| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page: 1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|||||||
| 80-400 v 200-500 v 300+1.4tc. - Page 1 | |
| Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon May 30th, 2016 16:28 |
|
1st Post |
Eric
|
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: Mon May 30th, 2016 16:31 |
|
2nd Post |
jk
|
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: Mon May 30th, 2016 16:36 |
|
3rd Post |
jk
|
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: Mon May 30th, 2016 16:45 |
|
4th Post |
Eric
|
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: Tue May 31st, 2016 01:04 |
|
5th Post |
Robert
|
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: Tue May 31st, 2016 10:33 |
|
6th Post |
Eric
|
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: Wed Jun 1st, 2016 09:31 |
|
7th Post |
Iain
|
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: Wed Jun 1st, 2016 09:40 |
|
8th Post |
Iain
|
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: Wed Jun 1st, 2016 11:08 |
|
9th Post |
Eric
|
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: Sat Jun 4th, 2016 08:30 |
|
10th Post |
Iain
|
Reading your last post the 300mm f4 with tc's may be best.
|
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 1320 Current time is 08:31 | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 | |
| 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 Modern editor
| 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@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0634 seconds (68% database + 32% PHP). 84 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0634 seconds (68% database + 32% PHP). 84 queries executed.