I try to keep up on current events when it comes to photography and Nikon equipment (since Nikons form the basis of my existing equipment) and have been considering buying a new telephoto lens. I already have a Nikkor 300mm f/4 AFS ED IF (no VR, which I don't miss), which most reviews rate as having VERY GOOD image quality. However, the Nikon telephoto lenses rated as having EXCELLENT or SUPERB image quality are starting to interest me.



Most experienced reviewers seem to think that, other than the 300mm f/2.8, anything larger really requires a hefty tripod (Gitzo Series 5 or equivalent) and a Wimberly gimble head. Things start to get expensive and very heavy. If anybody out there has any experience with these "exotics" I would like to read your thoughts on which one(s) you chose, and why.

It would help to know how you plan to use it.

I've used both the 300mm f28 and the 400mm f2.8 and while the 300mm f2.8 can be hand-held it very quickly gets tiring.

The first time I mounted the 400 f2.8 onto my D3s I realized I couldn't hand-hold it.

I mostly shoot sports with mine and both of them are controllable with a good monopod and the emphasis is on good.

The weight bearing ability of monopods is usually "optimistic" and I'd want one rated for at least twice the weight of the lens and whatever body on which I'd use it.

Choosing a good mono-pod can be expensive if you are going to back-packing and need one that is ltwt - and that means expensive.

I had one built for me using three sections of wood that I had threaded - very steady and it does break dowm when traveling.

For me, the 600 always need a tripod and Gimbel head.

You might also consider the 200-400 f4 VR zoom - it's a big lens but is almost ideal for sports especially if can roam the sidelines. It doesn't have the IQ of either the 300 or 400 f2.8s but it's more than good enough for sports. I can produce prints up to 30"x40" if I really nail the exposure and focus,

There is a new version of a very interesting tele-zoom -- the Sigma 100-300 f2,8 0 same optics as the earlier version but with an interesting new feature that allows you to fine-tune focus for up to 3 specific lengths plus it's supposed to have much better quality control. The price is about $3300 US.

My favorite of all the Nikon tele's is the 200mm f2 VR --- the chub. It's almost impossible to hand-hold but it's images it can produce are without a doubt the sharpest of any Nikon tele and with proper technique you can mount a 1.4 converter and make great images at 280mm f2.8 - it's very easy to use with a monopod.

Hope this was helpful - if you have any specific questions I'll try to answer them.

I tried 400\2.8 (not mine ) and asked profy animal photographer Steve Bloom.

http://pro100photo.ru/2008/10/12/stiv-blum/
He said that VR is very useful instrument, and he changed Nikon for Canon some years ago, only because Canon had fix-lens with VR (IS in Canon terminology), and Nikon hadn't. If you have VR, you needn't tripod in most cases.

quote:

Originally posted by DB Bill:
My favorite of all the Nikon tele's is the 200mm f2 VR --- the chub. It's almost impossible to hand-hold but it's images it can produce are without a doubt the sharpest of any Nikon tele and with proper technique you can mount a 1.4 converter and make great images at 280mm f2.8 - it's very easy to use with a monopod.

This is very interesting to me. A 200mm f/2.0 on an APS-C sensor is for all intents equivalent to a 300mm f/2.0. This would seem to be the Holy Grail, yet one doesn't hear much about this lens. Why is that?