Best Super Telephoto Lens around $2500

[timarp000]

I have my eye on a 80-400 AFS from nikon or a 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2x Teleconverter. Which one is better? What other lenses would you suggest?

 

[Tailgunner]

Hum…It seems to me like that would depend on your subject? I mean if you're shooting sports for example and need 300-400mm, you would probably better better off with a 300mm or 400mm prime. Anyhow, I've got a 70-200mm 2.8 VR II w/1.7 TC and like it a lot.

 

[timarp000]

i shoot Wildlife. Mostly small birds and water birds. I really am not into sports photography, with my current 70-300, i need to get really close to the subject to fill the frame, and animals really dont like getting close to us humans, hence i thought a 400mm could help me out a bit.

 

[jaomul]

A teleconverter is always a compromise. The new nikon 80-400 is supposedly excellenet, as is their 70-200 vr2. Both probably equalish is image quality but two very different lenses. The 70-200 will still be great with a tele in comparison to a consumer grade lens, but I strongly suspect the 80-400 will be better from 201-400 than the teleconverter set up

 

[Tailgunner]

In that case, I would probably go with a Sigma 150-500mm and it runs around $1,000.

 

[480sparky]

Or hold out and see how the IQ is on the soon-to-hit-the-shelves Tamron 150-600.

 

[coastalconn]

Or hold out and see how the IQ is on the soon-to-hit-the-shelves Tamron 150-600.

Thats what I was going to say. All the preliminary results look pretty promising..

 

[Derrel]

My thought is 300mm f/4 AF-S plus the TC-14e-II is going to offer good quality at a reasonable price. I have the combo. It's pretty decent. It makes an effective 420mm f/5.6 and is easily carryable, plus the 300 f/4 on its own has a very close minimum focusing distance, which makes it useful for many close-up photos.

 

[coastalconn]

My thought is 300mm f/4 AF-S plus the TC-14e-II is going to offer good quality at a reasonable price. I have the combo. It's pretty decent. It makes an effective 420mm f/5.6 and is easily carryable, plus the 300 f/4 on its own has a very close minimum focusing distance, which makes it useful for many close-up photos.

The 300 f4 with TC is still sharper than the 80-400 AF-S acoording to Nasim. Nikon 300mm f/4D AF-S Review

Speaking of that Tamron 150-600, Somehow this guy must have a bad copy of the Canon 400 F5.6. He is claiming the Tamron is sharper and has more contrast at 400 F5.6. I have shot the Canon before and it is a very good lens. I find this hard to believe (but I hope its true) CamAhoy!

 

[tirediron]

If you boost your budget by around $1000, you can get yourself into the 'D' version of the 400 f2.8 or 500mm f4!

 

[Tailgunner]

Or hold out and see how the IQ is on the soon-to-hit-the-shelves Tamron 150-600.

Even better...

 

[bc_steve]

If you boost your budget by around $1000, you can get yourself into the 'D' version of the 400 f2.8 or 500mm f4!

^^^^

I was going to suggest the same thing. If I was spending that kind of money on a telephoto lens I would not want something slow.

If you don't have the extra $$$ even a 300mm f/2.8d or 300 f/4 + a teleconverter

a teleconverter should work better with a prime than a zoom lens ...

 

[D-B-J]

The 70-200 2.8 and teleconverter gives you the most versatility though. You can easily walk around with the 70-200, use it for portraits, etc.

Jake

 

[Derrel]

The 70-200 2.8 and teleconverter gives you the most versatility though. You can easily walk around with the 70-200, use it for portraits, etc.

Jake

Yes, for versatility as a general-purpose lens, undoubtedly a 70-200mm f/2.8 is probably my favorite single lens to carry. Buuuuuut, the link coastalconn provided above is much more specifically what the OP asked about: a lens to use for BIRDING. And the reviewer is, like coastal, kind of a bird-nut. Nikon 300mm f/4D AF-S Review

The one thing the review points out is that the 300 f/4 AF-S + TC 14e has MUCH higher magnification at close range, which as he likens it to, would be like "500 millimeters" in length on the 80-400 AF-S lens, which apparently, LOSES a LOT of focal length at closer focusing distances. A lens that changes effective focal length as it is focused closer suffers from what is called "focus breathing", and that is something that the new 70-200 VR-II model Nikkor has a huuuuuuuge issue with: it loses a LOT of focal length as the focus is shifted closer and closer. I believe at minimum focus distance, the new 70-200 goes down to around 130mm in length, which substantially cuts the magnification. Apparently, according to the review, the 80-400 AF-S also loses a lot of focal length at close ranges, so, for smaller birds, at say 15,12,10,9 feet...that lens is not going to produce nearly as BIG an image as the 300 f/4 + TC 14e. Same with the 70-200 f/2.8...if it drops down to the 180 to 130mm focal lengths at say 10 feet and then to 130mm at 3.5 feet, it's NOT going to be that good a lens for smaller birds at close distances.

 

[timarp000]

How is the Focusing on the 300mm f/4? Better than my 70-300? I find my 70-300 hunts a bit while im panning the camera and tracking the 'in flight' bird, it never really "Locks-on" and keeps searching changing focus when it already has focused while using AF-C Mode. Also, the 300 f/4 doesnt have VR. Will this matter? Im sure when im shooting flying birds it wont matter as the shutter speed will be higher. But when i shooting birds that are still is really reduce the iso and get shutter speeds from about 1/250 or 1/320. Since ill be shooting at 400+mm, VR Can help compensate camera shake, right?