Chris_88 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Two Long Lens Setup for D500: Recommendations Please | |
OwlsEyes wrote:
Hello Chris...
I am a pretty avid wildlife photographer and shoot a mix of a mammals and birds. I am not into the smaller birds (warblers, vireos, etc...), as I prefer to shoot similar species as you... cranes, herons, owls, and grouse. In addition, I photograph a lot of mammals. Prior to my current lens set, I relied on the 200-400mm VR1. While this was a great lens when shot within 40M, it did see a bit temperamental when my subjects were a a distance. The problems were quite unpredictable... there were times when the lens was sharp at 100M and time when it wasn't. I chalked all of this up to atmospheric interference and user error.
During the summer I needed a lens that I could use while on a kayak. In addition, I will be heading to Vancouver Island next year to photograph whales, seals, etc.. on a workshop. This an 8 day trip, small groups w/ lots of work from a zodiac. Knowing that I'll need to do quite a bit of handheld work, I hoped the 200-500VR would be close to the performance of the 200-400mm lens. Long story... longer, well it turns out that the 200-500VR was amazing from the kayak.. so much so, that I suddenly was conflicted about my 200-400mm lens. While it is a stop faster, it is very heavy and bulky. In the end, I sold my 200-400VR and flipped the money into the Nikon 300mm f2.8 AFS-II. While this lens does not have VR, it is relatively light (the lightest 300 f2.8 since the manual focus days). It is optically the sharpest lens in my bag and pairs nicely with a 1.4x lens. When shooting flying subjects, the 300 f2.8 and D500 tracks better than I cold have expected. What's more, you can get these for about $2400 US in Ex+ condition... only $400 more than the PF lens which will not be as sharp.
So... I'm not sure this answers your question, but it is an option to consider. If your 200-500mm lens is good enough when you need 500mm, then you might consider keeping that and add a versatile, super sharp and relatively portable 300 f/2.8 to your kit.
cheers,
bruce...Show more →
Thanks, Bruce. I hadn't thought about earlier version of the 300 2.8, thinking they were even heavier than the vr ii. You're talking about this version, right? 2.56 kg sure sounds better than 2.9kg. Any ideas how long Nikon will service these older lenses?
|