new lens???

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by arnie17, Jul 16, 2008.

  1. If you had the 80-200 f2.8 and wanted more reach, what would you get???
    1. a 70-300 vr.
    2. a 80-400 vr or
    3. a 70-200 f2.8 vr. with extension

    The reason I want more reach is for birds around the house and if ever I go somewhere like an Alaskan cruise.
     
  2. senna

    senna

    Jan 6, 2007
    San Jose Ca.
    Well if you allready have a 80-200 2.8, why not get a 300 f4 and a kenko pro 300g 1.4 converter. the kenko will work on both the 80-200 and the 300 f4 giving you 420 f5.6:cool:
     
  3. Senna the 300f4 does not have vr. That might make a difference....Can you hand hold a 300 f4?
     
  4. Is there a difference between a KENKO PRO 300 1.4X AF/NIKON and a kenko pro 300g 1.4 converter. One has a 300g the other is only 300
     
  5. this is me

    this is me

    537
    Feb 10, 2007
    MA
    500mm f/4 VR or 600mm f/4 VR.
     
  6. anybody else has an opinion
     
  7. Nikkor 200 f/2 VR also to consider:tongue:
     
  8. I think the nikkor 200 f/2 vr is out of my price range.
    I can manage up to $2000.00 Canadian
     
  9. agw0

    agw0

    475
    Oct 28, 2006
    Munich, Germany
    300/4 AFS + TC14EII is what I did add to the 80-200/2.8.

    If you have the 300/4, adding a TC to the 80-200 isn't that necessary. And the matched Nikon TC might have an edge above the Kenko, IQ wise.

    For slower shutter speeds, add a monopod. For BIF, you need high shutter speeds, anyway - then the 300/4 can be hand held quite successfully (at 1/1000 and above in my experience).

    IQ of the 300/4 alone is just excellent, and probably the best a reasonable amount of money can buy in that range. With the TC14E, it's still very good, IMO. The effective focal length on a DX body becomes taxing on one's technique, however.
     
  10. Thanks agw0,
    That is what I wanted to find out...Image quality..
    Also thanks to senna for the same lens suggestion.
    I will seriously consider this lens since it is in my price range. It is a gift for my 35th wedding anniversary.
    My husband wants nothing. Poor him
     
  11. Tpsfoto

    Tpsfoto

    307
    Jun 15, 2008
    Las Vegas NV
    Since you want to take on vacation ....look for a sharp 80-400mm.....that will give you the reach & the 80 side makes it a "walk around lens" a bit heavy ....but not as heavy as the big boy lenses....
     
  12. Tpsfoto, that is something else to consider, but how do I check for sharpness since I am going to order one. They don't have one in stock at my local camera shop. Is the 300 f/4 much sharper than the 80-400
     
  13. smodak

    smodak

    Jun 11, 2007
    Franklin MA US
    80-400 vr

    that is what i did :)
     
  14. baeken

    baeken

    75
    Jun 24, 2008
    Orange County, CA
    everything depends on how much $$$ you have to spend! and what purpose you want it for. i'm a big fan of mobility
     
  15. The 80-400 has VR and mongo reach, but it's slow to focus. You list the 80-200 in your signature. You could add a Kenko 2X teleconverter to it and be just as well off.

    The 70-200/2.8 has VR and AF-S, but the image quality isn't noticeably better than your 80-200, and it doesn't have the reach you need or you wouldn't be shopping.

    The 300/4 is outstanding, but not so easy to handhold. I'm not claiming to be a rock, but, as a reference point, I had difficulty getting crisp captures at 1/500 using a monopod.

    The 70-300 is a full stop slower than the 300/4 at full zoom, but it's image stabilized, and I can hand hold it at 1/200 and get sharp results.

    98588424.gif

    It's fast focusing (AF-S), and light enough to keep in my camera bag without weighing it down. And it has plenty enough reach for my backyard birding and trips to the lake.

    View attachment 222263

    View attachment 222264
     
  16. Thanks for all the suggestion. I am still debating as to which one I will be getting. I would like the 70-300 for light setup but the 80-400 for the range.
     
  17. "birds around the house and if ever I go somewhere like an Alaskan cruise"

    It sounds like your interests are largely stationary, rather than BIF.

    In that case, I'd consider a used 300 2.8 and a Kenko Pro 300 2X converter. The lens is so flawless, the 2X works well with it.. nothing bad to amplify..little loss of detail...a bit of loss of contrast, easily fixed in pp. It will stretch you budget a bit....if you are willing to settle for a well used lens, you can buy one in the lower 2000's....the Kenko Pro 300 2X's are available used for around $100.

    For stationary birds, an effective 600mm on a DX is required to really get you close. With your D300 you should be able to crop with plenty of detail left.

    Here's are three examples shot handheld with exactly that combo in my own back yard:

    House finch
    original.jpg

    Grackle
    original.jpg

    Pigeon
    original.jpg


    These shots would have been even better if I had used a monopod (handholding this combo lasts about 30 secs, at least with 68 yr-old arms).

    And here is a scenic shot using the combo, shot from a mountaintop over two miles away using a monopod:

    original.jpg

    Hope this helps.
     
  18. Still more question?
    Is the 300f4 much sharper than the 80-400 at 300mm.
    When using the 300 f4 don't you miss the zoom, I think I would.
    What about a Kenko 2X teleconverter for my 80-200 f2.8? How would the image quality be?

    Thanks for all the info I've been getting.
     
  19. TheCommons

    TheCommons

    112
    Jul 2, 2008
    LA, CA ;)
    Must it be nikon? What abt the sigma 120-300
     
  20. never heard about the sigma 120-300. Do you have one and how about a picture with it