Karen ... are you using the 80-400 on both bodies or do you find that one is a favorite.
Best Nikon Longer Lens Combination - Help Please
- Thread starter Nobby
- Start date
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).
I usually put the D5 on the 600mm..... and then I can handhold the D850 + 80-400 AF-S. That way I have maximum flexibility/ focal length to capture whatever shot appears. I notice very little difference in focus acquisition and tracking abilities between the D5 and D850. I have both cameras set up the same and within reach.
Thanks Karen .... I have only been to Africa once and used a 200-500 on D500 and a D4S with a 28-300. Now using the 500 pf on my 850 most often for a long lens and the 500 PF or 60-600 Sigma sport on my D6 ... at this point I am leaning toward the sigma on the D6 because I like the heft easier for me to stabalize ... I shoot hand held. My birding lens continues to be the the Tamron 150-600 G2 on a D500. I have heard there were issues with the early 80-400 from @Steve and others but now hearing more good than bad in the last year.
First, since you shoot from a vehicle there is no need to hand hold big lenses. On most safaris, folks use bean bags. In South Africa we had totally open vehicles....no sides, windows or top. There I used a double Manfrotto clamp to secure my monopod to the rail behind the seats in front of me. Gimbal went on top of monopod.....then camera and lens were mounted on the monopod. Easy peasy!
The early versions of the 80-400 were poor, then subsequent versions became just "OK". HOWEVER, the latest version.... the 80-400 AF-S, is really excellent and very unrrate, IMHO. I have the 500 PF and the 300 PF. They both stay home when I go to Africa.
If you shoot a D6....why not get a "proper" fast prime like the 500mm or 600 f4? Your backgrounds will thank you in addition to lower ISOs............ Just a thought.
My last trip to Tanzania, the 1.4 tele was pretty much married to the 600mm..... but I was still shooting f5.6........
Last edited:
First, since you shoot from a vehicle there is no need to hand hold big lenses. On most safaris, folks use bean bags. In South Africa we had totally open vehicles....no sides, windows or top. There I used a double Manfrotto clamp to secure my monopod to the rail behind the seats in front of me. Gimbal went on top of monopod.....then camera and lens were mounted on the monopod. Easy peasy!
The early versions of the 80-400 were poor, then subsequent versions became just "OK". HOWEVER, the latest version.... the 80-400 AF-S, is really excellent and very unrrate, IMHO. I have the 500 PF and the 300 PF. They both stay home when I go to Africa.
If you shoot a D6....why not get a "proper" fast prime like the 500mm or 600 f4? Your backgrounds will thank you in addition to lower ISOs............ Just a thought.
My last trip to Tanzania, the 1.4 tele was pretty much married to the 600mm..... but I was still shooting f5.6........
Our time in South Africa was all open vehicles 3 benches and one person per bench so moved from side to side ... never on the wrong side of the vehicle hung out the side of the door to get low etc.. The guy who put this together and usually does 2 a year is not only a pro photographer but owns a couple of camera stores. He is the only full line Nikon, Canon and Sony dealer in Idaho and has a store that is open when the park is open in West Yellowstone. His suppliers will send him any lens he wants to take to Africa, Alaskaa etc. but the only prime he uses is the 500pf and he whines about it loosing shots because it is not a variable focal length. The trip we were on was targeted on Leopards but we photographed Black and White Rhino, African Wild Dogs, Baby Elephants and the rest of the family, etc. etc.. This was our 50th wedding anniversary trip and the baby elephant was my wifes big goal. The organizer told us that the 200-500 on a crop frame like the D500 would almost never be used at the 500 end and he was correct ... much of the time the D4S and the 38-300 were needed since we were to close for the D500 and 200-500.
My interest in the 80-400 AFS is low light focal length versatility on the D6 when running and gunning f/5.6 at 400 and heavy enough at 56 oz. for stability, compared to the 500PF but less bulky and lighter and more nimble than the Sigma 60-600 sport f/6 at 400 and f/6.3 at 600 and weighs 95.2oz.
Why not a big 600 f/4 like you and @Steve use and like? I considered one until I tried the 500PF and the Sigma 60-600 at the same time in West Yellowstone in May 2019. I am 72 but work out 3 times a week and stay fit. I am an amateur who accidentally sells a print now and then and shoot for a number of non-profit conservation entities besides just for me. I shoot mostly on foot in all types of terrain here in Idaho .... I need to be fast and able to move in a split second and shoot at all levels on demand for my type of photography. Not unusual for me to cover more than 10 miles on foot on a shoot, shoot laying on the ground, standing on a rock etc.. I have high end tripods and monopods, Wimberly Gimble heads, RRS ball heads etc. sitting gathering dust in my closet that have not been used in more than 3 years. Just not a landscape guy and my wildlife photography interests require mobility. The backgrounds with the 60-600 Sigma are surprisingly good and the focal range makes it versatile but it is not for every one since it is a heavy lens ... if someone finds the 200-500 to heavy they would not like the Sigma. The 500 PF backgrounds are great and so are those on the Tamron 70-200 f 2.8 and a 1.4 TC. Backgrounds ok but not nearly as as good on the Tamron 150-600 GC which on my Nikon D500 is my primary birding rig including birds in flight. It is the fast moving small birds that are the biggest challenge and a big bulky 600 prime would be pretty much useless in my run and gun style. The D850 with the D5/6 battery in the grip and 500 pf combo do make for a versatile good light combo. For extreme terrain following chukar hunters and their dogs around I use a D500 with no grip and a Tamron 18-400 ... I showed a Nikon engineer BIF shots taken with the Tamron 18-400 on my D850 and he would not believe it until he looked at the metadata.
dutchbenke
Member
I have been following this thread since the beginning & have not seen anyone discuss Nikon’s 180x400 f/4.0 with the built in 1.4 TC. Is cost leaving it on the store’s shelves?
DaleJr
Member
I am also curious about this one....
I handled the first one shown in the US by Nikon at a West Yellowstone Symposium but no chance to use it. It was heavy but hand holdable. The the dealer hosting the symposium tried it but was not wowed by it and especially with the built in TC. Given the cost and issues he did not stock the lens and did not recommend it. Later @Steve got one and did a review again not wowed by it and even found that he got better results using and attached TC than he did the internal TC ... he eventually sold the lens. That is about all I know ... I still like the concept.
For many it will be all about cost. Currently $18k in Australia.
$12,400 USD here in USA
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
I didn’t read thru the replies but I know most are much more experienced than myself.
I am very happy with my 500 pf but miss the zoom of my 150-200 tamron. Finding myself too close to mammals at times
If I owned the 300 2.8 I could see the possibility of my carrying my d500 with 500 pf and also packing my D850 with that 300 attached
I am very happy with my 500 pf but miss the zoom of my 150-200 tamron. Finding myself too close to mammals at times
If I owned the 300 2.8 I could see the possibility of my carrying my d500 with 500 pf and also packing my D850 with that 300 attached
I frequently carry this combo on my Black Rapid Black Double Breath Strap (2 camera harness rig) .. D850 gripped with D5/6 battery, with 500pf and a D500 no grip with Tamron 18-400. Less frequently the D500 with grip and the D5/6 battery and Tamron 150-600 G2 and the D850 gripped with the 500pf.I didn’t read thru the replies but I know most are much more experienced than myself.
I am very happy with my 500 pf but miss the zoom of my 150-200 tamron. Finding myself too close to mammals at times
If I owned the 300 2.8 I could see the possibility of my carrying my d500 with 500 pf and also packing my D850 with that 300 attached
dtsagdis
New member
I am in a somewhat similar situation albeit in the Canon camp.
I have the 300 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 100-400 and 1.4x and 2x.
I looked into my last safari in S Africa (vehicle and hide based) and from the 75 keepers only 18 were above the 400mm (all using the 1.4x on my 100-400), 37 were with the 70-200mm, 20 were with my 100-400mm and only one with a 45mm (this was the widest I ever used). I travel with two camera bodies a crop and a FF. In my next safari I think it will be three bodies. FF with 70-200, crop with 100-400 (with or without 1.4x), crop with 300+2x=600. I would also consider crop 500 f/4+1.4x, crop 100-400, and FF 70-200.
Depending on the particular safari outing (e.g. vehicle, a boat or a hide) you can break and recompose some of that gear but you definitely do not want to be changing lenses too often due to dust and lack of time.
Of course weight/size is a major concern like other contributors mention for both airlines and inside the safari vehicle, on your back, etc.
The major problem with long glass is atmospheric conditions. I wish I had more reach than 600mm on my crop body but most shots above 400mm (on a crop body) start suffering signs of degradation due to atmospherics.
The problem with extenders on which I rely heavily usually 1.4x on my 100-400 and 2x on my 300 f/2.8 is AF speed and accuracy (IQ degradation is a much lesser concern). Extenders reduce AF speed (expect a 25% drop with the 1.4x and 50% with the 2x - it makes a difference if the moving subjects is across the frame or coming towards your; the latter case is the worst because the focus has to work inward from infinity to zero/limiter distance). Extenders with static subjects are pretty OK. Moving subjects you get far fewer keepers. One way of thinking about extenders and image degradation I have found useful as a rule of thumb: if I can see enough detail and I simply want to see it larger/fill the frame/reduce the amount of crop the extender will be OK, if I can hardly see it and I need an extender to get to see properly the subject IQ will be poor.
In general having a native longer glass really makes a major difference for moving subjects toward you (which is what I'd like to shoot more of/have more keepers) and which is why I have been eyeballing the Sigma 500 f/4 (cause first party lenses at that length even used ones are much more expensive; plus Sigma offers to switch mount if in the future you wish to change camera manufacturer). The main drawback with the PF 500 f/5.6 is that once you add 1.4x you get to f/8 and the number of focus points reduce significantly to near 1. I have shot a lot of wildlife with a single AF point and it is not easy / severely limits your creativity, composition, keeper rate, etc.
Keep also in mind that the gear we have for wildlife is not just for the once a year African safari outings and you have to factor in your other wildlife outings too. Where I go to photograph birds for example they are very scared of humans. You don't even get the chance to lower the car window and they start flying away. So I need longer glass (and camo) than what I have at present and I was hopping a 500 f/4 +1.4x will give me another 100mm at the longer end faster AF than I have and all of these below f/8. So think about the kind of problems you are trying to solve.
Finally you have to think, the likely focal lengths of the other people in the vehicle/boat... the driver/leader isn't going to position or move the vehicle just for you.
Low light isn't as a big an issue it is often made to be during safaris cause few places allow drives before/after sun rise/set. And when they do, they usually have large torch lights on the vehicles and/or handout to passengers to be able to spot the wildlife. I only had 10 of my 75 keepers shots above 1000 ISO (which most lenses will deliver/bodies can cope with) and my max was 6400 ISO in only one keeper shot.
Last but not least, keep in mind redundancy (and thus overlap) in everything; One=none if you are in the middle of nowhere. Lenses, bodies, memory cards, readers, hard drives, batteries chargers you need duplicates. You don't want to be spending $$$$ for a safari and your one and only charger or lens breaks down, gets stolen.. the choice of my gear combo also takes that into account. If any single one of my lenses or bodies is no longer available I can make up for it with the rest. It may not be ideal but it certainly better than nothing.
I hope this helps your decision. I appreciate it is very stressful trying to decide and cover everything.
I have the 300 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 100-400 and 1.4x and 2x.
I looked into my last safari in S Africa (vehicle and hide based) and from the 75 keepers only 18 were above the 400mm (all using the 1.4x on my 100-400), 37 were with the 70-200mm, 20 were with my 100-400mm and only one with a 45mm (this was the widest I ever used). I travel with two camera bodies a crop and a FF. In my next safari I think it will be three bodies. FF with 70-200, crop with 100-400 (with or without 1.4x), crop with 300+2x=600. I would also consider crop 500 f/4+1.4x, crop 100-400, and FF 70-200.
Depending on the particular safari outing (e.g. vehicle, a boat or a hide) you can break and recompose some of that gear but you definitely do not want to be changing lenses too often due to dust and lack of time.
Of course weight/size is a major concern like other contributors mention for both airlines and inside the safari vehicle, on your back, etc.
The major problem with long glass is atmospheric conditions. I wish I had more reach than 600mm on my crop body but most shots above 400mm (on a crop body) start suffering signs of degradation due to atmospherics.
The problem with extenders on which I rely heavily usually 1.4x on my 100-400 and 2x on my 300 f/2.8 is AF speed and accuracy (IQ degradation is a much lesser concern). Extenders reduce AF speed (expect a 25% drop with the 1.4x and 50% with the 2x - it makes a difference if the moving subjects is across the frame or coming towards your; the latter case is the worst because the focus has to work inward from infinity to zero/limiter distance). Extenders with static subjects are pretty OK. Moving subjects you get far fewer keepers. One way of thinking about extenders and image degradation I have found useful as a rule of thumb: if I can see enough detail and I simply want to see it larger/fill the frame/reduce the amount of crop the extender will be OK, if I can hardly see it and I need an extender to get to see properly the subject IQ will be poor.
In general having a native longer glass really makes a major difference for moving subjects toward you (which is what I'd like to shoot more of/have more keepers) and which is why I have been eyeballing the Sigma 500 f/4 (cause first party lenses at that length even used ones are much more expensive; plus Sigma offers to switch mount if in the future you wish to change camera manufacturer). The main drawback with the PF 500 f/5.6 is that once you add 1.4x you get to f/8 and the number of focus points reduce significantly to near 1. I have shot a lot of wildlife with a single AF point and it is not easy / severely limits your creativity, composition, keeper rate, etc.
Keep also in mind that the gear we have for wildlife is not just for the once a year African safari outings and you have to factor in your other wildlife outings too. Where I go to photograph birds for example they are very scared of humans. You don't even get the chance to lower the car window and they start flying away. So I need longer glass (and camo) than what I have at present and I was hopping a 500 f/4 +1.4x will give me another 100mm at the longer end faster AF than I have and all of these below f/8. So think about the kind of problems you are trying to solve.
Finally you have to think, the likely focal lengths of the other people in the vehicle/boat... the driver/leader isn't going to position or move the vehicle just for you.
Low light isn't as a big an issue it is often made to be during safaris cause few places allow drives before/after sun rise/set. And when they do, they usually have large torch lights on the vehicles and/or handout to passengers to be able to spot the wildlife. I only had 10 of my 75 keepers shots above 1000 ISO (which most lenses will deliver/bodies can cope with) and my max was 6400 ISO in only one keeper shot.
Last but not least, keep in mind redundancy (and thus overlap) in everything; One=none if you are in the middle of nowhere. Lenses, bodies, memory cards, readers, hard drives, batteries chargers you need duplicates. You don't want to be spending $$$$ for a safari and your one and only charger or lens breaks down, gets stolen.. the choice of my gear combo also takes that into account. If any single one of my lenses or bodies is no longer available I can make up for it with the rest. It may not be ideal but it certainly better than nothing.
I hope this helps your decision. I appreciate it is very stressful trying to decide and cover everything.
Bruce J 1947
New member
I have had the Nikon 180-400 f/4 TC1.4 since it first came out and have never been disappointed in it's performance. Maybe I was more fortunate than some, but I found the built in TC was as good as the Nikon TC1.4. In a pinch I have even use a TC-20Eiii(2X) with acceptable results. It is far superior to the 200-400. I suggest you rent one and decide for yourself.
Last edited:
Could very well be the variability of the specific copy of the lens. What I have seen as noted was limited to a whopping sample of 2 .... 180-400 f/4 TC1.4 lenses ... I read a few other comments on Steves review but that was about it. I have seen random luck with several lenses from different manufacturers over the 10 years I have been dabbling in photography. My 500pf seems spot on but a friend had to send hers to Nikon for repair. My Nikon 200-500 had to go back to Nikon 3 times before it was fixed. My Sigma 60-600 sport worked great until the controller board crashed suddenly and Sigma Replaced the lens and now all is good. My Tamron 150-600 G2 is stellar but a friend brought hers over for me to check out and AF was just not working correctly .. I can frequently clean contacts on lens and camera and voila it is fixed but not this one ... back to Tamron and they found a glitch and replaced the lens.
My kit for wildlife is-D500, 500pF attached. D7200, 300pF attached. D850 with either a 24 wide or 105G for macro shots to 70-200 for cover the lower distance segment. I use a Cotton Carrier with D850 slung on my arthritic neck!
Calson
Well-known member
The teleconverters work well with an f/4 lens but with the 500mm f/5.6 the performance with even the TC-14 is marginal. I used this combination when photographing jaguars in Brazil from a boat and needed to use a monopod and manual focusing to get the shots.
Check your camera manual and see how few autofocus sensors are used at f/5.6 and at f/8 to get an ideal how much is lost with a teleconverter.
Check your camera manual and see how few autofocus sensors are used at f/5.6 and at f/8 to get an ideal how much is lost with a teleconverter.
IMHO....shooting wildlife is a commitment. It requires top line camera bodies and fast glass. YMMV.................
O
Well-known member
1) If you must have a TC Up date the TC 1.4 II to TC III the difference is defiantly warranted, But I do think avoiding TCs altogether is the best.
2) The 3002.8 VR II hands down is the pick if you want to shoot at 2.8 or shoot with minimal iso in low light its the lens.
A 1.4 TCIII, and the TC 2 III works ok, better with the 1.4, better with both when combined with a D5 D6 due to the much larger pixel pitch and focusing performance.
3) 200-500 is the best all round versatile and excellent lens, optically there is marginal difference with it and the 300 F4 or the 500 PF just the focusing is a fraction faster, i have a very good 200-500 sample.
Adding a convertor to the 200-500, don't, on the 300 F4 1.4 is the limit.
The 300 F4 lens is a good sharp all-round walk around lens a little less so with the TC.
4) the 500PF lighter and slightly faster than 200-500, if you don't need the versatility its slightly ahead.
My friends who have both grab the 200-500 more often that the 500, its only because they don't know what to expect, if you do then the 500 is the choice, overall their is a difference but not much.
5) the 200-400 I don't know.
Only an opinion
Oz Down Under
Some great comments and advice above.
IMHO unless you can stretch to a 500 or 600 f4 prime, you already have all the kit you need particularly if you are not bird centric. In answer to your question I would rate the following
300 2.8 with and without the TC
500 PF
200-500 (not TC friendly in my experience)
300PF (You have the range covered in the first 3 lenses)
80-400 Has discussed above)
200-400 (as discussed above )
One glass not mentioned was the 400mm 2.8.....
Living in Kenya enables me to get out and about particularly in the National parks. with many trips to the Mara If you are thinking of the Mara then apart from a walking safari in and around the camp, which some camps offer, you will be spending all your time working from a vehicle which mitigates the issue of lens weight. Unlike other Parks where you must stay on fixed roads/tracks, the Mara has many tracks that allow the guides to position pretty well where they please so the trick is getting the vehicle positioned appropriately for the lens. This is especially the case if you use a prime. rather than a zoom. Long lenses may seem to be a solution but irrespective of what lenses you do take, the trick is to fill the frame and get close to reduce the impact of heat haze (and suspended dust) which is a constant issue on safari and leads to a lot of image softness. I fell into the trap of trying to cater for length rather than position to fill the frame and found that with mammals in particular, you don't need really long glass if you are in the right position. I was quickly learnt that the beasties often get really close and you need to switch to a shorter/wider.
As Butlerkid has mentioned (and something I adopt whenever I am out) s to have two bodies, one to cover the longer focal length and one for the shorter. We may well have been looking at the same sites etc as othervthan the 16-35, I have all the lenses you have. FX and DX with these lenses and the two tc's gives plenty of flexibility. My set up will vary subject to what what I am after and what is about, but generally its the D850 with the 70-200 and the D500 with the 300 2.8 and the 1.4 tc ii t(o give me 630mm at f4). I take the 24-70 for landscapes and to cover the gaps to the 70-200. Having a 2 iii TC also provides me with options, particularly with the 300 2.8 which gives me 600 at 5.6 on the D850 not counting the D850 in DX mode. (The D500 doesn't like the 2 x with the 300 2.8 for some reason which may down to the age of the lenses although its shown as compatible on the Nion charts). I occasionally take the 200-500 but as of late it tends to stay in the house/tent more often than not. The 1.4 TC island the 700-200 are a great f4 combination that provides a flexible single body option.
For info I take the gear with cleaning kit bins , batteries etc in the whistler Pro 450 which I have on a spare seat and can place the spare camera in to keep away from dust . Never had a problem taking this on the internal flights and don't ever put it in the hold but carry it and store it at the rear of the planes (usually Caravans and other Cessnas). To manage the risk of dropping kit when bouncing around I carry one rig on a black rapid shoulder harness to leave my hands free for the other camera, particularly if standing up and using the roof with a bean bag etc. Otherwise I will have one camera in the bag within reach to switch if sitting, lying down etc.
For info Kenya has just locked down on Friday for a couple of months but fingers crossed for the last quarter of the year. October is often a time to see the last of the migration if it's a late one and at least the grass is shorter to make critter spotting easier. The short rains come along in Nov and can add an interesting and moist element to a safari. Always happy to give info on parks, camps, current conditions etc if anyone is heading this way.
IMHO unless you can stretch to a 500 or 600 f4 prime, you already have all the kit you need particularly if you are not bird centric. In answer to your question I would rate the following
300 2.8 with and without the TC
500 PF
200-500 (not TC friendly in my experience)
300PF (You have the range covered in the first 3 lenses)
80-400 Has discussed above)
200-400 (as discussed above )
One glass not mentioned was the 400mm 2.8.....
Living in Kenya enables me to get out and about particularly in the National parks. with many trips to the Mara If you are thinking of the Mara then apart from a walking safari in and around the camp, which some camps offer, you will be spending all your time working from a vehicle which mitigates the issue of lens weight. Unlike other Parks where you must stay on fixed roads/tracks, the Mara has many tracks that allow the guides to position pretty well where they please so the trick is getting the vehicle positioned appropriately for the lens. This is especially the case if you use a prime. rather than a zoom. Long lenses may seem to be a solution but irrespective of what lenses you do take, the trick is to fill the frame and get close to reduce the impact of heat haze (and suspended dust) which is a constant issue on safari and leads to a lot of image softness. I fell into the trap of trying to cater for length rather than position to fill the frame and found that with mammals in particular, you don't need really long glass if you are in the right position. I was quickly learnt that the beasties often get really close and you need to switch to a shorter/wider.
As Butlerkid has mentioned (and something I adopt whenever I am out) s to have two bodies, one to cover the longer focal length and one for the shorter. We may well have been looking at the same sites etc as othervthan the 16-35, I have all the lenses you have. FX and DX with these lenses and the two tc's gives plenty of flexibility. My set up will vary subject to what what I am after and what is about, but generally its the D850 with the 70-200 and the D500 with the 300 2.8 and the 1.4 tc ii t(o give me 630mm at f4). I take the 24-70 for landscapes and to cover the gaps to the 70-200. Having a 2 iii TC also provides me with options, particularly with the 300 2.8 which gives me 600 at 5.6 on the D850 not counting the D850 in DX mode. (The D500 doesn't like the 2 x with the 300 2.8 for some reason which may down to the age of the lenses although its shown as compatible on the Nion charts). I occasionally take the 200-500 but as of late it tends to stay in the house/tent more often than not. The 1.4 TC island the 700-200 are a great f4 combination that provides a flexible single body option.
For info I take the gear with cleaning kit bins , batteries etc in the whistler Pro 450 which I have on a spare seat and can place the spare camera in to keep away from dust . Never had a problem taking this on the internal flights and don't ever put it in the hold but carry it and store it at the rear of the planes (usually Caravans and other Cessnas). To manage the risk of dropping kit when bouncing around I carry one rig on a black rapid shoulder harness to leave my hands free for the other camera, particularly if standing up and using the roof with a bean bag etc. Otherwise I will have one camera in the bag within reach to switch if sitting, lying down etc.
For info Kenya has just locked down on Friday for a couple of months but fingers crossed for the last quarter of the year. October is often a time to see the last of the migration if it's a late one and at least the grass is shorter to make critter spotting easier. The short rains come along in Nov and can add an interesting and moist element to a safari. Always happy to give info on parks, camps, current conditions etc if anyone is heading this way.
Nobby
Member
Fantastic to see this thread share so much advice from my first posting on the forum. This has really help focus my plans as I build my funds again and enjoy what I already have been able to put together. As I am sure we all have, it starts with one lens and a body and before you know it you need a bigger bag.
The longer 500/600 f/4 primes along with the 400 2.8 are a stretch too far and then I would need a tripod and a gimble. Don't expect to be able to purchase the 500 f/5.6 PF until next year along with letting the 200-500 f/5.6 be traded in. I do Intent to add a 16-35 f/4 in the future as I let my DX shorter lens go when I moved to the D850 only recently adding the 24-70 2.8 VR.
But either way I am very happy with my kit but really want to get to Kenya, hopefully it will happen in October
I have recently be reading Brad Hill after recommendations from @Butlerkid along with Photography Life and Thom Hogan whoo are already on the reading list. But Backcounty Gallery was the first site that help develop my understanding along with three books written by Steve.
Thank you to @Butlerkid @fcotterill @Hawkeshead @Etching House @dtsagdis @Ado Wolf @JANuser @NorthernFocus @Ken Miracle @Patrick M plus everyone else this has been very helpful
The longer 500/600 f/4 primes along with the 400 2.8 are a stretch too far and then I would need a tripod and a gimble. Don't expect to be able to purchase the 500 f/5.6 PF until next year along with letting the 200-500 f/5.6 be traded in. I do Intent to add a 16-35 f/4 in the future as I let my DX shorter lens go when I moved to the D850 only recently adding the 24-70 2.8 VR.
But either way I am very happy with my kit but really want to get to Kenya, hopefully it will happen in October
I have recently be reading Brad Hill after recommendations from @Butlerkid along with Photography Life and Thom Hogan whoo are already on the reading list. But Backcounty Gallery was the first site that help develop my understanding along with three books written by Steve.
Thank you to @Butlerkid @fcotterill @Hawkeshead @Etching House @dtsagdis @Ado Wolf @JANuser @NorthernFocus @Ken Miracle @Patrick M plus everyone else this has been very helpful
fcotterill
Well-known member
More about the 180-400.... Besides Steve's, Brad Hill reported on his exhaustive comparative testing of the 180-400 TC14. However, I was surprised he sold off his 400 f2.8E afterwards. Also this podcast
When I faced the singular choice of THE one exotic lens nearly 3 years ago, it was between this new zoom and the 400 f2.8E. I'm mostly glad it is the latter, even with 3.8kg vs 3.5kg; and there are those days I feel the extra 300g towards the end of a hike.
UK Nikon Ambassador Richard Peters reviewed this zoom, and so did Moose P [2018 issue 63 Nikon Owner Mag) . No surprises they were very complimentary, although Moose went over the top on its virtues with a TC2 III as well as inbuilt TC (!) Thom Hogan's was more pragmatic.
Frans Lanting endorses the 180-400 for backing up his rig of D5 with 600 f4G+TC14. Grays of Westminster, Ldn admitted they are surprised how many customers ordered a 180-400 TC, and I hear similar sales in S Africa (albeit lower numbers), where the lens was on a tempting Nikon Special late last year. Sure it is expensive, but both the 120-300 f2.8 and 180-400 f4 TC encapsulate much of what one otherwise would spend & lugg about in at least a pair out of the: 300mm f2.8, 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4, and 600mm f4, and 180 f4 / 200 f2.
Actually, and if you can afford to damage your finances - for many situations photographing larger mammals shooting from rests (vehicle, hide), a 120-300 f2.8E SR will probably much of the scope of the 180-400, especially with the 3 TCs.
2 more reviews I'd bookmarked fyi
nikonrumors.com
When I faced the singular choice of THE one exotic lens nearly 3 years ago, it was between this new zoom and the 400 f2.8E. I'm mostly glad it is the latter, even with 3.8kg vs 3.5kg; and there are those days I feel the extra 300g towards the end of a hike.
UK Nikon Ambassador Richard Peters reviewed this zoom, and so did Moose P [2018 issue 63 Nikon Owner Mag) . No surprises they were very complimentary, although Moose went over the top on its virtues with a TC2 III as well as inbuilt TC (!) Thom Hogan's was more pragmatic.
Frans Lanting endorses the 180-400 for backing up his rig of D5 with 600 f4G+TC14. Grays of Westminster, Ldn admitted they are surprised how many customers ordered a 180-400 TC, and I hear similar sales in S Africa (albeit lower numbers), where the lens was on a tempting Nikon Special late last year. Sure it is expensive, but both the 120-300 f2.8 and 180-400 f4 TC encapsulate much of what one otherwise would spend & lugg about in at least a pair out of the: 300mm f2.8, 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4, and 600mm f4, and 180 f4 / 200 f2.
Actually, and if you can afford to damage your finances - for many situations photographing larger mammals shooting from rests (vehicle, hide), a 120-300 f2.8E SR will probably much of the scope of the 180-400, especially with the 3 TCs.
2 more reviews I'd bookmarked fyi
Nikon 180-400mm f/4 TC1.4 Field Test: An excellent telephoto zoom lens, but is it worth the high price?
Click here to read my Nikon 180-400mm f/4 Field Test With the Nikon 180-400mm f/4 TC1.4 FL ED VR supertelephoto zoom lens, Nikon has created a very versatile and very high-end optic that's directly aimed at wildlife and sports…
www.imaging-resource.com
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR lens review - Nikon Rumors
This Nikon AF-S Nikkor 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR lens ($12,396.95) field test is by Kjetil Schjølberg (Instagram) – the pictures were taken with the D850 in Norway and Kenya: The last ten days I was able to test the new Nikon 180-400mm in a variety of situations. As mainly a wildlife...
nikonrumors.com
Last edited:
FB101
Well-known member
for safari, I have always used two bodies for redundancy purposes. One with the long prime, one with a zoom. The long prime sees 90% of the action, the zoom about 9.9%. The question is which zoom, and my favorite was always a 70/200 f:2.8 to complement the 500 f:4 as both can easily take a x1.4 teleconverter for more options. Nowadays it would probably be the 500pf on D850 and 70/200 on D500 and a TC on standby. And a 24/120 or 24/70 for peace of mind and those 0.1% I left out earlier. I find most African landscapes better served with the 70/200 swapped on the FF body but I have used a 24mm and 50mm primes on a few occasions, especially in villages where you want to include human elements in context - nowadays I’d just pack one good zoom for those focals. So 500, 70/200 and 24/70 with two bodies.
most of the dust risk is when driving on the dirt roads, not when taking pictures, so a cover that is easy on/off is critical. I sew a drawstring on a pillow case. It’s not 100% sealed but it keeps most of it out at the worst times and can be removed on the fly in a split second. Nightly cleaning with a gentle brush and air (no pressurized can!) is a must and whatever you do, never wipe a lens in safari - it’s like using sand paper on it.
O
Well-known member
WOW the action and choices are amazing, it must be great to see all these animals in the wild.
If you went through all your images and graded them into focal length most used, what would it be ? in their lies the answer.
You can do your head in with choices, manufactures wont make one do all lens or camera, it defeats their objective.
Ok for me, I would work with less gear and use the most powerful lens in the industry called YOUR FEET and focus on the real power the compositional photography, the less lenses and gear the more I think about photography. Now this may not work in Africa as I might get eaten.
After all the gear dose only 20% of the work LOL.
If I had to go there tomorrow, it would be the D850 with a 9FPS pack, 200-500, 70-200 FL leave the TC at home, and yes for all round general images in good light defiantly the 28-300, the D850 makes that lens actually look better than it is LOL. But gee its so so handy and versatile. I used it on my D5 and D4s and you could see the smoke coming of it at high speed, try it, it did keep up with both bodies believe it or not. I mean it wont last as long doing it all the time LOL.
If I changed out the 200-500 it would be for the 500 F4 prime and a 1.4 TC III standing by. I would have the 28-300 in my back coat pocket to get those impulsive shots to rare to miss. The reason I wouldn't have a 500 F5.6 is its already at F5.6 add a TC and your getting into ahhh compromised quality territory.
Its not for everyone but gee its light I can carry it its versatile and I can forget about the gear and do photography.
A mate he is an Ornithologist, he is in his 80s now, he went to WA looking for 30 species of native birds, he took his 500 F4, 80-400, tripod, mono pod, a D7200 then a D500 he left the D800 at home, he spent 3 weeks there and got 12 out of the 30 rare species needed, it was an expensive trip, airfare accommodation etc etc.
He got rid of all the gear and got a 300 F4 PF a 1.4 TCIII a D500 , he came back on the next trip when there were even less birds around than previously, yet he got 27 out of 30 of the species he needed, and the images were excellent as they usually are. He had versatility speed agility.
Since then he has got rid of the D500 and now uses a D850 in both crop modes, and has never been happier, he has on his last trip also now taken a 200-500, but loves the 300 F4 PF and the TCIII on the D850, he is not tied at the end of the day and therefore stays alert.
He used his feet mostly then sat and waited. In there is a story in itself.
Your all lucky to be able to go to these exciting places and afford some amazing gear, thanks for sharing.
Only an opinion
OZ down under
fcotterill
Well-known member
As this Thread has grown to consider most Nikon-fit Telephotos for wildlife photography - Here follows a bit more about Nikon's Telephoto Zooms: Good to read the 180-400 f4E TC14 being noted above, with queries about reviews. One way to rate this telephoto zoom, and with the newer 120-300 f2.8E SR is they are basically Prime-Good". Image quality of Nikon's zoom lenses has advanced remarkably over the past 4 decades, since they launched the successful 80-200 f4AIS (1981) and 80-200 f2.8AIS (1982). Back in the 1980s, not many of us could afford the expensive 80-200 f4AIS, now the even more exotic 200-400 AIS. It's took 2 decades until Nikon launched the 200-400 f4G VR AFS (upgraded to VRII in 2010).
The primary progress has been in the Holy Trinity of the f2.8 'Three Dragons' (14-24,24-40,70-200), which has peaked in the latest Z-mount models The 70-200 f2.8S is not markedly better than the 70-200 f2.8E FL, which Thom Hogan concluded outperformed all Nikon's primes, with only 2 exceptions (105 f1.4E and 200 f2G). the new 120-300 f2.8E SR and 180-400 extend this relam of Prime-Good realm. This is not only according to Brad Hill, who also a big fan of this lens, and the dissection and MTF comparisons by Roger C and Aaron C at LensRentals underscore its general excellence, notably:
"First, like every law, Roger’s Law that Zooms Are Never as Good as Primes has at least one very expensive exception. At one of its focal lengths. This zoom is ‘prime good’ at 300mm.
Second, we learned that the Nikkor AF-S 120-300mm f/2.8 lens is spectacularly good optically, particularly at the long end, which is probably the most important place to be spectacularly good optically."
more on history of Nikkors in the 1001 Nights series
eg https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0067/index.htm
The primary progress has been in the Holy Trinity of the f2.8 'Three Dragons' (14-24,24-40,70-200), which has peaked in the latest Z-mount models The 70-200 f2.8S is not markedly better than the 70-200 f2.8E FL, which Thom Hogan concluded outperformed all Nikon's primes, with only 2 exceptions (105 f1.4E and 200 f2G). the new 120-300 f2.8E SR and 180-400 extend this relam of Prime-Good realm. This is not only according to Brad Hill, who also a big fan of this lens, and the dissection and MTF comparisons by Roger C and Aaron C at LensRentals underscore its general excellence, notably:
"First, like every law, Roger’s Law that Zooms Are Never as Good as Primes has at least one very expensive exception. At one of its focal lengths. This zoom is ‘prime good’ at 300mm.
Second, we learned that the Nikkor AF-S 120-300mm f/2.8 lens is spectacularly good optically, particularly at the long end, which is probably the most important place to be spectacularly good optically."
more on history of Nikkors in the 1001 Nights series
eg https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0067/index.htm