Lenses for Brown Bears in Katmai NP

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

It takes serious rationalization (or ir-rationalization) considering that I won't ever make a living doing this. Here is what I am telling myself. I am not buying a 12,399 dollar lens. I am just buying the depreciation of that lens. If I sell it in the future for some amount of money - today they sell fo more used than new - but say even 25% depreciation, then I am doing a multi year rental for ~$3000. That lens rents for 550 -700 a week so that might help me convince myself. The issue is that I can't find one to buy even if I do convince myself.
A couple of things. Not only are you buying the depreciated portion of the lens but your loaning yourself at 0% interest the amount you will eventually get back. Say the lens cost $10,000 (easy number) and it depreciates $2,500. You have loaned yourself $7,500 - again to make it simple 5 years. 6% interest, not that you could get that interest from a bank (too high) or a loan for 6% (too low), maybe a conservative estimate for investing. Over 5 years at 6%, your money grows by 34%. The true cost of the lens is $2,500 depreciation plus another $2,500 lost earnings. BUT you had the lens for 5 years and used it when every you wanted. If you rented it, you most likely would have only on major events and missed out on when the great bird was in your backyard.

Finally it is possible to make money on used equipment. I had a Canon 500 F4 (original IS version). I bought it for around $4,800 and sold years later for $5,200 or $5,400.
 
You've already gotten plenty of recommendations. Ultimately only you can decide which lenses will allow you to do YOUR style of photography. Yes you will likely get really close to some bears. And for sure you will see some that are too far away. But what do you want to capture? Do you prefer to shoot wildlife in landscapes, portraits, other? IMO your photographic style and preferences matter more than anything else in deciding what to take. And of course how mobile you need to be and how much weight you can/want to carry.

For example, my normal style is to isolate the animal including portraits when possible. So when I shoot bears I rarely shoot less than 300mm regardless of how close they are. As a matter of fact when I can't fit the bear in the frame at 300mm I switch back to my 500mm and start shooting portraits/partial body shots. A couple of exceptions are the occasional landscape/wildlife shot and capturing sows w/multiple cubs in the same frame. I've got hundreds of frames of bear shots made with 100-200mm focal length that I took before I settled into my preferred image style. There are very few of those images that I really like.

Anyway, hopefully that's more food for thought.
 
I am headed to Alaska in a little over a week to photograph brown bears in Katmai NP. The trip leader recommends a 100-400 mm lens. When I made plans for this trip (almost 2 years ago and pre-covid), I had expected that the 100-400S lens in Z mount would be out by now. I also sold my 80-400 mm G lens (I had a good copy) last year. I plan to take a Z7II, Z6II and either a D500 or D850. I'm set on the shorter end (14-30 f4, 24-70 f4, and 70-200 f2.8 in Z mount). But still debating what to take for a longer lens or lenses.

I'm thinking about:

200-500 mm Nikon zoom. Good lens and a zoom, but a bit heavy (the PFs have spoiled me) and not the fastest AF. The zoom takes a fair amount of turning to go from the short end to the long end or back.

500 mm PF. My favorite lens, but no zoom flexibility and may be a bit long for many shots. So I could pair it with a 70-300 mm AF-P FX lens (on the D500 or D850) or the 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC in Z mount (on the Z6II) and carry two bodies/lenses on a double black rapid strap. (We will likely be shooting handheld most of the time.)

70-200 mm f2.8 with the 2x TC in Z mount, giving me a 140-400 mm f5.6 on a Z7II. Playing around with this combo some this week. Wonder how it will do with autofocus and fast action.

Any thoughts or suggestions?
Hi Bill,
I posed exactly the same question to a photo group that's done the Katmai trip many times, and they almost universally recommended shorter zooms (most often the Nikkor 180-400). One guy mentioned that he had taken his 600mm f4 there, but didn't use it at all, instead opting for shorter zooms because of the proximity of the bears. So, for me, I'll be taking my 200-500, 70-200, and 24-70 lenses to pair with my D850s.

I'd be interested in hearing about what you ended up doing, and what your experience was when there. Good luck on your trip!
 
We were there in 2018. Not Brooks Falls but took a float plane out to a river that flowed into the ocean and walked through the flats. Saw lots of bears and one rather foolish (or brave) mama moose with a baby out in the middle of the bears. I had a D7200 and a Sigma 150-600 lens. Since we were on foot (wearing hip waders by the way) slogging through costal flats with several stream crossings, carrying a lot of equipment would not have been good.

My thoughts on the gear I had.
1) the D7200 was fine. It was my main body at the time, no complaints. Bears didn't require super fast frame rate since they were mostly meandering around eating goose tongue grass.
2) 150-600 focal range worked. 600 was useless for most shots. Most of my shots were between 200 and 400. If I had the 200-500 at the time I would have used it as the primary lens. It was heavily overcast and rained off and on all day when we were there. F 6.3 at the long end and a camera body (D7200) that is not noted for exceptional high ISO performance and shooting through rain & mist made for some shots that are great memories, look "decent" but could have been better.
3) the dry bag I brought with me came in handy. It rains a lot there (especially in June when we were up that way).
4) good eyes or binoculars (I brought a pair of compact lightweight binoculars). I would encourage you to spend almost as much time taking in the scenery and the "time and place" creating memories as you do looking through the viewfinder. It truly is a beautiful place, the bears are magnificent creatures but so are the other creatures around there. Eagles and other birds, smaller mammals, Moose, etc. I found myself shooting a burst of photos and then just taking time to watch and soak it all in.

Hope you have a great time.
Great advice! Sometimes we photographers spend too much time looking through our cameras!
 
You've already gotten plenty of recommendations. Ultimately only you can decide which lenses will allow you to do YOUR style of photography. Yes you will likely get really close to some bears. And for sure you will see some that are too far away. But what do you want to capture? Do you prefer to shoot wildlife in landscapes, portraits, other? IMO your photographic style and preferences matter more than anything else in deciding what to take. And of course how mobile you need to be and how much weight you can/want to carry.

For example, my normal style is to isolate the animal including portraits when possible. So when I shoot bears I rarely shoot less than 300mm regardless of how close they are. As a matter of fact when I can't fit the bear in the frame at 300mm I switch back to my 500mm and start shooting portraits/partial body shots. A couple of exceptions are the occasional landscape/wildlife shot and capturing sows w/multiple cubs in the same frame. I've got hundreds of frames of bear shots made with 100-200mm focal length that I took before I settled into my preferred image style. There are very few of those images that I really like.

Anyway, hopefully that's more food for thought.
I agree. My hope is to take a number of styles of photos. I like portraits and close up shots. But I am also interested in getting photos of animals in their environment. So I hope to do landscapes with animals in them (Brad Hill calls these shots animalscapes) and closer shots that still show the animals’ environment (Thom Hogan calls these environmental portraits). I also hope to capture animal behavior — fishing, interaction with between adults and their cubs; interaction between cubs; interaction between adults. Of course, who knows what I’ll see and whether I have the skill/luck to capture it.

So I will need a reasonable range of focal lenghts. Planning to take a 14-30; 24-70; and 70-200, so my main question has been how to deal with the longer end.

I also tried Photopils subject distance calculator, to determine how far away I had to be to fill a frame (portrait or landscape) with an 8 foot bear, an FX or DX body, and a given focal length.
 
Several times in Denali I've taken a 500 (500 F4 or 500PF) and a zoom, of which the 80-400 was the most useful. (on a D500 and D810). But in Denali you're usually not close to the bears and are restricted to the road. It's possible you could get by with the 200-500, but it's a lens I've sold twice - not as sharp as I'd like and both clumsier and heavier than I'd like. You could rent the 180-400 as your long lens, and with the built-in TC you'd be covered long to kinda short with one lens that gets rave reviews. I recently acquired a 200-400 f4 (they're available used very inexpensively, relatively) and I'm a lot more impressed than I expected. I'd carry it over the 200-500 if I still had it despite the extra 2+ lbs. (IMHO the 200-500 is too heavy to be a general carry around and not good enough to substitute for a long prime/f4 zoom).

I've never been to Katmai, but I'd probably take the trip leader at his word that extreme length isn't needed and shorter focal lengths are, which points towards something like the 80-400. You didn't say if you're going to be doing much walking, which will affect your choice as well. I normally would like the 500PF +75-300 option, but from the trip leader's comment you might only get eyeball shots with the PF :)

Let us know how it goes. And have fun!
 
A 80-400mm and a 500mm PF are a good combination. With the bears at often 20 meters or less distance from the viewing platforms a zoom like the 80-400mm is critical. Even 80mm was too long a focal length at times. The D850 is the perfect camera as it provides a FX sensor and enough resolution that a DX crop will provide a usable image size. Not needing to use a tripod was a real blessing on the usually crowded viewing platforms.
 
Several times in Denali I've taken a 500 (500 F4 or 500PF) and a zoom, of which the 80-400 was the most useful. (on a D500 and D810). But in Denali you're usually not close to the bears and are restricted to the road. It's possible you could get by with the 200-500, but it's a lens I've sold twice - not as sharp as I'd like and both clumsier and heavier than I'd like. You could rent the 180-400 as your long lens, and with the built-in TC you'd be covered long to kinda short with one lens that gets rave reviews. I recently acquired a 200-400 f4 (they're available used very inexpensively, relatively) and I'm a lot more impressed than I expected. I'd carry it over the 200-500 if I still had it despite the extra 2+ lbs. (IMHO the 200-500 is too heavy to be a general carry around and not good enough to substitute for a long prime/f4 zoom).

I've never been to Katmai, but I'd probably take the trip leader at his word that extreme length isn't needed and shorter focal lengths are, which points towards something like the 80-400. You didn't say if you're going to be doing much walking, which will affect your choice as well. I normally would like the 500PF +75-300 option, but from the trip leader's comment you might only get eyeball shots with the PF :)

Let us know how it goes. And have fun!
Very helpful suggestions! I've gotten many, many recommendations for the 180-400 f4, but at $12,000+, that ain't gonna happen, that is, unless I rent one. I have a lead on a good, clean 200-400 f4 for $1700, but another BCG forum poster mentioned that Nikon no longer services the lens, so I'm a little reluctant to buy one. At the moment, my only "long" lens is the 200-500 f5.6 and, while it's a good copy and I get reasonably sharp images with it, it doesn't hold a candle compared to the f4 primes. I also have the 70-200 f2.8, which I love, but it probably won't be long enough for Katmai, even with a 1.4 TC. So, what to do?

We'll be at Brooks Falls, but also hiking out along the river and lakes for bears, so weight is somewhat of a concern. I've considered buying the 500 f5.6 PF but I'm not convinced that it would be worth the $3500, since what I really want is a 600E f4, which would most probably be too long for Katmai anyway.
 
I am headed to Alaska in a little over a week to photograph brown bears in Katmai NP. The trip leader recommends a 100-400 mm lens. When I made plans for this trip (almost 2 years ago and pre-covid), I had expected that the 100-400S lens in Z mount would be out by now. I also sold my 80-400 mm G lens (I had a good copy) last year. I plan to take a Z7II, Z6II and either a D500 or D850. I'm set on the shorter end (14-30 f4, 24-70 f4, and 70-200 f2.8 in Z mount). But still debating what to take for a longer lens or lenses.

I'm thinking about:

200-500 mm Nikon zoom. Good lens and a zoom, but a bit heavy (the PFs have spoiled me) and not the fastest AF. The zoom takes a fair amount of turning to go from the short end to the long end or back.

500 mm PF. My favorite lens, but no zoom flexibility and may be a bit long for many shots. So I could pair it with a 70-300 mm AF-P FX lens (on the D500 or D850) or the 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC in Z mount (on the Z6II) and carry two bodies/lenses on a double black rapid strap. (We will likely be shooting handheld most of the time.)

70-200 mm f2.8 with the 2x TC in Z mount, giving me a 140-400 mm f5.6 on a Z7II. Playing around with this combo some this week. Wonder how it will do with autofocus and fast action.

Any thoughts or suggestions?


For me I would Listen to "The trip leader recommends a 100-400 mm lens" this speaks volumes and gives you the answer your looking for already, my guess is that 200-300 will be the optimal range.

Your D850 or Z7II will give you an extra 200mm in crop ability if ever needed at all.

There are always to many choices or alternatives and it creates often a dilemma so we get dressed up like RAMBO take the whole bag full of stuff and use only very little.

The Kiss principal for me is the best I find.
I would take 2 lenses one camera one 1.4 TC as reserve, Light monopod.

The 70-200 2.8 step back or forward a little and you have added versatility length and F2.8 tack sharp on your Z7II or D850, you have speed sharpness fast accurate focus crop ability dynamic range, DX option in a heart beat of flicking a switch.

I would take a light mono pod and the 200-500 because while you wont be so far away all the time it will give you the option for tight compressed shots with great background blur.

2 lenses 70-200 and 200-500 on a FF 45mp you should kill it, remember 90% of the result comes from you not the gear.
I would carry a 1.4 TC for the 70-200 only if really needed.
The TCs work slightly better on a Z camera.
Forget about the weight of the 200-500 you will be so glad you took it. So many friends like their 500PF but complain about the lack of flexibility more often than not.

The worst thing I find is overthinking it makes things heaver when there not or makes issues where there aren't any.

If I jumped a plain tomorrow to do what your doing, I would use the D850/ Z7 II.
The 70-200 .......200-500 nothing else other than that 1.4 tc and a light mono pod.

I prefer versatility and have found it to be so much more successful especially if there are other creatures around to photograph.
Remember the Kiss principal[, cover 70-500 and sleep at night peacefully.
I would spend my time focusing and planning on composition tactic's, how can I get shots that are different to what everyone else takes.

Only an opinion
Oz down under
 
Last edited:
This thread prompted me to pull up the actual data on what I've used shooting bears. It's easy enough to do in LR. I've got right at 4000 images that I've kept from two trips to Katmai, one trip to Brooks, and two trips to Lake Clark/SSC. By focal length shots were as follow:

200mm and below: 7%
200-300mm: 9%
300-400mm: 28%
400-500mm: 2%
500mm: 54%

There were a handful of images shot at 550mm(400 w/1.4x TC) but I lumped them in with the 500mm numbers. The low numbers between 400-500 reflect the fact that I only had that FL covered on one trip when I was shooting a 500mm/D850 on tripod and 200-500/D4 handheld.

IMO the previous post was good advice. Pack the 70-200, 200-500, 1.4x TC, and enjoy.
 
Very helpful suggestions! I've gotten many, many recommendations for the 180-400 f4, but at $12,000+, that ain't gonna happen, that is, unless I rent one. I have a lead on a good, clean 200-400 f4 for $1700, but another BCG forum poster mentioned that Nikon no longer services the lens, so I'm a little reluctant to buy one. At the moment, my only "long" lens is the 200-500 f5.6 and, while it's a good copy and I get reasonably sharp images with it, it doesn't hold a candle compared to the f4 primes. I also have the 70-200 f2.8, which I love, but it probably won't be long enough for Katmai, even with a 1.4 TC. So, what to do?

We'll be at Brooks Falls, but also hiking out along the river and lakes for bears, so weight is somewhat of a concern. I've considered buying the 500 f5.6 PF but I'm not convinced that it would be worth the $3500, since what I really want is a 600E f4, which would most probably be too long for Katmai anyway.
I suppose I should be worried if Nikon no longer services the 200-400 (which surprises me. it was a current product until a couple of years ago). But I've never had to send a Nikon product in for servicing (now, just watch...) I got one for $1700 and so far (3 months) I'm impressed with the image quality over the 200-500. It's certainly heavier, but not bigger (it's internal focus, doesn't extend). But the image quality has the same hard to define pop that the Nikon big primes do - you can see the difference. But it's not a hiking lens, at least for me. A couple of miles, max, like I did today with it.

Your call. If you have to run around/walk a lot the 80-400 might be your best bet. The IQ is good and it's light, small, and nimble. Or the 300PF and 500PF. Or... you're right. It gets tough to decide. (Even if you can ignore $$$. Everything I read about the 180-400 makes it the perfect traveling wildlife lens, but that ain't never gonna happen).
 
Last edited:
This thread prompted me to pull up the actual data on what I've used shooting bears. It's easy enough to do in LR. I've got right at 4000 images that I've kept from two trips to Katmai, one trip to Brooks, and two trips to Lake Clark/SSC. By focal length shots were as follow:

200mm and below: 7%
200-300mm: 9%
300-400mm: 28%
400-500mm: 2%
500mm: 54%

There were a handful of images shot at 550mm(400 w/1.4x TC) but I lumped them in with the 500mm numbers. The low numbers between 400-500 reflect the fact that I only had that FL covered on one trip when I was shooting a 500mm/D850 on tripod and 200-500/D4 handheld.

IMO the previous post was good advice. Pack the 70-200, 200-500, 1.4x TC, and enjoy.

Your stats are excellent, and a great help.

We should be less focused on the criticalness of the gear and focus more on creativity and composition, thinking out of the square for that something different to what everyone else is doing.

Oz Down Under
 
I would use that opportunity as a reason to upgrade to a Sony Alpha 1 and a 200-600mm G lens.Then you will be all set for fast action as well as the bears.

You only live once
 
Bill,
This will be a trip of a lifetime, you will capture many images with pretty much any combination of the lenses discussed in this thread. But please take a second body, if you was to take only one body and it was to fail the results may not be in your favor.
 
We should be less focused on the criticalness of the gear and focus more on creativity and composition, thinking out of the square for that something different to what everyone else is doing.
When I read this an image immediately came to my mind of a guy sitting back on a beach chair, maitai close to hand and typing this post on a laptop.
We can see why some of us should be worried https://www.eyeshotstreetphotography.com/mark-fearnley/
Its amazing what you can do with your phone.
I'm just a technician and am no doubt overlooking the creative possibilities but I'm not seeing shooting bears with a phone. Certainly it would be different than what everyone else is doing. Not sure about out of the square. Maybe out of one's gourd :rolleyes:
 
When I read this an image immediately came to my mind of a guy sitting back on a beach chair, maitai close to hand and typing this post on a laptop.

I'm just a technician and am no doubt overlooking the creative possibilities but I'm not seeing shooting bears with a phone. Certainly it would be different than what everyone else is doing. Not sure about out of the square. Maybe out of one's gourd :rolleyes:

Sorry, I dint mean shooting bears, it was related to simply how people are taking something simple like a phone and focusing on creative photography and composition, my apologies for any confusion, although I have seen people shoot bears with a smart phone and brilliant as well, taken at the zoo LOL

Oz Down under
 
Sorry, I dint mean shooting bears, it was related to simply how people are taking something simple like a phone and focusing on creative photography and composition, my apologies for any confusion, although I have seen people shoot bears with a smart phone and brilliant as well, taken at the zoo LOL
Yeah I get it. Stream of consciousness kind of thing. Even us linear thinkers do it. Once in a while...
 
We can see why some of us should be worried https://www.eyeshotstreetphotography.com/mark-fearnley/
Its amazing what you can do with your phone.

Oz Down under
You can do whatever you like just don’t try to discourage me. I have zero interest in making money from photography, street photography, black and white or medium format. Not to say I don’t appreciate what others are doing. Those just aren’t for me. I use my iPhone at least twice as much as all other cameras as my phone is almost always within reach. 👍

If I were going on a big planned trip to photograph wildlife like this I would not hold back on my gear. Those days are a few years off for me though, still building America 🇺🇸 😎👍
 
If you want the versatility then the 100-400 or 200-500 is going to be a good tool for you. Not sure where the trip is taking you. There are bears everywhere. I just came back from 6 nights at Brooks Camp. I do that so I am not traveling each day - because some days there is no travel in AK. Just my preference and I like to unplug and get outdoors on the ground. If they take you to Brooks the iconic shots on the near lip, where 128 and her yearlings are parked this year, at 400mm are about 95% bear. The platforms are fun but touristy and 40 people full until the fly-ins leave. I only shot some from the platforms twice in 7 days. The other days I spent in the river with the bears. I used my D850 and 400 2.8 FL ED as my main addiction. It will rain, usually not hard and usually every few hours. There should be great overcast light when not raining. Only had harsh sun one day out of 7. You can shoot at the extreme edges of the AK summer light but, at Brooks, the bears are not active early and the large boars are usually lacking until Noon or so. The sows and spring cubs are on the move in the early light for that reason. Hopefully your tour guide puts you on an early breakfast and late dinner schedule to keep you in the field. You can shoot from 5 until 11 if you get on a subject. The waders are good news because you need to be down at eye level. Unless you look/smell like a salmon the bears will ignore you.
 
Thanks. I’ve thought about that, but I think the 180-400 is heavier than I want to use. And I recall it is a bit heavier than the 200-400.

I’m spoiled by the PF lenses. If I decide to go the zoom route at the long end (without TCs), I’ll take my 200-500, which I have travelled with before and used handheld. A couple of pounds lighter than the 200-400 and 180-400, I think.

I picked up Brad Hill’s 180-400 with a D5 attached on a trip to Gwaii Haanas a couple years ago and marveled at how heavy it was and that he managed to handhold it so successfully in a zodiac. I think I’d have to hit the gym to use that lens (other than perhaps on a monopod in a vehicle or on a tripod).
Bill, you and I travel in similar circles.
When I traveled with Brad he was shooting the Sigma 500mm f/4, 120-300mm f/2.8, and 400mm f/2.8 handheld and standing in a zodiac. He is easily 10 years older than me and I was in my early 50's at the time... some people just have built up the arm strength and balance throughout the years... As for me, well I shot with my 200-400, but relied on the balloon-like tubes of the zodiac for support.... Thinking about my two trips on the Ocean Light II (marine mammals tour w/ Brad & Khutzeymateen w/out) I used my 500PF on a Z6 and 70-200FLE w & w/out converters on the D500... this was the perfect set up for that bear excursion. If you have the ability to shoot from a tripod and are on a tight budget, I suggest that you look into the 200-400VR or Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. Both perform very well on FX or DX bodies. Your proximity to the bears will put you in the "sweet spot" for the 200-400VR lens. I continue to love this lens for its flexibility, build, and price ($1700 to $3500 depending on condition and model). In addition, it plays very well when adapted to an FTZ. Weight and balance are its only limiting factors for me, but a tripod makes all of that moot.
regards,
bruce
 
You've already gotten plenty of recommendations. Ultimately only you can decide which lenses will allow you to do YOUR style of photography. Yes you will likely get really close to some bears. And for sure you will see some that are too far away. But what do you want to capture? Do you prefer to shoot wildlife in landscapes, portraits, other? IMO your photographic style and preferences matter more than anything else in deciding what to take. And of course how mobile you need to be and how much weight you can/want to carry.

For example, my normal style is to isolate the animal including portraits when possible. So when I shoot bears I rarely shoot less than 300mm regardless of how close they are. As a matter of fact when I can't fit the bear in the frame at 300mm I switch back to my 500mm and start shooting portraits/partial body shots. A couple of exceptions are the occasional landscape/wildlife shot and capturing sows w/multiple cubs in the same frame. I've got hundreds of frames of bear shots made with 100-200mm focal length that I took before I settled into my preferred image style. There are very few of those images that I really like.

Anyway, hopefully that's more food for thought.
Your Grizzly and Polar Bear galleries are marvelous and reflect the experience of multiple visits... lovely work!
 
Bill, you and I travel in similar circles.
When I traveled with Brad he was shooting the Sigma 500mm f/4, 120-300mm f/2.8, and 400mm f/2.8 handheld and standing in a zodiac. He is easily 10 years older than me and I was in my early 50's at the time... some people just have built up the arm strength and balance throughout the years... As for me, well I shot with my 200-400, but relied on the balloon-like tubes of the zodiac for support.... Thinking about my two trips on the Ocean Light II (marine mammals tour w/ Brad & Khutzeymateen w/out) I used my 500PF on a Z6 and 70-200FLE w & w/out converters on the D500... this was the perfect set up for that bear excursion. If you have the ability to shoot from a tripod and are on a tight budget, I suggest that you look into the 200-400VR or Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. Both perform very well on FX or DX bodies. Your proximity to the bears will put you in the "sweet spot" for the 200-400VR lens. I continue to love this lens for its flexibility, build, and price ($1700 to $3500 depending on condition and model). In addition, it plays very well when adapted to an FTZ. Weight and balance are its only limiting factors for me, but a tripod makes all of that moot.
regards,
bruce
Thanks Bruce. Doing the Queen Charlotte Straits with Brad in October (if the border stays open) and the Kutzeymateen next May (postponed from this year) with Brad or Terri Shaddick, his tour business partner.

Leaving tomorrow for Alaska. Will likely take the 500 mm PF and 70-200 f2.8S with the two Z mount TCs for the longer end. Could swap the 500 mm PF for the 200-500 mm zoom, but expect I won’t, although I see the benefits in terms of flexibility. Will have the D850, Z7II and Z6II along. Will bring the 70-300 AF-P FX as a backup, although it could make a nice light weight pair with the D850 or Z7II (and DX crop in post when needed).

What do you think of the 70-200 mm f2.8S and the 2 Z mount TCs? I have played around with those combinations on my Z7II and Z6II. Optics seem very good, with the 1.4x better, but the 2x still pretty good. Unsure of autofocus in fast action. Really haven’t had a good chance to test that, although I’ve tried with my dog. I’ll give it a try on the bears. I have been planning to use the 70-200 with the 1.4x TC as a 98-280 f4, sort of a lighter version of a 120-300 f2.8. And with the 2x TC, I have a 140-400 f5.6.

I think if I was going to go for a lens as big and heavy as the 200-400, I’d just bite the bullet and get the 180-400. Would be nice for Africa too. But I shoot a lot in the summers in Northern Minnesota (Ely area) from my kayak. The 500 mm PF is perfect on my Z7II (often with the F mount 1.4x TCIII) for that. The 200-500 mm is cumbersome in a kayak (a bit better in a canoe). In the end, for me, I think the 100-400 mm in Z mount may be a better choice than the 180-400. Hope it’s f5.6 at the long end and comes soon.
 
Back
Top