Ideally, I'd have a 500mm f/4 for wildlife, I've used it a couple times and absolutely loved it. The 600 f/4 is just so damn big, the 500 f/4 is barely manageable as is.

I think the 300 f/2.8 is a good choice for all around useage as you can make it a 600 f/5.6 (still useable but slow) if need be, or just use it at the awesome 300 f/2.8 range if the subject is closer.

I don't shoot enough wildlife for my opinion to be to relevant though, I recently sold my 400 f/5.6, I loved that lens but it was too expensive for me to barely use it. And it annoyed me how slow it was. I'll never buy another "wildlife" lens that's slower than f/4.

When I'm flying I take the 70-200mm and both telcons... But I don't shoot over 300 much at all (and I'm on FF, so it really is 300mm...)

But I've been considering the 100-400 just for this reason. Similar size, weight and cost, I just wish it was a constant f/4... Yes I know that would make it heavier and more expensive...

The options I see are:
100-400 (but not very fast)
120-300 f2.8 if you can afford it and take it with you
300mm f4 because it take TCs well (but enough better than the 70-200 to bring both?)
100-300 f4 (why not use 70-200 and bring 1.4 tc?)

I'm in the same boat. I have a feeling the 100-400 will be my travel tele when I have the money.

Longest lens I have is the 70-200 2.8L and it's really all I need most of the time.

With the 300 it sounds like you're making the best choice possible given your budget... assuming that you intend to use this lens a lot. If not, maybe occasionally renting the exact lens you need would make more sense.

FWIW I had the 500, the 300-800, and played with the 600, and chose the 400 as my keeper. Depending on the body and TC I use, it can comfortably go from 400 out to 400 X 2 X 1.3 (X 1.4 if I stack my other TC, but I've never had to do that). The 300 is pretty darn close, and is smaller and lighter to boot, so a ery good choice.


...oh, as for the <200, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and both TC's are great to travel with.

How much do the TC's slow down the lens, 1 stop each?

To me it seems easier to carry these with a 70-200 on a crop camera if thats an option.

I do the 70-200 2.8 / TC thing, but my reasons are from a budget standpoint. Also, I have the Sigma lens/TC combo, not Nikon.

I think the 80-400 VR would be a nice size for travel, but from what I've read, it's not great for motorsports.(slow)

I don't think I'd place the 200-400 f/4 VR in the "travel class" of lenses. Sure, there are bigger lenses, but the list is short.

Originally Posted by thechickencow

How much do the TC's slow down the lens, 1 stop each?

To me it seems easier to carry these with a 70-200 on a crop camera if thats an option.

1.4x TC = 1-stop
2x TC = 2-stop

So... a 200 f/2.8 will become a 280 f/4 with a 1.4x or a 400 f/5.6 with a 2x.

(I messed up one damn number...)

Jour m4+h sux0rz. ^^^

200mm f2.8
280mm f4.0 w/1.4 TC (200*1.4, 2.8*1.4)
400mm f5.6 w/2.0 TC (200*2.0, 2.8*2.0)
560mm f8.0 w/2.0&1.4 TCs (200*1.4*2.0, 2.8*1.4*2.0)

Also, there is a loss in IQ here. So the sigma 100-300mm f4 will be sharper than a 70-200mm f2.8 with the 1.4 TC. It's a trade off. I find the 1.4 TC to be a great accessory and I don't hesitate to use it. I try to stop down a bit with it (it makes the lens a f4, so I stop down one stop to f5.6) to make sure there is no visible hit to the IQ. But if you need f4 with it you'll be fine. The 2.0 TC has a much more noticeable IQ hit. It's usable if you need 280mm+, but I avoid it whenever possible. I also make sure I'm one stop down when shooting with it (f8) so it's less noticeable. It's still worth buying IMHO for a light travel setup (assuming you have the 70-200mm already), but if you're only getting one TC, get the 1.4 TC first. I have sigma TCs and a sigma 70-200mm.

Thanks for the info. I'd love to get out and shoot a rally that I'm not competing in, and I'm pretty sure the 70-200 will be sufficient, but the 1.4 may be a good addition.

Originally Posted by thechickencow

Thanks for the info. I'd love to get out and shoot a rally that I'm not competing in, and I'm pretty sure the 70-200 will be sufficient, but the 1.4 may be a good addition.

Depending on how close you can get, the 70-200 would be fine. When I shot the Baja 500, I was using my 18-55 since I was basically on the side of the road. I really needed something like a 24-70. The last race, I was on on top of a motorhome with my 70-200 and 2x TC on a monopod.

Yeah, I was going to say...
I've had limited motorsports shooting, but I liked the 70-200 with and without the 1.4 because of the working distances it put me at... Yes there was a fence so I couldn't have been closer even if I'd wanted, but safety wise, I like where I was... There were also times I was "stuck" at 70mm though... But damn, getting that close to a WRC car at speed?

Jew Crazy!?

Yeah, there were a few times I had to check myself with the SCORE stuff... Through the viewfinder, it's peachy, but when you realize you were just 3 feet from a Trophy Truck going 130 mph, it's a reality check.

The following picture made me realize that one of these guys could decide at this very moment to make his move and pass, taking me out.

From now on, I like using the 70-200. Wide angle looks cool though, because you rarely see it in motorsports.

Yeah, there's a kick ass new Nikon D3 ad, that's with the 12mm right on the edge of the track... First thing I thought was Damn, that guys going to get killed.... Then I though of a remote. It's a great ad also because they say something along the lines of "This shot was impossible last year, so we made the new Nikon D3..." 12mm 6400 ISO f8, 1/5000th!

Unless I'm going to be shooting motorsports, I'm never travelling with my 20D again, my back is still ****ed up from lugging that thing around.

Originally Posted by Rallyroo

I noticed that most of the sample shots from the D3 were shot at 6400 ISO. Dang!

My friend has a D3.

It certainly has very good high ISO performance, finally putting Nikon on the competitive edge in that regard, but my friend (and I agree) says the claims about how good it is are certainly exaggerated.

Originally Posted by The Monster

Unless I'm going to be shooting motorsports, I'm never travelling with my 20D again, my back is still ****ed up from lugging that thing around.

Damn, a 20D f'd you up? How much ya bench?

Originally Posted by mkfotos

Originally Posted by The Monster

Unless I'm going to be shooting motorsports, I'm never travelling with my 20D again, my back is still ****ed up from lugging that thing around.

Damn, a 20D f'd you up? How much ya bench?

My thoughts exactly... :P

Originally Posted by mkfotos

Originally Posted by The Monster

Unless I'm going to be shooting motorsports, I'm never travelling with my 20D again, my back is still ****ed up from lugging that thing around.

Damn, a 20D f'd you up? How much ya bench?

Try carrying a 20D, 2 lenses and other crap around for 3 weeks, while walking an average of 5 miles a day.

get a proper camera backpack with support straps (sternum and waist) and you'll be ok.

Originally Posted by The Monster

Originally Posted by mkfotos

Originally Posted by The Monster

Unless I'm going to be shooting motorsports, I'm never travelling with my 20D again, my back is still ****ed up from lugging that thing around.

Damn, a 20D f'd you up? How much ya bench?

Try carrying a 20D, 2 lenses and other crap around for 3 weeks, while walking an average of 5 miles a day.

Aha, the three weeks might do it. I've had 40#-50# or so of photo gear on me (most of my gear at once, and batteries) , and walked around all day, but not three weeks. My days of trekking, wilderness survival camps, and Army training with 60#-80# backpacks are long gone.

Originally Posted by emorphien

get a proper camera backpack with support straps (sternum and waist) and you'll be ok.

The goal was to not look like a complete tourist.

So you weren't wearing white socks and sandals then I take it?

and yeah, Will I hear you on that. I find taking my stealth camera bag helps there. It looks like a normal shoulder bag, or at least more so than a camera bag does. But I hear you on lighter gear. It gets old, especially on a long trip. Look on the bright side. Now you'll look like a German tourist.

Well, my last name is Wagner

GTF meets Wagonmonster?

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

GTF meets Wagonmonster?

:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Have you ever met Jason? He's not that bad in person...

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Have you ever met Jason? He's not that bad in person...

Several times (remember, I used to live in Boston) and, I think he's a douche in real life too.

Just checking...

OK, I'm bumping this back up, because it looks like I might be pulling the trigger on this next week...


100-400mm

• + more versatile
• + no need for TC to get to 400
• + better IQ at 400mm
• - bigger/heavier
• - more expensive (but it's only $150 of $1,300)
• - gets HUGE at 400mm
• - f5.6 @ 300mm
• - I hated my 50-500, isn't this VERY similar?
• - 100-200 overlaps with 70-200
• - dust pump
• - sample shots are hit or miss, some great shots, some horrible (users or lens?)

300mm f4 IS

• + smaller/lighter
• + no external dimension changes when zooming
• + better IQ at 300mm
• + f4 @ 300mm
• + works very well with the 1.4TC
• + is probably better at 600/560
• + sample shots look better (real world usage)
• - prime (foot zoom)
• - IQ @ 400mm -vs- no TC on the 100-400
• - my 70-200mm w/1.4TC is the same thing....

Right now I'm leaning towards the 300mm. Smaller, lighters, better IQ @ 300, and it's less expensive. My experience with the 50-500 has me turned off on the 100-400mm honestly. They both get gigantic when zoomed in.

Thoughts?

I think 300mm would be best, for the reasons you mentioned. If you are at all like me (and I think you are, shooting range wise), when you use the tele, you will have it out on the long end, anyway.

On the other hand, zooms ARE really handy for framing.....

Second on the 300mm. I think youll use it more than the 100-400.

Out of the two, the 300... but is the 400 f/5.6 out of the running? Like you said, the 70-200 + TC = 300, so when you really need the extra reach...

If it had IS I'd consider it.