been trying to get in to wild life and was wondering what your thoughts on a good wildlife lens, since you shoot it already... i been looking in to a few lens,

sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 EX DG HSM
sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX GD APO OS
tokina 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AX-T
nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED Vr
nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF

the nikkor Vr is a little more than i want to spend ATM, and that's why the nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 vr isn't in there because its 2-3 hundred more than the 80-400mm. really looking in to sigma 50-500 or the nikkor 300mm (never had a prime lens)but i hear if I'm doing wildlife i might need a zoom function, and so on.. tell me what you think, i need help, i live in a area where there is not camera store, i cant just walk in to it and take them for a test drive...i would be nice...

Sigurdur Hannesson
An Icelander lost in Texas!

Hey Sig!

I too am trying to get into wildlife photography. I got the 80-200 2.8 to use for lower light situations, and it's a fast lense (I use the F5). I just got my equipment a few weeks ago and have not had it out much. Just looking through the lense on the 80-200, I realized it wasn't going to have enough zoom, so, checked into teleconverters, which, was confusing to say the least...and looked like it wasn't going to be what I really wanted if I were to blow up the pictures to a larger size. Anyway...I was pointed in the direction of the new Tamron 200-500...my first 3rd party lense I've purchased. Again, haven't used it...but, the reviews looked great and these were compared to the thousand dollar lenses of Canon and Nikon that were similar. If you want to send me a private message, I can let you know how it goes over the next few weeks as I'll be getting out and using it. Otherwise, if you are wanting it quicker...you might think about that one in your mix of lenses you listed.

Regards,
Joshua

Not all those that wander are lost

The main problem when it comes to serious wildlife photography is that you need "fast" glass, that is the best aperture you can afford. Why is that? You get the best shots in early morning and late afternoon - at low light levels.

The obvious problem is that lenses with a fixed, high aperture are quite expensive. On the other hand, if you start with low quality glass, you will soon lose interest as the results are not satisfactory.

I cannot judge neither the Sigma nor the Tokina lenses. A 50-500mm lens surely has inferior quality due to the 10x zoom. Biggest drawback though is that at 500 you have a widest aperture of 6.3 - this means, the autofocus on your D70 doesn't work any more (it needs at least 5.6)

A prime is very limiting and I do not recommend it for a beginning wildlife photographer. Best choice than are the 80-400mm lenses as you are more flexible regarding composition.

Do a search on these in the nikkor lenses and the 3rd party lenses forums and you will find plenty opinions. Good luck - and make sure there is some money left for a sturdy tripod

CB

Claus Brandt Photography

my website

I pretty much agree with CB. If I could only have ONE lens for wildlife, the 80-400VR would probably do. It isn't the fastest lens for things like birds, but it's decent Nikkor glass.

Having owned the 50-500 Sigma, and using it a LOT at the 500 end (I can count on one hand the number of shots I used it at 50mm), I was VERY happy to upgrade to the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 for my bird work. Still not a Nikkor, but the wider aperture makes a HUGE difference.

Now that I have a DSLR, I use my 70-200VR a LOT for larger wildlife, often with TC-14E attached-- that gives me an effective 420mm field of view with VR.

-Jason

Jason P. Odell
Colorado Nikonian
www.luminescentphoto.com

Jason P. Odell
Colorado Nikonian
Author, The Photographer's Guide series of eBooks
Capture NX, Nik Silver Efex Pro, Digital Landscapes

www.luminescentphoto.com

I use to do all my wild life shots with a Nikon 80-400VR and loved it.
I can strongly recommend this to anyone wanting to brake into the wild life scene.
AF is slow on the D70 although once you learn to work with the slow AF it is not so bad.
Optically it is quite well I find.
I used it on my F100 & F5 film cameras along with D70 & D2H digitals.
Got some awesome shots with the lens on all those cameras.

I sold the 80-400VR for a 70-200VR and if an employment stays as is and goes as planned through the winter months I hope to pick up an AFS200-400 f/4VR.

Even with my dream kit in sights I still miss the 80-400VR, as it is so much lens for its size and weight IMO.

I would stay way from the Sigma?Tamron and other 3rd party lenses with there "super zoom" range and VARY slow max apertures for the same reasoning as CB pointed out.

Best of Luck,
Alex

Alex Ratson
www.alexratsonphotography.com

so 80-400 VR or 70-200 VR w/TC later down the line, or before the lens, i plan to make a purchase around January or february, so i got a little time, i would love to get the 70-200 VR, i hear a lot of good stuff about it, almost the only thing people are talking about until the 200-400 VR came out...B&H has it for 1489.95 for the import, if i can find a good used one at around 1k, it would be great...if any one know a trust worthy store that sells good used lens with some kind of small warranty or something..wife wood kill me i just bought the 28-200mmG ED-IF AF-S...

Sigurdur Hannesson
An Icelander lost in Texas!

Sig,
Being went through the same quest that you have, I would probably recommend the Nikkor 80-400VR. Here's my personal experience. I have went through all the options that you have on the list last year, and on top I have also included the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 Before I did my purchase, I have been seeking advice on a few different forums. I spent about 3 months trying to find the best option for my need. And I ended up with the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 because I did not want to limit myself by poor light conditions.
There was one draw back about the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, and it is the quality variance from lens to lens. So I ordered one from a vendor which has a very good return policy. Luckily I've got a very sharp copy of this lens, I would say the pictures taken from this lens is even sharper than my Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 (I could only compare these two lens of similar range and quality but may be my Nikkor was a bad copy ) Now after telling you the background of my choice, here's the consequences..
Before I purchase this lens, I thought a good lens is all I needed for the job but I have missed out a lot of other things. Sure enough, 300mm wasn't long enough for wildlife (you never have enough lens when it comes to wildlife and you always wanted more) so I picked up a 1.4X and 2X TC and focusing speed on this lens is still good because of the HSM. Picture quality wasn't too pleasing with the 2X, so I usually shoot with the 1.4X @ 420mm (which become 630mm digital) The range is nice, not great but the problem is even with a fast aperature, I could barely shoot handheld for more than 30 minutes at a time (not to mention that keeper's rate is low handholding) So my next remedy is to look for a good support for my lens. Having consider the investment already made for the kit, I didn't want to cheap out on the tripod and I ended up with the Gitzo 1327 and the Markins M20 ballhead. It was a great combo except the fact that I couldn't follow my subjects when they're moving. Until Allan from photo tech showed me the Wimberly sidekick, I couldn't take pictures with my lens comfortably. My kit was then completed but I was totally out of budget from where I started. I was planning to spend around $2000 for a lens and I ended up with...

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 $2000
Sigma 1.4X and 2X TC $350
Gitzo 1327 $525
Markins TB-30 $90
Markins M20 $380
Wimberly sidekick $250

and I spend roughly $1500 more than I wanted. Now I don't have any complaints with this system, but I could have gotten the 80-400VR and a monopod and saved myself $1500.

Among all those lens listed (assuming you're adding TCs to the Nikkor 300mm f/4), you'll need a decent support for anything without VR or OS. I am not implying that you will not need a tripod if you go with VR or OS, but at least your keepers rate will be higher handholding. Between the Sigma and the Nikkor, I have heard good things about the Sigma being faster focusing because of it's internal motor (not HSM though) but the VR on the Nikkor is more superior. For beginner, I would recommed the Nikkor as it is a good all around lens (not limited to only wildlife). And even with my Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, I am still tempted to purchase the 80-400mm VR for its compactness. Before you make your decision on your lens purchase, make sure you consider accessory cost and expenses like tripods, camera bags, filters etc. It is not an easy quest but I wish you'll find your answer eventually. All the best.

Steven

http://www.themoments.ca

more and more i read on i am looking into the 80-400mm VR, been looking for some all around, new used, even show a demo at cameta camera, but its gone already, maybe he'll have another in the being of next year...
if I'm thinking right at full focus 400mm, on my D70 will be 600mm, and if i add a 1.4, or a 1.5(more likely the 1.5, its cheaper)it should be a slow 900mm...<400 * 1.5 = 600, 600 * 1.5 = 900>, right?

and on a tripod, i have a bogen 3011, with a bogen 3047 head, the head has a 16lb. max and the legs has a 11lb. max, it should do the job for now, i plan on getting a good macro tripod, something to get close to the ground...

Sigurdur Hannesson
An Icelander lost in Texas!

I strongly would recommend the 80-400VR over the 70-200VR for wild life.
Unless you plan to get all your shots at the zoo the 70-200 just wont be long enough.

Your tripod should work ok.

I have bean using the Manfrotto 055CL legs with a 388RC head for a few years now.
Dose not compare to a Gitzo with a nice Kirk or equivalent head but will get the job done till you upgrade that side of things.

I also will note that the 80-400VR with TC drastically slows down in the AF departments.
I have only used TC’s with this lens when used on the F5 and D2H.
On these AF kings it was SSSSSSLLLLOOOOWWWW, I can only imagine it on the little D70.
Not to say they are not expectable as they are although I would not recommend it for regular use especially for someone new to the scene.
I would recommend you hold off on any TC till you get some experience with the lens under your belt. Just my opinion there.

Best of luck,
Alex

Alex Ratson
www.alexratsonphotography.com

I found there was no choice after trying the 80-400mm VR for a long weekend, went through most lens makes but ended with some pretty good photos with the Nikon over the similar Sigma range.

I'm now going to get the 1.4TC for accasional shots where I cannot get close enough, even use manually if I have to.

I've been struggling with a 70-300mm ED for Wildlife, a good lens but nothing like the 80-400mm VR, it has good colour and contrast. Takes a bit of getting used to but worth the wait........

bigcat

I mostly use the 80-400VR and have been very happy with the results.

My website Digital Eyes Photography
My Nikonians Gallery


Mike

You've received some good advice and I'd also recommend the 80-400mm VR. I think you'll enjoy the versatility and convenience of the range, zoom and VR while getting excellent results. It's a good choice for getting a start into wildlife. Eventually, you may want even more reach and speed and start looking at really big glass (especially if you're interested in birds).

I do all my wildlife shooting with the 300 f4 with or w/o teleconverters. The images are excellent but the zoom function is really tiring (my legs).

Dan L.
http://larussoweb.com

Dan L.
http://www.danlarussophotography.com/

now just to wait until january, and ill be set, thx all for your input!!

Sigurdur Hannesson
An Icelander lost in Texas!

Sigurdur

Nikon has a $200.00 rebate on the 80-400 until Jan 15. Doesn't apply to grey market lenses, only USA.

Cheers,

Scott

Scott

Some people are like slinky toys, not
really good for anything, but still bring
a smile to your face when you push
them down a flight of stairs....

Try KEH.com as it is one of the best places in the US for used lenses. Just keep trying their site periodically (nothing today) and also try Used lenses at Adorama and B&H.

I got my 80-400VR at KEH.com and find it to be an exceptional lens (except for the focus speed or lack of). One of the advantages of this lens is to not have to keep swithing lenses or TC's. I decided on this lens just before a trip to Yellowstone. If a bison is far off and then 2 minutes later it is very close, you will miss shot by the time you switch lenses/TC. Also, when shooting digital I hate changing lenses due to dust concerns.

Another very useful point on the Nikon 80-400VR which helped me make a decision to buy one is that a used 80-40-VR will NOT lose it's value over time (unless you break it or Nikon replaces it with a AF-S model). This means that you can buy one for around $1,100.00, use it for a year, and sell it for what you paid. Try that with a DSLR.

I have both the 70-200VR and the 80-400VR and a Kenko Pro 1.4x TC which works on both lenses. I find that both lenses solve different problems, 70-200 is best for low light, fast focus and outstanding bokeh, while the 80-400VR is best for reach and versatility of range. For wildlife, if I could have only one it would definitely be the 80-400VR. (both my lenses are used)

Hope that helps

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

Sigurdur,

I just bought a 70-200VR with a TC17. My hope is that I'll have better luck at capturing birds in flight than I have with the 80-400.

Next week is the annual Sandhill Crane Festival at Bosque del Apache in New Mexico. Then I'll have some answers. Granted, Sandhill Cranes are big birds so I might not be much of a challenge but as has already been said, it's never enough.

All of my wildlife shots to this point have been done with the 80-400. I hadn't thought much about it until I started reading this thread but it's amazing just how much I use that lens. There are a few shots on my gallery but I have used the lens for scenery, closeups of flowers and bugs, you name it. I'd thought of selling it so I can buy a D200 but I'm convinced now that I will never part with it, even if it is a slow AF.

VJH

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Does anyone prefer the 80-400VR above the 200-400VR and why?

Beyers Herbst
South African Nikonian

Optically speaking.. no. However the 80 is a lot lighter, thus is much easier to carry along. It can also get much wider.. it's more of a "go for a walk and see what you find" kind of lens than the 400. The 400 is one fine piece of machinery..

I prefer the 80-400VR because, 1) cost, $4,000 more, 2) weight--can be carried around and hand held, 3) versatility--better zoom range and less lens switching.

The 200-400 is faster both optically and for focus speed

Albert J Valentino
Nikonian Team Member
Vantage Point Images
Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography

And finally settled on a 500 AFSII.

The other two simply aren't long enough for 99% of my work...the 500 is better with a TC 14EII than the 200-400 with a TC17.....

The 500 has better bokeh than the 200-400, especially when using a TC.

I hike around all over the place with it, either mounted on camera on tripod or in a Lowepro 600AW.

Once in a very great while I miss a shot because the lens is too long, but this occurs so infrequently that it isn't even a consideration.

It's a superb chunk of glass and a used one can be had for about the price of a 200-400 new.

Jim Fenton
D2Xs Shooter
Haverhill, Massachusetts

Images @ www.pbase.com/soonipi1957