Nikon 300mm F/4 vs their 200-500 F5.6 for birding: Hi All, My longest lens (except for my every day Tamron 16-300) is my Nikon 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4TC currently on a D300 soon...

Drdale55 Loc: Prescott, AZ

Hi All,
My longest lens (except for my every day Tamron 16-300) is my Nikon 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4TC currently on a D300 soon (hopefully) to be a D500. I have a friend who uses the 300mm (with a 1.4TC) on his D810 and is getting great results. Do we think the quality of the 300mm would be that much better than the 200-500? Thanks for your thoughts.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Drdale55 wrote:

Hi All,
My longest lens (except for my every day Tamron 16-300) is my Nikon 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4TC currently on a D300 soon (hopefully) to be a D500. I have a friend who uses the 300mm (with a 1.4TC) on his D810 and is getting great results. Do we think the quality of the 300mm would be that much better than the 200-500? Thanks for your thoughts.

Anytime you put a teleconverter in line with your optics, you multiply any flaws in your lens by the amount of the teleconverter multiplication factor.

Given a choice, I'd take purchasing another lens instead of a teleconverter. Just my opinion.
--Bob

Bill_de Loc: US

The 300 is an excellent lens. I used it until I got the 200 - 400. It was still very good with a Nikon 1.4x. With a D500 that gives you pretty good range.

But, the reports and postings here on UHH with the 200 - 500 make me think it would be a better choice for birding. At one time it was a toss up between a prime with a tele and a zoom. Zooms have gotten much better in recent years while teles have only improved slightly.

--

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

Drdale55 wrote:

Hi All,
My longest lens (except for my every day Tamron 16-300) is my Nikon 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4TC currently on a D300 soon (hopefully) to be a D500. I have a friend who uses the 300mm (with a 1.4TC) on his D810 and is getting great results. Do we think the quality of the 300mm would be that much better than the 200-500? Thanks for your thoughts.

you already have a 16-300, so I would go for the 200-500mm lens. it will accept your 1.4 tc, so even more reach when you really need it. I have not tried a teleconverter on my 200-500 yet, but straight up, the lens is great.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Drdale55 wrote:

Hi All,
My longest lens (except for my every day Tamron 16-300) is my Nikon 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4TC currently on a D300 soon (hopefully) to be a D500. I have a friend who uses the 300mm (with a 1.4TC) on his D810 and is getting great results. Do we think the quality of the 300mm would be that much better than the 200-500? Thanks for your thoughts.

My lenses I use to shoot birds include, Nikon 200-400 f4, 300 2.8 and the 200-500 on a D4s and D750. I am very critical on focus and sharpness and I would be hard pressed to see a difference in these three lenses. I put a Nikon 1.4 tele convertor on the 200-400 and the 300, I would not use it on the 200-500. On the D500 of course the 200-500 becomes a 300-750 f5.6. Use the GROUP AUTO FOCUS and use the center spot in continuous focus mode and you will get outstanding quality and better versatility out of the zoom. And remember, the new D500 does have GROUP AUTO FOCUS, use it.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Drdale55 wrote:

Hi All,
My longest lens (except for my every day Tamron 16-300) is my Nikon 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4TC currently on a D300 soon (hopefully) to be a D500. I have a friend who uses the 300mm (with a 1.4TC) on his D810 and is getting great results. Do we think the quality of the 300mm would be that much better than the 200-500? Thanks for your thoughts.

Two things, 1. Anytime you add a tele-convertor you are reducing your f/stop and adding flaws. 2. The Nikon 200-500, while it is getting great reviews is NOT the same as Nikon's good 300mm Prime nor is it as good as Nikon's 80-400mm Pro lens. The 200-500 is a very good general use, birding lens that does not have the weather proofing and other things that the Nikon pro-series lenses have. Compare the price of the 200-500mm lens (@$1396 or so) to the current Nikon 80-400mm with the built-in silent wave motor (don't confuse this with the older lens that required a motor in the camera and was extremely slow focusing). The current 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens which retails at about $2296) or especially the AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II Lens which is $6996. All are good lenses but the 200-500 does NOT have the weather sealing etc. that the more expensive lenses. Having said that, I am saving for the 200-500 myself.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

dcampbell52 wrote:

Two things, 1. Anytime you add a tele-convertor yo... (show quote)

I will respectfully disagree with you as to your comparison. The 200-500 blows away the 80-400. I have had them both, I have shot both, I have seen the results blown up to 16X24. I tell you this, the 200-500 blows away the 80-400 hands down, end of story, the end!!!! And I am glad you are saving your money for the 200-500, you will not be disappointed. I do not need weather sealing, I do not shoot in the rain, on a beach, or around salt water. And, I own the 200-400, I do not carrying it around for a long time and the shots from the 200-500 compare very well with my 200-400 in every way. Nikon has hit a home run with the 200-500, no, it is not weather sealed. SO WHAT.

Quixdraw Loc: x

I found that 300 was not enough for birds at a distance in the wide open spaces. Yes, I have a converter, and it helps, but brings its own problems. I have the 80-400, and though more reach would be better, it is reasonably compact, and incredibly flexible -- portrait to distant. The 200-500 is excellent, but very large. To me, it is a specialist wildlife / bird /sports lens. If those areas are prominent in your work, I think the 200-500 is a good choice and value. As regards water, there are lens coats.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Drdale55 wrote:

Hi All,
My longest lens (except for my every day Tamron 16-300) is my Nikon 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4TC currently on a D300 soon (hopefully) to be a D500. I have a friend who uses the 300mm (with a 1.4TC) on his D810 and is getting great results. Do we think the quality of the 300mm would be that much better than the 200-500? Thanks for your thoughts.

First of all a 1.4 on the 300 makes it a f/5.6 at 420 mm. With the 200-500 you are 5.6 at 500mm. That extra reach is important. The TC will degrade image quality by 4% not much but something to consider. The 300 is a well made lens, and has other features that need to be considered including but not limited to glass and elements, coatings, etc. But one of the nice things about the 200-500 is its versatility and its reach. It's like you can't have enough!!!

It is a toss up.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

billnikon wrote:

I will respectfully disagree with you as to your c... (show quote)

I think weather sealing is critical, especially with an external zoom that extends and retracts sucking in air, moisture and dust promoting fungus. The 200-400 is and internal zoom and is quite different from the 200-500 mechanically speaking.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

billnikon wrote:

I will respectfully disagree with you as to your c... (show quote)

that was my point. YOU have to make the decision as to what is important to you. If weather sealing is important, the 200-500 may not be for you. For MOST, the 200-500 is a great buy and is an excellent choice. BUT, the OP asked for a comparison of lenses and that is what they got. The prime, the 80-400 and the others I listed are more expensive and "CONSIDERED" pro lenses and priced accordingly. The 200-500 is NOT considered a "pro" lens but I suspect you will find many pros that feel that it's lack of weatherproofing is NOT an issue.

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Drdale55 wrote:

Hi All,
My longest lens (except for my every day Tamron 16-300) is my Nikon 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4TC currently on a D300 soon (hopefully) to be a D500. I have a friend who uses the 300mm (with a 1.4TC) on his D810 and is getting great results. Do we think the quality of the 300mm would be that much better than the 200-500? Thanks for your thoughts.

After my Bigma 50-500mm broke down two years ago, I had to make a decision between the Nikon 300mm AF-s f4.0 IF-D prime and the Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-f5.6 AF-s. I picked the prime plus a 1.4x converter over the zoom. I believe that there are less moving glass in a prime than big zoom, a prime seems more durable the zoom, and lasts longer. I like nature but not a good bird shooter with my Df nor my old D200. I use several primes on my Df. It's the nature of this Df.
I like the result with the combination with the converter.
The 200-500mm zoom is a very good choice for wild-life, but I would doubt about it's built quality with such a low price, you got what you paid for!

Drdale55 Loc: Prescott, AZ

Thank you all. Great comments and comparisons. I'm thinking I will give the 200-500 a try. Thanks again!!

Dale

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Drdale55 wrote:

Thank you all. Great comments and comparisons. I'm thinking I will give the 200-500 a try. Thanks again!!

Dale

Good Luck!
:thumbup:

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Drdale55 wrote:

Hi All,
My longest lens (except for my every day Tamron 16-300) is my Nikon 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4TC currently on a D300 soon (hopefully) to be a D500. I have a friend who uses the 300mm (with a 1.4TC) on his D810 and is getting great results. Do we think the quality of the 300mm would be that much better than the 200-500? Thanks for your thoughts.

The difference in resolution between these will be very small - if discernable at all.

They are both f5.6 - except that you can be at 300mm f4 with the prime without the TC.

The 300 with TC will be light/smaller - if that matters.

For most wildlife/birding and similar scenerios, a zoom trumps a prime.