[Mike Edgeton]

Let me pose a question to all of you who do wildlife and nature photography. Which lens would you choose to carry if you could have either one but not both.

What do you think would be the advantages or disadvantages of each lens?

I would appreciate your feed back.

Thanks

Mike

[Virgil]

Hi Mike,

it depends - for a photog who´s really into wildlife / nature - the 500mm lens is a no-brainer. This people for sure have allready the other primes in their line-up (200 f/2, 300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8) and don´t care about weight, versatility and alike. These photogs have the heaviest tripods, shoot out of camouflage-tents, spend a week of holidays just to get "The" shot. I mean - people putting that much effort in their shot - won´t even consider what other photogs would cause constraints.

On the other hand for photogs like me - who shoot also(!) wildlife - would for sure opt for the 200-400VR. This lens isn´t exactly light and i think it´s close to the border of where you consider(!) to take it with you cos of it´s weight and size. But due to it´s versatility it can be used in sports, events, wildlife etc. which makes it attractive to carry with you.

So the question is - are you a more general photographer (200-400VR) or totally devote to nature/wildlife (500). The answer to this question will drive your decission.

I´m currently saving my pennies for the 200-400VR which is Ron W´s (hi Ron ) achievement. After months of constant precision bombing of my eyes with his outstanding shots done with this lens (last addition see here) i abandoned

[Mike Edgeton]

Hi Virgil

Well I would agree with your assesment of the two lenses and say I am more of a general photographer in that I photograph what I like. I used a 200-400 once for a few hours and it is heavy to carry around but a nice lens. I like my 80-400 VR I just wish it had faster focus sometimes.

Thanks

Mike

[Virgil]

Hi Mike,

so you made a decission allready - go on to use your 80-400VR and save your pennies for the 200-400VR. That will keep you busy for a while and gives Nikon time to maybe introduce a 80-400VR with better performance (improved VR, AF-S, faster) ... you never know what they´ve up in their sleeves.

[Van Hilliard]

I shoot almost entirely birds so longer focal lengths are essential. My primary lens is a 600, which I chose over the 500 because I wanted the extra length. Sometimes, I wished for a shorter focal length lens and after reading extensive reviews of the 200-400, I acquired it as well. I sometimes use it handheld, something that would be very difficult to do with the 600.
If I could only have one lens, it would be the 600, not the 500.

The story might be different if I were a general wildlife shooter whose targets often included mammals. Then I might very well settle on the 200-400 and carry the 1.4 and 1.7 converters as well. In addition, with a D2X or D2Xs, you can always use HSC if you want more "reach" so that would help overcome the shorter focal length of the 200-400 and would that lens would add a lot of versatility. On the latter point, some would argue that you could just as well shoot using the full sensor and then crop later. They are ignoring the fact that you get a considerable speed boost in HSC and that is important to me with fast-moving subjects.

It's interesting to note that on one site devoted to nature shooting, the majority of photographers use Canon. They consistently decry the lack of a lens comparable to the 200-400. A few have even acquired a D2X specifically dedicated to the use of the 200-400 VR lens. It's acquired cult/classic status already among nature photographers.

Van

This post has been edited by Van Hilliard: 10 December 2006 - 07:58 AM

[Neil Rothschild]

Just to add to Van's comments, I do some birding in an area that attracts a lot of photographers, from P&S rank amateurs to Pro's. In almost all cases, the shooters that I beleive to be serious and know what they are doing (Pro or not) are using either 500 or 600mm lenses, and the choice, I think, is dictated as much by money and how much weight they want to carry (including the larger tripod such as a 1548 for a 600 vs 1325 for a 500 in many cases).

You can usually never get close enough to a bird and the guys shooting the 600's usually have a TC14 on the end.

With that said, 600 can be too long (if you are lucky) and these guys usually have a shorter lens like a 300 2.8 or maybe a 200-400 for those "wide angle" shots.

I shoot with a 300 2.8 and TC14/17/20 and I often go home with no images because I never got close enough to shoot something worth shooting that I haven't shot before at a closer distance.

I do not often see the 500/600mm shooters doing birds in flight with those lenses. I suspect the mechanics are too difficult (size/weight trying to be agile to track a fast target), another reason why a 500/600mm is not a single elens solution to the birding problem. I think a 300 2.8 + TC17 is a great lens for that, and I back that up with a hand held 70-200VR + TC14 for birds overhead, where it is difficult to do on a tripod. My 300 does not have VR and I don't handhold it very often.

I like the ability to shoot the 300 2.8 naked wide open in low light. That was one reason I didn't go for a 200-400 VR (and cost- I got mine cheap). Balanced against that is the shots I lose because I cannot remove a TC as fast as a 200-400 VR shooter can zoom out. That is a tough decision, in my book but I am happy with the route I went based on my real world shooting results because I find the light at the end of the day is the best and often you need 2.8 to keep shooting, especially for moving subjects.

I can also shoot my 70-200 VR naked on a 2nd body and get much of the benefit of the 200-400, with the flexiblity of F/2.8 at 200 and 300mm between the two lenses, or various other focal length/apertures such as 100-280 and 420 at F/4, depending on my TC's employed. I think TCs are an important part of the mix and I probably see more long lenses with them than without them. Just some ideas to add to the mix.

Interestingly, I don't think I have ever seen a 400 2.8 at my favorite shooting site. Most people seem to go for the reach once they hit that price and size/weight level.

This post has been edited by Neil Rothschild: 10 December 2006 - 11:21 AM

[Neil Rothschild]

Let's consider what lenses just aren't up to snuff for birding. Anything up to and including 200mm's is just too short. A 300mm might work if luck and stealth are your forte. A 400mm is a good general lens for birding (zoomed or prime). So, for the really great "gotcha's" photos you are looking at 500mm-600mm. The drawback is PRICE. And the price is a measure of dedication. For myself, I could not justify that cost for this type of lens. With my style of photography I am suited for the wide angles and medium telephotos as I am more into landscape and the occasional, any more, portrait. There are times that I would love to "play" with a long telephoto, but, I can always rent one, though I never have. The other point is that I could by a whole bunch of very useful pro glass, for the money, that I would use all the time. And that is my 550 pixels worth.

Don't forget that a 300 + TC14 is a 420mm lens. A 300 + TC17 is a 500mm lens.

When talking required lenses vs required FL's it's important to make that distinction. I agree that the lens purchased is a measure of dedication (or insanity or NAS afflication, depending on how you rationalize it).

A 300 F/4 AFS is a great lens and with a TC14 or TC17 gets you in the game for about $1500. It's not perfect but it's not $5K either and I got some great images with that lens before NAS made me buy a 300 2.8. I've seen some great shots by a guy using the 300 F/4 + TC20; better shots than I have ever gotten with the 2.8.

[Dave Whiteley]

And don't forget that all lenses on the APS sized sensor behave like a 50% longer lens than those guys still using 35mm film cameras are using. So a 400mm lens on the APS sensor gives the same angle of view as the 600mm on 35mm film cameras did before.

Van's 600mm gives the same angle of view as a 900mm on 35mm film, so how many 35mm film camera men are using 900mm lenses for birding? And that is before you add your teleconverters! Ask yourselves, when I used to use a 35mm film camera for birding did I ever use a lens with as narrow equivalent angle of view as I do now for birding?

Dave Whiteley.

[Luis V.]

I'll chime in if nothing else to echo sentiment.

I agree 100% with the comments so far. If you are "dedicated" to birding then you are best served by the 500mm or 60mm primes. These lenses produce stunning results especially with the smaller species. I think there is a complaint about the the lens collar on the 600mm similar to that of the smaller focal lengths. In short, it stinks. I think both Kirk and Really Right Stuff make replacement feet. It is a shame though that on a $7,000 lens I don't get a lens support to match the absolutely superb optics.

If you are more of a generalist, then the 200-400mm is a great option and simply get some TC's. I 1.4x and a 1.7x are more than enough. The ability to zoom in this range helps. I, for example, am "desiring" a 200-400mm. Mostly for sports and some limited wildlife I go and shoot. If I do get it, it's purely for fun.