Topic: Nikon 300mm prime, or 80-400mm zoom? (Read 14255 times)

Chairman Bill · « **on:** January 24, 2012, 05:09:17 pm »

I want a decent telephoto, and the 70-300mm I have is really quite soft at the 300mm end, so I'm going to sell. Question is, what to replace it with - a 300mm f4 prime lens, or the Nikon 80-400mm zoom? At some point, I'd probably add the 1.4 TC to the 300mm, so overall the cost will be significantly more than the zoom, but if the quality is that much better ...

So, which to go with? Suggestions please.

sbay · « **Reply #1 on:** January 24, 2012, 09:49:22 pm »

I used both of those lenses and far preferred the 300 af-s over the 80-400 zoom.

Ellis Vener · « **Reply #2 on:** January 24, 2012, 11:12:09 pm »

How about the 200-400mm f/4G?

Chairman Bill · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2012, 01:08:28 am »

Quote from: Ellis Vener on January 24, 2012, 11:12:09 pm

How about the 200-400mm f/4G?

I don't want to re-mortgage the house, and I've got my moderating influence to consider. She'd not be best pleased with me spending that much.

Chairman Bill · « **Reply #4 on:** January 25, 2012, 01:09:01 am »

Quote from: sbay on January 24, 2012, 09:49:22 pm

I used both of those lenses and far preferred the 300 af-s over the 80-400 zoom.

Thanks for that. Any particular reason for your preference?

sbay · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2012, 10:04:52 am »

Even though I was using a crop camera, I was never satisfied with the performance of he 80-400mm near the long end of the range. It did not seem as sharp, was definitely slower to focus, and the VR did not work as well as I hoped. Perhaps I had a less than stellar version of the lens (I never tried another copy), but that was my experience which admittedly is just one anecdote.

Philip Weber · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2012, 10:35:51 am »

Hi Bill - I also shoot Nikon (D700 and D7000) and agree on your assessment of the 70-300. I'm not sure which body you're using but assume it's full frame.

Two options I use on both cameras:

1) The Nikkor 70-200 VR II, with the new TC-20E III

2) The Sigma 50-500mm HSM OS DG.

Assuming one is starting from scratch, the former would be approx $3k US and the latter approx $1,700 US.

I've been very happy with both.

All the best,
Phil

Rob C · « **Reply #7 on:** January 25, 2012, 11:51:16 am »

The only Nikkor 300mm I had was the 4.5IFED. I used it during my film career and realised that saving a few bucks had cost me a few bucks. I should have gone for the 2.8 version. I think that's still probably the truth, especially for anyone still working professionally.

Zooms? I only ever bought one: the 2.8/24-70 G Nikkor, and got rid of it after the first Gitzo-mounted test. Never a zoom again. Compromise, in small-format photography, is a damned sight more expensive than you might imagine at first glance.

Rob C

Chairman Bill · « **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2012, 11:53:46 am »

Phil
thanks for that. I'm using a D700, with my old D200 as a backup. The idea of an 70 or 80-200 f2.8 & a TC has occured to me as an alternative too.

Consensus seems to be to avoid the 80-400. So some progress in my decision-making at least!

bartfrassee · « **Reply #9 on:** January 25, 2012, 04:54:36 pm »

Bill, I own the 70-300VR, 300F4 + TC-14E and 70-200VRII + TC-20E III and know of a friend that his 80-400 is a little bit too soft at 400mm.

You probably should go with the 300F4 + TC-14E. Good quality, almost no need to stop down, low price, but not much flexibility (and no VR!). Of course, there are better (faster) and more expensive options ;-)

The 70-200VRII + TC-20E III works very well for me at 400mm (stopped down a little), but unfortunately this combination suffers from focus shift when stopping down at shorter focal lengths, which makes autofocus a bit problematic, e.g. at 270mm.

JohnBrew · « **Reply #10 on:** January 25, 2012, 05:04:30 pm »

I have experience with the 300 and I have a good friend who shoots the 80-400. You need the special Kirk tripod mount for the 80-400 and a good tripod. I also had the 70-200 with a teleconverter. I like them all but the zoom is more versatile. I would say it comes down to whether you are a prime shooter or not.

stever · « **Reply #11 on:** January 25, 2012, 11:06:01 pm »

before thowing the cat into the pigeons, and recommending a switch to Canon - what are you shooting at 450 to 600 mm eff?

indusphoto · « **Reply #12 on:** January 26, 2012, 01:42:22 am »

The zoom is there for its flexibility not absolute performance.

Check this link. Wide open, or stopped own, big difference even with extender.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=625&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=651&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=3

Chairman Bill · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2012, 02:21:15 am »

Quote from: stever on January 25, 2012, 11:06:01 pm

before thowing the cat into the pigeons, and recommending a switch to Canon - what are you shooting at 450 to 600 mm eff?

I'm not interested in a switch to Canon, and I'm not actually shooting anything at 450 to 600mm. A 300mm on a D700 is 300mm eff. With a later addition of a TC1.4, I'll have a 420mm.

I'll be mainly using it for wildlife photos. So a 600mm would be nice at some point no doubt, but have you seen the price of 600mm glass?

Edit: to add that the D200 will indeed give me that 450mm eff. - I'd forgotten that. I'll still mainly be shooting the D700 though

bartfrassee · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2012, 03:14:39 am »

Quote from: JohnBrew on January 25, 2012, 05:04:30 pm

You need the special Kirk tripod mount for the 80-400

The same applies to the 300F4 (especially older ones, it seems).

Chairman Bill · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2012, 03:26:05 am »

Quote from: bartfrassee on January 26, 2012, 03:14:39 am

The same applies to the 300F4 (especially older ones, it seems).

Yeah, I've factored that into the cost equation. Not cheap, are they?

bartfrassee · « **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2012, 03:34:21 am »

Quote from: Chairman Bill on January 26, 2012, 03:26:05 am

Yeah, I've factored that into the cost equation. Not cheap, are they?

There are cheaper solutions, too:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS300_test_images.html

(Personally, I bought the Kirk lens collar though)

Brian Hirschfeld · « **Reply #17 on:** January 26, 2012, 07:44:50 am »

I used to own the 80-400mm a few years ago, and it was my first extreme telephoto lens. In the end, I found myself wanting for more light and found it rather unstable to be changing focal lengths, since the lens got so much longer etc etc. If you need the ability to change your focal length in lens then its what you should get. However, I have been very impressed with the 300mm f/4 lenses. I think they are highly underrated for some reason. And since, its a prime lens, of course it should have better image quality (although I have not done extensive tests with it). I talk about them (Nikon and Canon models) a little in this article here, http://photorumors.com/2011/11/01/pdn-photoplus-show-2011-report/

also they are much smaller then the 300mm f/2.8's and which means they are nicer for traveling and carrying etc then the larger lens alternatives (I think the 300mm f4 with hood is shorter then the 80-400 but don't quote me on that) but it is definitely lighter.

Rob C · « **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2012, 02:37:12 pm »

Quote from: Chairman Bill on January 26, 2012, 02:21:15 am

I'm not interested in a switch to Canon, and I'm not actually shooting anything at 450 to 600mm. A 300mm on a D700 is 300mm eff. With a later addition of a TC1.4, I'll have a 420mm.

I'll be mainly using it for wildlife photos. So a 600mm would be nice at some point no doubt, but have you seen the price of 600mm glass?

Edit: to add that the D200 will indeed give me that 450mm eff. - I'd forgotten that. I'll still mainly be shooting the D700 though

I've also got the D700 as well as the earlier D200. I've used the D200 probably once since getting the FF, and on using the same 1.8/180mm on both, the D200 files seem quite lacking in, well, look for want of a better word, and especially in the colours which look cheapish/brash when compared with the D700.

Were I able to find a punter here in Mallorca who'd like to buy from me at a worthwhile price, I'd let it go like a shot! The hell with 'second' bodies when they are simply not equally capable.

Rob C

fotometria gr · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2012, 03:11:22 pm »

Quote from: Rob C on January 26, 2012, 02:37:12 pm

I've also got the D700 as well as the earlier D200. I've used the D200 probably once since getting the FF, and on using the same 1.8/180mm on both, the D200 files seem quite lacking in, well, look for want of a better word, and especially in the colours which look cheapish/brash when compared with the D700.

Were I able to find a punter here in Mallorca who'd like to buy from me at a worthwhile price, I'd let it go like a shot! The hell with 'second' bodies when they are simply not equally capable.

Rob C

Having quite an experience with most Nikon lenses on the range (from both the old f4.5s and both the later f4s), I would go for the earlier non AF-S f4 S/H, the reason is that the AFS is about 1/3 of a stop slower and its got a "stupid" tripod leg. There is insignificant performance difference between the two (the later is 1% better) and there is a huge price difference. The Kenko pro 300 1.4x T/C is a perfect supplement for it. The zoom is a poor lens, much worst in performance on 300 and even worst (for me un-exceptable) at 400, with what you currently own matching it below 200, it has the same "stupid" tripod leg of the 300 AF-S too. A worthless lens in MO. The 300s shine! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr

Author Topic: Nikon 300mm prime, or 80-400mm zoom? (Read 14255 times)