Lens Advice

[RyanMontgomery]

I would like a longer lens than I currently have. I have the Nikon 80-300 F5.6 kit telephoto lens. My question to you is for the money (again, for the money) which do you recommend?

Sigma 50-500 which I can get for $725 (list $1100)

Nikon 80-400MM List about $1500 I believe

or do I just keep saving for the

Nikon 200-400mm F4 - $6,000

[doubleravven]

I have the 50 - 500 and am very satisfied with it. The other would probably be nice, but is it worth that much extra for the brand glass? If you are making your living with it, maybe and if you can tell the difference then maybe.

I have both Sigma and the "best" stuff, and the difference is nice, but in my book not justified.

Lots of trips and other glass and good things can happen with what you have saved on the Sigma.

[RyanMontgomery]

Do you any images posted with the Sigman 50-500 so I can see the image quality? Thanks

Ryan

[epayne]

Hi Ryan,

I have both the NIKKOR 80-400 as well as their 200-400mm f4.0. There is no question the 200-400 performs better and will work with a 1.4 or 1.7 tele converter with still acceptable results, but is it worth the difference?? I can say I kept the 80-400 due to it's size and weight. The 200-400 f4.0 is a handful and needs a good tripod and head for any lengthy shooting. While I do not have the Sigma, I have heard good things about it, but it too will need a good support system.

NIKON is due to release an updated version of the 80-400 with an internal focus motor in the near future. It should have been out by now according to many sources. As it is now, it uses the focus motor in the camera body and does not focus as quickly as the 200-400. The 200-400 is tack sharp wide open at 400mm while the 80-400 at 400mm needs to be stopped down a couple of stops for good sharpness. Wildlife is typically prone to moving and not always in the best light so the ability to shoot wide open at f 4.0 is beneficial. But at a substantial cost of $$$ and bulk / weight.

Sorry there are no short easy answers but hopefully this information and that from others will help direct your final decision. Keep in mind that a suitable tripod and head for the heavier options can add 1K or more to your final investment. I find the 200-400 works well with a Wimberley Sidekick so you do not need to invest in a full gimbal style head.

All of these lenses will perform well with a mono pod too but for wildlife most prefer shooting from a tripod.

Best regards,

Edgar Payne
Charlotte Region

[doubleravven]

This was taken in Costa Rica, hand held and no flash at maximum focal length at 1/40 sec at ƒ/6.3.

I had only had the lense for about a month. Edgar is correct, this will need a tripod for better results.

[RyanMontgomery]

Thanks for the information. All is helpful. Edgar, do you see a big difference in quality between the two Nikon lenses? Sinclair, love that pic.

[epayne]

Hi Ryan,

The biggest quality difference is in the 300-400mm range where the 80-400 is not up to par with the 200-400mm f4.0. But then for $ 4,000.00 additional you should expect to see a difference. The 200-400 performs excellent wide open whereas the 80-400 needs to be stopped down a little for sharpest results. Further the tripod foot on the 80-400 from the factory is sorely inadequate even with an Arca-Swiss style plate. Both Kirk and RRS make an aftermarket foot which has additional support for the front portion of the lens. This will add $160.00 to $ 200.00 to your final cost if you utilize a tripod head with Arca style clamp. Having the ability to go as wide as 80mm is nice over the 200-400mm as is it's more compact size and lower weight. But if the BEST optical performance it your top priority the 200-400mm excels!

The two following shots were with the 200-400. The eagle with a 1.7 teleconverter.

http://www.cnpa.org/gallery_popup.php?img=05-915&member=&id=&disporder=

http://www.cnpa.org/gallery_popup.php?img=03-915&member=&id=&disporder=

Here is some info on the lens adapters from Kirk and RRS:

http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Collar_for_80-400mm_f4.5-5.6_VR.html

http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Customkititems.asp?kc=LC-A11-Pkg&eq=

Best regards,

Edgar Payne
Charlotte region

[mrsisu]

Agree with Edgar. The 80 - 400 is very slow to focus and the 200-400 is a much superior lens but at a much more expensive price. If your in no rush suspect that by August and maybe sooner a Nikon replacement to the 80-400 will be announced - it will also be a time that used prices on the 80-400 will diminish dramatically I think

[calmerini]

It is my hope that the updated 80-400 Nikon comes with a f/4 aperture. I know this may drive the cost up but there is no middle ground between 70-200 VR-II f/2.8 to 200-400 VR in terms of ZOOM lenses. I really like my 300mm f/4 with no VR- the photos are great and work very well with 1.4x too.

The 80-400 has been out over 5 years without any updates. As mentioned the focus system needs to be improved & that is why I have stayed away and opted for the 70-200, 300, 200-400.

I did make the mistake of purchasing the Sigma 80-400mm OS...a total disaster. I was happy KEH offered me $750 for it so my mistake was less.

Hope this helps but remember along with big lenses come the Sidekick-style head, bigger tripod= addtional costs to maximize the benefits of your equipment.

Good luck!

[RyanMontgomery]

I believe I have a decent tripod or two but would need the new head but if I am paying $5k for a lens, that is a given.

[epayne]

Ryan,

If you have a good quality ball head you can get by OK with the Wimberley Sidekick for about $ 250.00. This is good as it allows you to quickly change from a conventional ball head to a gimbal mount with minimal extra weight and bulk to carry.

If you think that down the road you might get a 500 or 600mm big gun, the sidekick is not adequate for good support and a full Wimberley head or one of the other similar offerings is the way to go.

Big glass will certainly test your tripod's stability as well as require good long lens technique. Here are a couple of links to what I mean by "Long lens technique".

http://www.naturephotographers.net/ejp0801-1.html

http://www.moosepeterson.com/techtips/longlens.html

Best regards,

Edgar

P.S.

Chris's previous post about the replacement of the NIKKOR 80-400 possibly being an f4.0 lens is not likely due to the cost of making a 5 to 1 zoom in that range. They will likely improve the focus speed with an internal (SWM) silent wave motor and improve the contrast and sharpness with the new crystal nano coatings. The VR will also represent the latest technology.

To make this lens in an f4.0 constant aperture would be competing with the already popular 200-400 and be likely over 7K in cost. I can see the 80-400mm's replacement more like marketed in the same cost range as the new 70-200 f2.8. About 2.5 to 3K tops.

Just my 2 cents

[RyanMontgomery]

Edgar
I have the Really Right Stuff BH-55 Ballhead

Tripods, I have the Gitzo Carbon Fiber Explorer and the Manfrotto 3021BN.
Think that will work?

RSM

[epayne]

Hi Ryan,

Your RRS BH-55 ball head is excellent paired with a Wimberley Sidekick for the 200-400. I have one as well. As to the legs, the Gitzo Explorer series is just marginal for support of a 7.2 lb lens and body weighing another couple of lbs. I have an Explorer 2228 I use for hiking into waterfall areas so I have used this combination. It is not ideal for long heavy lens use.

I am not as familiar with the Manfrotto 3021BN legs. I can say that it's rated load of 15.4 lbs as stated on Amazon seems again too light for adequately supporting the 200-400mm f4.0. Especially if you require the center post to be extended for your shooting height. It is only 53 inches with the center post collapsed. The head and Sidekick will elevete the camera / lens combo up a little more. It is recommended that your tripod should be rated for at least twice your actual weight.

I use a Gitzo 1348 old series CF tripod with a Gitzo GS5121LV Leveling Base for my 200-400 with the RRS BH-55 head and a Sidekick. I think that combo was sold as a Model 1325 but I purchased it in pieces used. The Gitzo is rated at 26.4 lbs. Almost twice the Manfrotto 3021 rating and in my experience this Gitzo is as light and small as I would like to go for adequate support and height with this setup. Especially when you add a 1.4 or 1.7 tele converter for added reach.

That's not to say that you can't get acceptable results with your existing tripod, but you would benefit from additional support and your percentage of keepers would likely improve. At least that has been my experience. Your mileage may vary.

Here is an interesting link you may not have seen on tripod selection. Thom offers some good advice.

http://bythom.com/support.htm

And info on the leveling head.

http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Itemdesc.asp?ic=GS5121LVL&eq=&Tp

More stuff to digest, It can't be overemphasized that a good tripod and head combo will do more to improve the sharpness of one's images than any other item.

Best regards,

Edgar

[jlphoto]

I have the 200-400mm myself. The lens is easily hand holdable for me, but this will very from person to person for obvious reasons. You can pick one up for around 4k used if you look in the right places. Try naturescapes and birdphotographers.net for starters.

If you want a new one, wait a little while longer. There have been some select lenses that had problems with elements in them. At distance, this keeps the lens from every obtaining tack sharp results. Unfortunately mine falls into this catagory. Gary Carter had the same problem with his 2-4 and sent it back 3 times to be fixed but was never satisfied with the results. He finally dumped it and just went with the 500. John Shaw went through the same thing but was given a new copy considering who he is. The 500 really isnt that much bigger than the 2-4 and so this could be an option for you as well. Of course you wouldnt have the zoom capabilities. The reason I say waitt on this one is Nikon is due to release a version 2 of this that fixes the problem.

You really just need to ask yourself what you will be shooting the most. mammals, birds, from a car, from a tripod, from a kayak, etc.... this will determine a lot. The 80-400 is a nice concept however the slowness of its focusing makes it a paper wieght in my book. If this is the lens you want, again weight for version 2 which should be much faster.

the sigma 50-500 from what I have heard and seen is a good lens. I had a guy on one of my wildhorse photography workshops a couple months ago and the results from that lens were quite impressive considering the zoom range and that its a third party lens. This also seems like it would make an excelent kayak lens as well for trips where you dont have room for a lot of gear as it packs pretty small.

Your best bet is to just go ahead and rent all of these lenses. I use www.borrowlenses.com personally and have nothing but good things to say about them. I often times find that I need this or that for a shoot or trip and instead of buying the lenses for that specific shoot I just rent it. Its a great way to become familiar with the capabilities of theses lenses. This way you can choose based upon personal experience instead of second hand reviews that are based upon our personal preferences.

Jared

[epayne]

Ryan,

Jared has some excellent advice. Renting the various lenses you are considering will tell you way more than any forum thread ever will. It will also tell you how capable your tripods are with the various options.

Here are some shots with my 200-400 from last Saturday's trip to the NC Zoo in Asheboro. Some are with the 1.7 Nikon TeleConverter.

http://www.facebook.com/edgar.payne?ref=name#!/album.php?aid=57323&id=1160195616&ref=mf

Best regards,

Edgar Payne