Is this a good idea or not?

**PH005** · 31-05-2011, 12:51pm

Oh, so you definately want a zoom and not a prime then. If it is solely for birding, would a prime 400 not do ?

**Tannin** · 31-05-2011, 12:53pm

A correction, Sally. I was having a senior moment and thinking your D90 was a D300. The D90 is about on a level with the 60D (comparing build quality and features, not how new it is). The D300 is a true semi-pro camera, like the 7D. But you'd still go for the 7D - at around $500 the difference, you'd go for the vastly superior focus system, the weather sealing, and the build quality every time, I reckon.

Edit: Doh! I am comparing the features of 60D vs 7D above. One day I will express myself clearly and unambiguously. Probably to say "goodbye cruel world!"

**salnel** · 31-05-2011, 1:09pm

We all have senior moments,Tony

If decide to go down this path, I would get the 7D..I would prefer the better camera..just seems to make more sense!
Paul..i would prefer the zoom as I think it gives a little more flexibility in range...personal preference

, I think

**salnel** · 31-05-2011, 1:30pm

Thanks, Mongo...I didn't know about this one and have no experience buying second hand lenses. Hope you can get the images up

The only other Nikon I have found that I can afford is the Nikor AF-3 300mm f4D-IF-ED which is about $1300. It seemed to have good reviews..does any one know anything about it?

**Tannin** · 31-05-2011, 1:38pm

No VR, Sally. That is a deal breaker. You can live quite happily without IS/VR in, say, a 50mm lens (though it is still very, very useful) but in a 400mm-class lens, it is not a sensible option. You just lose so much opportunity. Many species are pretty much not possible. (Anything that lives in a rainforest, for a start.)

**Art Vandelay** · 31-05-2011, 1:42pm

Some good thoughts in this thread, especially the 7D over the 60D for birding.

Sally, I may add that the pricing examples you've used are showing with the 18-55 IS kit lens, realistically you may want to allow to upgrade that to something like the 15-85 that Tanin mentioned in his post., or one of the 3rd party 17-50 f/2.8's or even canons 17-55 f/2.8 though it's the dearer of the bunch. If not initially, then later on. The 7D with it's higher pixel density tends to not play well with the base lenses.

Another thought for a compatable second body for your husband down the track or even yourself to save a few bucks up front, if you dont mind used, is a 40D or 50D. 40D's have been going on ebay for around $500 and 50D's for around $700.

**salnel** · 31-05-2011, 2:26pm

Sigh...thought so, Tony.I agree with you there..I have VR in both my 18-200 and my macro and it really helps. It is looking more and more like the Canon. I do like the zooms..I read your post about using it for landscapes as well as birding and thought that was a very good idea. On the plus side of all of this, I would end up with 2 very good cameras, very good glass and no real need for anything else for the foreseeable future. I know exactly what I like to photograph and this would cover it all. I don't see a problem with 2 different cameras. I may be a bit dense but I don't see how you share lenses..if I am using the 18-200..what is my husband using? I would still need a second camera and lens for him!
Thanks, Art..yes, if I went for the 7D I would probably look at a different lens..it was really to show the price difference between one lens and a camera plus 2/3 lenses!! Scary

I did look to see what cameras the Canon birders were using and saw the D40 and D50 were very popular..Shelley mentioned them as well ..I certainly wouldn't be averse to saving some money

**kiwi** · 31-05-2011, 2:27pm

Not really, but think current price plus $500 I reckon

Alternative is the very fine 300 f/4 which you can easily put a 1.7 or the excellent 2x tc on and still very lightweight

My experience is for birding (little that it is) that you'll almost always be at the longest focal length and the zooms a waste of time really

**rafikicat** · 31-05-2011, 2:42pm

I'm certainly no expert birder either, but from what I've read the 7D seems to be the favourite for action and birding. When I mentioned sharing lenses I wasn't thinking of you and your husband always taking photos of the same thing at the same time - that would constitute a problem.

**Tannin** · 31-05-2011, 3:40pm

Originally Posted by kiwi

My experience is for birding ... you'll almost always be at the longest focal length and the zooms a waste of time really

Yes.

And no.

Yes, you will use 400mm more than any other focal length, possibly more than all other focal lengths combined.

And no: you will use the shorter lengths a lot too.

While the shorter lengths are especially handy for mammals and even landscapes, they are nevertheless useful for birding tasks.

As examples, have a look at this page:

http://tannin.net.au/browselens.php?lens=8&sort_by=zoom

These shots probably make a pretty fair quasi-random sample of the 100-400 in practice. They are not selected with any focal length related theme in mind, they are simply the pictures that I happened to think were worth putting on my website which the computer thinks were taken with a 100-400. (Sorted in focal length order.) I think the mix of lengths and subjects is a pretty fair representation of the way I use the lens, and quite likely of the way you will use it too.

This brings me to this:

Originally Posted by salnel

I read your post about using it for landscapes as well as birding and thought that was a very good idea.

Yes, plenty of landscapes in there. The ability to reach out into the distance and pluck just the part you want from it is priceless:

(1D III, 100-400 @ 120mm, 200i, f/10, 1/200th, hand-held)

... as is the ability to use distance and a long lens to flatten perspective and bring visual unity to far-apart objects:

(1D III, 100-400 @ 260mm, 400i, f/5.6, 1/80th, hand-held)

Notice the shutter speed! Perfectly sharp image, hand-held at 260mm. In fact I couldn't have used a tripod for that shot as I took it standing on top of the car. Now tell me that IS isn't an essential!

But watchout! For landscapes, I use the 100-400 at 100mm far more than any other length, and that is with the 1D III, which turns the lens into something more like an 80-350. The 100-400 is a much more practical landscape lens with a 1D III than it is with a 7D.

**mongo** · 31-05-2011, 5:28pm

Here are some images of the Nikkor 400mm f5.6 ED_IF and some images from it.

400mm f5.6 - some + 1.4 converter. Please note this is a manual lens and has no vibration reduction

**salnel** · 31-05-2011, 5:28pm

Wow,Tony...they are wonderful shots and that really gives me a great look at the ranges you have used..you really cover the whole scale..that is why I thought a zoom would be very useful because subjects are not always at the same distance

I was very interested in the mix of cameras you have used as well..just as a sidebar...do you have a favorite camera?
I think I am going to have to start saving because I really think that, unless the Nikor 80-400 makes an appearance and is any good, it looks like the dark side

**Lance B** · 31-05-2011, 5:35pm

Excellent shots, Tony.

You could also go for the Nikon AF-S 300 f4 which is auto focus and then use a 1.4x TC which will give you 420mm and f5.6, the same as Tony's 400 f5.6 but has AF. The IQ from this combo is excellent (I have both, as well as a 300 f2.8 VRII). A good second hand 300 f4 will probably be about $1,000 and the 1.4x TCII is about $400 new.

The current Nikon 80-400 isn't much chop.

**salnel** · 31-05-2011, 5:36pm

Gorgeous shots, Mongo...love the tiger!! Did you take these handheld?

**salnel** · 31-05-2011, 5:40pm

Thanks, Lance...that is the only combo that I can possibly afford..Tony says no VR is a deal breaker...do you find not having it is a problem?

**mongo** · 31-05-2011, 5:46pm

Originally Posted by salnel

Gorgeous shots, Mongo...love the tiger!! Did you take these handheld?

Yes salnel but Mongo tried to rest against anything solid wherever possible. Mongo does this instinctively for stability whether it is needed or not

BTW , Lances' idea of a AF 300 f4 (used) is also a top idea. IQ is exceptionally good even with a 1.4 converter. A second hand 1.4 Nikkor converter has dropped to about $280 and a new one is as little as about $380-450 now depending where you buy

**Lance B** · 31-05-2011, 5:52pm

No VR is a bit of an issue, but I have the D700 and D7000 which both have superb high ISO, so I can shoot ISO3200 and sometimes ISO6400 without much issue. I would seriously consider this combo even with your D90.

**Tannin** · 31-05-2011, 5:53pm

Originally Posted by mongo

Yes salnel but Mongo tried to rest against anything solid wherever possible. Mongo does this instinctively for stability whether it is needed or not

I do that too. It helps a lot. Even when I'm holding a camera, but mostly when I'm holding a glass.

I'm sorry. What was the question?

**mongo** · 31-05-2011, 5:58pm

Originally Posted by Tannin

I do that too. It helps a lot. Even when I'm holding a camera, but mostly when I'm holding a glass.

I'm sorry. What was the question?

**ving** · 31-05-2011, 5:58pm

if you decide to not go to canon i can recommend the sigma 150-500. check the birds section of my website to see some photo i took with it.

User Tag List

Thread: Is this a good idea or not?

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions