1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Sell the New 200-400 and Replace with a 500 AFs II & 300

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by jfenton, Jan 31, 2005.

  1. jfenton


    Jan 26, 2005
    Haverhill, MA
    I'm in a quandry...

    I love the 200-400 AFS VR but it just aint long enough. The VR is nice..the ability to zoom in closer is nice and it is hand holdable at times.

    But it ain't long enough for little birds.

    I am soooo tempted to try and sell it and then buy a used 500 AFSII f4 and combine that with a 300 AFS-f4. I truly miss the 300 AFS f4,,,it is light, takes pisser images, focuses close for hand held macro shots and is a charm to carry around.

    What of what am I to do??????????

    If this damn D2X wasn't do out in a month I'd just buy a 500 AFS and worry about selling the 200-400 AFS VR later!

    Am I nuts or what????
  2. Flew


    Jan 25, 2005
    Re: Sell the New 200-400 and Replace with a 500 AFs II &


    I have had exactly the same questions in my mind. I have the 300 2.8, and it is often not long enough, even with the 1.7. I see the great shots that Harris is getting with the 300 f4, and that Ron and Paul are getting with the 500 f4, and wonder if I shouldn't have gotten the combo that you mention here.

    OTOH, with the D2X.... :lol:



  3. I'm gonna stick my neck out on this
    NIKON D2H    ---    420mm    f/6.3    1/400s    ISO 250

    but I will say I love my 300 f4 and 1.4x combo. I would love a 500 f4 when I can afford it.
  4. Interesting thread....

    My dilemma is slighty different. Being a "budget conscious shopper" I purchased the Sigma 500mm f4.5 HSM, at less than half the Nikon cost it fit my budget :) . I sold my Tamron 300mm f2.8 to help finance this. What I am now finding is that I miss the "shorter" bits, so my "next lens on the list" is slated to be the 120-300mm f2.8. Would I prefer the Nikon equivalents, yeah, but at the moment, money talks :wink: . If it were not for the cost, I'd consider the 200-400 instead of the 120-300, but given my need to shoot night High School football the f2.8 and the "shorter" 120 will suit me better.

    In any case, I think that all of these combos with the 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 TC's will be simplay Mahvelous.....
  5. 300mm f/4 + 1.4x tc

    Hare you done any small bird work with that combo, Harris? And which TC are you using?
  6. Re: 300mm f/4 + 1.4x tc

    does this count?
    NIKON D100    ---    300mm    f/5.0    1/320s   

    in reality, no. Had to throw this in so I could at least hang with you big dogs.
  7. uh, one more..
    NIKON D100    ---    300mm    f/5.6    1/2000s   
  8. jfenton


    Jan 26, 2005
    Haverhill, MA
    Handheld, Monopod or Tripod Shots?


    Were these handheld, monopod or tripod shots?
  9. I believe they were both handheld. the first was on a monopod, but I am so tall, I lift it for shots that high. The second may have been monopod, but I think it was fully handheld.

    The 300 is easily handheld for flight shots. but ground and eye level stuff, I'd use a monopod. It does get heavy after a while.
  10. Jim

    Here is a link to a small bird gallery where almost all of the pics were taken with the 300f4 and the 1.4 converter, all were taken on a tripod with the Nikon collar, I just received the kirk replacement so I will see hos that does. Hopefully Pbase is cooperating this AM
  11. Flew


    Jan 25, 2005
    Re: Jim


    You have some nice shots on you pbase pages. How do you like this combo compared to your 70-200 with and without the TC?



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.