Comparison between 300mm f/4 prime with 1.4x TC vs 200-500mm f/5.6 for birds photography

Hi all
i want to know which option is better for birds photography (300mm f/4 prime with 1.4x TC vs 200-500mm f/5.6)...
right now i m using 150-500mm f/5-6.3 sigma sigma lens on my D7000 and wants to upgrade.........

thanks
«1

Comments

  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,015Moderator
    It seems like the 200-500 discussion is happening here:
    http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/4600/200-500f5-6-priced-under-1-400-are-you-excited
    I'd repost there if I were you and we'll have the mods delete this one.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 5,142Moderator
    It's OK here I think @Ironheart.

    @vijaythakur27: I have to say at the outset that I have neither of the lenses you are writing of, but I have seen some stunning images taken with the 150-600 Tamron and if you consider 'bang for the buck', the Tamron is great value for money.
    Always learning.
  • vijaythakur27vijaythakur27 Posts: 13Member
    @spraynpray : but sir i need more sharpness in my images and want to improve my image quality...
    here is a couple of images i clicked through my sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 lens mounted on my nikon D7000

    a1

    DSC_257114


    many a time i feel the aperture of my lens is not good for early morning photography coz it is very narrow .....
    both the pics clicked in good daylight in summers


    critiques r most welcome.....
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    The first shot (bird with 2 chicks) is spot on, I would crop tighter and get the out of focus red bird on the right, out of the frame.

    The second shot is nice BIF, but the focus appears to be on the left wing side of the body. It would be more effective if it were on the head (eye would be perfect). Still, you should have no egrets about that one.

    BIF are always hit and miss, the technique that works best for me is to use a single AF point that I keep on the critters eye as I track, and then crop to compose. That is why I use a D810, even though I rarely get a frame larger than DX, it is usually not centered.

    ... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,189Moderator
    edited September 2015
    Both shots above appear slightly soft to me. Here is what I think is acceptably sharp:
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16166213325/sizes/o/

    Or:
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/15528874283/sizes/o/
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    Looking at the grass in shot 1, it appears that both are slightly front focused.

    @Msmoto

    I believe you and I are both using a Nikon 400/2.8 VR with or without TC's

    I do not believe that a Tamron (or Sigma, or Nikon) long zoom can be held to that standard.

    Technique (like focus fine tuning) with any equipment can always be improved.

    ... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 5,142Moderator
    Still, you should have no egrets about that one.
    Like it... ;))
    Always learning.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,030Member
    Egrets... lol
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,015Moderator
  • vijaythakur27vijaythakur27 Posts: 13Member
    Sir plz suggest me which lens I bought ? Nikon 300mm f4 with 1.4tc is best combo for birds photography ?
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,189Moderator
    edited September 2015
    Somehow, I think the soft focus may be related to some issue other than the lens/camera resolution, per se.

    OK, I see now, one image was at 500mm, wide open at f/6.3, the other at f/7.1. I would guess the lens gets a bit sharper if stopped down at least one f/stop....

    Overall, I like the images, but if printed on 20" x 30" prints, this is where a difficulty for me exists.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 968Member
    I am going to think without trying the 300 F4 with TC or the 200-500 that the lens without a teleconverter is going to be faster focusing and be the better option. I love my 300 F4, but I have been pretty impressed with samples I have seen so far from the 200-500 and it has VR which my old 300 F4 lacks. I am almost tempted to sell my 300 F4 and get the 200-500, but still waiting for more reviews and samples.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 902Member
    edited September 2015
    From Camera labs here are some interesting comparisons:

    The new 200-500 wide open at 300
    Center and corners:
    image

    Comparison to the 300f4PE wide open.
    Center and FX corner
    image image


    The new 200-500 wide open at 400
    Center and corners:
    image

    Comparison to the 80-400 at 400 wide open
    Center and FX corner:
    image image


    Overall seems like a winner for those who will buy it. Alas, I will not give up my 300 PF though, as the size and weight are almost half of this new lens. The lens that is likely to lose sales IMHO is the 80-400, which is also pretty heavy and big, and is now outperformed for more than $1000 less by the new 200-500. (The main benefit of the older lens of course is the range of the 80-400 which can replace most all tele lenses)
    Post edited by manhattanboy on
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 902Member
    Also, here is a nice, very short field review on the 200-500 for sports:
    http://www.carolinahuddle.com/sports-photography/reviews/review-nikon-200-500mm-f56e-ed-vr-af-s-r2/

    FYI the next post on that blog about Topcats reminded me of PitchBlack and the daily suffering he has to endure :D
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 5,142Moderator
    @spraynpray : but sir I need more sharpness in my images and want to improve my image quality...
    here is a couple of images i clicked through my sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 lens mounted on my nikon D7000
    If you look at the website of an NR member called 'CoastalConn', he used the 150-600 Tamron to great effect on fast flying birds and got very good results. His name is Christopher Rowe if you want to try googling him.

    For me, if I buy a long zoom, it is between the new Nikon 200-500 and the Tamron 150-600 at the moment.

    Always learning.
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,086Member
    Also, here is a nice, very short field review on the 200-500 for sports:
    http://www.carolinahuddle.com/sports-photography/reviews/review-nikon-200-500mm-f56e-ed-vr-af-s-r2/
    This is the kind of report that is starting to seal the deal for me with this lens.
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 968Member
    Also, here is a nice, very short field review on the 200-500 for sports:
    http://www.carolinahuddle.com/sports-photography/reviews/review-nikon-200-500mm-f56e-ed-vr-af-s-r2/

    This is the kind of report that is starting to seal the deal for me with this lens.
    Looks pretty good to me.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • jdphoto77jdphoto77 Posts: 5Member
    edited November 2015
    Just got back from a trip to the Galapagos Islands with the new 200-500mm f/5.6. It worked out great in my opinion in terms of tracking, sharpness, and tailing focus on my D810, including BIF (there was a lot of that going on in the Galapagos). While I don't have a 300mm f/4 or a 1.4x TC, hopefully this gives some examples of some shots from the 200-500mm. I've posted some photos on my blog at the link below.

    http://www.jdmaloney.com/galapagos-islands-travel-photography/

    Higher Resolution here: http://prints.jdmaloney.com/galapagosislands
    Post edited by jdphoto77 on
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    I have recently received my 200-500 / 5.6 and focus tuned it in several configurations. I took the opportunity to compare it to focus tuning shots of the comparable nikon lenses. These are my observations, and apply only to my samples of these lenses. I have done real scientific lens testing, and these tests do not qualify as anything other than casual.

    300/4e with tc-14eII (as 420/5.6) is very slightly sharper than the 200-500 5.6 at 500mm f5.6. I can see this difference only at 100% pixel viewing side by side. I do not think I could see it if I looked at them individually 30 seconds apart.

    By F8 they are identically sharp even side by side.

    The 80-400/5.6G at 400mm f5.6 is slightly less sharp at f5.6 than than either 300/4e with tc-14eII (as 420/5.6) or 200-500 5.6 at 500mm f5.6.

    By F8 it also catches up.

    The 200-500mm 5.6 is also very good with the tc-14eII (as 700/f8), but not as good as the 400/2.8 with tc-20eIII (what is?).

    For any photographic purpose, I would (and will) choose among them based on size,weight, zoom range, suitability for the shoot as I think they are all more than sharp enough for any photographic purpose I have.

    I will select aperture based on needed shutter speeds, and not hesitate to shoot wide open if needed to get fast shutters for moving subjects.

    I have some shots from alaska with the 80-400/5.6G with tc-14eII (as 560/8) shot at f9 that I consider critically sharp where I was on a moving small boat.

    I hope this is helpful.


    .... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    addendum to above.

    The 300/4e has lightly better contrast than all of the above zooms in any configuration.

    .... H

    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,086Member
    Thanks Harold. Interesting to hear of your results.
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 1,057Member
    Having owned a D7000 I think an upgrade to a D7200 would go before a lens upgrade
  • 9viii9viii Posts: 24Member
    edited November 2015
    If the IQ of the 200-500 at 500mm is similar to the best 400mm options in this price range then it's actually going to out reach the next best lens by a reasonably wide margin (in focal length limited scenarios).
    Post edited by 9viii on
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 902Member
    Having owned a D7000 I think an upgrade to a D7200 would go before a lens upgrade
    This is smart. The extra pixels plus the crop mode allow you to get more out of the lenses you already own. Eventually though you'll want more...that's human nature.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 1,057Member
    edited October 2016
    To me you are looking at this from the wrong end ..you need to change the camera ..D7000 16MP with filter ..you need POI and fine focus adjust so you need to go for a D7100/7200/D500 before you change the lens.
    If you shoot RAW the best software or if JPEG look into the picture control settings
    Post edited by Pistnbroke on
Sign In or Register to comment.