Is there such a thing? I am ready to jump ship. Frankly I don't have enough invested in Canon. In fact I am more then a little dissatisfied with The canon service department. I have had my equipment in to Canon 6 times in the last year and each time it has come back slow and not fixed. I have to resend the equipment and then it gets fixed. Meanwhile I am without my gear for weeks. I understand equipment experiencing failures and needing repair, I do not fault Canon for that at all. I am just upset that Canon will not admit their mistake and try to make up for it (offering expedited shipping would be one thing, but they have never offered it).
Main thing I am after is good ISO performance, awesome AF abilities (AI servo and low light AF, fast at acquire focus), 400 f/5.6 lens.
Nikon has not had a 400mm f/5.6 in the product catalog since production of the manual focus AiS 400/5.6 IF-ED version ceased in the late 90's and was dropped from the product line in 2002. There has never been an autofocus 400/5.6, and I don't expect that Nikon will produce one anytime soon.
Having said that, it's generally acknowledged that the AF-S 300mm f/4 plus TC-14E or TC-14E II is an excellent 420mm f/5.6 combination (there is, as of now, no TC-14E III).
chupacabra31 wrote:
Main thing I am after is good ISO performance, awesome AF abilities (AI servo and low light AF, fast at acquire focus), 400 f/5.6 lens.
There are no 400/5.6 AF Nikkors as previously noted. Something has to give. You will not get the same AF performance with a 300/4+TC and there is a small, but apparent loss in MTF. Is there any chance you would consider a 300/2.8? The extra stop and VR open many possibilities.
EB-1 wrote:
There are no 400/5.6 AF Nikkors as previously noted. Something has to give. You will not get the same AF performance with a 300/4+TC and there is a small, but apparent loss in MTF. Is there any chance you would consider a 300/2.8? The extra stop and VR open many possibilities.
EBH
300 f/2.8 would be cool, but I don't think I can or will be able to afford that lens (I am not yet making any money off of my photography). Well anyway thanks for the suggestion, very appreciated!
EB-1 wrote:
There are no 400/5.6 AF Nikkors as previously noted. Something has to give. You will not get the same AF performance with a 300/4+TC and there is a small, but apparent loss in MTF. Is there any chance you would consider a 300/2.8? The extra stop and VR open many possibilities.
EBH
The 300 f4/TC-14 is VERY quick to focus in my use. I can't say I see any difference with or without the converter.
Sigma makes a 400mm f/5.6 with HSM focus for the Nikon F mount.
Personally I would wait for the new AF-S Nikkor 80-400 or go with the newest
Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 lens
RRRoger wrote:
Sigma makes a 400mm f/5.6 with HSM focus for the Nikon F mount.
Personally I would wait for the new AF-S Nikkor 80-400 or go with the newest
Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 lens
You're going to waiting a long time if you don't buy anything before a 80-400 AF-S.
Have you ever used the 300 + 1.4 Combo? Its as good or better than Canon's 400 F5.6 (I've used both with pro bodies).
the tokina 400 5.6 is not a bad lens for the money (very inexpensine).I sold one and immediately developed a case of sellers remorse. I like to photograph swans using two tripod mounted bodies & two teles. I did get some good shots from the Tokina. But as others have said the old standby has always been the 300mm F4/w 1.4 TC. The Kenko super tele plus pro is an inexpensive but quality TC. Take care. Bob
I think I should be more specific. It is important for the camera and lens to be able to photograph action with at least 400mm of focal length at a comparable price to the Canon Equivalent (7d + 400 f/5.6). Even if it costs a bit more that is okay, just so long as it is not substantially more.
I know with Nikon you pay more perhaps for better quality or perhaps because Nikon does not have it's tentacles in everything like Canon so they may not be able to offer the same price point. Which is fine, it is what it is and I will just have to wait till I can afford Nikon perhaps. I do know that at this point I am fed up with the Canon Service/repair department and do not want to contribute to the company any longer (it has really left a bad taste in my mouth).
Would the D700 + 300 f/4 AFS and 1.4 TC II (no TC III yet correct) be capable of great AF in order to capture explosive action.
To be even more specific do you think that combo could capture images similar to the ones on the second page here (3rd wigeon shot down, the diving red head and Pied billed grebe shots).
Thanks so much for everyone's input, very appreciated!
www.flickr.com/chupacabra31
chupacabra31 wrote:
I think I should be more specific. It is important for the camera and lens to be able to photograph explosive action with at least 400mm of focal length at a comparable price to the Canon Equivalent (7d + 400 f/5.6). Even if it costs a bit more that is okay, just so long as it is not substantially more.
I know with Nikon you pay more perhaps for better quality or perhaps because Nikon does not have it's tentacles in everything like Canon so they may not be able to offer the same price point. Which is fine, it is what it is and I will just have to wait till I can afford Nikon perhaps. I do know that at this point I am fed up with the Canon Service/repair department and do not want to contribute to the company any longer (it has really left a bad taste in my mouth).
Would the D700 + 300 f/4 AFS and 1.4 TC II (no TC III yet correct) be capable of great AF in order to capture explosive action.
To be even more specific do you think that combo could capture images similar to the ones on the second page here (3rd wigeon shot down, the diving red head and Pied billed grebe shots).
Thanks so much for everyone's input, very appreciated!
www.flickr.com/chupacabra31...Show more →
I owned this combo and just about lived behind it for a few years. the 300 alone will be faster to AF and will have better IQ without the converter in place despite what some will write.
that being said it is no slouch whatsoever in either department with the converter in place.
IQ of the naked lens is fantastic, even wide open. IMHO it was almost sharp as my 500mm VR and focused as fast.
In reasonable light i don't think the combo will hold you back, especially on a D700. Plus you'll have the option of a 300mm if need be.
I sold this lens a year or so after i bought my 500mm VR and regret doing so. It is the only lens i've ever regretted selling.
i didn't check your images on Flickr before posting.
What i see on your stream isn't what i would call explosive action and i don't know of too many lenses that would have a hard time getting those captures as long as good light is present to keep shutter speeds up.
Scott Grant wrote:
i didn't check your images on Flickr before posting.
What i see on your stream isn't what i would call explosive action and i don't know of too many lenses that would have a hard time getting those captures as long as good light is present to keep shutter speeds up.
It will give an indication of the abilities of the lens. This series was with the D3s, so take that into account. I don't want to re-post the sequence, so I'll link to a different site for the sequence of my dog running straight toward the 300 f4/TC-14.
fldspringer wrote:
It will give an indication of the abilities of the lens. This series was with the D3s, so take that into account. I don't want to re-post the sequence, so I'll link to a different site for the sequence of my dog running straight toward the 300 f4/TC-14.
The last shot of the Redhead is not explosive? What would you consider that?
I call that a duck diving. That would be more of a function of timing of the shutter release and a high shutter speed (1/1000th plus) to freeze the motion.
What i would consider 'explosive' would be a cattle egrets flight pattern at times. They maneuver like fighter jets and would be an incredible test for a lens to maintain focus on.
