Super Telephoto Lens Conversation

haroldp

Thank you for the reference, It is very useful.

The Photography Life tests show the 300mm F4 1.4x TC at 420mm) and the 80-400mm VRII at 400mm as equally sharp center and midframe at F8 which is how I use it. As I always use the 80-400 for relatively distant objects, the focus breathing is not an issue for me.

I may also have a very good sample of the the 80-400G because mine is very good at F11 with tce14.

My best prime comparison is to the 400/2.8, which is clearly better than the 80-400, and clearly better with 2X extender than the 80-400 without extender.

Based on your reference, I may try the 300/4 since my wildlife shoots are almost always at full FL and good light where I turn VR off.

As always, better is relative to the mission.

Regards ... H

TomB

This is a shot from a boat in not so great light from a Pelagic birding trip I did 2 years ago.
D300, 300mm f4 w/1.4 tele.
ISO 200 1/1600 f5.6

Photobug

+1 PB_PM - you are correct about the 300mm F4 and the comparison of the 80-400mm. When I was reading Nasim Mansurov's comments on the 300 f4 he drew that comparison to the 80-400. Wound up reading both of his reviews and the 300 + 1.4X TC is sharper than the the 80-400.

Thanks @heartyfisher and @WestEndBoy for the response on "lens breathing".

sevencrossing

while the 300 + 1.4 TC might have better reach than the 80- 400
the 80 -400 has better whatever the opposite of reach is

haroldp

On a whale watching trip out of Maui, a young humpback got so close to our boat, my tele rig could only get eyeballs. I wound up shooting with a compact cam I had in my pocket.

When birding, in addition to the 400/2.8 with tc-20eiii (on gimbal head), I carry my 80-400 on a strap because the birds can get very close very fast (ask Hitchcock).

These are not necessarily zoom/prime issues. In the same series, the 200-400/4 outperformed the 300/4. Of course at 5 times it's price.

There is also significant sample variation in a lens as complex as the 80-400G.

.... H

tcole1983

I think something that should be thought about it is what people are shooting. In some cases one size doesn't fit all. With unpredictable animals a zoom might be a better and more practical option. I had had the issues with things being too close with my 300 F4 also. I think birds can be something that can move from far away to close and all around quickly. Some of the larger animals such as deer and things are a bit more slow moving at times and can be framed and snuck up on a bit. Then there is motor sports. I think you can generally get in a position that works well with your lens or move around. Same for sports unless you are far away...depending on the sport and the ability to move around a zoom could work better here possibly.

Of course you can always crop...especially with the newer 24+ MP cameras, but you can't always do much if something is too close. We went to an animal safari place and at times it made me get creative instead of switching lenses over and over.

I mean to get the 1.4 or 1.7 TC for my 300 F4 and the RRS or the kirk tripod collar. Think it should make for a better setup and more versatility.

This was my 17-55 on my D5000 that I had to crop...it was my only lens with me.


300 F4


Also 300 F4


300 F4 when too close


18-200


105 F2.8

manhattanboy

The one nice thing about the 300 f4 is the lack of focus chatter. Nothing is more annoying during spraying then to end up with a lot of out of focus pics. This is mainly the only reason I went with the 300 f4 over the 80-400. I do miss VR though as my ISO is higher than desired.

PB_PM

For wildlife I never found much use for VR, other than that it made the viewfinder look more stable when framing. Then again I primarily use telephotos from a tripod or monopod. I never found hand held shooting to be very rewarding in comparison, because everything seems to rushed. Chalk it up to personal style and preference. The wildlife I shoot most often are birds, so my shutter speed is in the 1/800s+ range most of the time to get the best possible sharpness, and once you are into those shutter speeds VR is best left turned off anyway. There are always exceptions, such as if you are trying to handhold a true super telephoto like a 200-400mm F4, 400mm F2.8, 600mm F4 or 800mm F5.6.

While I'm sure a zoom like the 80-400mm is very good, for a variable aperture zoom, it would still be very low on the list of lenses I'd consider for any kind of wildlife shooting due to the poor maximum aperture and insane price tag. If I was going to spend more than 2k on a zoom, it sure would not be a variable aperture one! I sure wouldn't trade the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 it, regardless of the weight difference and VR. I could slap a 1.4x TC on there and have a 168-420mm lens, that is sharper, and still have a faster maximum aperture. And before anyone says "yeah but the 120-300mm f2.8 is $1000 more!" I got mine used for $1500. )

Photobug

On a whale watching trip out of Maui, a young humpback got so close to our boat, my tele rig could only get eyeballs. I wound up shooting with a compact cam I had in my pocket.

When birding, in addition to the 400/2.8 with tc-20eiii (on gimbal head), I carry my 80-400 on a strap because the birds can get very close very fast (ask Hitchcock)..... H

@haroldp - did you change the Nikon lens collar on your 80-400mm lens? My research has shown that both the 300mm F4 and 80-400mm have some wiggle when shooting and the lens collar should be replaced.

tc88

For wildlife I never found much use for VR, other than that it made the viewfinder look more stable when framing.

That is indeed very important for a tele when the angle of view is so small.

Coastalconn

I guess I should chime in here. For me, I will probably never own an exotic. I'm sure it would be a step up in IQ, but they do not fit my shooting style. I never carry a tripod or a monopod and always shoot handhled, so the 4# Tamron fits the bill pretty well for me. I've said it before, but it is sharp enough for me and with the price difference of the 80-400 I picked up a used D800, battery grip and 1066x 64 GB memory card and still had a few pennies left over.
I have shot the 300 F4 before (both versions) and never fell in love. For me having VR is very important and I can shoot at shutter speeds too low to stop motion blur. I can easily go down to 1/80th at 600mm handheld if need be.. Everyone does have different needs so there is no right answer for everyone.

haroldp

@photobug

Yes I did mount the RRS collar on the 80-400G. The collar that Nikon includes is awful.
After that, I have not yet used the 80-400 on a tripod, I usually hand hold it, but will rest on something if possible. The RRS collar has a quick release for the foot which makes hand holding much easier.

When the 400/2.8 or the 200-400 are on a tripod, I use the RRS long lens support which supports the lens at two points and greatly reduces vibration.

It is essential on the 200-400, and still helps on the 400/2.8.

It is silly that one has to augment lenses at these prices, but that is the reality, my 200-400 was destined for ebay until I tried this.

@PB_PM

I have the same experience. When the shutter is faster than 1/1000, VR can hurt IQ since the cyclic rate of its motion sensor 1s 1 khz.

VR also is not helpful with subject motion so good panning technique is critical.

I still prefer my lenses to have it since I am sometimes in areas where the canopy really reduces light, and subjects are at rest.
My current personal challenge is remembering whether it is on or off.

I highly recommend Thom Hogan as a resource on these questions.

Regards ... H

Golf007sd

Thank you all for your contributions. I have much to add to this topic myself but work these past few days have kept me away. But I do want to share a few things.

+1 for what @PB_PM has said. At shutter speeds about 1/400....VR is not needed. Save the battery on your body and turn it off....regardless of which prime/variable telephoto lens you have.

Monopods and/or gimbal on a tripod are a life saver. Having played with the 300 2.8, and for a short bit with my new 200 f/2...I can assure you, handholding these big lenses are NOT easy if you want a nice tight shot, with proper composition and maximum sharpness. Hence, my monopod is, and will be, used quite often for those long days of shooting. Sure you can hold them for a bit...but after 20-30 minutes of continues shooting....yah get the meds out.

More to come later. Got to get some sleep, long day at work, after all it was Halloween.

Trick or treat :P

Msmoto

One more with the 400+2x


Some may not like the teleconverter thinking, but, it seems to work for me. However, having some support with 800mm works best, not only to avoid camera movement and fuzzy images, but simply to be able to find the subject in the frame….LOL

See it here bigger:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/9720732436/sizes/o/

framer

Regarding tele converters I understand the older TC-14EII ($477) is recommended for the Nikon 300 F4 - confirmed on the Nikon web site (PDF conversion table). The Nikon TC-14EIII ($497) is not recommended.

So my question, has anyone tried the TC-14EIII on the Nikon 300 F4? How was the results? I find it strange that the newer TC is not recommended for use on the 300 F4. Looking for some enlightenment .

With my D3s 300 f4 w/tc14eIII is somewhat usable if you use the single center focus point and you have good light, static subject. Lower contrast subject it will start hunting. Fast subjects just forget it.

I have not tested it with the D810 yet but it should work better because the AF has sensors that work to f8

framer

Sorry, I must have been sleeping, I was thinking about the TC2III. Please disregard my babbling's above. The use of the TC14I or TC14II is near perfect with my 300 f4 AFS. I have no knowledge of the TC14III.

DJBee49

On my D800 the 300mm f4 does autofocus in decent light and using a maximum of 9 focus points (the camera will not allow you to set more focus points than these) with all the TCs. The TC2 suffers a sharpness hit but still produces usable images that are pretty sharp in my experience if you get everything right.

As for VR, I find it really useful on my 16-35mm and 24-120 but hardly ever switch it on on the 300mm f2.8 (the 300mm f4 of course does not have VR) because for both wildlife, sports and motor sports I am almost always using shutter speeds over 1/500th second where VR seems to make the image less sharp. I am also normally using a tripod or monopod with the f2.8 that also precludes the use of VR. The f2.8 also usually has a TC of some sort on the end and so really needs a support!

Photobug

Regarding tele converters I understand the older TC-14EII ($477) is recommended for the Nikon 300 F4 - confirmed on the Nikon web site (PDF conversion table). The Nikon TC-14EIII ($497) is not recommended.

So my question, has anyone tried the TC-14EIII on the Nikon 300 F4? How was the results? I find it strange that the newer TC is not recommended for use on the 300 F4. Looking for some enlightenment .

With my D3s 300 f4 w/tc14eIII is somewhat usable if you use the single center focus point and you have good light, static subject. Lower contrast subject it will start hunting. Fast subjects just forget it.
I have not tested it with the D810 yet but it should work better because the AF has sensors that work to f8
framer

Thanks @framer. Appreciate your feedback. Sounds like the TC14eii is the way to go.

Photobug

@haroldp - thanks for the feedback. Totally agree that if your spending this kind of money for a 300 F4 or 80-400 you would get a good collar. Interesting that its an issue on the 200mm as well.

snakebunk

What do you think will be the next updated long tele prime after the 400?

heartyfisher

canon has the 400 5.6 which is a fav for budget birders .. I hope nikon or sigma brings one out for us nikon users ..

Actually I have an old 200-400 F5.6 from tamron.. and its nice but IQ now needs a modern boost. esp the coating and sharpness. guess its time to get the 150-600 tamron :-)

haroldp

It appears to me that the Nikon 300/4 with yc-14eii is a dandy 420mm F5.6

tc88

With my D3s 300 f4 w/tc14eIII is somewhat usable if you use the single center focus point and you have good light, static subject. Lower contrast subject it will start hunting. Fast subjects just forget it.

@framer, can you confirm that you are indeed talking about TC14III that's released recently (half a year ago?) instead of the old TC14II? Nikon says that TC14III does not work with 300 f/4 because it misses something aperature related and will be giving ERR if you mate those two. It would be interesting to know otherwise. Thanks.

haroldp

@framer

Are you using he AFS version of he 300/4 or the 'D' version with body autofocus motor?

... H

framer

Sorry, I must have been sleeping, I was thinking about the TC2III. Please disregard my babbling's above. The use of the TC14I or TC14II is near perfect with my 300 f4 AFS. I have no knowledge of the TC14III.

I use the 300 AFS f4.

framer

sevencrossing

Re VR
just done some test shots D800 80 -400 @400mm
1/750 shots with vr on are definitely slightly sharper
1/1000 no detectable difference
can't see any advantage in constantly turning it on and off, unless using a tripod, when it definitely does make make a very difference