Are high speed telephotos worth the $$$ ?

NorthernFocus

I've been into photography for many years but never had the means to purchase a 300mm f2.8, 600mm f4, or the like. I now shoot a Nikon D200 and have some fairly decent "mid-range" lenses like a Sigma 100-300 f4 and Nikkor 80-400 f5.6 VR. I recently got a bonus at work which in enough to let me finally get a really nice, high speed lens for wildlife etc. Coincidentally, this spring I also got into photographing birds. Well what I'm now finding is that when photographing large birds like geese, swans, and eagles in flight, if I'm stopped down below f8, I can't keep the whole critter within the DOF.

So what seems to me to be an obvious question is, "what does three or four times the price really buy you?":scratch I must obviously be missing something and would appreciate it if someone would share their experience with me.

Thanks in advance.

Harryb

A sad truth is that you get what you pay for. The higher priced glass usualy has better IQ, better build, and focuses faster. Also the extra reach you get ain't bad either.

I shoot regularly with the 80-400 and like it but it has its limitations. You can't use TC's with it, it is definitely not a fast focusing lens, has a hard time holding focus on a subject, and needs to be stepped down to at least 7.1 or 8 for good IQ.

My 500mm f/4 has better IQ, is a fast focusing lens and has excellent IQ when you shot wide open. I can put a 1.4 TC on it and still maintain IQ and focusing speed that tops the 80-400. When you want to blur the background behind your subject you want to open the lens up which I can't do as well with the 80-400. Also the 500mm has excellent bokeh while the bokeh on the 80-400 can get a bit funky.

If you can afford the higher priced glass it definitely will change your shooting experience.

jogle

First of all, I don't own any long fast glass (my closest being the 70-200 2.8L IS)

Even if you stop down a long lens to f8 when you're shooting. It remains at f2.8 when you're looking through the view finder and for focusing. All that extra light helps your little focus sensors do their job faster and more precisely

Just one bonus you might not have thought about.

NorthernFocus

Thanks for the feedback, guys. Harry, I've only had the 80-400 for a little while and already figured out it's too slow focusing for BIF images. Took me a while to figure out why I was getting good focus on deflection shots but couldn't stay on incoming birds. I reverted to my Sigma 100-300 for BIFs and have been doing better since.

You both gave me something to think about. Common sense was telling me there are reasons so many people are willing to plunk down the change

jonh68

Something to consider besides better IQ and better low light performance is the use of converters.

If you had the Sigma 150-300 2.8, you could use a 1.4 no problem and maybe 2.0 with decent performance.

A 300 f4 coupled with a 1.4 is great for wildlife as well. With fast glass, you get better performance as is, and then with extenders you get more reach and the IQ will still be better or as good as the slower lenses at those lengths.

The trade off is usually weight. If you decide to get fast glass, I wouldn't throw away the lighter lenses if you enjoy walking around.

NorthernFocus

Thanks, John. Good point about the extenders. I really didn't think about that aspect.

Maestro

articblooms wrote:

I've been into photography for many years but never had the means to purchase a 300mm f2.8, 600mm f4, or the like. I now shoot a Nikon D200 and have some fairly decent "mid-range" lenses like a Sigma 100-300 f4 and Nikkor 80-400 f5.6 VR. I recently got a bonus at work which in enough to let me finally get a really nice, high speed lens for wildlife etc. Coincidentally, this spring I also got into photographing birds. Well what I'm now finding is that when photographing large birds like geese, swans, and eagles in flight, if I'm stopped down below f8, I can't keep the whole critter within the DOF.

So what seems to me to be an obvious question is, "what does three or four times the price really buy you?" I must obviously be missing something and would appreciate it if someone would share their experience with me.

Thanks in advance.

I haven't regretted it. To save some money I went with a Sigma 500mm prime and I have not been disappointed at all. Sure, I would like the IS but I have a sturdy tripod and head so I only miss the IS ocassionally. If you have recently gotten into birds, the long lenses are almost a necessity, a very expensive one, but well worth the investment if you are serious about this hobby.

silverstangs

I'm believe they are worth it, especially when the weather turns south, but... I also feel that the guys with the 1.6 crop factor cameras have a bit of a advantage over my 1.3 crop factor, which is the focal lenght...

400mm with a full frame is 400mm
400mm with a 1.3 crop factor is similar to a 520mm lens
400mm with a 1.6 crop factor camera is similar to a 640mm lens.

So the question would be, what's better, getting the camera, or the lens.
Obviously the larger photosites are better, but considering the quality even out of a Rebel...
Shot at 400mm in the rain... thank goodness for weather sealing.
This was at F9 ISO 1600 1/1250 Obviously, I could have shot at a lower ISO speed.

NorthernFocus

Thanks for the additional thoughts. Another dilemma is the decision between a fixed focal length or a zoom. Using a zoom I find that the vast majority of the time I'm shooting at max zoom. But that other small percentage of the time it sure saves the shot to have the flexibility to quickly change focal length. Plus it's nice not lugging a bag full of gear around. I'm rarely shooting in convenient locations nor in conditions that you want to be changing lenses in. So many issues My bride thinks I should just get a good pair of binoculars and a sketch pad

jonh68

If you want lightweight, get a 300 f4 and use a 1.4 converter. With this combo, you have a fast prime at 300, and a 5.6 at 420mm. While it is fixed, it doues you give you two different ranges and options for low light.

There's no one lens that fits the bill. However, Sigma does have the 50-500 and the upcoming 150-500 with OS(their version of VR) I am seriously thinking of getting the 150-500 for the situations you mention. I do lots of walking around photography nothing in particular in mind.