I am almost ready to make the big jump and I am still hesitating...

I am looking for a "high-end" ZOOM for wildlife and sports, with possibilities to get decent/good pictures @600mm.
I have tested all possible combinations of Nikkor lenses during a recent pro-tour (200f2VR, 300f2.8VR, 200-400f4VR with and without 1.4 and 1.7TCs to come to the conclusion that for my kind of photography I needed a zoom).
The first conclusion was simple: go for the 200-400VR - but I also realized that the lens was extremely heavy and that my back would hurt if I have to hike in the mountains to shoot wildlife (even to carry it in my already heavy backpack).
I have been looking for other solutions and I have only found the Sigma 120-300 2.8 +1.4 and 2.0 TCs. The lack of VR shouldn't be a problem with the high ISO capabilities of the D3, and many people report good quality pictures. However, I have seen less convincing pictures. The 300mm2.8 capability is also very interesting for sports.
The Sigma is also lighter and shorter, which would make it easier to carry and to use with my back problems.

Money is not really the issue here, but spending a fortune on a lens I won't carry during my trips does not really make sense.

Any suggestion ? This is not a simple what lens should I buy next question... I am looking for real life experiences of people carrying this kind of lenses the whole day (next to a backup body and a few other serious lenses of course), to see what I can expect (from a practical aspect and IQ aspect)

Thanks in advance for any relevant feedback

Guy

Guy,

I have lower back problem so I understand what you are going through. Weight is the main issue I have with the 200-400 VR too. I had the 200 and 300 VR and I thought they were pretty heavy. I actually did not want to hike with the 300 VR when I was in Sequoia National Park (with the D200). I also had the 200mm VR and I left that one behind for weddings too after one day of testing. I bought it for wedding work but sold it due to weight. Now it may be different because do wedding for a living so I am willing to lug it around. But these lenses + D3 can get pretty hefty - I feel it even with the 70-200 VR around my neck all day.

You can do what I do and get the 200mm F2 VR. Spectacular lens with VR @ F2. With the 2x TC you will get 400 F4 VR. I asked someone directly about their experiences with the TCs on the 200-400 and it appears that the 1.4 TC is very good but not so with the 1.7. I have seen the raw and the fur on the birds are pretty "smudge" but still good if you really need that extra reach. He also indicated that the 1.7 and 200-400 is hopeless for BIF and should only be use for stationary or slow moving objects in good light. Whichever TC you use I still don't think it is long enough.

The 120-300 is not so bad but without VR the chances of getting sharp images are probably lower than VR lenses. I handheld this lens for less than an hour and have no desire to hand hold it after that. I have not tried it with the TCs yet. I liked the IQ but some how I just don't see it being as good as Nikkor 300 VR prime. Maybe I have been spoiled with all Nikkor IQ.

The only long lens I actually really like, in all honesty, is the 80-400 VR. If you learn to work around its flaws it is a great lens.

I think I might get the 120-400 OS or 150-500 when they come out (not sure which one yet - have to look at IQ) for travel. I am willing to sacrifice a bit of quality for size, weight and price. Otherwise, I hope Nikon comes out with an 80-400 AF-S or I will just buy another AF-D version. I will keep the 200mm F2 VR when I don't mind the weight.

I hope that helps.

Hi,

If money is not an object, get either the Canon 400 F5.6 lens with a Canon D40 body (or the MKIII); or (preferred) get the 400 DO lens with any Canon body. I am a Nikon person, but I have the latter set-up (both the 400 DO F4 and the 400 F5.6) and both are wonderful lenses.

Nikon does not have an adequate 400mm lens that does AF and does well with a TC...the 100-400 zoom is slow to AF and does not do well with a TC (image quality wise). Nikon is deficient in the 400mm area compared to Canon - specifically for a portable, lightweight, quality lens that will AF. Sorry, the 200-400 zoom is just too big and heavy...and for most wildlife photographers, the short end of the zoom is not often used.

The 70-200VR is a great lens - decent size and weight. It works fine with the TC14 and TC17 - not as great with the TC20 but it's given me shots I wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

I HAVE a 200-400 and yes, it is a bit much to go lugging around backcountry. I went through this last vacation. It's fine to grab from the car but you don't want to do 5 miles backcountry with this. I have used the 1.4 TC regularly with this lens, and gotten away with the 1.7 in good light but focusing can become erratic or impossible as light falls off. You CAN use a 2.0 if willing to manually focus - though IQ does go down.

BTW - my main 'carry' selection was a Tokina 12-24, Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4, 70-200VR 2.8 with TC's and the 200-400 in the car. I had a Tokina 80-400 picked up used for an easier 'carry' lens alternate. Convinced me that smaller mand lighter has much going for it.

I am awaiting the new Sigma zooms 120-400 and 150-500 and hoping that rumors about an updated Nikon 80-400 are true. The 80-400 in its current form is slow focusing - a problem for me in going after wildlife.

I expect there are a number of people waiting for reviews on these lenses - in exactly the same circumstances.

Buy all four Guy... and give me the three you like least. That will fit in very well with the "money not an issue" theme!

Seriously, it's a question I've been pondering a lot lately too... although the big difference for me is that money is a HUGE issue and I'm just not sold on any of them. What I would honestly bite on is a Nikon 100-300mm f2.8 VR that's sharp as a tack wide open even at 300mm. I want the flexibility of a zoom in this range, and a lens that doesn't fall off the table after 250mm or at f2.8. The Sigma is likely the closest thing to it at this point, unfortunately, but it still isn't perfect, and I'm less likely to trust the AF 100% even though in good light it's said to be very good.

I love the 70-200VR and it's my workhorse, but it too isn't perfect. It's good, but not perfect at f2.8. It's ok, but definitely weaker at 200mm than at 100mm. These things are to be expected in compromises and laws of diminishing returns obviously in creating a very versatile zoom lens.

I'll likely spring on the first fantastic deal I see on the 120-300mm, or if Nikon revamps the 300mm f4 AF-S with VRII as some rumors suggest, I'd also consider that one. In the meantime, I'm gonna sit here and whine and moan that nobody in the R&D / design world has created the perfect longer solution for me... yet.

dj dunzie wrote:
Buy all four Guy... and give me the three you like least. That will fit in very well with the "money not an issue" theme!


Can I borrow one of them?

Now if money is no issue, hire somebody to tote your gear.

Guy,

I'm with DJ, a Nikon 100-300mm f/2.8 VR would be perfect. I considered the Sigma 120-300 but decided it was too much money and I've been making due with the 70-200VR + 1.7 TC. Not the fastest solution, but good enough since I can bump ISO a little. I still want more reach and may spring for a 300 f/4 AFS. I need a micro lens first.

Have you tried the Sigma? What about the 300 f/4 with a TC?

Andre

Hello Guy,
I shoot canon... but long for the days that I was a Nikon shooter... hopefully allows me to engage in this discussion .

My wife and I currently own three lenses that overlap the range that you are seeking. We have the Sigma 120-300 f2.8HSM, Canon 300 f2.8IS, and Canon 300 f4L. After purchasing the 300 2.8IS I thought I would sell the Sigma, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. The 120-300 f2.8 is an incredibly flexible lens. We used it quite a bit during our last trip to Costa Rica and the US National Parks, and will be bringing it to Africa this summer. While it is not as sharp as the Canon 300 2.8 @ 2.8, it is as sharp as our 300 f4L @ f4!

Finally, we will be using the 120-300 f2.8 lens paired with a 1.4x sigma converter while on Safari... I am always impressed with the quality of the lens... but am also very glad to have the Canon 300 f2.8L in my bag too!

below... shot w/ 20D and 120-300f2.8 @ 3.2

If you are looking at a light weight lens and if you can do with the loss of a couple of stops how about the 300 f4. I have the 300 f4 and 2.8. Days when I know I will not need the 2.8 I carry the f4.
Lee

Weight is not that much of an issue, you'll just have to remove other stuff from your already heavy backpack. If I were shooting wildlife, I'd get the camera, 200-400 and a standard/wide lens and that's it. Not that much weight.

Getting up to 600mm is a bit tricky. The Bigma or the new Sigma 150-500mm might be your best options to get close to that for a reasonable price/weight trade off. Or a 200-400 with a TC - just leave everything else you don't need at home. A camera, the monster lens and a standard zoom or a wide angle, as panos.v says.

Gug: I do not know the type of photography you have in mind but for the casual sports and wildlife shooter like me the 80-400 AF, VR lens has served me well.
I know that Nikon has been working in updating the technology for this lens and I have heard that a new VR will be incorporated along with AF-S. Maybe it is the lens you need although I imagine the new VR will make it a little bit heavier although not in the same league as the 200-400.
Hope this helps.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

Hi Guy

Check out the photos on this site, most of his work is with the 300 f/4.
You could always get one of those and a D300 for the extra reach and the improved AF system over the D200. Not speaking from experience but I have read that it also works excellent with the 1.4 TC and good with the 1.7 TC. The 300 f/4 is what I am saving up for now, good luck with your choice and I look forward to your photos.

Dan Bellyk

Since money is no issue, I'd suggest you to consider:

1. either 300 f4 plus 1.7TC or 80-400 VR.
I do not have 80-400. But I do have a Nikon 300 f4 that's so sharp even with the nikon 1.7 TC II. This combo (Nikon 300 f4 AFS + 1.7 TC) gives you 300 and 500 mm (400mm too,just add a 1.4TC) and is more versatile than my previous Canon 400 f5.6 + a 1.4 TC as the Nikon 300 f4 AFS can focus much closer, focus as fast, and the Nikon IQ is better.

2. Then add a Nikon D300.
This gives you extra 50% of focal length to use and it's lighter than D3.

Eric.

gugs wrote:
I am almost ready to make the big jump and I am still hesitating...

I am looking for a "high-end" ZOOM for wildlife and sports, with possibilities to get decent/good pictures @600mm.
I have tested all possible combinations of Nikkor lenses during a recent pro-tour (200f2VR, 300f2.8VR, 200-400f4VR with and without 1.4 and 1.7TCs to come to the conclusion that for my kind of photography I needed a zoom).
The first conclusion was simple: go for the 200-400VR - but I also realized that the lens was extremely heavy and that my back would hurt if I have to hike in the mountains to shoot wildlife (even to carry it in my already heavy backpack).
I have been looking for other solutions and I have only found the Sigma 120-300 2.8 +1.4 and 2.0 TCs. The lack of VR shouldn't be a problem with the high ISO capabilities of the D3, and many people report good quality pictures. However, I have seen less convincing pictures. The 300mm2.8 capability is also very interesting for sports.
The Sigma is also lighter and shorter, which would make it easier to carry and to use with my back problems.

Money is not really the issue here, but spending a fortune on a lens I won't carry during my trips does not really make sense.

Any suggestion ? This is not a simple what lens should I buy next question... I am looking for real life experiences of people carrying this kind of lenses the whole day (next to a backup body and a few other serious lenses of course), to see what I can expect (from a practical aspect and IQ aspect)

Thanks in advance for any relevant feedback

Guy

Let's put this in perspective. The 200-400 weighs less than a gallon of water. I am 56 years old and I'm not very physically fit but when the day comes that I can't carry a 7 pound lens in a back pack (and yes, I have back problems including degenerative disk disease and arthritis), that's the day I need to retire to the rocking chair. Pare down your nonessential gear and take only the things you need. As a nature photographer the main thing I need is quality glass.

I.ve $5000 bucks burnin' a hole in my pocket for a new lens .. I looked at the 500 Sigma ..... nice ........ an 800 Sigma on Ebay .. very nice and only 3500 ......

then I recalled that when I did Yellowstone last Sept, Merritt Island this past Feb .. what I have works very well ....

IF N E THING .. my D300 with a new Nikon 300 f4 and the 1.7 tc off my 70-200mm vr - in fact, I'm gonna sleep on this and if I feel as good tomorrow as I do about this combo today, shoot bh an order -- once it comes back in stock !!

Good luck with your decision !

I second the suggestion to get the 200-400 and cut other gear from your backpack. Maybe consider something smaller like the Think Thank Glass Taxi.

Your D3, D40x, and two or maybe three lenses along with the 200-400 should fit in one.

If I were in your situation I'd be tempted to just take the 14-24, a 50mm, buy a 180mm(for medium tele and macro), and the 200-400.

panos.v wrote:
Weight is not that much of an issue, you'll just have to remove other stuff from your already heavy backpack. If I were shooting wildlife, I'd get the camera, 200-400 and a standard/wide lens and that's it. Not that much weight.

This is what i would do as well.

Guy,

Everyone is different, but I look at it this way. If I am going somewhere I can set up to watch for a while to take some long range shots, then I lug along the 600 f/4 (which, at 13 pounds for the AF-S version I of the lens, I believe is significantly heavier than the 200-400.) If I'm going to be walking around a lot and want to be mobile, I'll either take the 300 f/4 (possibly with TC's) or the 70-200 with the 1.7X TC. I lose quite a bit in range and IQ, but at least I can handle the hike easier.

Maybe you should consider the 200-400 along with the 80-400 (or similar lens) for carrying when you need to. If all your uses for the lens need you to be mobile and you don't want to carry the 200-400, then I'd save your money. I was impressed enough with how well the 600 worked that I'm willing to make that sacrifice when it is called for as nothing else I've ever used compares to it. If I'm not going to be in an area with a stable platform or I simply can't handle the weight (25+ pounds with tripod, head and camera) then I pick a lighter setup. I might consider the 80-400 myself, hopefully after they update the lens with faster AF and newer VR. It would make a great lightweight kit combined with the 16-85 VR lens!

That might not be what you want to hear, but it works for me. Reading the other posts, it sounds like others handle this in a similar way.

David

eaglewolf wrote:
........ I might consider the 80-400 myself, hopefully after they update the lens with faster AF and newer VR. It would make a great lightweight kit combined with the 16-85 VR lens!

That might not be what you want to hear, but it works for me. Reading the other posts, it sounds like others handle this in a similar way.

David

This is the exact combo I'm seriously considering right now, the 16-85 & 80-400. I have the 18-200 right now. I sold my 12-24 and 80-400 to support another hobby (hunting with my dog, i.e. shotgun) and have been missing the 80 - 400. I still have my 10.5 fisheye too.

Hopefully Nikon is going to add VRII and AF-S to the 80 - 400 and I'll be all over that. In the meantime, I have looked off and on at buying the 300 f4.

So if Nikon would hurry up with the update for the 80-400 my decision would be made.

Hey Guy, here's a great group of graphs depicting Nikon's current lens inventory with some suggested lens combos:

Nikon Lens Graph

Attached is my favorite handheld 80-400 shot:
D100, 1/160, 400mm, 800 iso, f5.6

DGC1 wrote:
Let's put this in perspective. The 200-400 weighs less than a gallon of water. I am 56 years old and I'm not very physically fit but when the day comes that I can't carry a 7 pound lens in a back pack (and yes, I have back problems including degenerative disk disease and arthritis), that's the day I need to retire to the rocking chair. Pare down your nonessential gear and take only the things you need. As a nature photographer the main thing I need is quality glass.

:o) guy leave your pda, symban phone, gps, p&s, leatherman, behind and take the good glass. if you can afford it and can use it your not going to regret it, you haven't in the past have you?

louis fusco wrote:

:o) guy leave your pda, symban phone, gps, p&s, leatherman, behind and take the good glass. if you can afford it and can use it your not going to regret it, you haven't in the past have you?

Keep the leatherman handy though.

NightOwl Cat wrote:
louis fusco wrote:

:o) guy leave your pda, symban phone, gps, p&s, leatherman, behind and take the good glass. if you can afford it and can use it your not going to regret it, you haven't in the past have you?

Keep the leatherman handy though.

well some of the gear forum guys might be packing a 9mm too ;o)

louis fusco wrote:
NightOwl Cat wrote:
louis fusco wrote:

:o) guy leave your pda, symban phone, gps, p&s, leatherman, behind and take the good glass. if you can afford it and can use it your not going to regret it, you haven't in the past have you?

Keep the leatherman handy though.

well some of the gear forum guys might be packing a 9mm too ;o)


45 cal ... more stopping power!