Serious wildlife / sports lenses

[losfp]

The dust has barely settled on my last purchase (the most excellent Nikkor 85/1.4), and I am already in full research mode for my next lens

I had a lot of fun shooting bears, eagles and whatnot on our trip to Alaska and the Canadian Rockies in July, and I'd really like to do more of it, whether it's native bird and wildlife here or traveling overseas to see interesting animals that can kill you. I'm also quite keen on shooting sports - normally AFL.

I have been using the 70-200VR, mostly combined with the 1.7 TC for extra length. This is a pretty decent combo - focuses very fast without the TC and pretty good with it unless the light level drops. However, you do still get a fair amount of softness (that can be alleviated somewhat by stopping down a bit) and the overall length still isn't that great (equivalent to a 340/4.8 with the TC)

So in that end of the market (300mm+), thankfully there isn't much choice! I've counted out the following:

- Any "consumer" grade zoom that is any slower than f/4, ie: the 70-300, 80-400
- 300/4 : Apparently decent quality, but IMO not a massive upgrade over my 70-200 + TC combo
- 400/2.8 : Cost and weight
- 600/4 : Cost and weight

The following are on the hit list:

- 300/2.8 VR (equiv to 420/4 or 510/4.8 with TC)
- 200-400/4 VR (equiv to 280-560/5.6 with TC)
- 500/4 Non-VR (equiv to 700/5.6 with TC)

The 500/4 would be lovely, but it's really pushing up over the realistic price barrier - $2000 over the 200-400 is like a whole new D300 body!! Let alone thinking about how much the new 500/4 VR is going to be!!

So really, the fight is between the 300/2.8 VR and the 200-400. I've done a bit of reading around and understand the known pros and cons between the two. The 200-400 would be ideal for the zoom flexibility, but it is also at least a grand more expensive and much larger/heavier than the 300.

I know it's a long shot, but has anyone here had a decent amount of practical experience with any of the lenses I mentioned above, and preferably have used more than one of them for a comparison? I am keen to hear opinions from folks I trust. Suggestions on alternatives are welcome of course, but bear in mind that I would probably rather save up for what I want otherwise I'd just eventually upgrade anyway (I went through the 70-300G and 80-200/2.8 before getting my 70-200VR)

These top end long lenses are somewhat difficult to test out at your local camera store (my local doesn't stock anything fancier than a 80-200/2.

[Raskill]

Fairly specific sort of request mate. I would consider a third party lens, like Sigma. Maybe head over to Fredmiranda and do some research on their reviews. Maybe check out the Sigma 300 - 800 F/5.6. A big lens, but would get you as close to the action as possible, with having to use a TC, and lose light and clarity.

Good luck, and keep us updated!

[ATJ]

Des,

I certainly don't want to discount the experience and responses you will receive here on DSLRUsers, but I would like to recommend either searching or asking specific questions over on http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/index.php They concentrate on nature photography and have a huge base of members who spend all their time (and money) in pursuit of the perfect nature image.

Of course, you should share with us any conclusions you make.

[MCWB]

Have you considered the Sigma 500 f/4.5 or 120-300 f/2.8 Des? I've been looking at the 500 lately, goes for mid-high $2Ks on overseas Ebay so pretty good value...

TBH though if cost were no object I would be going with a long image-stabilised lens for this sort of shooting, which really means 500 f/4 IS/VR or 600 IS...

[Biggzie]

My 2 cent
Im a Pentax user, and I cant comment on these lenses, but I spent most of my photography life out in scrubs etc doing nature type photo's.
My favorite lens is a Tokina AT-X SD 150-500mm f5.6 which I bought new about 16-17 years ago.
Why, because its a very good balance between userability and performance. Its 30cm long and about 11cm wide, well balanced in the hand and I dont find this too heavy to use handheld. The glass is excellent quality, and I have a reasonable distance usable range. I find that at a distance, I need a tripod, but most of my subjects are closer in its hand held usable range.
At f5.6 I would prefer something that lets in more light, but then I trade userability.
This lens may not suit you or your technique, but it suits me.

My point is that you can look at all the technical specs and find the best lens on paper, but that doesnt mean its going to suit you in the way you intend to use it.
My advice would be find someone with a lens your interested in and try it, or hire a lens for a weekend to try it. If you find someone with the lens, go out with them and see how they use it, and pickup some tips of how they have adapted to the lens.

[losfp]

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I'll definitely check out naturescapes and see what I can find there.

The main problem with these big exotic lenses is that not many people have them... Therefore it is hard to have a look at them With many other lenses that I've bought - 85/1.4, 70-200VR, 18-200 etc etc, I've been able to try them out through people on here or other forums, which really does help the decision process.

[mickb]

Los,

I shoot with the 200-400 and find it to be an excellent lens in the day, it struggles at night at places like the Telstra Dome and the MCG.

Saying that it is one versatile lens, I'm still shooting while the guys with the fixed 400's have stopped because the action is too close. The other thing about this lens is that is lighter than the 400.

I did the Superbikes earlier this year with it and the images were pin sharp with a very high hit rate on D2Xs bodies.

Also you may want to google Dave Black, Dave is one of the top Sports shooters in the USA, and he constantly uses the 200-400.

Now another downsides (apart from losing a stop of light)...the bokeh while very nice, on the cropped camera's it's not quite as nice as the fixed 400 2.8. However I've never had any complaints.

I don't have any full size images on the net, only reduced, if someone tells me how I can post a couple here for you to look at the quality.

You can pop over to http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbrown3064 and look at the superbike shots. Also under general sports you will see shots of the football with the fixed 400 2.8

Mick Brown

[losfp]

Thanks for the feedback Mick Will check out your links.

[big pix]

people tend to shy away from the Bigma 50-500mm Sigma, but I find it a very good lens for wild life. yes it is a little slow at the 500 end, 6.3 but value for money is there. I also find it very sharp through the range.
EDIT: I hand hold this lens for a lot of birds in flight, takes pratice, also have a manfrotto gymble head to use with the 300 2.8 and 2X TC, yet to play with this, been too busy.

I also have the 120-300mm 2.8 Sigma but this lens has gone off for a firmware update. ECS Cameras and Kennedy's, the agent, have given me great service and arranged a new replacement lens which arrives today. I am off for a commerical shoot in Sydney tomorrow and need said lens. I am yet to fully do a shoot with the 120-300

Samples of the 50-500 here.....all hand held....
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/3188300

[losfp]

Thanks for the suggestions bigpix

I guess I really want to stick with the Nikkor lenses. I know many of the Sigmas, Tokinas and Tamrons are excellent value for money, but in almost every case I would be happier saving up a bit extra and going for the "name brand". It's the last little 5% in build quality, ergonomics etc that seem to cost so much more as per usual

I've tried the 50-500, and while the reach and value are great, it just doesn't do it for me somehow... I have not tried the 120-300 or the 300-800.