…
Dick.
Thomas Fuller.
SmugMug account.
Website.
No advice:-)) No matter which lens you choose big CONGRATS! You will have fun, and enjoy it to no end. Good for you and your wife, life is just way too short.
Once again speaking in general terms ... the Sigma at 800 will probably out resolve the Nikkor at 840 (600 + 1.4TC). I belong to a group here in LA and we tested a Canon 200L 2.8 prime + TC against a Sigma Zoom (50-500) ... the Sigma was significantly sharper. Dunno about Nikkor TCs, but I suspect there isn't much difference between Canon optics and Nikkor.
Apart from robust engineering and speed of focus ... I think you get greater value from the Sigma. I'd try some other forums i.e. Fred Miranda and chat with those that actually have one or the other ... it is a lot of money for either lens.
Good Luck,
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
Thanks Thusie.
Thomas Fuller.
SmugMug account.
Website.
I'm surely will look at the Sigma possibility also. More focal length, less money involved. To quote a previous reaction of my own:
Dick.
Thomas Fuller.
SmugMug account.
Website.
How much experience do you have shooting with lenses longer than 400mm? If you have lots of experience at 600 or 800mm, then you don't need Harry's or my advice.
Harry is right, though, shooting at 500+mm takes real dedication to proper shooting technique, and first class tripods and heads. And 800mm is really long with a very narrow field of view.
I agree with Harry, that the 600mm Nikon will hold its value better, and be generally more useful.
Very long lenses are highly dedicated devices, rarely used except for specific types of shooting. My longest prime peaks out at 500mm.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin