300mm f/4 AF-S vs. 80-400mm VR on a D70s (2 Viewers)

[Mario Hummer]

Hi all,

I own a D70s and am looking towards a relatively long lens for birds. Yes, we all know there aren't enough mm for birds, but, we all try I guess.

I read nice things in Yossi's site (and from him himself) about these two lenses. I'd use the 300mm with 1.4 and 1.7 TCs. On this forum I read several posts about these lenses, esp. the 80-400VR but on a D-200, which focuses faster than the D70s.

So, has anyone had experience with these two lenses, or know how they'll behave AF-wise on a D70s? I realize the 300mm f/4 oughta give better image quality than the 80-400, despite the lesser flexibility of a zoom lens.

Any comments appreciated. Before I switch to Canon... ;-)

Mario

 

[Keith Reeder]

Don't ignore the Sigma 80-400 OS, Mario - I used one on a D70 and a D200 and it's a fine lens.

It is quicker to focus than the Nikon 80-400mm because it has a built-in drive motor and image quality is great - nothing to choose between it and the Nikon, in my view.

And it's significantly cheaper.

I review it here and my opinions still stand - great lens.

 

[RogW]

I have the 300 af-s, and the TC14/17E it is sharp wide open on its own, you have to stop down a little with the t'c's to get optimal sharpness, (epending on use you may get away wid eopen) AF is maintained with all t/c's though is at its fastest on own. you would get a bit more reach with a 300 and t/c's (420 f5.6 and520 f6.3) than with the 80-400VR. I found with the t/c's a tripod was v helpfull

I have not used the 80-400, from what i understand it is quite slow to focus, and is not at its sharpest at 400mm. Also, and i could be wrong here, you can't use it with t/c's (at least not the nikon ones). You do however get the flexibility of a zoom and the VR function.

I think what it comes down to is convinience, zoom, vr (80-400) as comparded to faster AF, sharper, more reach (300 af-s). I have seem superb pics from both lenses. I do feel that these are twon lenses that nikon could improve on, VR for 300afs and afs for 80-400vr.

Rog

 

[Mario Hummer]

Don't ignore the Sigma 80-400 OS, Mario - I used one on a D70 and a D200 and it's a fine lens.

It is quicker to focus than the Nikon 80-400mm because it has a built-in drive motor and image quality is great - nothing to choose between it and the Nikon, in my view.

Thanks for pointing me to your review, Keith. I'll look for pics with this lens on pbase.

By the way, you're happy with the 30D plus the 100-400 IS USM? That'd be my starting combo on the Canon side of things. How's the noise at high ISO settings? Since I shoot humming birds at 1/500-1/640 sec with a lent Soligor 100-400 f/4.5-6.7, ISO goes way up and that's another thing I'm having to cope with.

Cheers,

Mario

 

[Mario Hummer]

I think what it comes down to is convinience, zoom, vr (80-400) as comparded to faster AF, sharper, more reach (300 af-s). I have seem superb pics from both lenses. I do feel that these are twon lenses that nikon could improve on, VR for 300afs and afs for 80-400vr.

Rog, thanks for sharing your experience with the 300. I'm glad to read that.

And I hear you on your expectations from Nikon. To be honest, that's what has been bugging me lately, as I decided to get a decent lens for birding (w/o getting into a divorce). Canon has so many more (apparently very good) options at the prosumer level that make Nikon's pale in comparison.

Take the 300mm, for instance. With Nikon, you get the f/4 but with no VR. And, should you want the f/2.8 for faster shutter speeds, you have to shell out 4x as much for the VR one. I'm sure it's worth every penny but not quite an option for a non-pro. Or not now, anyway.

With Canon, you have the f/4 IS for essentially the same price as non-VR Nikon. And you also have the non-IS f/4 option. And the same happens with the f/2.8 lenses.

And if you look at the telezooms, Canon's 100-400 is USM, in contrast with the AF-only 80-400 from Nikon. I mean, c'mon, the 80-400 is 5 yrs old now.

Coupling all this with the low noise at high ISO that the Canons seem to have, they would seem to have an edge over Nikon for birding, despite my preference for the Nikon cameras themselves. I'm more than happy with my D70s and kinda ready to move on to a D200 or its successor, but looking at Nikon's lens lineup, it's so frustrating that I can't avoid having second thoughts.

Mario

 

[Doug Greenberg]

I wouldn't worry much about the Canon 100-400mm. being significantly superior to the Nikon 80-400mm. Optically it's pretty much a wash, and the difference in AF speed is not sufficient (for me) to justify tossing an entire camera system. As I've said in a number of these threads, were I starting over again I'd undoubtedly buy Canon gear, but unless you are interested in a high-end 500mm or 600mm. supertele with IS, I don't think you'd gain a whole lot by switching.

That said, I have come to the position that the Nikon 300mm. f4 plus teleconverter combo is superior to the 80-400mm. VR zoom. Maybe I'm just so shaky that VR doesn't help me enough, but the optical performance of the 300 plus TC for me trumps the advantages of the VR zoom. The 420mm. f5.6 fixed combo is pin-sharp, and is way superior at f5.6 to the VR zoom at 400mm.

 

[Duke Leto]

Yep gotta agree with Doug, my 1.4 is never off my 300AF-S and always delivers excellent results, but heres another thought, you could get a 300/4 ED-IF with a sigma 1.4 for a lot less than the AF-S and a TC-14eII. IMHO the older 300/4 was an excellent lens, built like a tank but obviously slightly slower in the AF department but optically equal to the newer model.
I have owned both the ED-IF and the AF-S and really would be happy with either its just that to streamline TC's i went all AF-S
Steve

 

[Mario Hummer]

I have owned both the ED-IF and the AF-S and really would be happy with either its just that to streamline TC's i went all AF-S
Steve

Steve/Doug,

Thanks for the input and confirming my suspicion above about the quality of the 300mm/f4+TC combo. I was more worried about my D70s not being able to reasonably use the AF-S capability of this lens (esp. together w/ the TC) but you guys and Rog put my fears away. I'm gonna go ahead and get the beast.

I'll get the AF-S model, despite the good suggestion by Steve. One of my main interests are hummingbirds and I could use AF-S. I considered VR because these wingy creatures often feed mainly either early morning or late afternoon. Since I shoot mostly faster than 1/500 sec, the ensuing high ISO setting makes noise a problem; in some circunstances where I didn't need to freeze the motion and avoid shake, like a standing hummer, VR might come in handy by allowing a lower shutter speed and ISO.

But having learned a lot with the Soligor to take handheld shots at sometimes unexpected spots, I'll take the plunge with the prime lens, of higher optical quality. I mean, if the f/6.7 (@400mm) Soligor does AF late in the afternoon, the 300mm AF-S can't be worse, can it. And I suspect in some situations, with a future 10-12 Mpix camera, I could use it straight w/o a TC and crop down to 6Mpix (as I have now), in low light situations.

The other thing that might help is getting an SB-800 to hopefully help freeze the motion with this lens in some situations.

Mario

 

[Leif]

You can find good reviews of both 300mm lenses on www.bythom.com. You can also find reviews of various 400mm combinations on www.NikonLinks.com. (It's not easy to find so give shout if you don't succeed and I'll try.) Basically the 300mm F4 + decent TC1.4 is on a par with a decent 400mm F5.6 lens.

The only issue with the 300mm F4 is the tripod foot which is said to be unstable, and several companies including Kirk and RRS sell replacements.

 

[Leif]

I wouldn't worry much about the Canon 100-400mm. being significantly superior to the Nikon 80-400mm. Optically it's pretty much a wash, and the difference in AF speed is not sufficient (for me) to justify tossing an entire camera system. As I've said in a number of these threads, were I starting over again I'd undoubtedly buy Canon gear, but unless you are interested in a high-end 500mm or 600mm. supertele with IS, I don't think you'd gain a whole lot by switching.

That said, I have come to the position that the Nikon 300mm. f4 plus teleconverter combo is superior to the 80-400mm. VR zoom. Maybe I'm just so shaky that VR doesn't help me enough, but the optical performance of the 300 plus TC for me trumps the advantages of the VR zoom. The 420mm. f5.6 fixed combo is pin-sharp, and is way superior at f5.6 to the VR zoom at 400mm.

Klaus on www.photozone.de has reviewed samples of these lenses, and agrees with your findings. It's one reason I do not lust after the 80-400 zoom. (That and the price.)

 

[rb_stern]

I have the 80-400vr, Tamron 200-500 and Nikon 70-300vr which works fine with Kenko pro 1.4x TC - on my Nikon D70s. The differences between them are minimal, and are mainly related to weight and length. I believe that any differences in results between these lenses are more likely due to ability to hand hold, correct exposure, ability to post-process properly, and individual photographer variation, than to true differences between the lenses.

Admittedly the pics here in the Birdforum galleries are small, but search the last 3-4 months posts in my name and see if you can honestly tell any differences between the 3.

I see no reason for you to switch to Canon if you're happy with your d70s.

Richard

 

[Duke Leto]

The only issue with the 300mm F4 is the tripod foot which is said to be unstable, and several companies including Kirk and RRS sell replacements.

Might be on earlier models but I find no problem with the AF-S I bought last year, the ED-IF ahd no similar problem

 

[Leif]

Might be on earlier models but I find no problem with the AF-S I bought last year, the ED-IF ahd no similar problem

It is the AFS one that is supposed to be sub-standard, according to various people. Not that I own the beast. See Rorslett's web site for an example.

 

[Duke Leto]

It is the AFS one that is supposed to be sub-standard, according to various people. Not that I own the beast. See Rorslett's web site for an example.

Yeah I saw them but I think most say that the same problem exists on the 80-400vr as well, it because the mount is so long and can flex, a block of rubber in between the lens and top of the mount helps. The tests that have highlighted this floor that I've read all indicate that the test was carried out on an early version of the AFS lens. Having owned the ED-IF and then the AFS I have seen no difference in using either but I'm not a professional so shall bow my head to my betters.
Steve

 

[Leif]

Duke: They must have improved it in response to early criticism, which is good news.

 

[avan]

If you already have the 300 af-s and converter forgot the 80-400. The 300 af-s are a very fast and sharp lens even with the TC on. The 400mm f5.6 from Canon are very good but is it worth the change? I can say (I made the switch from the same set up as your's except a D80) the Canon lens are a bit better than the combo 300 + TC, but it's marginal. As for the flex on the foot, the one on the Canon flex also, so it's kif-kif.

 

[Mario Hummer]

If you already have the 300 af-s and converter forgot the 80-400. The 300 af-s are a very fast and sharp lens even with the TC on. The 400mm f5.6 from Canon are very good but is it worth the change? I can say (I made the switch from the same set up as your's except a D80) the Canon lens are a bit better than the combo 300 + TC, but it's marginal. As for the flex on the foot, the one on the Canon flex also, so it's kif-kif.

Well, I don't have either lens yet but, yes, in the Nikon lineup the 300+1.4tc looks like a winner. Interestingly, I've compared the measured MTF's of the Nikon and the Canon 300mm f/4's in Photozone (thanks for the reminder, Leif). With the lenses bare at f/4, Canon's has a slight advantage; with a 1.4xtc, Nikon has a little edge. So they're fairly comparable. Canon's does have IS though, for the same price.

(On the 80/100-400mm VR/IS front, Nikon has better optical quality, albeit both, naturally, somewhat below the primes.)

So prime+tc it is; the question I guess is, how much IS might (or not) help with hummingbird shots, which is 70-80% of what I do presently on the bird side of things.

Mario

 

[rezMole]

So prime+tc it is; the question I guess is, how much IS might (or not) help with hummingbird shots, which is 70-80% of what I do presently on the bird side of things.

Mario

If you are shooting at fast shutter speeds anyway, then IS shouldn't be needed. The idea of IS is to help compensate for camera movement at slow"ish" shutter speeds. I use a Tamron 200-500 and don't have a problem when I keep the shutter speed above 1/500th second.

If you take a photo of a static object at say 1/125th second and it's slightly blurred due to camera shake, then IS should enable you to take the same shot and drop to something like 1/30th sec without it being blurred. IS doesn't really help with fast moving objects - it is purely a "camera" end device - it stops helps to counter camera shake not object movement - you will still need a fast shutter speed to stop that.

 

[Mario Hummer]

If you are shooting at fast shutter speeds anyway, then IS shouldn't be needed. (...) I use a Tamron 200-500 and don't have a problem when I keep the shutter speed above 1/500th second.

If you take a photo of a static object at say 1/125th second and it's slightly blurred due to camera shake, then IS should enable you to take the same shot and drop to something like 1/30th sec without it being blurred. IS doesn't really help with fast moving objects - it is purely a "camera" end device - it stops helps to counter camera shake not object movement - you will still need a fast shutter speed to stop that.

Thanks for the input, rezMole. Couldn't agree more; IS won't freeze the object's motion. The thing is, I shoot at those relatively high shutter speed precisely to avoid camera blur and obviously, in low light, that bumps (if you set so in your camera) your ISO way up. There are a number of situations that I could use say, 1/250 sec and even lower but just can't.

And I'm sure you've also taken 1/500 sec shots which, if you're picky, you find you could have probably done better even then.

Cheers,

Mario

 

[avan]

A good tripod and video head + high shutter speed, you are in business for hummingbird photography. The 300AF-S have a very short minimum focusing distance that is great for close up of the little bird.