SANParks.org Forums

Hi to all!

I am considering updating my lenses. And need some input please?

I shoot Nikon and love the KTP!

Not really into birdlife, if need be I will use my Sigma 1000mm f8 for that.

What will you rather buy?

A 300mm f2.8 of a 200-400 f4?

Awaiting all the serious answers!!

I am not a Nikonian, but I would go for the 200-400. Qualitywise that lens is almost the same as the 300, and you have a little more reach.
And you are more versatile, so at picnicspots you should have no problem with the mongooses that come too near. Just switch to 200 mm and you do not need to back up.

The following is copied from a site I use quite often. Have a look at mansurovs.com/best-nikon-lenses-for-wildlife-photography:

"I have been shooting with the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR lens for the last 4-5 years and I can assure you that the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II is overall a better lens to buy (unless you shoot large animals from a close distance, like bears in Alaska). I bought the Nikon 200-400mm for its zoom capabilities, but the lens turned out to be heavier, bulkier and it just does not tolerate anything longer than the TC-14E II. This leaves me with 560mm of effective focal length to work with on the long end, which seems to be very close in terms of IQ to the 300mm f/2.8G VR II @ 600mm. But its biggest problem is not the 40mm shorter focal length – it has one major weakness, which only shows up when you photograph anything at a distance. Up close, the 200-400mm creates beautiful images, but as soon as you start shooting subjects over 50 feet or more, its autofocus accuracy goes down the drain. Mind you, this does not typically happen when shooting lone birds in the sky, but primarily when there is something immediately behind the subject. For example, when I was photographing bears in Yellowstone, 8/10 times I would get grass behind the bear in focus. When I first noticed this behavior 3-4 years ago, I thought that it was just my bad camera/focusing techniques. I tried reacquiring focus, using only the center AF point and tried all kinds of tricks and the problem did not go away. I then thought that something was wrong with my lens, so I calibrated it like crazy, only to find that there was nothing wrong with it. Then I read complaints from other 200-400mm owners on various forums, who reported exactly the same problem with this lens and that’s when I realized that it was the lens that was the problem. I tried the 300mm f/2.8G (along with 400mm and 500mm lenses) in very similar conditions and they do not have the same problem. For this reason alone, I would not buy the 200-400mm again. I have been recommending the 300mm f/2.8G to our readers instead for a while now."

This is something negative ?I am reading about the VR of the 200-4400mm!

"But in general day to day shooting, if the lens on a tripod (yes VR stays on with this lens when on a tripod unless shooting video) or your hand holding technique is solid, the VR doesn’t get you sharper images. The one thing that bugs me about the VR though is how the image “jumps” in the viewfinder at times when the VR activates. On a few occasions the image jumped enough to force me to recompose. I couldn’t find a pattern in this so as to prevent it, I just had to mentally be prepared for it possibly happening."

I have that jumping as well on my 100-400 when the IS starts. It never bothered me...

I am about to hire a 200 - 400mm Nikon lens with a 1.4TC for a trip to E*T&sh* in August to work on my D90 and hopefully soon to be Nikon D7000, but I saw on the specs for the lens from the rental company it says VR II - so maybe a newer / later version with wich they sorted a few issues?

I would've gone with the 200 - 400mm...

@ Switchback

I guess I need to rent a lens for a day as well, but have spoken to some pro's and they sort of convinced me to go ahead!! They say I wont be sorry! The 300mm f2.8 is a bit sharper, but not as versatile. The 200-400 only works well with the 1,4x so that takes me to 560mm. I will lose 40mm (300mm x 2 = 600mm) but sure at that distance I will be happy to let whatever animal or bird pass the lens. Or then digitally enhance it later on the computer!

You will probably get better photos with the 200-400 & 1.4 TC than with the 300 & 2.0 TC....
The problem with a 2.0 TC is that is shows more of the flaws of the lens.

Those 40 mm will not make a huge difference, and a little crop will bring them back.

Seems as if I am going to miss out on the upgrading!!

A Nikon D3x has come in the way!

WHAT MUST I DO?

Easy. Buy the lens first.

A great camera with a lousy lens produces lousy photos.
A great lens on a lousy camera creates great photos.

LOL!! Have a good lens in the 70-200 f2.8, so guess a 1.4x and maybe a 2x converter will have to do it on the short run!

You could also go for the AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR?

The 18-300 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens recently announced is likely to be so far removed from the quality of either the 200-400 f/4 or the 300 f2,8, and these other lenses should be considered to be in a separate quality class altogether.

Nine aperture blades, 77mm frontlens... I think this lens is meant as an upgrade to the 18-200 which performs rather well.
ctv4 is not into birding, and this lens is a very versitale lens to say the least. Can be welded onto the camera really.

I have no doubt that this lens will (when available) become one of the favourite walk-about lenses for many Nikon users, just as the 18-200 has become over the years. However, it will bring with it some limitations on the opportunities in low-light situations and when a minimal DOF is required. To overcome these limitations, substantial cash outflows will be required on a substantially faster lens......

I suspect that this lens will also be reasonably slow to focus in comparison to the higher-end offerings, which also come with their own limitations - both high wallet-depleting cost and less flexibility owing to much less "reach"

It is, however, still on my "wish-list", owing to its unsurpassed versatility.... Maybe the new 16-85VR, to complement my 70-300VR will simply have to suffice