DSLRUsers.com

I want to get more in to sports photography and most of the sports I like to take pics of are all at a distance eg. kitersurfing, surfing and motorsports. Which lens would people recommend/have experience with ?? I thought of the Nikon 200 - 400mm VR till I seen the price

Had a quick play with Birddy's 200-400VR, I would recommend it!! Sorry haven't used the others.

Don't rule out the 300/4 AFS Nikon with 1.7TC. Works well as a base unit for motor sport and also on sunny days with the TC for surfing and kite surfing.

cc@t wrote:I want to get more in to sports photography and most of the sports I like to take pics of are all at a distance eg. kitersurfing, surfing and motorsports. Which lens would people recommend/have experience with ?? I thought of the Nikon 200 - 400mm VR till I seen the price

I've got the 80-400mm and unfortunately it isn't really any good for sports photography as the focus is slow and at full zoom you are stuck with f/5.6, I would go for a faster lense if I was you but I am unsure of which one! I am sure that someone here could help you!

By the way if you would like to try the 80-400mm pm me and I can meet you for a test run!

Cheers

Scott

Muzza22au wrote:

cc@t wrote:I want to get more in to sports photography and most of the sports I like to take pics of are all at a distance eg. kitersurfing, surfing and motorsports. Which lens would people recommend/have experience with ?? I thought of the Nikon 200 - 400mm VR till I seen the price

I've got the 80-400mm and unfortunately it isn't really any good for sports photography as the focus is slow and at full zoom you are stuck with f/5.6, I would go for a faster lense if I was you but I am unsure of which one! I am sure that someone here could help you!

By the way if you would like to try the 80-400mm pm me and I can meet you for a test run!

Cheers

Scott

How's about the 300VR/2.8, it's a small premium and good lust at Xmas time, or a 500 mirror lens around $100.00 - $150.00.

you can pick up a nikkor 500 f4 manual focus for about 2k s/h, plus you don't need to get a metering chip as they come p converted. also keep in mind that the afs motor are quite expenisve to replace iam told.

Muzza22au wrote:I've got the 80-400mm and unfortunately it isn't really any good for sports photography as the focus is slow and at full zoom you are stuck with f/5.6, I would go for a faster lense if I was you but I am unsure of which one! I am sure that someone here could help you!

What do you think of the one below? Taken with 80-400VR and lightning conditions were really poor.

Some more are here: http://www.hlop.net/gallery.new/v/Austr ... g_Harbour/

Hlop wrote:

Muzza22au wrote:I've got the 80-400mm and unfortunately it isn't really any good for sports photography as the focus is slow and at full zoom you are stuck with f/5.6, I would go for a faster lense if I was you but I am unsure of which one! I am sure that someone here could help you!

What do you think of the one below? Taken with 80-400VR and lightning conditions were really poor.

Yep thats a great shot!!!

Hmmm!!! Maybe it is just me! I have been mucking around with manual settings and seem to be able to freeze some motion!!!

Here is a Plane shot today!





So I guess with some patience and mucking around you can use it for sports!

Cheers

Scott

Muzza22au wrote:I've got the 80-400mm and unfortunately it isn't really any good for sports photography as the focus is slow

I really wish people would stop saying that.

If the lens is able to follow focus at the F1 racs, and follow the overhead jets prior to the race with no issues whatsoever, then it's bloody well fast enough for any other sports, all of which will be, with all dure respect, slower than an F1 car in full flight!

My suggestion, with all due respect, is to spend time with any new piece of equipment that one acquires, and spend that time getting to learn how to use it.

Yes, the lens is slower than others.

Yes, the lens doesn't have the optical speed of others either.

But for around PP1700, it has the reachj, and it has the sharpness, to cope with most situations that we are likely to encounter.

Including fast moving sports!

gstark wrote:

Muzza22au wrote:I've got the 80-400mm and unfortunately it isn't really any good for sports photography as the focus is slow

I really wish people would stop saying that.

If the lens is able to follow focus at the F1 racs, and follow the overhead jets prior to the race with no issues whatsoever, then it's bloody well fast enough for any other sports, all of which will be, with all dure respect, slower than an F1 car in full flight!

My suggestion, with all due respect, is to spend time with any new piece of equipment that one acquires, and spend that time getting to learn how to use it.

Yes, the lens is slower than others.

Yes, the lens doesn't have the optical speed of others either.

But for around PP1700, it has the reachj, and it has the sharpness, to cope with most situations that we are likely to encounter.

Including fast moving sports!

OK maybe I commented abit hastily! And I am still learning the finer points of this lense! I take back my comment due to lack of experience! And I agree that I need more time with this lense... So out I go to take more photos!

But Gary, does it have the reach to do handheld shots of the moon at night? I am often surprised by what you get for the money with this lens.

Muzza22au wrote:So I guess with some patience and mucking around you can use it for sports!

Scott,

No, it's not patientce.

And no, it's certainly not "mucking around". Plase take that attitude outside and give it a good flogging.

It takes experience, practice, and, dare I say it, skill.

As I said, you need to forget about the "mucking around" aspect of this, and spend some serious time getting to know, and learning to use, the lens.

Stop it down to f/8 or f/11 for the sweet spot. Keep VR on unless you're mounting it on a 'pod.

Make sure that you're holding the camera properly.

Let me repeat that point, because it's so damn important, and yet so many people fail to do it: make sure that you're holding the camera properly.

And make sure that you know how to properly use the various focus and exposure options that your camera provides you with.

As you can seen, none of this is rocket science, but all of it is simply no more than beconing intimately familiar with your camera.

Quick question: do you focus with one eye closed?

Muzza22au wrote: So out I go to take more photos!

That's it in a nuthouse.

Er, nutshell.

gstark wrote:

Muzza22au wrote:So I guess with some patience and mucking around you can use it for sports!

Quick question: do you focus with one eye closed?

Yeah I tend to focus with one eye! Using the other sometimes to find the subject!

Cheers

Scott

Glen wrote:But Gary, does it have the reach to do handheld shots of the moon at night? I am often surprised by what you get for the money with this lens.

It's amazingly good value, isn't it Glen?

Scott, youy need to search the forums for the Sydney Night Shoot that we had earlier this year. Within one of those threads you'll find a shot of mine, of the full moon.

Handheld, using this lens.

That should dispell any questions regarding the sharpness of this lens, as well as show you some of the benefits of using VR. Look too at some of my shots from last weekend in Newcastle; I only used the 80-400 on the Saturday, and the 24-120 on the Sunday. The first image I posted - the maggie - was one of Saturday's.

And look for my F1 shots from Melbourne in March. Also using this lens ...

Muzza22au wrote:

gstark wrote:

Muzza22au wrote:So I guess with some patience and mucking around you can use it for sports!

Quick question: do you focus with one eye closed?

Yeah I tend to focus with one eye! Using the other sometimes to find the subject!

This is tougher for those who are left-eyed, but if you're right-eyed, keeping both eyes open while acquiring focus and composing your image is a skill I can highly recommend to all.

If, for instance, you're trying to follow action, it permits you to follow that action beyond the restricted viewport of the viewfieder.

at least there is auto focus system nowdays. image what it was like to do sport photography back pre af.


thats a real skill people should learn not to rely on your equipement too often.

redline wrote:at least there is auto focus system nowdays. image what it was like to do sport photography back pre af.

Zone focus?

Where's the problem?

i guess zone focus is ok for predicable motion shots like panning turn shots i duuno about soccor or football or tennis.

back to topic: is the focusing just slow or do it hunt a lot?

redline wrote:i guess zone focus is ok for predicable motion shots like panning turn shots i duuno about soccor or football or tennis.

So, you're going to tell me that before the advent of AF cameras, photographers were unable to get those shots?

ROTFLMAO!

I seem to recall someone else trying that piece of nonsense just a week or two ago.

back to topic: is the focusing just slow or do it hunt a lot?

In all honesty, and IMHO, neither!

Again: you learn how to use the lens, and all of those so-called problems just go away.

Let me put this in an entirely different light: I think that Stigma lenses are exactly that, and basically refuse to permit them to mate in public with any of my bodies. While optical quality is a part of the reason for my PoV on this, clearly, when you look at Chris's consisitently first class work with Stigma lenses, it's a case of a very highly skilled operator knowing precisely how to get the best results out of the tools he has available.

I sometimes wonder at just what he might produce with some decent glass at his disposal.

gstark wrote:
I sometimes wonder at just what he might produce with some decent glass at his disposal.

Gary, a lot of people have complained about this lens for bird flight photography saying it doesn't have the AF speed. They are people also who know what they're talking about and I guess want to ensure that they get the shot every time and not have a batch of duds.

redline wrote:back to topic: is the focusing just slow or do it hunt a lot?

Depends what you mean by 'slow' I guess! It's slower than the AF-S of the 70-200 VR, but as Gary says, with an understanding how the AF works and getting to know how the camera and lens behave acceptable results can be had. Personally, I wonder how the AF-S 300 f/4 + TC14EII combination stacks up against the 80-400 VR at the long end.

kipper wrote:Gary, a lot of people have complained about this lens for bird flight photography saying it doesn't have the AF speed. They are people also who know what they're talking about and I guess want to ensure that they get the shot every time and not have a batch of duds.

Darryl,

Every time I squeeze my shutter, I consider it to be an important event.

While I consider that I know what I'm talking about, I don't consider myself to be a great photographer, yet I rarely have issues with shooting at such slow moving objects as F1 cars.

Please enlighten me as to which of our feathered friends might travel faster than Shcumi?

While those epeople that you're referrign to might know what they're talking about, I would respectfully contend that there are significant differences between talking, and learning to effectively use one's equipment.

I would also respectfully suggest that those who might be doing all that talking perhaps should spend more time shooting with their cameras than with their keyboards.

Sorry, but unless and until you can show me a bird that flies faster than an F1 car, I will continue to reject your arguments.

stark wrote:So, you're going to tell me that before the advent of AF cameras, photographers were unable to get those shots?
ROTFLMAO!
I seem to recall someone else trying that piece of nonsense just a week or two ago.

back to topic: is the focusing just slow or do it hunt a lot?

Like you said Gary, using the zone focus and other related skills manual focus in sports is fine. but differents skills apply to different sports.
There no way did I said that nonone could get any shots on sport before af, just that it required more operating skills. Skills that have been lost with the intro of af.

by the way iam told by other photgraphers that herald sun photographers able to use manual focus at the footy, as they gotten so use to af.

MCWB wrote:

redline wrote:back to topic: is the focusing just slow or do it hunt a lot?

Depends what you mean by 'slow' I guess! It's slower than the AF-S of the 70-200 VR, but as Gary says, with an understanding how the AF works and getting to know how the camera and lens behave acceptable results can be had. Personally, I wonder how the AF-S 300 f/4 + TC14EII combination stacks up against the 80-400 VR at the long end.

slow as in slow focusing.
eg my 80-200 af 2.8 push pull has slower focus than my 2 touch version
it more apperant on a f65 or d70

gstark wrote:

kipper wrote:Gary, a lot of people have complained about this lens for bird flight photography saying it doesn't have the AF speed. They are people also who know what they're talking about and I guess want to ensure that they get the shot every time and not have a batch of duds.

Darryl,

Every time I squeeze my shutter, I consider it to be an important event.

While I consider that I know what I'm talking about, I don't consider myself to be a great photographer, yet I rarely have issues with shooting at such slow moving objects as F1 cars.

Please enlighten me as to which of our feathered friends might travel faster than Shcumi?

While those epeople that you're referrign to might know what they're talking about, I would respectfully contend that there are significant differences between talking, and learning to effectively use one's equipment.

I would also respectfully suggest that those who might be doing all that talking perhaps should spend more time shooting with their cameras than with their keyboards.

Sorry, but unless and until you can show me a bird that flies faster than an F1 car, I will continue to reject your arguments.

The next time you want to sneak your lenses into the f1 next year maybe we should arrange with kipper on a bird hunt at the wtp down here in werribee gary?. i reackon a f1 car focused with an 80-400 zoom around a predictable turn would be somewhat different to focusing on a fast moving small bird the size of a golf ball in a cloudless bg.

gstark wrote:

Muzza22au wrote:

gstark wrote:

Muzza22au wrote:So I guess with some patience and mucking around you can use it for sports!

Quick question: do you focus with one eye closed?

Yeah I tend to focus with one eye! Using the other sometimes to find the subject!

This is tougher for those who are left-eyed, but if you're right-eyed, keeping both eyes open while acquiring focus and composing your image is a skill I can highly recommend to all.

If, for instance, you're trying to follow action, it permits you to follow that action beyond the restricted viewport of the viewfieder.

I agree and am still trying to master it!

By the way I checked out your moon shot! And all I can say is excellent job...

Cheers

Scott

Gary: I second what kipper has been saying about slow af performance on the 80-400 at least on the d70.

Certainly cars go much faster than a small bird

BUT in a race cars are going around a known course and will take the racing line and therefore their intended path will always be known and the photographer can place himself at the appropriate spot knowing that the target will definitely (or at least with a high degree of surity crashes etc notwithstanding) be where you want it.

With birds especially they go where they wish when they wish and the photographer will rarely know with certainly exactly where it will go.
Others will change perches very quickly and move erratically.
You need a fast AF in these cases because if you dont get the shot, it wont necessarily come around again next lap.
I find the 80-400 slow in focussing compared to others I have used.
Sometimes this has caused me not to get the shot because the target cleared off in the shot time between target acquisition and focus lockup.
As such I would recommend a faster lens for action sports or birding.

I agree that it would be ok for motorsport.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Steve

So I am assuming that the Nikon 80 - 400 Vr is a lot better lens judging by the reports on here and just needs practice with it to be proficient. Looks like birddog is going to get some business...

Thanks everyone for your comments

CCat: I love my 80-400 but I am sometimes frustrated but the little extra time it may take to focus. This only really becomes an issue if you are shooting a bird at 1 range and then an other presents a target at a different range. I have lost shots because of the delay.
It it is going to sit there I will get the shot and should be sharp if I have done the job correctly. ( all the bird shots I have posted on this forum are with the 80-400)
I am glad I have the lens, but lust for a fast prime.
You will notice all the pro sports and nature photogs use fast primes, with good reason.

Steve

redline wrote:Like you said Gary, using the zone focus and other related skills manual focus in sports is fine. but differents skills apply to different sports.

If you're playing the sports, then yes, of course.


But if you're a photographer, then you need to be trained (or train yourself) in the skillsets required of that activity, just as a footballer would be traine in the skillsets needed to play footbal.

There no way did I said that nonone could get any shots on sport before af, just that it required more operating skills. Skills that have been lost with the intro of af.

No. Not lost. Perhaps some people have forgotten them, but I'd venture to suggest that there's a great many who have never even acquired them.

AF is merely a part of our toolset. it's one tool that we may find useful, but in many circumstances, and/or with many camera and lens combinations, it may not be available.

I've taken thousands upon thousands of images with my old FE2, although none lately. How would you suggest I use it these days were I to venture back into phill-um?

by the way iam told by other photgraphers that herald sun photographers able to use manual focus at the footy, as they gotten so use to af.

Care to clarify what you're trying to say here? This is not at all clear.

redline wrote:The next time you want to sneak your lenses into the f1 next year maybe we should arrange with kipper on a bird hunt at the wtp down here in werribee gary?. i reackon a f1 car focused with an 80-400 zoom around a predictable turn would be somewhat different to focusing on a fast moving small bird the size of a golf ball in a cloudless bg.

Actually, I didn't sneak any lenses into Albert Park this year, but next year we're most likely heading to Malaysia rather than Melbourne. SHould be roughly the same weekend cost with quite a few upsides.

But a fast moving bird? You still haven't enlightened me as to which birds move at faster than 200kph, but again, you should be able to, first of all, do this manually. If you cannot, then you need to consider what skillsets you're thinking of using.

That takes care of all of your arguments in the one swell foop, but again, with the requisite knowledge of your camera and lens, and the various operating modes of both, and being able to set them appropriately for the shooting conditons that you're engaging with, and being able to use them effectively, then\, again, I siumply do not accept your arguments.

And I've seen far too much evidence - as I suspect that you have - that suggests my argument - knowledge of your tools, practice, and the acquisition of the requisite skillset - is the correct one, and any other is simply a poor workman blaming his or her tools.

And to be perfectly frank: whenever I come back home with shit for my images, (which is mostly) I can pinpoint exactly, and for each and every such unsatisfactory image, the precise cause of the problem. And it's not the camera. It's not the lens. It's not the absence of a Gitzo tripod. It's not that the metering system didn'lt work as I expected it to. it's not that the AF was slow, although occasionally, in a grab shot, I might have had it focus on a plane other than what I intended.

The simple answer is that it's me. My lack of skills. My absence of talent. My failure to perform. My failure to fully understand the needs of the situation.

avkomp wrote:With birds especially they go where they wish when they wish and the photographer will rarely know with certainly exactly where it will go.

Actually, that's rarely the case.

Butterflies, yes, absolutely.

But take some time and watch the birds.

Seriously: observe them. I do at Lindy's, quite frequently.

DO so, and over time you'll see that they follow certain patterns, flying from a to b to d to c.

Over a short period, it might certainly appear to be random, but if one is claiming to know and understand their tools, one should also surely understand one's subject.

And again - and let be perfectly bloody frank about this - the only way that one can complain about the focussing speed of the 80-400 is if they simply do not understand how to use the damn thing!

Yes, it's slower on a D70 than it is on a D2X.

And you're comparign a $1500 body with a $6000 body, so what the hell do you expect?

And yes, it's slower than a 70-210 VR.

But the 70-210 has not got the reach - never had it, and never will have it, and it stioll costs about twice the price of the 80-400.

And it weighs a fair bit more too, which only introduces a whole host of new issues for you to address.

So, learn what the lens's features and limitations are.

And learn to use it properly.

And if you're not prepared to do that, then sell the bloody thing and buy a 200-400 for a mere $10,000!

But I''ll tell you now that even with that lens, with it's speed, range and fast aperture, you'll still be missing the same bloody shots, because you're failing to go back to the basics, and learniing to use your tools properly.

I find the 80-400 slow in focussing compared to others I have used.
Sometimes this has caused me not to get the shot because the target cleared off in the shot time between target acquisition and focus lockup.
As such I would recommend a faster lens for action sports or birding.

See above.

My belief i that you're simply not using your gear correctly, and I doubt a faster lens, or a faster camera, is the correct answer. With respect, I think you're providing excuses.

gstark wrote:

redline wrote:But a fast moving bird? You still haven't enlightened me as to which birds move at faster than 200kph, but again, you should be able to, first of all, do this manually. If you cannot, then you need to consider what skillsets you're thinking of using.

The Peregrine Falcon has been recorded in a stoop (that's a dive from about a 1km up) onto it's prey at an excess of 200kmh usually breaking the preys neck instantly from the force of impact or usually scaring it into death. They have recorded with a radar gun of a Peregrine doing between 220kmh, some believe the speed can be around 250-320kmh. I've observed one stoop dive and it's f**king fast.

As for cloudless backgrounds, I usually don't find that much of an issue as it's usually a fairly high contrast BG between subject and background. Usually it's the cluttered backgrounds with bushes/trees/grasses and a bird flying over them can be difficult at times to track.

As for predictability of birds, it really depends on the species and what they're doing at the time. Birds that are soaring are usually fairly predictable (eg. pelicans, eagles, whistling kites). Birds that dart from tree to tree (eg. robins) or dart from a tree and hover mid flight to catch insects (eg. flycatchers/fantails) aren't so predictable. Also birds of prey that are hunting can be unpredictable at times. For instance a Black Shouldered Kite flying around isn't very predictable but if you catch them hovering then you can photography them - but then the bird is stationary and it's a bit easy to photograph eh? Various birds of prey might be flying along predictably but then all of a sudden their direction might change very sharply, they can turn on a coin and do a vertical dive if they see something that takes their eye.

Racing cars on the other hand are very predictable, they have a racing line and will follow it time and time again. Yes they are moving fast but if you prefocus on that racing line and setup enough DOF it's a peice of piss. I've got about 1500 sharp shots from Turn 1 of the F1GP with about a 95% keeper rate, with hardly any time where I had difficulty getting focus. I can't say the same for photographing birds though.

While I'm not for a moment suiggesting that you'll get a 95% keeper rate, I'd strongly suggest that you keep on practising.

Perhaps using MF.

maybe we will see some excellent bird shots from mr stark to show us how its done?? you could even explain the techniques used to help all of us who dont know what we are doing with the 400 vr??

Steve

G'day,

My two bob's worth

I've been using the 80-400VR primarily for animals chilling and some lone-range landscape stuff... I find it can hunt a bit in low light but manual focus helped out there...

Rather than consider the Sigma 50-500, have you considered the Sigma 80-400 which I believe is motor driven focus (similar to Nikkor AF-S) and has Sigma's equivalent of VR? Same f-stop range I believe... Might be worth considering, just a thought...

Love my 80-400, reckon it's great value, not heavy and also doesn't attract as much attention as some of the physically larger lenses...

the 80-400 doesnt hunt when it has a clear target.
If you point it where there might be busy backgrounds, it might.
depends on the separation between subject.
using it in low light, it might also.


sometimes you need to use manual focus do ensure it goes where you wish.
The limit switch can sometimes work wonders, but you need to be mindful when using it because if you are focusing on subjects ranging from close to further away it might refuse to focus. switching to full fixes that.

I prefer to use the limit switch though and turn it of when needed (so long as I remember) It definitely works well when tracking smaller moving subjects.
without limit engaged the lens will hunt if you move the af zone off the subject and you will surely lose the subject in the viewfinder. with limit on though, if you lose the af zone briefly, the lens will only try to reacquire at a similar range and wont hunt.

Within its limits it is a good lens. as suggested before doesnt look threatening like a long prime and you may be able to use it at long prime restricted events like F1 etc.
I am glad I have it but believe that there are better options available.
Seen many sports photogs on the news / cricket etc using 80-400s on their monopods??
Steve

avkomp wrote:maybe we will see some excellent bird shots from mr stark to show us how its done?? you could even explain the techniques used to help all of us who dont know what we are doing with the 400 vr??

Steve

Steve,

As I neither get up early, nor care much to shoot birds of the feathered variety these days, this is not all that likely to happen. Certainly, my recimmendation that you cease holding your breath in anticipation of this event in the immediate future should best be heeded.

Suffuce to say that, at 53, I've done this 30 odd-years ago, pre AF and all, and yes, I have a sneaking suspicion that I know of what I'm talking, and no, just like the mini ads of yesteryear, I do not have to prove a damn thing.

And let me put this another way: not one of the protagonists has, as yet, put up anything that remotely resmbles a convincing argument suggesting that, by me stating that it's the photographer's skillset and technique, I am wrong.

Further, there are literally millions of examples that exist in the world to support my position. Please, simply pay a visit to your local library and spend a few moment perusing a 20 year old edition of National Geographic, or perhaps a 30 year old edition of Life Magazine. You will have all of the proof that you need that these images can be made, have been made in the past, and will continue to be made in the future, by people who are skilled in their craft, and not by robots reliant upon such niceties as AF.

Yes,, AF helps, and it's nice to have.

But (a) it's not essential, and (b) I believe that it's perfectly adequate in the hands of a skilled operator using the D70 + Nikkor 80-400VR.

gstark wrote:(b) I believe that it's perfectly adequate in the hands of a skilled operator using the D70 + Nikkor 80-400VR.

or to put it in simpler terms, "it aint the tools, it's the operator !"

I've been lying awake for many a night with this debate raging around my head (sad, eh?!).

With the choices available, I still can't help but come back to the 80-400mmVR due to the quality of the images I've seen.

Simon: I love having the lens.
80-400 can cover a lot of bases. I am glad I have it.
I have taken a lot of images with it that I really like.
I have posted quite a few on this forum and others.
The quality of the output has never been in question, nor has the assistance I have been able to extract from VR.

many years ago prior to AF I have had lots of experience with sports amongst other subjects and good results were obtained.
These days we tend to use AF primarily because we can.
Sometimes we dont use it because it is fooled or other reasons.

There are those of use who feel the AF performance of this lens is slow and or confusable

and

there are those who feel that it should be adequate for the job.

This thread had progressed to one of those holden vs ford things where no amount of comment from either side can sway the opinion of the other
party.
I suggest that nothing further can be added to this thread

Steve

avkomp wrote:

I prefer to use the limit switch though and turn it of when needed (so long as I remember) It definitely works well when tracking smaller moving subjects.

Fancy that?? Not just smaller subjects, btw.

It operates in two modes however. You can also use it in a close mode, and for my needs, I rarely turn it off. Close mode cuts in at about 8 feet away, IIRC, and even with my shot of the (somewhat stationary) magpie last week, the maggie was about 10 or 12 feet away, hence the distance limiter worked a treat, there was no hunting nor delay in making the image, and I just needed to correctly hold the camera and compose the shot as I wanted it.

It's imteresting though that you're now stating that certain techniques seem to work better, and we can now clearly see a distinction between how you use the lens, and how I do.

Which very simply comes back to what I've been saying all along: if you're employing the appropriate methodologies in your use of this lens, then you will not experience too many problems.

without limit engaged the lens will hunt if you move the af zone off the subject and you will surely lose the subject in the viewfinder. with limit on though, if you lose the af zone briefly, the lens will only try to reacquire at a similar range and wont hunt.

Almost correct; are you aware that the focus zones are longer than indicated in the VF? Part of the issue that you may be experiencing is the paucity of focus zones in the D70 - just 5 - but that is nothing at all to do with the lens, is it?

And what focus modes do you use?

And - this is a real iffy one, but a biggy nonetheless - what are your antiocpatory skills like? Mine suck, but those whom I know who take great images have great anticipatory skils, and again, it comes back to the skillset, and those with truly great anticpatory skills make great images with or without AF.

Seen many sports photogs on the news / cricket etc using 80-400s on their monopods??

Seen many of them who actually pay for the gear that they're using?

If I'm being supplied a 500 f/2 and a D2X to use it on, then great, I'll use it, but sadly, my budget doesn't run to that sort of investment.

While I'm still paying for my gear, I'll get the best I can afford - and that explicitly and most assuredly excludes Sigma, because I don't believe that they can have the build quality I demand - an when I get something new, I'll spend the time to get to know and undertsnad the gear that I've bought.

For those who might be considering purchase of the Bigma, let me add one final observation: most of those whom I've seen buying that lens end up buying, within just a few short months of acquiring the Bigma, the Nikkor 80-400.

THat is a most compelling message, and I am simply suggesting that people avoid the detour and make the purchase that they're eventually going to make.

FWIW, I have yet to see anyone move from the 80-400 to the Bigma, but I have seen a couple of people step up to the 70-200, but that was because they wanted the f/2.8 that the shorter lens offers, rather than any dissatisfaction with the 80-400. Indeed, I may well be adding the 70-200 to my arsenal at some point during '06, but it will be an adjunct too, not a replacement for, the 80-400.

Aussie Dave wrote:

gstark wrote:(b) I believe that it's perfectly adequate in the hands of a skilled operator using the D70 + Nikkor 80-400VR.

or to put it in simpler terms, "it aint the tools, it's the operator !"

Dave,

I'm trying very hard to say that, but without suggesting that others here might not have the skillset they like to believe that they have. After all, I'm not permitted to flame.

My only further suggestion is that if somebody here believes that the lens isn't working for them, tbey need to continue trying and learning how to make it work to their benefit.

Failing that, it's obviously going to be a defective lens, and I'll be nice and buy it from them for ... oh ... maybe $5.



Simon, have you had a play with one as yet? At the prices Poon makes it available to us for, it's just an absolute bloody bargain.

gstark wrote:Simon, have you had a play with one as yet? At the prices Poon makes it available to us for, it's just an absolute bloody bargain.

Not as yet Gary but I'm happy to make my judgement based on what yourself, Thanh, Steve, Leek and other members have said both in this thread and in the past. I'm certainly very cognisant of the bargain price on offer and it's only a matter of time before I kick something out of the Lowepro to make room. I hazard to guess there'll be a 70-300G up for grabs for the discerning newcomer.

Manta wrote: I hazard to guess there'll be a 70-300G up for grabs for the discerning newcomer.

They make a great paperweight, Simon.

Gary et al

I've read this discussion with some interest. Way back when I first considered getting the 80-400VR I borrowed one for 10 days and had a play taking shots of wildlife in the local wetlands. I'm a photographic novice (even more so back then since I'd only had the D70 for about 2 months). In my novice and unskilled hands I experienced all the difficulties you'd generically lump under slow to focus - it was damned hard to track a distant moving bird and get the AF to lock onto and stay on the target. I ended up buying the 70-200 VR instead at significantly more cost. It got put through a similar workout and, in my mug hands, was subjectively faster at focussing.

I have complete faith that when Gary says a skilled operator can make the 80-400 VR sing he's 100% right and Gary's shots with it well and trully establish that. My deduction is and was that when putting the 80-400VR beside the 70-200 VR the former required MORE skill by the operator than the latter.

So when making a choice between lenses - don't say a lens is slow, but rather a lens may take longer to master than another being compared. If you have the patience to achieve that mastery then the 80-400VR will reward your efforts.

The same issue could well apply with the Sigma lens or it may not. You have to try it and give it a decent try (ie not just 5 minutes in a shop).

Consider other factors too - it's not just about speed eg if you had an almighty fast lens with bad chromatic aberration or ugly boke would that be acceptable?

Perhaps all of you should read The Art of Bird Photography. Perhaps you might learn something, and heaven forbids you actually get out there and try something of a similar nature you might hear what some of us are trying to say. Anyway this is getting a bit OT anyway, and I'm not going to dwell on it anymore. I know what is possible and what is not, and what you're asking is borderling impossible. I think I'd end up throwing my equipment off the edge of a cliff in frustrating before I got any sharp shots.

kipper wrote:I think I'd end up throwing my equipment off the edge of a cliff in frustrating before I got any sharp shots.

Darryl,
Please let me know when and where - I'll be there with a big catcher's mitt!

I have also read this thread with interest since I own the 80-400VR. Given the price of the lens I have been more than happy with its performance. I also find the limit switch quite useful and pretty much have it turned on most of the time. I've used it for taking photos of birds in flight and have come away with what I consider to be some good shots and others not so good. I'm happy to accept that those not so good are probably down to my technique.

There have been days when I have been really frustrated but I don't just stop using my equipment because I've had a bad day out. I go back and try again and again until I've got something I'm happy with. I can't comment on the 50-500 but I continue to be happy with my 80-400VR.

Here are two of my favourite examples for those who might doubt the ability of this lens for birds in flight (and yes this took practice):

Nankeen Kestrel
Crested Tern