penghai
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #15 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?) | |
I have think this issue over and over too. Here is my observations:
1. For birding, your lenses will always not long enough, even you get a 500, there are good birds at 600. And when you get the new Canon 800, there are many good birds at 1000 or longer.
2. You will miss many shoots with a fixed prime. I think you need to think this over and over about the pros and cons of prime vs zooms. There are definitely a lot of advantages of a zoom.
3. A better way is to learn about the birds you are interested (or in your area) and know either how to attract them or approach them. So you don't really need those very long lenses which are not hand-holdable either.
4. I have shooted with Canon systems for years. The best Canon lens for hand-hold BIF is 400mm f5.6. This lens doesn't have IS either. The Canon 300 f4 IS you quoted actually focus kind slow. It's never a lens of choice for Canon bird shooters.
5. If you shoot BIF at high speed, 1/1500 second of faster, VR/IS/OS is good to have, but not really "required".
6. I think for focal length 500mm or above, VR/IS/OS is really needed for a sharp shoots. But for 400mm and below, there is a good chance you can learn to hold and shoot better w/o VR/IS/OS.
7. I'd suggest you to consider:
a. Nikon 70-300 VR. This is actually very good lens. The first day I switched back to Nikon with my new D300 and this lens and I tried to shoot flying ducks w/o any issue. It focus and track beautifully. But you cannot add a TC to it.
b. Ever consider a Sigma 120-300 f2.8? For what I read, this lens is very sharp even with a 2X TC. And you don't really need VR for 120-300, even with a 1.4TC.
c. The new Sigma 120-400 OS and 150-500 OS? I have read many posts on these 2 lenses and have seen very sharp photos from both. I certainly read many blurry photos too. Just take your time to go through the cycle: buy-test-then-return-or-keep. It may take a while to get a good sharp 150-500. But once you get it, it is even more convenient than the Nikon 200-400 VR. The Sigma 150-500 OS is my current first choice if I'm buying now. And it's hand-holdable.
8. Don't think switching to Canon will solve your problem automatically. I have bought a Canon 300 f2.8 IS about 2 years before I switched back to Nikon. The first 2 copies of my Canon 300 f2.8 IS (costing around $4000 each) cannot focus correctly either. I personally rate Canon quality control worse than Sigma. So if you jump to Canon, you need more patience to test every lenses you get there. And Canon camera bodies got even more problems in AF tracking in recent years. Anyway, do your study and good luck.
Eric.
cputeq wrote:
I really don't feel like I've talked myself out of an option -- it's just that Nikon gives us no option in this area -- why can't we admit that? My entire post was to get thoughts as to perhaps alternatives. The mentioning of AF-D not being an issue with some BIF was a great point I hadn't thought of, so was the mention of the 120-400 Siggy.
Canon 100-400 f/5.6L with USM, IS
Canon 300mm F/4 with USM, IS and their 1.4x TC
Here are two pretty good options for getting long glass with IS and a fast autofocus for under $1500.
Nikon --- Absolutely nothing approaching this area. They give you AF-S (300mm f/4 + TC) or they give you VR (80-400), but they don't do both, which is beyond perplexing. My hunch is they don't want to completely obliterate the values of the 80-400 or the 300 f/4 (or 300 f/2.8 or 200-400), which is why they haven't released a good lens that has both VR and AF-S and comes in under $2000.
|
