Versatile lens for Birding?

[CJM2009]

I have a full frame camera. And was not happy with the 70-200 lens as per another thread not because of the lens, but mainly a technicallity, I think.

I now have the change to rethink - would like you respected opinions:

I would like to describe myself as a serious amateur not with an unlimited budget and therefore would like to buy a lens/es that can give me satisfaction on bird photography, and some versatility if possible (sport, landscaping, people, scenery - I have a 24-70)

I am pondering between an advized Nikkor 200-400 as an option
or
300 fixed with converter & maybe the new to be 70-200 as a second option.

In birding I am more inclined to enjoy driving in the country than on hiding in self-built hides or walking serious distances. For example, I also like to sit at the beach and look for striking pictures of children playing, birds bypassing, people walking and enjoying. I suppose that if I have a lens for birding, I can use it for other wildlife and scenery as well.

I understand that one lens can not satisfy all needs, but given a bit info about my needs, I am keen on getting some good advice from respected fellow photograpers, starting off at birding.

Are there any other lens/es that are a must for considering?

Thank you

[john deakin]

Other than a prime 500/600 which are held up to be the best birding lenses, especially on FX bodies, the 200-400 is a very good birding lens, takes the 1.4x and 1.7x converters well for that extra reach too. Very versatile for other genres, especially general wildlife photography where it has no current opposition, its the best there is. I've not used the Nikkor 300 2.8 prime, however, my ex canon 300 2.8 is the only lens I sorely miss and took the 1.4x and 2x converters particularly well, if the Nikkor 300 2.8 is as good it is also well worth considering but not as versatile as the 200-400 which would be the last lens I would let go.

Looking forward to reading others thoughts too.

[nayr]

Some sound advice from John, In terms of versatility the 200-400 with converters has to be the most versatile wildlife/birding lens on the planet. I would say however you will spend most of your time at 400 with the fx and will always need more reach for birds...

[Peter Veitch]

I'm not a Nikon Shooter nor full frame. My 500 spends a lot of time with the 1,4tc stuck onto it. I chose the 500 because of weight, not that it can readily be hand held! Some will argue 600, in particular with full frame. If budget is not an object buy a big prime and a second body with a zoom to cover things a bit closer. In my instance, I have a 100-400 on my second body.

However, every Canon shooter goes green with envy when they see that Nikon 200-400!

[Jola]

I agree with what was said above, but you are not going to sit on the beach with a 200-400VR

[Peter Betts]

I agree with what was said above, but you are not going to sit on the beach with a 200-400VR

I am just visualising that

[Peter Veitch]

I agree with what was said above, but you are not going to sit on the beach with a 200-400VR

I am just visualising that

Nice graphite tripod and Wimberley will do the trick admirably!

[john deakin]

I agree with what was said above, but you are not going to sit on the beach with a 200-400VR

Best beach lens you could ever want beats the 70-200 hands down

[bushmoz]

Hi Guys, I think perhaps you are reading CMJ2009's "..not with an unlimited budget" as meaning he has an unlimited one, which is not how I understand it.

[john deakin]

"I am pondering between an advized Nikkor 200-400 as an option
or
300 fixed with converter & maybe the new to be 70-200 as a second option."

Seems the 200-400 is within his budget.

[errie]

The sigma 500-1000 f2.8 is not a bad choice ..........excellent for strolls and hiking too ...............

[errie]

Seriously though . you cant beat the 200-400 . what a lens !

But old Wim pulls his 600 when he goes for birds as single subject .

The 300 2.8 of nikon and canon is soooooo good with converters though .

[CJM2009]

Hey, some of you okes does'nt even live near the beach! And I can understand that a 200-400 would be longer than your swimming pools! Remember I do have a 24-70, so relax about the beach.

Jokes aside - I am serious about a lens and as you know it is serious money, therefore I would like this thread helping me make a decision, since I would probably not buy another lens soon thereafter for a long time.

What I read so far is that the 200-400 is a fantastic lens. The prime lenses are probably the best for birding/wildlife. If I buy a prime lens, I would miss out on subjects in the range from 70-300.

If I buy the 200-400 - is my versatility better, but maybe quality on faraway subjects like birds and wildlife are worse off?

[john deakin]

Bottom line, if you want the best birding lens a 500 and 1.4x converter or 600 + converter is the way to go, especially on an FX. If you need/want more versatility then the 200-400 and 1.4x and 1.7x converters is the best you can buy. You gotta decide what is best for you, we can't help you there I'm afraid

[Peter Veitch]

Bottom line, if you want the best birding lens a 500 and 1.4x converter or 600 + converter is the way to go, especially on an FX. If you need/want more versatility then the 200-400 and 1.4x and 1.7x converters is the best you can buy. You gotta decide what is best for you, we can't help you there I'm afraid

Amen!

[CJM2009]

Thanks for all the advice It really helped me make the decision for the 200-400.

(My first test shots tells me that my concern about my 70-200 lens was true - something was really not right, but I am sure it was only a once off problem).

My last question would just be - according to the lens-booklet the 1.7 converter does not allow autofocus, whilst the 1,4 do.

Can somebody in the know please help me with this, and if so, which is the one to use then?

Thanks

[kobusrudolph]

CJM, you've got big shots on this thread and they have the knowledge. I've started out with a simple 70-300mm. And then from day one birding attracted me. So I've struggled with reach. Got the 300mm f/2.8(non VR) 2 months ago and I will never sell this lense. It is just amazing. But will not be so versatile! Birds and animals yes, but family and friends no. The lense is also too heavy. So I agree fully with the 200-400mm. It's a super choice. I have a 1.7 converter, and the auto-focus works on my lens. I think it will work on the 200-400 as well. 1.4 or 1.7?? I had to make the same decision. For reach I bought the 1.7. But, it makes the focus a little slower and I must keep the camera (D300) very steady. Other guys also told me this. The image is a little softer but the 300 f.2.8 compensates for that. Most guys at our club, prefer the 1.4 - but then they also have 500's and 600's. I won't at all suggest a 2 x converter.

[kobusrudolph]

See

[kobusrudolph]

See Peter Betts comments on the 1.4 and 1.7 at this thread. http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forum/...ad.php?t=15463 Send him a pm

[CJM2009]

Thanks for all the advice and tips. Now to start practicing!