Which Lens to buy????

[Ann]

I am seriously considering adding one more lens to my small collection!
I have the 105 vr, 300-4. and 1.4 teleconverter, and a 25-85 (I think!)
I want a longer lense! I am thinking of 200-400 vr, or a 500 or a 400.
I want to be able to get pics of the hawks and ducks, the birds that are just out of reach for me. I have alot of these birds around here, but just can't quite get close enough. I also have to think of the price. But I figured if I keep waiting to afford one, I'll never buy one! I also will probably try to buy a good used one. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. I have read the other threads, but I just cannot make up my mind!

[Harv]

Hi, Ann.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of Nikon lenses as I am a Canon guy. However, nothing stops me from discussing focal lengths with you. You already have a 300 f/4 and a 1.4xTC, giving you a 420 f/5.6 focal length. I think if you are finding this is not long enough, you can probably come to some conclusions on your own.

I believe the 200-400 VR is an f/4 which would give you 280-560 with the use of the 1.4xTC. If I remember correctly, Nikon also offers a 1.7xTC which I've heard others speak of very highly. I just don't know if the Nikon cameras will AF over f/5.6 which I would think would happen using the 1.7xTC.

Another option of course is the 300 f/2.8 which allows you to use any of the teleconverters to extend the focal length. I use a 300 2.8 with a 2xTC and get excellent results. I don't know how well Nikon lenses handle their 2xTC. A prime 500 is a great choice for birding as well.

Your choices are not easy ones, but at least you have choices. I like the options that the 200-400 VR offers but am not familiar with how well that lens performs. I'm sure there are some Nikon shooters on this forum who can speak to that. If I am not mistaken, Eric Rosen shoots with one of those.

[Kevin]

I had some limited experience with 200-400. WIth the 1.4tc it was fine but I wasn't thrilled using it with the 1.7tc. Focus speed was pretty slow and images were rather soft. Trying to track birds in flight was challenging at best. With the 1.4, everything was much better.

I also tried the 500/f4 and that is a very nice lens. Handles the 1.4 well. Never tried it with the 1.7 that I can recall.

The 300/f2.8 along with 1.4 and 1.7 and even 2.0 might be a viable option and would probably be the least expensive option.

If you don't mind 3rd party lenses, look at the Sigma 500/f4.5. There are a number of both Canon and Nikon shooters who use it and their results are great.

The biggest obstacle when entering into this league is the cost of the lenses.

[Harv]

I had some limited experience with 200-400. WIth the 1.4tc it was fine but I wasn't thrilled using it with the 1.7tc. Focus speed was pretty slow and images were rather soft. Trying to track birds in flight was challenging at best. With the 1.4, everything was much better.

I also tried the 500/f4 and that is a very nice lens. Handles the 1.4 well. Never tried it with the 1.7 that I can recall.

The 300/f2.8 along with 1.4 and 1.7 and even 2.0 might be a viable option and would probably be the least expensive option.

If you don't mind 3rd party lenses, look at the Sigma 500/f4.5. There are a number of both Canon and Nikon shooters who use it and their results are great.

The biggest obstacle when entering into this league is the cost of the lenses.

Kevin, I looked at the current EX DG Sigma 500 f/4.5 and the lens looks to be a very sharp lens from the MTF charts they publish. My understanding from their website is that it will not AF with a 1.4xTC. At least it won't with the Sigma TC. They say MF only. That's what kept me from pursuing it myself. I can get to 600 using my 300 + 2xTC and still AF with sharp images.

[Kevin]

I think I recall seeing that 500/f4.5 + 1.4tc <> AF. It might be best to check with some current Nikon users to verify. I can't recall who had one though.

[stilllearning]

I would go for the 200-400VR. I've seen results from it they are stellar. It has the VR which the 400 and 500 don't have. It also has a 6.5 foot minimum which can come in handy.

[Keith]

Hmmmm I think you already know my answer rolleyes; Being I have owned all three my opinion is 500mm af-s f4 hands down, living here you know how focal length is very important so we need all the reach we can get, excellent af lens, wonderful bokeh and sharp as a tack. Understand when you get a good long lens, tripod and a good head is a must!

400mm f2.8 is IMO one of the best lenses Nikon has, well add the 300mm f2.8 VR in there as well :p , but two things, it is heavy and short on focal length and you dont do allot of low light shooting hence why I would op for the 500mm! The 200-400VR is a great variable range, one I wish Canon would come up with in that focal range, but doesnt take a place of a long prime, secondly you do need to stop it down to be sharp, and works good with 1.4tc, wasnt happy with 1.7 or 2, understand that is my opinion. That lens would be be last choice, VR helps allot but with your long lens shooting you wont be handholding thus a tripod so VR doesnt come as important.

You should have bought Daves :0 ) but you knew I was going to say that.

[Desert Rat]

Well Ann first few questions you MUST ask yourself is :

1) What will you do or need a longer lens for? What will you shoot?
2) Will you be able to lug around those lenses?
200-400 weighs 7.5 pounds
500/f4 weighs about the same
400/2.8 weighs in around 10 pounds
2) you will need a sturdy tripod (Gitzo) is the best and a wimberly sidekick
($250)

You can pick up any of these lenses used somewhere depending on condition..

As you already know if you are going to just use it for birding and only birding or wildlife then just go with the 500 and you can use the 1.4X with no problems...

The 400/2.8 is extremely pricey and very heavy...

You already know I have the 200-400 and use it with the TC14E II. It has the VR and I can hand hold the thing for short periods of time... You have already seen my results with the 200-400... With the 200-400 the TC17 is not the greatest unless the subject is stationary.. if moving forget about it...

If you want versatility in a lens where you can use it for other things then the 200-400 is the best bet otherwise if it is a strictly a wildlife large and small) then the 500 is the best bet along with a TC...

You just have to also factor in a tripod and a wimberly sidekick or something similar in your budget...

[Martin]

The Sigma 500mm 4.5 is a good lens and it will auto focus with the kenko or Nikon teleconverters but some are disapointed with the results, great lens if all you want is 500mm and smaller and lighter than the Nikon.

I went with a 400 2.8 af-i and its great for the low light winters around here, cheaper than a used 500 af-s but it weighs 13 pounds so don't plan on hiking with it and requires a very sturdy tripod and gimbal head, G1548 gitzo or its replacement and I use the Manfrotto gimbal since its cheap and works well, still need to upgrade my tripod. Works well with the 1.4 and 2x teleconverters but I found out how bad my technique is at 800mm takes sum practice and a bit of luck.

Martin

[Ann]

Thanks for all the input guys! I'm seriously leaning toward the 500, as the my 300 works great around my place for birds, but when I am doing my little roadtrips around here, I think the 500 would be best suit my needs.
And Keith, don't say I told you so!!!

[Lisa]

You go, girl! I hope you do pick up the 500mm.......then I can live vicariously through you.....

I do agree that this is probably the best way to go I have the 300 f4 and the TC17EII and honestly, it really isn't enough. Around my home it is okay, but for serious shooting when I go to Minnesota, it really falls short.

[Ann]

I told hubby I'm getting one, he said we need the roof fixed, He usually doens't notice if I buy something new, but that 500 would stand out I think! LOL, plus bank acc would be sight lower!

[Lisa]

I told hubby I'm getting one, he said we need the roof fixed, He usually doens't notice if I buy something new, but that 500 would stand out I think! LOL, plus bank acc would be sight lower!

I LOVE spending your money ;) Just tell him that you can make lots of money selling pics with your new lens and the roof would be paid for in no time lmao;

[Mao]

Sorry, I'm on the "white" side so, my 2 cents worth...and it is 2 cents...

Fly me down everytime you need a 500 mm. and also Sheldon as the official totem (tripod)...oops, here we go again.

[paul weston]

sounds like you wont be happy with anything less than a 500f4. I had a 500mm and sold it when i bought my 200-400vr. this lense with or without a 1.4tc is amazing BUT,i miss the extra reach i had with the 500f4. why nikon didnt make a 300-500 instead is beyond me. Iam now looking to reaquire a 500f4. will keep the 200-400vr as well, I just love it.

the moral of this story, If you buy a 200-400vr you will always wish you had alittle more (length). buy the 500f4 and you will never look back.

paul.