ReyGay wrote:
400mm f/4.5 isn't bad, I can live with that. EBH, you're right, 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4x is still great but the price... the new VRII is great optically - I think its a great trade off, which is carry 2 lenses: 300mm f/4 and 400m f/4.5 vs one 300mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x...damn. Ok, the hassle of selling my 300mm f/4, lol.
There was an ancient 400/4.5 Nikkor too if you go back a few years.
Hiya Mark, just some comments to think about when reading through the responses.
When somebody comments about the 500mm being long enough you need to take into account where they are shooting their wildlfie, somebody in the States where the birds are easier to approach, will find the 500mm fine, but that may not be okay for something around our woods where wildlife is a bit more scared of us.
Also the question of DX vs FX can come into it too, somebody with a D7000 with a 500mm is going to have more reach than somebody who shots with a D3/D3s/D700 with a 600mm
Also what species are you going to be photographing and where, photographing some difficult bird species like the Bitten might require a 600mm, while photographing red kites at a feeding site, 500mm can be too much.
Two British wildlife photographers worth having a look at are Andy Rouse and Danny Green, both produce outstanding work, Andy shoots Nikon and uses FX cameras with both the 200-400mm and 600mm. Danny shoots Canon and uses the 500mm, but he is using the 1D MKIV so the sensor size and pixel density might give him some extra reach, but he did use a 1D MKII in the past and that has the same pixel density of the D3/D3s and still was able to get the shot.
Also consider besides the cost difference between the 500mm and 600mm there is also the extra cost of suitable tripod head like the full wimberely. When I shot Canon I had the 500mm and used it with a Kirk ball head and sidekick, that was cheaper than the full wimberely and you could also use the ball head for other photography such as landscape.
You could always put the cash difference of the 500mm and 600mm to go our wildlife courses with the above photographers or wildlife trips abroad.
But one thing I would not worry about is sharpness, the 200-400, 400, 500 and 600 are more than sharpe enough, you should not be chossing one based on sharpenss, you should be chossing one based on the job is will be doing, range? - 600mm, flexibility? 200-400, low light? - 400mm f/2.8, range and lightness? 500mm
Best of luck, regardless of you choice you will have great time photographying with one of those beauties.
Hi jolahern, thanks for the very informative post. I certainly have considered most of the points you rightly bring up.
I live in an area of Somerset in the UK not far from Glastonbury. It is really rural here. I am fortunate to have a nature reserve right behind me and the Somerset levels right in front. We have a huge number of species here due to the different habitat. I will be trying to record this wildlife so will need a variety of kit. I am a professional photographer but my professional work really consists of photographing teams for schools etc. I also teach GCSE photography to kids who have Asperger's Syndrome for two days a week. Whilst this pays our mortgage it is not always inspiring. So, the wildlife photography is the thing that keeps my interest up. I am really starting out as we only moved here 3 years ago and I have been too busy simply trying to pay the bills!
Fortunately I have a bit of kit. I have both a D700 and D7000 so FX and DX are covered. I also have the 300 F4 AFS and the 1.4 and 1.7 TC's. I have been using these at our local reserves. The 500mm will fit my needs I think. I do have a good tripod and the Manfrotto 393 head which has been great with the 300mm plus TC. I would love to upgrade it at some point but I think it will be OK for a while. My field craft has improved and over the last 3 years my knowledge of this area has become pretty good so I have an idea of where to find the animals. So, with a bit of luck and a lot of patience I may be able to get some shots I hope I can do the lens justice.
You are not the only one who uses photography to keep sane at work
You could look at renting the lenses before you buy. Before I bought the Canon 500mm, I rented the lens from London Camera Exchange in Southampton when I lived there. Took the week off and had a good play with it to make sure. I know Lensesforhire also rent and I've had good service from them, although the cost of rent a 500mm seem to be double what I remember renting it all those years ago.
Calumet also rent and give you 50% of the rental cost back if you buy the same lens within 14 days. If there is a store near you, I'm sure you could make a deal with them, something on the lines of renting both lenses one after the other over a week and then making a decision at the end of it.
Good suggestions. Thanks. Interestingly, at Lensforhire, this is the most expensive (and popular according to the three month booking calender they provide) Nikon long lens to hire.
i bought the 500vr because of the ability to handhold it. you have to use decent technique and be relatively strong to keep it up over long periods of time, but it is doable. while i have a monopod and a tripod, i find that for most of the shooting that i do, i have to be able to go without so the 500vr works the best. it is pretty decent with the 1.7tc as others have said. i have a kinesis backpack for it which means it can come on some day hikes when i'm looking for big birds or other animals. good luck, these (both nikon and canon) are all pretty astounding pieces of glass!
EBH, you're right, 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4x is still great but the price... the new VRII is great optically - I think its a great trade off, which is carry 2 lenses: 300mm f/4 and 400m f/4.5 vs one 300mm f/2.8 and a 1.4x...damn. 
