Skip to Content

Telephoto Zoom Lens Advice

Discuss and share your wildlife photography, filming and equipment
User avatar
UKbadger
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: London UK

Re: Canon 70-200 F2.8 is II With 2X Converter Or 100-400 F4 Is

Unread post by UKbadger » Fri May 13, 2011 8:47 pm

Hi

Here are a couple of shots with a 30D + 100-400 + 1.4x

Manuel focus of course, but OK I think and the 7D has a much better viewfinder.

If you have time to put the converter on, you have time to Manuel focus!

Image

Image

Hope it’s useful,

UKB

User avatar
DuQues
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 14520
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Re: Canon 70-200 F2.8 is II With 2X Converter Or 100-400 F4 Is

Unread post by DuQues » Fri May 13, 2011 9:05 pm

A 2x TC takes away 2 stops, so a f/2.8 lens will go f/4 (1.4) and f/5.6 with the 2x. So with your camera you'll still have autofocus.
That's one of the great things about having fast lenses.
What is less good is that a 2x TC does enhance any present faults in your lens. The 70-200 2.8 should have no real issues with it though.

What makes you doubt between the 70-200 and the 100-400?
For places like Kruger it is fairly obvious that the longer lens will be handier. Unless you intend to keep the 2x TC on at all times. The 100-400 is a little less sharp, but very versatile in those areas.

The 70-200 is a good walk-around lens outside of the park, but not really in cities and such. Then the 17-40 would be the logical choice.
Not posting much here anymore, but the photo's you can follow here There is plenty there.

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c

User avatar
Scottm
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Fourways, Johannesburg

Re: Canon 70-200 F2.8 is II With 2X Converter Or 100-400 F4 Is

Unread post by Scottm » Thu May 19, 2011 5:30 pm

No question that the 70-200 would prove a better option for me, for the following single reason, if nothing else: It would provide me with a sufficiently fast lens in the 70-200 range when I need it, which the 100-400 would not. There will come a time when a fast lens IS necessary and the 100-400 would just not cut the mustard (as the saying goes). Have the best of both worlds and get the faster lens. :mrgreen:
"Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"

Photographs help to crystallize memories, but cannot be seen to be a replacement of them!

User avatar
Scottm
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Fourways, Johannesburg

Re: Nikon D90 lens choice....

Unread post by Scottm » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:12 pm

Hi John

What little I know of your needs, my first choice would be to get a 70-200 f2.8 VR which also gives the option of exploiting the various converters that Nikon provides if you need the additional reach and IF you could get a 2nd hand one within you budget, that would be great. However, as it was totally out of my budget :wall: , even second hand, I opted to go for a new Nikon 70-300VR which, although too short for my specific desires and cannot take the converters, provides a reasonable budget alternative with great results. On the DX models, it provides for up to 450mm and the VR provides adequate opportunity to slow the shutter speed down to compensate for the higher f-stop. As a general-use lens I am happy very with it.

You need to clearly articulate your own needs proir to any planned lens improvements/acquisitions and these will clearly differ from person to person. Are you in the market for lenses for wildlife and/or birding for only a few days/weeks a year (if so then rent what you need) or do you intend to make full use on an ongoing basis? I am also fortunate enough to have the newer technologies in the D7000 which allows for cranking up the ISO's when low-light photography is required. My next acquisition will be a bigger prime, if and when budget allows, something that may be better for you than the pro-level 70-200 f2.8. if your desire is for birding

I have had and used too many non-nikon alternatives without great results, so while many on this forum may praise the benefits of (for example) the Sigma 150 - 500 or 50-500 and I will not knock them in any fashion, my personal experiences will not allow me to travel that road again.... get the best you can for your needs (within your budget limits as you define them) or alternatively rent the best for the short time you may need them....

Keep your eyes open on the Nikon Press releases, for there have been rumours of them bringing out a 70-200 f4 somtime, certainly a lens I am looking forward to... :dance:
"Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"

Photographs help to crystallize memories, but cannot be seen to be a replacement of them!

User avatar
john n poppy
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 6:04 pm
Location: Middle of England

Re: Nikon D90 lens choice....

Unread post by john n poppy » Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:16 am

thanks Duques, I know what you mean about the length of 320mm, but this year I found it only two short on a couple of occassions.

Scottm, thanks for that, I have the 70-300vr lens already but used the 70-200 F2.8 for photos on this years trip ( have a look at my trip report and see what you think?) I would love to push for 400 but reading the revews of the 80-400 nikon lens it seems a little slow to focus especially in low light and again ive never used a sigma and have heard various good and bad reviews.

I would like one mainly for the few weeks we are in kruger but I hope to broaden my experience here in the uk and get out more to practice, something you cant do if your hiring!!
and prime lenses seem to be very expensive...

john :thumbs_up:
Kruger NP - August 2016 - 2 1/2 weeks....the countdown begins.....

:( :( oh no been made redundant......woohoo...its now 6 1/2 weeks in Kruger :dance: :dance:

User avatar
Switchback
Posts: 787
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:32 am
Location: Northwold with KTP on my mind...

Re: Nikon D90 lens choice....

Unread post by Switchback » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:22 am

john n poppy wrote:cheers Scottm, :thumbs_up: if only I had bought a canon!!!! :roll:


I'm sure he's kidding! :?

Now, my 2 worth: I also have a D90 with various lenses of which the 70 - 300mm VR is one of them, but as all said so far, the reach is definitely not enough.

I'll probably get A LOT of flack for my next question / statement, I think DQ's especially... :lol: , but have you though of the Sigma 150 - 500mm HSM OS? I KNOW it does not produce the same quality of the Nikon lenses and I KNOW it is not the greatest, but for the PRICE...? I have a Sigma 150 - 500mm HSM OS and have a look at my old trip report in my signature - 90% of the pics were taken with that lens and are all the images THAT bad to completely throw the Sigma out of the window? I use it at F8 as I found that apperture to be a sweet spot for that lens. With the D90 I can bump up the ISO without worries to make sure my shutter speed is still fast enough (at least 1/500 @ 500mm). DOF is also very narrow at 500mm so F8 works great for me and the Sigma.

If I had the bucks I would've rented a 200 - 400mm VR Nikon F4 lens with a 1.4 TC - that should be ample reach. I am busy investigating that option for my upcomming KTP trip, with insurance it will cost me just shy of R6000 give or take. For that money I'm sure a lot will say it may be worth it, but still my old trusty Sigma will have to do the job - I can do a lot more with R6000 for now...
KNP: 14 June: Skukuza Camping
15 -21 June: Letaba Camping

User avatar
Scottm
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Fourways, Johannesburg

Re: Nikon D90 lens choice....

Unread post by Scottm » Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:40 pm

:rtm: you are half-right John, in that the canon range does fill some gaps that the Nikon range does not, but only really for the enthusiast. In the bottom and top ranges it matches canon very well. In my view, Nikon are missing a few f4 primes, :hmz: (400f4 ?)

Just a word regarding the 120 - 400 range. I would question whether, given your current reach, adding an extra 33% is viable at the additional costs to be incurred. If your 70 - 300 does not satisfy your current needs, I doubt that the extra 100mm will bring satisfaction. Adding 66% by going to the 500mm "big ma" would probably give you more satisfaction under most circumstances. Then again, and only you can answer the question, is reach or lens speed the primary issue ......

Fortunately the D7000 has awesome noise-handling capabilities, so I am able to increase ISO without noticable loss in qualityand thus avoid having to break the bank on high-speed (read high price) lenses

Maybe you should consider an upgrade to the D7000 for its techie advances.... all reviews point to it being the best DX camera ever produced...... but be warned, being so good, it does highlight the flaws in any lens that is not at pro level... and has proven to me that, in my case, it is the skill behind the camera that requires an upgrade :tongue:

Take care and may you have a wonderful and fruitful trip, no matter what equipment you may take with you. :thumbs_up:
"Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"

Photographs help to crystallize memories, but cannot be seen to be a replacement of them!

User avatar
RUMURUTI
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1689
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Milano (Italy) - IT ALL STARTED WITH A FOOTSTEP!
Contact:

Re: Nikon D90 lens choice....

Unread post by RUMURUTI » Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:00 pm

Here are a couple of pic's taken with my Nikon 80-400

Image

Image

Both at 400 mm!
"You can leave Africa but Africa never leaves you"
LIFE IS MADE OF GOOD AND BAD THINGS, I TAKE THE GOOD AND YOU CAN KEEP THE BAD!!!
Andy Benaglia

User avatar
RUMURUTI
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1689
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Milano (Italy) - IT ALL STARTED WITH A FOOTSTEP!
Contact:

Re: Nikon D90 lens choice....

Unread post by RUMURUTI » Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:42 pm

john, here are a picture taken with the Sigma 150-500 at 500 mm.

Image


my advise is to mount both on your D90 and see how they feel. 80-400 is shorter but heavier. 150-500 is a long lens but very light and you just have to get the feel and see one you like most. Quality with both is always tops.
"You can leave Africa but Africa never leaves you"
LIFE IS MADE OF GOOD AND BAD THINGS, I TAKE THE GOOD AND YOU CAN KEEP THE BAD!!!
Andy Benaglia

User avatar
Switchback
Posts: 787
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:32 am
Location: Northwold with KTP on my mind...

Re: Nikon D90 lens choice....

Unread post by Switchback » Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:54 am

Great stuff, glad you got your money back. Congrats on your purchase! :thumbs_up:

I found that I use my Sigma 150 - 500mm mostly on about F8 - great sharpness and I like the DOF on that apperture, not too shallow or too deep. On the D90 I then use my auto ISO settings to ensure my shutter speed does not go under 1/500'th when using the lens at 500mm while using the lowest possible ISO speed. All this on Aperture Priority mode of course.

Enjoy!!
KNP: 14 June: Skukuza Camping
15 -21 June: Letaba Camping

User avatar
granjan
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 466
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:20 am
Location: cornwall uk

the right thing?

Unread post by granjan » Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:15 pm

I'm coming to Kruger next month for 15 wonderful days and have just blown my savings buying a 100 - 400mm canon lens.[It's not arrived yet.]
I have been using a sigma 150 -500mm 5 - 6.3 apo hsm but have never been really happy with the sharpness. Am I going to really notice the difference or rue the day I blew my savings. [I'm going to sell the sigma]
Reassurance needed!!

Thebi
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: KZN

Re: the right thing?

Unread post by Thebi » Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:27 pm

Excellent lens choice you should not be disappointed. The new sigma 120-300 OS also gives excellent results -
as does the sigma 300 to 800.

User avatar
ctv4
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:05 pm
Location: Pretoria

UPGRADING MY NIKON LENSES!

Unread post by ctv4 » Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:45 am

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!!
13th Trip to KTP - Dec '12 / Jan '13

FIRST TRIP TO KTP WAS IN JUNE/JULY 1996!

http://www.sanparks.org/forums/viewtopic.php?style=2&f=27&t=61629

User avatar
DuQues
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 14520
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Re: UPGRADING MY NIKON LENSES!

Unread post by DuQues » Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:19 am

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.
Not posting much here anymore, but the photo's you can follow here There is plenty there.

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c

User avatar
Scottm
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Fourways, Johannesburg

Re: UPGRADING MY NIKON LENSES!

Unread post by Scottm » Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:40 am

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."
"Take nothing but memories, leave nothing but footprints"

Photographs help to crystallize memories, but cannot be seen to be a replacement of them!


Return to “Wildlife Photography Enthusiasts”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


Webcam Highlights

Addo
Submitted by CindyC at 23:07:09
orpen
Submitted by Chris101 at 18:44:00
satara
Submitted by CindyC at 22:30:43
nossob
Submitted by kyknetta at 18:16:28