In addition to a new body I posted a poll on, I'm now looking at a longer reach zoom lens. 300+mm min reach. Fast focus is a plus for birds in flight and action shots. Looking at D7000 or D300s replacement if one comes avail in the next few months
70-300 VR is (relatively) cheap, light, sharp with VR . . . but as others have noted my 300 f4 (I have the 1.4 and 1.7TC) is terrific in combination with my D90
I do see the trend It could just be nerves, I'm so used to the zoom and being able to frame something just how I want it, especially at air shows. Go full for a closer shot or pull back to get some background or additional aircraft.
These were shot with my crappy no VR 70-300 (came bundled with the camera) at the Pensacola Naval Base during a blue angels practice. I took a look at the focal lengths and they range from about 180mm to the full 300mm depending on how close or far the aircraft were.
How come no 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1 with TC-14E? Much less expensive than the VR-2 version, will work just as well on D300 (I have both.) I have a Nikon 80-400mm VR and will sell it as soon as a Nikon 300mm f4 VR becomes available.
For birding at a somewhat reasonable cost I would have to also suggest the 300 f4 AFS. I am not sure if there has ever really been a single instance when I wished it could zoom out. In my experience you are always wishing for a longer lens. The primary upgrade this lens could use to enhance its usefulness would be VR.
I cannot really comment about how a 300mm prime would fare at an air show. I could certainly see where having a zoom would be preferred. The 80-200 2.8, 70-200 VR, or 70-300 VR may all be better lenses for air shows. However, if you are also wanting to do bird photography I would not expect any of these to match the 300 f4 afs in optical quality once you slap a TC on them for added reach.
I live next to a small airport. I get to walk around and shoot from the grass between the runway and taxi strip. You will probably never get that close at a airshow. Most of the pics of flying planes are with a 200/2 with a 1.7 the others are with a 500. Most have a fair bit of crop.
With a DX body for what you want to do a 300 with a 1.4 will be killer. A 70-200 with 1.4 would be my next choice but fell it would be to short on the long in. I have a 500 and wish for a 800 many times. http://s1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc490/LLondon65/Planes/
As others have mentioned I suggest the 300 f4 AF-S + 1.4TC. I use to have the 80-400 and a few months ago I decided to sell it and bought the 300 f4 and have been pleasantly pleased with the decision. At first I was hesitant to change because I didn't want to lose the extra reach but the slow autofocus of the 80-400 was becoming frustrating as I started to miss some easy captures. Until they update the 80-400 with faster autofocusing I'm sticking with the 300 combo. You get superb IQ and fast accurate autofocusing at a great price.
Two23 wrote:
How come no 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1 with TC-14E? Much less expensive than the VR-2 version, will work just as well on D300 (I have both.) I have a Nikon 80-400mm VR and will sell it as soon as a Nikon 300mm f4 VR becomes available.
LLondon wrote:
You will probably never get that close at a airshow. Most of the pics of flying planes are with a 200/2 with a 1.7 the others are with a 500. Most have a fair bit of crop.
I beg to differ, if you take a look at the Blue Angels shot, most of them are not cropped, and those that are were only minimally cropped. Most shots averaged about 250mm, a 300 prime would not have worked in this instance.
Not to throw another wrench into the mix, but I'm also thinking about the Sigma 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG APO OS HSM. Since it's designed for FF sensors I'd get over 600mm on the FL with my new DX body (when I finally decide to buy it)
Any opinions? or still better to go 70-200 with 2x TC? I've seen some great photos online from it, pretty good reviews as well. I know it focuses much faster than the Nikon 80-400. I'm not apposed to going 3rd party if it's worth buying.
(roughly)
VR2 is somewhat sharper than VR1 close to 200mm end.
VR2 has less vinetting than VR1 (more noticable on FX not so much on DX).
VR2 is a bit sharper in the corners (more noticable on FX not so much on DX).
VR2 has more effective VR than the VR1 model.
VR2 has a lower maximum magnification than the VR1 (more focus 'breathing' as you approach min. focus distance).
Ultimately the VR1 was designed when Nikon only made DX cropped digital cameras so there were certainly areas to improve optical performance for the FX sensor.
Of course I don't have any actual experience with either. I have just listened to plenty of discussion regarding both lenses. So keep that in mind.
I had a hard time voting on your lens list. I have the 70-200 VR I, which you don't list. I do have the 70-300 VR and 80-400 VR.
I've had the 80-400 for years and loved it when I first got it. Now, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, unless it was free... This lens is one of the oldest, most needing of update, in Nikon's line. IMO, it's a disgrace that they still offer it for sale at the price they ask.... It's "okay" for shooting some airshow stuff, but falls down quite a bit on the fast movers. It's also "okay" for some wildlife, until the light gets low, especially on moving targets.
I've only had the 70-300 VR for a short while, not much shutter time with it, but it seems like a pretty capable lens, lots of bang for the buck. Plus, it is very well regarded by most folks on the various fora. The only problem that I have with it is the vari-aperture limitations.
Dunno if the 70-200 VR I with a 1.4 TC would work well or not, I don't have a TC.
I can't speak to the other lenses you mentioned.
I do have 2 lenses that have worked very well for me on airshows and wildlife, the Sigma 100-300 f/4 and 120-300 f/2.8. I've had the 100-300 for many years and love it. I've had the 120-300 for 6 or 7 years and while I love the images that it can produce, it is one HEAVY lens. It's too heavy for me to use on a typical walk-around type shoot. I can hand hold it for a while, but usually put it on a monopod or tripod. To put that in perspective, I'm 60 years old and have serious back problems. YMMV Regardless, I can recommend either Sigma without reservation, for whatever that's worth.
Thanks for the input Kerry. I'm by no means a professional as you can tell by my bio, nor am I a pixel hunting sharpness nut! I want the photo to "look" sharp where i want it to be (I usually shoot with single point focus, not the full matrix) and have good color quality. This means of focusing may or may not change when I get a new body.
This lens is one of the oldest, most needing of update, in Nikon's line. IMO, it's a disgrace that they still offer it for sale at the price they ask.... It's "okay" for shooting some airshow stuff, but falls down quite a bit on the fast movers. It's also "okay" for some wildlife, until the light gets low, especially on moving targets. 