Photographing Egrets and Redtails: old 300mm f2.8 vs the 80 - 400G f4.5 - 5.6

PeterPhamWesley

Hi everyone. This post is a little long, so I hope you will forgive me.

I am relatively new here and I thought I would ask if anyone is having similar dilemma as I. About myself, I consider my self a hobbyist and amateur photographer, I have sold a few photographs but it was for a charity. I use a Nikon D300.

Currently I have the old 80 - 400 VR lens (the old one, not the new G type) and while I have had some success with it, I'm starting to notice
that even if I try to follow telephoto rules like stopping down the f stop to f7 to f8 or shooting at shutter speeds of 1 over the focal length - the image still is soft. I know that the image can be soft at max focal length so I try to not shoot past 350mm. Doing all of this helps for stationary objects - but for faster moving objects I notice I'm having severe problems.

I do a lot of wild life. Wolves, bears, and also birds. I have noticed again and again the focus is not fast enough, I get blurry images. Now I do get a few keepers, but let say I take ten pictures of a Red Tail in flight, only 2 are acceptable and maybe 1 is good. Once in a while I get a mind blowing image but that's rare.

So lately it's been spring time, so it's hard to see Red Tails that are in the trees; so I have switched to photographing beautiful Great Egrets. (What gorgeous birds they are!) They are big and white - AND - this is important - they are often in the water in the mornings or evenings when it is dark. So when they take off from the water it's almost a magical thing to see them fly and cast a beautiful white reflection in the dark dark water. Problem is, even though the Egrets are relatively slow flyers (compared to Red Tails) I still struggle with my old 80 - 400 lens. The worse part is trying to capture them
taking off because that is one of the magical pictures with water drops in the air - problem is I focus waaaay tooo slow.

As a result I have to PRE-FOCUS on some nearby object and lock the AF with the button and then aim in front of where I think the bird will fly off too. This has yielded some moderate success (but the pictures are still soft)

So I ask all the people here: has anyone compared the speed and IQ of the new 80 - 400mm G lens compared to an older Nikon 300 2.8D Ed AF-I lens? It seems that the old used 300 2.8 are somewhat faster on the Nikon D300, but does it make a difference? And for the pros out there, do you feel that having a 300mm prime limits your ability to compose a shot (cause sometimes there maybe an interesting tree or rock you want to get into the picture)

And next question, I can hand hold the old 80 - 400mm lens for a LONG time. But is it possible to hand hold a 300mm f2.8 for like an hour's hike in the woods? I am 5 foot 6 and a somewhat skinny guy and every time I go to Adorama and try it out, it's hard for me after 10 mins. Is this something you guys can get use to over time, or is a monopod an absolute must?

Anyway thank you for reading. Even if you don't have these lens and wanted to comment - I'd love to read what your experiences are ;-)
Pete

Gareth

Well, I can get nice bird shots with my 300 2.8, but I'm far from an expert. I still haven't mastered BIF, but pre-focus is still probably you best option, maybe someone else can chime in here.

The 300 2.8G that I own focuses lighting fast, but that won't change most of the issues you have.

If an animal is moving fast you will need a fast shutter speed to capture it. Chances are anything less than 1/500 for birds will be too slow, even when they are not flying. I try to keep it at 1/1000-2000.

Next because of this limitation I often have to bump up the ISO, and on a D300 you are seriously limited in this regard. I never push my D300s past 640, and even 400 is more than I like.

The 300 2.8 has a huge advantage over the 80-400 as you can still get great photos wide open at 2.8, but as you mentioned, it's heavy. I do carry it around for an hour in the forest with little trouble, but the 80-400 looks very appealing when you have just walked up a volcano. I couldn't hold the 300 2.8 up looking for birds for a long period without a monopod (or as i do one leg long on my tripod), but carrying it with the RRS foot on is OK.

Hope this answers some of your questions.

ZSChow

Just a warning though, the AF-I 300mm f/2.8 seems to have a bit of a parts availability problem from the technicians I talked to previously,so if the focus motor goes, thats it.

PB_PM

I wouldn't touch a lens that expensive when there are no spare parts out there. Maybe go for the first gen AF-S model.

Beso

@PeterPhamWesley - My suggestion is to rent what you considering for a day or two, go out and shoot a lot of images, and then see if you are getting what you want. If not, try another lens. Once you end up with the images you want then you can make a decision about purchasing. I am currently debating between a 300mm and 400mm prime and also between whether or not I have enough use for such an expensive lens to justify a purchase. I probably will rent a time or two and see how that works.

proudgeek

I have similar experiences. I once borrowed the older 80-400 for a two-week trip to South America. I got excellent shots, even at 400mm, provided the birds were standing still (a caveat: part of this trip was to the Galapagos, where birds don't have much fear of man so they tend to sit still more than birds in other places). I shot the 80-400 on a D90 (not too dissimilar from your D300) and the focus was painfully slow. You could almost hear the little gnomes inside the lens trying to move all the elements. I'm told, although I have no firsthand knowledge, that the newer 80-400 focuses much faster and provides much better IQ. No surprise, since it's over dozen years newer and about $1,000 more expensive. Bear in mind that this lens was the first VR, so presumably Nikon has learned a thing or two about optics. I will say that the focal length of this lens and the flexibility it provided were invaluable in the field.

By contrast, I've recently picked up a used copy of the 300 f/2.8 VRII, which I don't think is the exact lens you're talking about. It is, to say the least, a stunning piece of equipment. Focus is very fast, even with a teleconverter. Image quality is excellent, even wide open. It is, however, a beast to carry. No way you're carrying this around all day and hand holding it. Six pounds may not seem like much, but after a couple of hours it may as well be a ton.

nicvanwyk

Dear Peter,

I'm considering myself to get this lens. Below is some of the most usefull sites regarding the lens that you can use to help makeup your mind.

Only two complains I've picked up about the lens is the not well designed tripod collar and the at minimum focusing distance the mm of the lens is (as reported) anywhere from 250-330mm (lens breathing). I've spoken to a lens expert and they said it is normal.

Now the other two complains is the lens weight and obviously the price.

Apart from it, it seems like a top notch lens. I'm am waiting for more formal reviews before making up my mind...

Best Regards,
Nic

Help you sort between all the google advertising hits:

Lens Reviews:
http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/05/02/lens-review-the-nikon-af-s-80-4004-5-5-6-g-ed-vr-ii-n/
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_80-400mm_f4-5-5-6G_ED_VR/
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-80-400mm-hands-on-preview-21514
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/03/quick-take-on-the-new-nikon-80-400-vr
http://scottkelby.com/2013/first-real-world-field-test-new-nikon-d7100-af-s-nikon-80-400mm-f4-5-f5-6-ed-vr-lens/
http://confoley.com/nikon-80-400-af-s-vr-review
http://www.camerastuffreview.com/nikon-lens-review/nikon-80-400mm-g-vr-review-dx
http://fritzimages.com/blog/2013/nikon-af-s-nikkor-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6g-ed-vr/15196/
http://photographylife.com/nikon-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6g-vs-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6d
http://naturpixel.com/2013/04/05/fotografias-de-muestra-con-el-nuevo-objetivo-af-s-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6g-ed-vr-de-nikon/
http://aboutphography.blogspot.com/2013/03/nikon-80-400mm-f4.html

Sample Photos:
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/nikon/1252491-quick-test-af-s-nikkor-80-400mm-f-4-5-5-6-g-ed-vr.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonrumors/8559364339/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozoni11/8619677271/
http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=248&t=3340943&m=s&s=17&last=43514842
http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=248&t=3340943&p=18
http://dcbbs.zol.com.cn/15/268_149013.html
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/lens_review/20130326_593092.html&prev=/search?q=http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/lens_review/20130326_593092.html&client=opera&hs=Nr4&channel=suggest

Forum Posts:
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bbHw?start=10
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80400vr.htm
and obviously a lot of discussion on www.dpreview.com

Consumer Reviews:
http://www.adorama.com/NK80400U.html#reviews
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/936121-REG/nikon_80_400mm_f_4_5_5_6g_ed_vr.html
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-80-400mm-4-5-5-6G-NIKKOR-Digital/product-reviews/B00BOZ1Y46/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nikon+af-s+80-400mm&source=web&cd=21&cad=rja&ved=0CDsQ7gEwADgU&url=http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://kakaku.com/item/K0000475380/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dnikon%2Baf-s%2B80-400mm%26start%3D20%26client%3Dopera%26sa%3DN%26channel%3Dsuggest%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D1077&ei=X8yYUcOuFrLe7Abim4GYCA&usg=AFQjCNE6kwoOcGM6xACH8f05rYhgIJNmVA&bvm=bv.46751780,d.ZGU

Photographic Review Site Consumer Reviews:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=445&sort=7&cat=28&page=3
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1602/cat/13

nicvanwyk

Another review came online:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-80-400-f4.5-5.6G-ED-VR-review-Nikon-s-Super-Zoom-versatility-at-a-price/Image-quality-performance

Coastalconn

I will only add a short comment since I'm in my phone. I recently got an old Tokina 300 f2.8 and shoot many if the subjects you are interested in. I can not recommend a 300 f.2.8 enough over a consumer zoom. I've been testing it with both a 1.4x and a 2x TC ( tamron and kenko).. I always shoot handheld and hike miles with it and came up with a cheap solution for carrying it. If you want more info let me know. You can check my flickr if you want.. WWW.flickr.com/photos/coastalconn. I have shot with my friends 80-400 Nikon and the AF is very slow but you can get hood results with the focus limiter...

nicvanwyk

Another review came online, for those interested in this lens...
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-nikkor-80-400mm-f-4-5-5-6g-ed-vr-ii-review-22065

Killerbob

I disagree with the folks who say the 80-400mm focusses slowly. I have had the pleasure of using this lens for a while now, and I have never found it slow. I used to use the 70-200mm also, and will never go back...

Juergen

"Now I do get a few keepers, but let say I take ten pictures of a Red Tail in flight, only 2 are acceptable and maybe 1 is good."

Peter, just to put it a bit into perspective... I would consider this keeper rate as absolutely acceptable. So please do not expect miracles if you are getting a faster focussing lens.
Jürgen

Msmoto

Action subjects, especially when the motion is unpredictable....I look for a "keeper" rate of about 5-10 %.
A "keeper" is one which is sharp, or as intended, has good tonal range, and is framed adequately for post processing. Sharp means tack sharp up to about a 3000px image. Or very very close.

NSXTypeR

What about the 70-200 2.8 with a 2x teleconverter? Wouldn't you end up with 5.6 on the long end? Would it focus slower than a 80-400mm at the long end?

Gitzo

PeterPhamWesley asks;

So I ask all the people here: has anyone compared the speed and IQ of the new 80 - 400mm G lens compared to an older Nikon 300 2.8D Ed AF-I lens? It seems that the old used 300 2.8 are somewhat faster on the Nikon D300, but does it make a difference? And for the pros out there, do you feel that having a 300mm prime limits your ability to compose a shot (cause sometimes there maybe an interesting tree or rock you want to get into the picture)

@ Peter......first; forget trying to compare a 80-400, variable aperture zoom to a f/2.8-300mm prime; there are just too many differences to be able to make a meaningful comparison. even though the 300mm prime gives up 100mm of focal length, it more than makes up for it by being faster to focus, and much "faster" exposure-wise. also......with the 300mm f2.8, you can use about 3 different TC's to extend the focal length, and still have as much (or even more) light for your exposure.

Second; here's a question that only YOU can answer; are you more concerned with, A. sharp pictures, or B. Convenience ?

Obviously, it's more "convenient" to hike around out in nature carrying only a camera body with a telephoto lens attached, and not having to drag around a tripod; Unfortunately, about 99% of all sharp pictures taken with long lenses are taken with the camera and lens on a rock solid tripod; not only that, even though high quality ball heads are just great with lenses up to maybe 200mm, they are almost useless when compared to gimbal type heads when using long lenses; Three; yes, I'm fully aware that most of the pictures of football games in Sports Illustrated were taken by a 400, to 600mm lens,with the camera on a monopod; that doesn't mean that monopods are the best "support solution" for long lenses; all it means is......you can't USE a tripod on the sidelines at a football game.

I'm all for copying people who know more than I do about "things" I'm trying to do; IMHO, the pros who make their living shooting such things as wildlife, (especially birds), and also the people who cover fast moving stuff, (such as air shows), ALL use sturdy tripods with gimbal heads. I'm fully aware that a few people get nice pictures of birds in flight, hand-held; ( I've also heard that there are a few pearl divers who can hold their breath for 5 or 6 minutes too, but I've never been able to do that, and I've yet to meet anyone who can.)

I'm only going to comment on one more thing; after-market long lenses and teleconverters; most people who aren't "rich" can't afford a Nikon long lens, especially a new one; yes, there are some very decent aftermarket long lenses; that's one place to save money; when it comes to TC's.......I'll stick to Nikon; always remember this when you need a TC; It mounts BETWEEN your camera and your lens; so you not only need it to increase the focal length........you also need it to focus and set the aperture; occasionally, aftermarket TC's fall short on one or more of these things.

PeterPhamWesley

This has been a wonderful thread packed with oodles of information!

I just wanted to thank everyone here for all the great information. After thinking about it for some time, I decided that I went with the 300mm AFS F4 lens. Haven't acquired the TC 1.4EII yet but will probably do so very soon.
Yeah F4 is a little to dark in the late afternoon but Great Egrets are big and white so it's possible to still get fairly decent images even when they are flying. But if it were some other animal in the late afternoon I think the F4 wouldn't allow enough light into the sensor.

@Gareth: I think in the future the 300 F2.8 is on my to do list. I have to work out really hard to build my upper body muscle strength first though. In the time being I will use the F4.

@ZSChow: "Just a warning though, the AF-I 300mm f/2.8 seems to have a bit of a parts availability problem from the technicians I talked to previously,so if the focus motor goes, thats it." Thanks for telling me this...cause the folks at Adorama did show me some nice AF-I 300 f/2.8 that were relatively cheap. ($1,500 and $1,700 US)

@PB_BM: Very good point. I almost did buy a used old one.

@Beso: Defiantly I will be renting the 300 F2.8 and 80 - 400mm G in the future.

@ProudGeek: The Galapagos Islands whoo hoo! "I shot the 80-400 on a D90 (not too dissimilar from your D300) and the focus was painfully slow. You could almost hear the little gnomes inside the lens trying to move all the elements." Lol so that's what I've been hearing inside the lens - gnomes!

@nicvanwky: Thank you so much for all those links!! Yes I took a look at all of them and will be going back to them in the future.

@Costalconn: that's good to hear that there are alternatives out there. I'll certainly keep that in mind in the future.

@KillerBob: I'll certainly be renting the 80-400 G in the future.

@Juergen: thanks!

@Msmoto: Oh dear 10%...(that sounds really discouraging)

@NSXTyperR: That's very interesting. I'm not a wedding photographer but I do know that the 70-200 2.8 is part of the Nikon Holy Trinity of lenses. I'm not sure.

kyoshinikon

I have back problems and I can handle my 300mm (on a black rapid rs7)

Msmoto

@PeterPhamWesley

A keeper rate of 10% on unpredictable action shots is pretty good IMO. In some instances with an 800mm on full frame if the objet moves too closely and is moving at a variable speed relative to the camera....I may have several frames which have only half a subject as I could not predict which way the bird or animal was going to move. With subjects whose rate of acceleration relative t the camera is changing, the panning motion must also increase and when shooting at 1/160, 1/250 sec, I cannot always keep up. The younger pros are much more adept at this than I am.

So, I find a 10% keeper rate is not so bad. As to the rate of great photos...like maybe 0.5% at best. Thus, of the images I have on Flickr, about 2500, I may have a dozen which I think are as good as anyone's.

haroldp

The new 80-400 is quite sharp wide open at 400mm and focuses very fast.

I f you want a premium lens for BIF and don't mind weight or cost, the 200-400mm f4 VR is probably a better choice than the 300 2.8. It is very sharp at f4, but needs the RRS long lens support for max sharpness on a tripod.

Thom Hogan has a good write up on this, and I tried it with my own 200-400 and his advice is good.

Regards .... H

nicvanwyk

Hi there,

two more great reviews came online in the past week...

http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-80-400mm-vr
http://www.camerastuffreview.com/nikon-lens-review/nikon-af-s-80-400-vr-review-fx

Enjoy taking photos!
Regards,
Nic

DenverShooter

I spoke to Nikon about support for the older 300mm F/2.8 and they said that they had parts for it and it was supported...

Denver Shooter

Photobug

I am not a bird photographer but did an extensive amount last year in February in Florida. My keeper rate ran about 10%, for fast moving objects that is pretty typical for me.

nicvanwyk

Hi Everyone,

finally one of my favourite review sites have their's online:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1602/cat/all

Enjoy taking photos!
Regards,
Nic

Phillipa

Hi I have the new 80-400G which is Ok for sitting birds or if you have long enough to get focus for BIF. It is too slow to catch most take-offs (sharper on a good shot but overall slower to focus than the Canon 100-400 which I previously used). It is pretty good in some instances but overall I would only give it 3/5. On the other hand I also just bought the Nikon 300 f/2.8 - it is superb in every respect - I do not begrudge the price at all and am thinking of selling the 80-400 as it has barely been used since the 300mm arrived. It is much easier to hand hold than I was expecting even with the 2x. It is a 5/5.

sevencrossing

Phillipa
what bodies are you using a friend has the canon 100-400 on a 5D

it is a lot slower than my 80 - 400 on a D800

these are mine take on my Nikon



( this was my first attempt a BIF. they all cropped, about 1/6 of the frame

Msmoto

@nicvanwyk

Interesting example of the combination of the D7100 and new 80-400. Nice images on Flickr. I was a bit confused by the suggestion that the combination had "good low light capabilities" as an f/5.6 lens is giving up 2 f/stops to the f/2.8 lenses.