Best Super Telephoto Lens around $2500

[timarp000]

I read Nasim's review and i didnt understand one bit. Ive underlined it in the image, can anyone explain it to me?

 

[D-B-J]

What about the Nikon 200-400 f4?

Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[timarp000]

The 200-400 isnt in my price range.

 

[Tailgunner]

The 200-400 isnt in my price range.

I've looked into the 200-400mm and it seemed to have some mixed reviews. Thats why I suggested the 150-500mm Sigma and possible why others mentioned the new 150-600mm Sigma.

 

[ghache]

id also say the 300 F4 with a tc.

i played with one a few weeks ago and i liked it.

 

[coastalconn]

I read Nasim's review and i didnt understand one bit. Ive underlined it in the image, can anyone explain it to me?









View attachment 63848

I believe he is referring to focus breathing. They don't run there tests at infinite. This post might explain it a little.new 80-400 focus breathing 400mm becomes 261mm at close focus: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

[Braineack]

I read Nasim's review and i didnt understand one bit. Ive underlined it in the image, can anyone explain it to me?









View attachment 63848

maybe because it's a bunch of nonsense?

He's first stating that the 300mm with the 1.4TC at 420mm is sharper at f/5.6 than the 80-400mm, but it's only just as sharp once either is stopped down.

cool.

But then he's suggesting that it's important to remember that the 300mm + 1.4TC equalling 420mm gives you a narrower field of view than the 500mm of the 80-400mm.

uh?

I *think* the 500mm was a typo, where he was saying you're comparing 400mm vs 420mm so it's not apple to apples -- that you have an extra 20mm of reach with the 300 + 1.4TC.

but then he goes and says it again in his conclusion: Because of the lens breathing issue on the 80-400mm AF-S, the Nikon 300mm f/4D gives more reach with the TC-14E II attached, so 420mm on the 300mm f/4D is more like 500mm on the 80-400mm AF-S at short distances (this changes as the distance increases).

I honestly have no idea what he's trying to say here.

 

[coastalconn]

Did you read my post?

 

[Derrel]

I read Nasim's review and i didnt understand one bit. Ive underlined it in the image, can anyone explain it to me?









View attachment 63848

maybe because it's a bunch of nonsense?

He's first stating that the 300mm with the 1.4TC at 420mm is sharper at f/5.6 than the 80-400mm, but it's only just as sharp once either is stopped down.

cool.

But then he's suggesting that it's important to remember that the 300mm + 1.4TC equalling 420mm gives you a narrower field of view than the 500mm of the 80-400mm.

uh?

I *think* the 500mm was a typo, where he was saying you're comparing 400mm vs 420mm so it's not apple to apples -- that you have an extra 20mm of reach with the 300 + 1.4TC.

but then he goes and says it again in his conclusion: Because of the lens breathing issue on the 80-400mm AF-S, the Nikon 300mm f/4D gives more reach with the TC-14E II attached, so 420mm on the 300mm f/4D is more like 500mm on the 80-400mm AF-S at short distances (this changes as the distance increases).

I honestly have no idea what he's trying to say here.

What he was saying is that the 80-400mm VR suffers from serious focus breathing, and that zoom loses significant focal length as it is focused closer than Infinity. I stopped by the dPreview thread, and found more information. One poster said his calculations show the 80-400 VR at being 261mm in effective focal length at minimum focus distance; another said at intermediate ranges its around 300mm in effective focal length. The birder-centric website reviewing the lenses is more concerned about how a lens performs at closer ranges; for songbirds, for example, the idea is to get CLOSE to them, to make a BIG bird in the image.

On a lens used at closer distances, one of the most important stats is maximum magnification ratio, which is I think 1:5.8 on the 80-400 VR, which is not all that good.

Look into focus breathing; a good number of zoom lenses have it, and some to a very,very significant degree.

 

[Braineack]

No, because I posted right when you did.

Thanks, I understand focus breathing, it's just the way he wrote that didn't make a lick of sense to me.

I suppose one would have to already know that the 80-400 suffered from such and knew what he's talking about (500mm on the 80-400) to actually understand it. His conclusion sentense cleared it up a bit for me, but it still wasn't worded as elequantly as you put it derrel.

 

[Derrel]

I agree, the review did NOT describe to the reader in simple terms what the author knows "in his head"--that's one of the biggest problems with blogs and one-man web sites, where the articles come out basically, un-edited. Many times a blog author writes stuff that he "knows", based on his experiences, but then often he fails to TELL his READERS what the heck he knows, or how he knows it, and so on. As a former editor, I see many instances of bloggers writing posts that deliver simply unexplained conclusions, unexplained commentary, and then when the article blows up in their faces in their blog comments section, they seem perplexed as to why people did not accept what was written.

I agree; the manner in which he wrote the article was unclear. When I read that the 300mm + TC14 converter's close-range magnification would be the equivalent of 500mm from the 80-400VR, I knew what he was trying to say--but he did a very poor job of actually TELLING his readers "why". If he had an editor, that kind of unclear writing would be corrected.

 

[timarp000]

Well then the 300 f/4 with 1.4x teleconverter seems to be the best option, since i often do get close to small bird or as close as possible to them. So the the 300 f/4 with 1.4x has better Magnification at closer focusing distances?

The only thing thats bugging me is the lack of VR. will it matter? when shooting perched birds at 1/250s?

 

[coastalconn]

The 300 F4 with a 1.4 TC has been the go to lens for "Budget Birding" in the Nikon Camp for quite some time. I had one briefly and thought it was pretty good. I returned it because I felt it was a lower grade than the retailer claimed and I just wasn't in love with it. The focus speed was good but I personally thought the AF was a little nervous tracking BIF. I think it has such a good rep because it is quite a bit better than the 70-300 VR. I shot my first year or so without VR and I got pretty good at slower shutter speeds at 500mm on the Tamron 200-500 I had. Having stabilization certainly helps. Hopefully the Tamron 150-600 VC will be in my hands in less than 2 weeks. I still think it might become the go to lens for "budget birding" I only hope it can match my 120-300 OS with the 2x TC...

 

[bc_steve]

I've heard rumours of a newer 300mm f/4 coming out. It is one of the older lenses in the Nikon line-up.