p.2 #3 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
I have used the Sigma 80-400OS lens a lot and I really like it. Based on the reviews of the new Sigma lenses, I would seriously consider the 120-400OS, an excellent package for the price. If you have more money, the 200-400VR is by far my favorite...
p.2 #4 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
A good tripod and a so so lens lets you shoot sharp photos anytime of day or night whereas a fast lens with VR only gains you an hour and a bit of extra shooting compared to the slow lens. Costs a lot less too.
Don't forget, a tripod can also be used as a monopod
p.2 #5 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
HerbChong wrote:
sooner rather than later you will have to get a tripod or monopod because of weight and for no other reason. just because the D3X and 200-400 is handholdable fairly easily doesn't mean you should do it.
I'm a fairly stout guy and I work out a little, so I have no trouble hand-holding longer lenses for at least a little while. Truth be told, I mostly just use bracing of some kind (non-sandbag), perhaps a tree or log, etc. when I'm out and about, or I sit and use my knees as support.
VR helps with many things but if you want truly tack sharp images with longer lenses, you will be supported by something with VR disabled.
Herb...
I'm still going the VR / OS route, at least to try. I have the 150-500 OS Sigma coming in tomorrow -- I figured I'd give it a shot and if I don't like it very much, I'll return it and lose shipping charges but oh well.
I will probably end up using a monopod anyway with OS enabled, to give more sharper images than hand-held OS, we'll see.
Some of the 150-500 shots I've seen have been pretty nice, so I'm hoping the other 70% of the shots I've seen are from people that have no idea how to post-process
p.2 #6 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
Jammy Straub wrote:
+1
Quoted for great truth.
I love threads like this were the OP pretty much talks themselves out of all their available options...
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.
p.2 #7 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
Yes well, the AFS 300mm f/4 with VR is long overdue. This lens would fly off the shelves if/when made. The current AFS lens has great IQ and takes the 1.4 and 1.7 TCs really well, but no VR! gah!
-soapbox-
Nikon, are you listening? We want a AFS 300mm f/4 with VR!!!!
-/soapbox-
p.2 #8 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
you do not enable OS with a monopod unless it has a monopod mode. vibrations handheld have a different frequency spectrum than on a tripod and that is different from a monopod. i shoot handheld a fair amount with the D300, D2X, and D3X with the 200-400 and i get higher percentage of sharp shots with it on a gymbal head than handheld. adhoc supports with a bean bag are mostly as good provided that you have a good one handy. except for BIF, i much prefer the tripod because i can just let go and use my binoculars.
Herb...
cputeq wrote:
I will probably end up using a monopod anyway with OS enabled, to give more sharper images than hand-held OS, we'll see.
p.2 #9 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
i'd prefer a 400/5.6 VR but since i got my 200-400, i am less in need of one. for me, the 300/4 is small and light enough to rest on many supports with a beanbag to make it usable that way. however the 200-400 is enough larger that i want to get the weight off of me when not anticipating a shot.
Herb...
Avi B wrote:
Yes well, the AFS 300mm f/4 with VR is long overdue. This lens would fly off the shelves if/when made. The current AFS lens has great IQ and takes the 1.4 and 1.7 TCs really well, but no VR! gah!
p.2 #10 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
HerbChong wrote:
i'd prefer a 400/5.6 VR but since i got my 200-400, i am less in need of one. for me, the 300/4 is small and light enough to rest on many supports with a beanbag to make it usable that way. however the 200-400 is enough larger that i want to get the weight off of me when not anticipating a shot.
Herb...
If there was a good 400 5.6vr af-s in a nikon mount i would own it.
p.2 #11 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
I've been thru this decision process many times. All I can say is the 300/2.8 AF-S I, II or the newer VR version are incredible. They work great with a 1.7TC. Works well hand held or with monopod. More expensive than the 300/4 or 80-400 but worth it IMO. If you're planning on a monopod anyway (why not?), I would strongly recommend the AF-S I or II. From my experience with 3 copies of the 300/4, it's good but not worthy of as much praise as it seems to get.
p.2 #12 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
HerbChong wrote:
you do not enable OS with a monopod unless it has a monopod mode. vibrations handheld have a different frequency spectrum than on a tripod and that is different from a monopod.
Herb...
Ahh, good point. I will have to do some testing to see, but thanks for that information.
My hopes just got raised a little bit. I think I was at the motleypixel.com and saw the review images of the 150-500, and they look nice.
Of course, they are small, so it's hard to tell if they're actually sharp or not, but I'm hoping so.
The lens arrives tomorrow -- gotta love overnight shipping :-)
p.2 #13 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
I shoot the Sigma 150-500mm on a D300 body and absolutely love this lens. It is not too heavy and good reach. I have hand held shots as low as 1/200 with good technique. Here is an example of this lens. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/3300762936_38cd67c8bf_o.jpg
p.2 #16 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
cputeq, I seem to have missed the body you are using. I use the 80-400 VR with a D3 and all of my BIF are done at 1/1250 or higher. Also the lens is best at 1 to 2 stops off wide open. I do Sea Gulls this way and birds the size of Crows or larger. When trying to get Sparrows I find the nest and pre-focus to get then in flight.
If you have a body that allows AF tuning that will help this lens both with contrast and sharness. It is very sharp when used correctly. The lens at 375 is as good as the 300 f4 but you do need to know how to use it.
VR is good on boats or in a car or for low light stuff but forget it for BIF.
When you use a telephoto the shutter should be at least at the reciprocal of the focal length. That will give the best sharpness.
Jim
p.2 #17 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
cputeq wrote:
I'm a fairly stout guy and I work out a little, so I have no trouble hand-holding longer lenses for at least a little while. Truth be told, I mostly just use bracing of some kind (non-sandbag), perhaps a tree or log, etc. when I'm out and about, or I sit and use my knees as support.
I'm still going the VR / OS route, at least to try. I have the 150-500 OS Sigma coming in tomorrow -- I figured I'd give it a shot and if I don't like it very much, I'll return it and lose shipping charges but oh well.
I will probably end up using a monopod anyway with OS enabled, to give more sharper images than hand-held OS, we'll see.
Some of the 150-500 shots I've seen have been pretty nice, so I'm hoping the other 70% of the shots I've seen are from people that have no idea how to post-process ...Show more →
Let me know how it works. I am looking to get one, but if the IQ is better at 400mm with the nikon than at 400 with the siggy, I will shell out the extra cash and go with the nikon.
p.2 #18 · The *cheap* Nikon long-lens problem (Solved?)
Kane,
To be perfectly honest at first I was disappointed with the lens until I found the sweet spot for it. I find that shooting at F8 and keeping the shutter speeds up this is a fantastic lens. No it is not a Nikon but the price of a 500mm with VR is 8X higher. Is it a great lens for the price, YES. Also another key feature is once I tried Capture NX I found PP to be much better than CS3. Any in camera settings seem to be reset to neutral in RAW and they are saved in Capture NX. I do love this lens and would buy it again and again. Prob 8x before I could afford the Nikon 500mm. Plus you get Zoom at half the weight.
Joe
p.2 #20 · 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.
