Nikon for Birds in FL -- 300 f/4 or 200-500 f/5.6?

[ColSebastianMoran]

Planning for my annual Florida trip. I'll be at Wakodahatchee, Grand Cay, Ding Darling, Estero, Corkscrew Swamp and so forth. Possibly Shark Valley.

My rig for these shoots is a crop body with 300 f/4 on a monopod. That's served me well over the years. But, I'd like 24MPx instead of my D300, and my Nikkor 300mm F4 EDIF-AF is two generations old. What update route to take?

- D7200 with one of the newer 300 f/4's?
- D7200 with the new 200-500mm f/5.6?
- D600 with the 200-500?

My needs:
- Really good AF. I'll try birds in flight sometimes
- Image quality wide open or only one stop down. f/4 or f/5.6 is what I want in these locales. Smooth OOF areas.
- 24MPx feels just fine these days
- With just a monopod, I'm shooting typically 1/1000th and ISO 1000+.

Will the 200-500 produce images at 300mm f/5.6 that feel as sharp as I'm getting now?

Compare a 500mm shot with the zoom to the crop of a 300mm shot with the prime.

Any other thoughts? I'm clear that I don't want to carry the usual big iron for birding (500 f/4, tele-converter, big tripod, gimbal head).

Here's a sample, White Ibis at Estero, 2013, D300, Nikkor 300mm f/4 EDIF-AF.

 

[Robert Lai]

Why not just add the 1.4X teleconvertor to your 300mm lens to make it a 420mm with one stop of light loss? Your lens seems to be fine, and I think the teleconvertor will be the least expensive upgrade to get.

 

[ellisson]

For birds in flight (BIF), hand holding is best to track the target: you are not restricted by a tripod or other support. A 300 f2.8 or 400 f4 prime with a teleconverter (assuming a 500 prime is not in the budget) is a good practical alternative. A cropped sensor gets you even closer to the action. Select the widest aperture possible, e.g. 5.6, and set an iso that will allow a minimum shutter speed of 1/1000. Shoot in continuous AF with manual exposure mode so that you dial up or down the shutter speed to fine tune exposure (if needed) without taking your eye off the viewfinder.

For less demanding shots of birds not in flight, primes are still best because most zooms loose sharpness, particularly at their longer focal lengths at wide apertures. Check the reviews, but it would be unusual to see a 200-500 zoom at 300 or 400 mm match the sharpness of a 300mm or 400 prime lens at f=5.6. This is not to say that you can't get very usable images with a long zoom lens.

So as mentioned above, a 300 f4 prime with a 1.4x teleconverter, or a 300 2.8 with a 2x teleconverter should give you wide enough aperture and optimal sharpness. I've used a Minolta 400mm 4.5 lens and a 1.4x teleconverter to give reach of 560 at f6.3 with good results for BIF. No compromise in sharpness, but is wasn't cheep. Still, not the really high price of a 500 or 600 prime lens!

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Robert, I have the old 300 f/4 AF. IQ is great but the AF is slow; I've been renting the AFS lens which I like, and it's time now to buy my upgrade. Do I get the 300 AFS or new PF lens? Or the 200-500 zoom?

Also, I'll upgrade my body. I really want 24MPx, not the 12MPx of my D300. D7200? or go full frame (and the longer zoom)?

So, my question is the upgrade path. I've enjoyed the handling and portability of the f/4 prime. I did rent a 300 f/2.8 one year, then went back to the f/4.

For my locations, I don't feel a need for longer reach, 450mm effective focal length (300 on crop body or 500 on FX) has been enough. I am not inclined to add a TC to my rig. I know, this is unusual for bird photography.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Ellisson, thanks for the comments. BIF are hard but fun when it works. I find it hard to find the bird with longer than 500 effective focal length, so I stay in that range. Part of my interest in the zoom is it might be easier to zoom out, find the bird, then zoom in. My concerns with the zoom are image quality and that narrower aperture will slow down the AF. In my experience with BIF, AF performance is critical.

On your comment on sharpness, I have that concern. The best review of the 200-500 I can find, by Brad Hill, says more or less, "It's sharp! But shots with a prime tele will be noticeably sharper."

Here's one, a relative easy BIF shot. Great Blue Heron at Wakodahatchee. Easy since he flies like a bomber, not a fighter jet. This with a borrowed Canon full frame rig, 500 f/4.

 

[raid]

I always used my non-AF Canon FD 500/4.5L lens with success. It is very sharp, and the colors come out beautiful too.
Of course, for images of birds in flight, AF is very useful!
I only focused on birds on the ground with my manual lens.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Hi Raid -- Good shot, and I'm envious you can MF on birds. I've decided to stick with AF.

 

[kxl]

The best review of the 200-500 I can find, by Brad Hill, says more or less, "It's sharp! But shots with a prime tele will be noticeably sharper."

Of course, a prime tele would be sharper. While images from my 200-500mm are sharp enough, I would never mistake them for images from a prime 500mm/4 that costs 4-5x more.

As I mentioned on your post on photo.net, I'd go with a D7200 and the 200-500mm for greater reach, and a steady tripod, solid ballhead and the Wimberley Sidekick for support.

Reach is always a good thing for birding; however, the obvious downside is target acquisition... Wish I had a longer reach for this shot.

 

[raid]

Hi Raid -- Good shot, and I'm envious you can MF on birds. I've decided to stick with AF.

Thanks.
You made the right move. AF is great to have for moving objects.In the past, I very much resented AF and then digital cameras.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Hi Keith -- Thanks for the comments and the sample. Another good shot. Bird flying over the marsh is nice and not the easiest shot.

I know that you can never have enough reach in most bird locations, but in the places I go, the birds are closer. For this shot, I would rather have had a shorter lens. The flexibility of the 200-500 would be helpful on the short end as well as for reach; I've just got to figure out about the image quality.

Egret (Great? Snowy?) at Ding Darling, D300, 300mm f/4, 2014

I do like the bite of this image, and it doesn't really show at screen resolution. For anyone interested, here's a larger size of the same image.

 

[pvdhaar]

Beautiful shots, all of them!

My personal birding experience is with the 70-300AFS-VR (sold a while ago) and the old Nikkor 300mm f/4 EDIF-AF (still have it), both used extensively on the D90. There wasn't much AF speed difference between them and I could live with the AF speed on the 300 as long as I had the AF/MF slider in AF so that it didn't experience the extra torque of the focus ring riding along.. Birds in flight was a challenge to the D90's AF though with both lenses.. but that was more to do with the AF system than with the lenses per sé; on the D750, which I recently got, the 300 has transformed; so much more agile, it was a pleasant surprise. Can't wait for the light to get at least a little better to try this D750/oldy nikkor combination outdoors.. My conclusion from all this: get the most advanced AF system there is..

As far as the choice between a 300/4 and a 200-500/5.6, I'd always go for the f4 lens.. you can never have a fast enough shutter speed for birds to stop (especially their heads) motion.. I'd make up the shorter reach by either cropping (with 24MP you can), or getting closer..

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Thanks, Peter. Nice little bird there.

The 300 f/4 EDIF-AF is the one I have owned for years. Great IQ, slow focusing. I used mine with a D300, but for the past couple of years, I've rented the AFS lens for my annual trip south. AFS focuses so much faster.

For this year, I'm going to upgrade both the body and lens.

 

[splitimageview]

I'd go D7200 and 300 and get close, and shoot in 1.3x crop mode. The 24mp and no AA filter make for very usable cropping, and the focus using AFS lenses is quick, the buffer on the D7200 is much better than on earlier 7xxx models. I use it for air shows, slightly bigger birds so I can stand farther back. 🙂

 

[raid]

I have taken bird photos many times at Ding Darling wildlife refuge on Sanibel Island, Florida. A 300mm lens is often the most useful length.

 

[jszokoli]

So what if any are the down sides of using a crop body for birds and the like?

Joe

 

[ellisson]

Not much down side for birds in flight. It gets you effectively closer, as if you brought a 1.5 x longer lens without sacrificing aperture or lens quality. For this specific application - birds in flight - its an important advantage.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

So what if any are the down sides of using a crop body for birds and the like?

Of course the big advantage is 1.5x extra reach.

Downsides? Not many. But perhaps these:
- High ISO? Today's DX are damn good. Might be a factor in lower light settings.
- 24 MPX max. This is enough for me. Been shooting for years at 12MPx.
- Missing pro features, e.g. buffer size, Frame rate, dedicated "AF Start" button

Net for me is obvious: Crop camera for long tele, especially birds.

On the other hand, when I go to these prime bird locations, I see the big names out, often with a workshop group in tow. They are shooting big iron: 500/600 f/4 and tele-extenders on a full frame body, huge tripod, gimbal head, flash with a big fresnel lens.

 

[michaelwj]

On the other hand, when I go to these prime bird locations, I see the big names out, often with a workshop group in tow. They are shooting big iron: 500/600 f/4 and tele-extenders on a full frame body, huge tripod, gimbal head, flash with a big fresnel lens.

But imagine how much of a pain it would be to carry compare to a more sensible crop body with a 300 on it!

More often than not, the "big names" are out to impress with equipment rather than enjoy themselves. I believe Thom Hogan took a D7200 kit with him to Africa this year, citing that it is excellent and smaller and lighter and more enjoyable. In my mind (not being a birder) there is no advantage to going to a full frame 500 kit except a lighter wallet and more pain.

 

[jszokoli]

So here's my dilemma I have a Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 (the older one) and a D3x. So would you think that I'd be better of spending money on a faster 300mm lens the you can use a teleconverter on, or spend the money on a crop body? KEH has for example a EX+ D7100 for ~$600...

Joe

 

[splitimageview]

Downsides? Not many. But perhaps these:
- High ISO? Today's DX are damn good. Might be a factor in lower light settings.
- 24 MPX max. This is enough for me. Been shooting for years at 12MPx.
- Missing pro features, e.g. buffer size, Frame rate, dedicated "AF Start" button

Net for me is obvious: Crop camera for long tele, especially birds.

The D7200 has the class-leading APS-C sensor according to dpreview. No issues with low light.

24mp without an AA means lots of resolution for cropping.

Buffer and frame rate are plenty good in the D7200, much better than the 7000 and 7100. I've used all three for racing and air shows and the D7200 is far and away better in this regard.

Frame rate increases in 1.3x crop mode.

If you shoot in 1.3x crop you'll have about 16mp, and it's effectively a 2x combined crop over a full frame camera; 1.3 x 1.5 = 1.95.

So a 300mm becomes a 600mm effective. Or, a 450mm without the extra 1.3 crop mode.

Or shoot in regular mode and crop later.