AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 G ED VR vs 300 f4+ TC 1.4 for birding
Antony John wrote:
There's a comparison of the 2 on Photography Life:
According to Nasim the 300 + 1.4 TC is sharper - but of course the 80-400 has VR
I'd be over the moon if Nikon bought out a 400 F4 AF-S VR. I believe Canon has one and it's very popular. The Nikon 400 F2.8 is too big and too expensive.
Also consider the new Tamron 150-600 - but it's also big and heavy. However the reviews have been very positive and I've been impressed by some of the images I've seen (well up to 500mm anyway).
HTH-- hide signature --
Carpe diem - or not ...
Many thanks for the link above - its a good read.
I've been looking at options for 300-400 range also.
But I've ruled out the new 80-400mm: I bought the new 80-400 last year and did not have a good experience with it at the long end - even with tripod, MLU, delayed release, etc. Sent it back, and not going back to that well. (I know, I know... a lot of others are having good experience with the 80-400; I'm not debating that.)
I like what Photo Life says in this review re: the 300 f/4 but, dang, its 13 years old, no VR, and apparently does not work with the new 1.4 TC III. All of which makes me reluctant to pull the trigger.
And, as you say above, the there is no more-affordable 400 f/4, and the 400 f/2.8 is huge and expensive.
I just don't understand why Nikon hasn't either updated the 300 f/4 with VR (what are they waiting for?) or come out with a 400 f/4 VR that is more affordable. Seems like a big hole in their lens line-up. If they released either of these, I'd pop my $$ down pretty quick.
|Post (hide subjects)||Posted by||When|
|May 9, 2014|
|May 9, 2014||1|
|May 9, 2014|
|May 15, 2014|
|May 16, 2014|
|May 11, 2014|
|May 12, 2014||1|
|May 12, 2014||2|
|May 20, 2014|
|May 20, 2014||2|
|May 21, 2014||1|
|May 21, 2014|
|May 22, 2014|
|Douaumont Ossuary by Eric 54-BNF|
from Armistice Day
|Silhouette at sunset by Jill Hancock|
from Portrait Lens (around 80mm or equivalent - please check the full rules)