What is the best lens prime or zoom for wildlife and bird photography for an FX body Nikon?

Golf007sd

Though I have not targeted shooting a lot of BIF, I would like to share with us all what I having found to be a key factor in the shooting such a subject. After examining many of the images Coastalconn has shared with us, I have notice that most of his image are shot between the range of f/6.3-f/8.0. Thus, I would argue that the amount of loss in image sharpness will not be that greatly affected, if the end user decides to use a teleconverter. With the right shutter speed and the correct angle of light hitting the bird...you will be able to get an amazing image.

By all means have a look at Kristofer (a.k.a Coastalconn ) Flickr page and study this image and then invest in the equipment.

Of course for general usage, 70-200 f/2.8 should be a higher priority item than 80-400.

+1

sevencrossing

I suppose it depends on what you shoot and in what lighting conditions
I am new to wild life photography but I have found the 80 -400 very useful, I cannot afford the 200 -400 f 4 or the 400 f2.8
it is certainly much much better than the 70 -200 + 2 x TC
and although I still have a 70 -200 f 2.8 I have not used since I bought the 80 -400

ChasCS

What ever you do, don't try this...

WestEndBoy

I am going to google "Safari Safety" and "Safari Accidents".

Photobug

I suppose it depends on what you shoot and in what lighting conditions
I am new to wild life photography but I have found the 80 -400 very useful, I cannot afford the 200 -400 f 4 or the 400 f2.8
it is certainly much much better than the 70 -200 + 2 x TC
and although I still have a 70 -200 f 2.8 I have not used since I bought the 80 -400

The 1.7X TC is much better than the 2X on the 70-200mm lens. Yea, I know then it's not equal to the 200-400mm lens.

autofocus

I own the 70-200VRII and the new 80-400G. I love the 70-200 for everything from portraits to action photography. The only limitation is reach. I've tried it with my TC-17E and it's so-so in my opinion. Now, the 80-400G. It's not a lens I'm going to use for portraits. I mount it to my D4 for action photography. Variable aperture isn't a problem since I'm usually shooting at f8 minimum for more DoF. The D4 has no problem with higher ISOs so I can keep shutter speed where I need it. Focus is as fast as my 70-200. I have even mounted my TC-17E for shots on tripod (650mm equiv) with great results. So, my advice to you is:
1. consider your budget
2. decide if you'll need 200mm, 400mm, or longer at a moments notice.
3. decide whether you'll be carrying the camera/lens combo for extended periods of time.
4. decide whether the combo will be primarily mounted on a mono/tripod.

I shoot motocross and can't praise the 80-400G enough. It covers the the same focal length as the 70-200 with the bonus of 400mm when I need it. I can carry it all day long and don't have to change camera/lens when a subject moves to/from me. Don't discount the ability to zoom in or out for fast moving situations.

That said, I would love to have a 300mm prime or the 200-400mm zoom as well but for now my 80-400G does me proud at 1/3 the price of the others.

proudgeek

I just spent 10 days in Costa Rica shooting with a D800 and a 300 f/2.8 and a TC1.4. Great combo and easy to handhold. Prior to my going I spoke to a Nat Geo shooter who recommended the 1.4 over the 1.7 or the 2.0 for the reason that you're often working with very little light in those environments and you'll want every stop you can get. I was often shooting at ISO 1600-2500, even with a "420mm f/4." However, I was pretty pleased with the results I got. I literally just returned yesterday so everything is pretty fresh in my mind. Feel free to PM me if you're interested.

Juergen

I just spent 10 days in Costa Rica shooting with a D800 and a 300 f/2.8 and a TC1.4. Great combo and easy to handhold. Prior to my going I spoke to a Nat Geo shooter who recommended the 1.4 over the 1.7 or the 2.0 for the reason that you're often working with very little light in those environments and you'll want every stop you can get. I was often shooting at ISO 1600-2500, even with a "420mm f/4." However, I was pretty pleased with the results I got. I literally just returned yesterday so everything is pretty fresh in my mind. Feel free to PM me if you're interested.

Why PM you...hope you are posting some photos :-)

Jürgen

Nuke

Am I missing something in this discussion? When people talk about TC-20E are they talking about the II or the III version? Neither will improve the IQ but the III is generally better on most lenses.

I like this discussion because I'm going through some of same decisions as the OP. I'm leaning towards the 200-400 because it seems it is better with the 1.4x TC and about equal with the 1.7x TC to the new 80-400.

To make this even more complex, I'm thinking about using it on a Nikon 1 V2 to get small birds. 1-2 inches in size. A tripod setup and I'll probably need the flash extender.

sevencrossing

. I'm leaning towards the 200-400

this seems be used by a lot of professional wild life photographers and if you can afford it, probably the one to go for
the big advantage of the 80 -400 is that it is cheaper and has VRIII

henrik1963

I sometimes wish I had something longer than my 70-200 2.8. I have been playing around with a TC 2III. So far it has not been perfect but better than a lot of folks suggest in reviews. I need to play some more - stopping down helps a lot.

If a safari is a once in a lifetime event maybe buying a Nikon exotic lens is going a bit overboard? How often is the lens going to be used after the trip?

For most of my day to day shooting the 70-200 is close to perfect and far more useful to me than a slower 80-400.

Maybe it is worth to consider the longterm use of a lens before buying? I know I´m being boring right now :-) but I think it will take some time to get good pictures with longer lenses. If you don't have the time to get used to a long lens before you go you might be better of with something shorter?

WestEndBoy

If a safari is a once in a lifetime event maybe buying a Nikon exotic lens is going a bit overboard? How often is the lens going to be used after the trip?

For most of my day to day shooting the 70-200 is close to perfect and far more useful to me than a slower 80-400.

Maybe it is worth to consider the longterm use of a lens before buying? I know I´m being boring right now :-) but I think it will take some time to get good pictures with longer lenses. If you don't have the time to get used to a long lens before you go you might be better of with something shorter?

Maybe.......but have you seen the Bokeh from a 400 2.8 wide open????? I borrowed one for my D800. OMG!!! It was love at first site!!!!

And I think I would enjoy shooting BIF and other wildlife. The 200-400 F4 is probably a little better for wildlife, but there are always tradeoffs.

In any event, I won't be going on a safari in the next 5 years. My 8 year old is not old enough to appreciate it. The love may wear off by then.

henrik1963

@jshilckele: I think a 400 2.8 would look good on my D800 :-) And I am sure the pictures would look stunning too. But as I am not on the Fortune 400 list I have to decide what I do with my limited funds :-) My dream is limited to a 300 2.8 - not going to happen anytime soon as it will limit my travel budget. What good will a Nikon exotic lens do if I have to take pictures of my back yard?

I talked to a birder when traveling in Canada. He had to buy his wife expensive rings and clothes just to shut her up :-) Birding is that expensive he said. So I am afraid that if I get into that game I will end up with a 800mm and a well dressed GF - but no car :-)

WestEndBoy

Henrik1963, how does it look on MY D800? Perhaps better if the picture was not so soft?

Rings and clothes for you wife eh? Luckily for me, it was "If I buy the 85 and 135, I can take great pictures of you!" Worked like a charm. She already likes the 58 so that will be an easy sell.

WestEndBoy

And here is the guy that thinks he might have sold it to me. He might be right, though he will need to be patient. Look at that washed out background, which is similar to the one above! Also very sharp.

So a safari and birding will be my rationale excuse. The delicious bokeh is my emotional excuse.

I also tried the 200-400, but that left me a little cold. Perhaps a camera store is not a fair test.

henrik1963

@jshickele: LOL - That worked for me too when I got: 14-24 2.8 + 24-70 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 + 105 2.8 + 50 1.8 and a few other things like carbon tripod. But it will work no more I,m afraid :-)

Maybe your wife will end up being well dressed to :-)

But damn that lens looks nice - and it can make nice pictures of smiling salespersons :-)

And I´m sure it can take sharp pictures of unhappy GFs too :-)

Msmoto

OK, as there seems to be some humor here…..take your pick:


The top lens is the 800mm f/5.6 courtesy of DenverShooter. The lower is a 400mm f/2.8 with a TC-20EIII

WestEndBoy

Nice! Which ones are those?

henrik1963

You will belong to a very exclusive club if you own this pair :-) And your wife will have a fur coat + a diamond ring + having you eat grass for a very long time :-)

Photobug

Msmoto, both lens are great. How long did you have use of that 800mm lens from DenverShooter? Oh how I wish I could afford one of them.

Fix the typo, sorry DenverShooter.

Msmoto

I did not use it, but, several played with it. While I can see it for shooting wildlife out in the open, racing vehicles, and probably a lot of other interesting images, as long as I have my 400 I do not think I will get one anytime soon. I have seen several images DenverShooter has shot with the 800 and they are razor sharp.

WestEndBoy

I have to wonder how often a lens longer than 400mm (say) is not a practical benefit because of hazy air, especially on warm days.

Juergen

I have to wonder how often a lens longer than 400mm (say) is not a practical benefit because of hazy air, especially on warm days.

Very rare occasions.
Wildlife photography is all about getting as close as possible to your subject. The working distance is driven by your ability to camouflage, the sensitivity of your subject to noise and smell, the size of you subject and the composition you want.
It is not driven by how long your lens is. A long lens makes your life a bit easier. But it is not a tool to extent your working distance to a point where haze or flare would matter.
In wildlife photography you are using the long lenses to increase the image quality and detail.

A paparazzi in his belly boat on the coast at Monaco is increasing his working distance with an 800mm lens though. :-)

Jürgen

WestEndBoy

I used to shoot 6 inch gongs at 1,000 yards with my first Nikon (bolted to a 7mm Remington Magnum). My performance was greatly influenced by "seeing conditions". I imagine it must effect photographic performance as well.

I am shooting with different Nikons today.

adamz

let me add my 2c, as I was one of the lucky ones who used the 800/5.6. It's an awesome lens for wildlife but not for safari. it's way to long. for safari you need no more than 400-500mm max as the animals will basically surround you. as for amazon.... well, I wouldn't go with anything longer than 400mm unless you need some closeups - which, IMHO, are not the way why you go to Peru. IIWY, I would go for either the new 80-400/vr or 300/4 af-s. in both cases I would throw a 1.4tc in the bag, just in case. however, what's more important for both of the situation you will face, I would go with two camera setup, as you don't want to change the lenses neither in the jeep nor on a boat.