Selling a lens... will I regret it?

[CuriousMike]

I love my Nikon 70-200 f/4.
It is arguably my sharpest lens with the best contrast, fastest AF, best build quality... best best.

But.

I find the focal range... something I don't use a lot.

My 24-120 is by far the bulk of my use.

Everytime I put the 70-200 on, I think, "Damn... I wish it was longer."

My current thought is to sell the 70-200 f/4 and fund either the Tamron or Sigma 150-600.

Someone ask me an intelligent question that will make me think harder about doing this.

 

[Syborg1211]

Come on, Mike. You know the drill! What are you going to be using the lens for? I can see how with dogs you might want something longer. You probably can't beat the Nikon's autofocus though.

 

[EOM]

Have you considered a 2x teleconveter? That'd get you a 140-400 lens, plus if you wanted to come back down to 70-200 you could remove the teleconverter. It weighs a lot less than that beast of glass but you would lose 2 stops of light since you'd now be at f/8 for the widest as opposed to 5.6 or 6.3.... but you DO have gobs of ISO to play with and you're /mostly/ out in the day, right? . . .but then there's flexibility.... just something i'd consider. [then again i'd probably just accidentally buy the 150-600 ]

edit - or a 1.7 teleconverter on a crop body.... = 180-510mm@f/6.6
or a 1.4 teleconverter on a crop body = 150-420@f/5.6

 

[CuriousMike]

I've thought about the teleconverters - the only one that seems to get the internets approval is the 1.4's as they seemingly hardly lose quality.

But I have this itch for reach!

 

[EOM]

I've thought about the teleconverters - the only one that seems to get the internets approval is the 1.4's as they seemingly hardly lose quality.

But I have this itch for reach!

Zoom with your feet, buddy! :whiste:

What are you trying to reach, exactly?

 

[CuriousMike]

Zoom with your feet, buddy! :whiste:

What are you trying to reach, exactly?

I feel somewhat ashamed to say it... birds and wildlife.

There's a part of me, deep down, that looks at bird photography as a waste of time.

But there's the other part of me that has a chance encounter with a hawk/raptor or an owl or a seal or a whale... or whatever.. and I curse 200mm.

One of these 90x superzooms would probably be a cheaper solution...

 

[carlton_fritz]

My brother has the Sigma 150-600 Sport. It's an amazing lens.

 

[carlton_fritz]

Here is a hand held shot at 600MM taken with a D750. tinypic shrank it.

 

[carlton_fritz]

Here is another shot taken with the Sigma

 

[Pocatello]

If you want to shoot wildlife, a longer reach than 200mm would be nicer. The 70-200mm f/4 is an amazing lens for sure though.

 

[Railgun]

My dad shoots with the Bigma on a Canon 50D. He originally shot with a 20D and the shots are fantastic. He also does some wildlife and the like.

I have a 70-200 f/4 with my D810, and I love the lens. I too wish it was a bit longer at times, but I can crop easily and get enough detail should I need to, though I also don't shoot wildlife.

That being said, I don't think you'll be dissatisfied with the Sigma option.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I love my Nikon 70-200 f/4.
It is arguably my sharpest lens with the best contrast, fastest AF, best build quality... best best.

But.

I find the focal range... something I don't use a lot.

My 24-120 is by far the bulk of my use.

Everytime I put the 70-200 on, I think, "Damn... I wish it was longer."

My current thought is to sell the 70-200 f/4 and fund either the Tamron or Sigma 150-600.

Someone ask me an intelligent question that will make me think harder about doing this.

Would you be well served with a high MP DX camera?

EDIT: thinking about 300mm equivalent and lots of MP.

 

[CuriousMike]

Would you be well served with a high MP DX camera?

I'm thinking the D5200 with the 200 and a 1.4x teleconverter (EOM got me thinking) might get me mostly where I want to go.

But I'm also thinking about getting a 75-300 ( 150-600mm equivalent ) for my m43 body.

I see those images from the Bigma and think I'll be let down with 400mm when 600mm is... more.

 

[CuriousMike]

OK, I bought a used Nikon 1.7 TC from B&H --- I put it on the D610 tonight with my 70-200 (so, 340mm) and went out after work. Getting sorta dark, so hard to really say... but my first impression is... "Shit, this isn't bad at all."
My f/4 loses 1.5 stops of light, so f/4 becomes f/6.7 (never seen that before.)

 

[corkyg]

I think you will enjoy that lens. I was attracted by your owl. I got this one last month, and was lucky that the morning sun was just right.

 

[CuriousMike]

I got this one last month, and was lucky that the morning sun was just right.

Show off...

 

[CuriousMike]

I did another test today - Nothing dramatic happened, and all the action was with the sun in the wrong direction.
But I was able to do enough to know
a) Focus, in good light, doesn't seem effected.
b) Sharpness, in good light, seems perfectly fine to me.

This example is again from the D610 with the 70-200 f/4 and the 1.7 TC II attached.
The whole image

100% crop

 

[CuriousMike]

OK, one more set from the park tonight.

Either I'm really not that picky (part of it, I'm sure) or the Nikon 1.7TC gets a seriously bad rap for what reason I don't know. For sure, I've also read that my 70-200 f/4 seems to do better with it than even the 70-200 f/2.8, so maybe that's part of it.
The reviews made me think I'd be getting results akin to a 1/2.3" zoom.

These are from a LONG way away and are heavily cropped.

 

[Jinny]

sell it and get a nikon coolpix p900, 24–2000mm f/2.8-6.5
83x zoom.

 

[Rottie]

Here is a hand held shot at 600MM taken with a D750. tinypic shrank it.

Great pix!!

 

[Rottie]

I think you will enjoy that lens. I was attracted by your owl. I got this one last month, and was lucky that the morning sun was just right.

Nice pix!!

 

[EOM]

Looking good, Mike! Have you thrown it on your crop sensor yet to see what happens?
edit - though that crop won't have the same ISO sensitivity to compensate for that loss of light.....

 

[CuriousMike]

Last night was my first night on the D5200 - I didn't really have any good "targets" other than a deer that I practically stepped on.

So the DX is going to give me a little more grain in the dim shots - it'll be a trade off for that extra reach - 340mm --> 510mm sounds like a good trade off.

I'm looking forward to spending more time with it.

 

[TomFoster]

Damn...nice shots! Where you spotting all these amazing looking owls! I've never seen them like that in the UK. I've heard quite a few about but never really see them!

 

[CuriousMike]

Damn...nice shots! Where you spotting all these amazing looking owls! I've never seen them like that in the UK. I've heard quite a few about but never really see them!

The photos Corky and I have posted are of the Great Horned Owl (more appropriately, the "Coastal Great Horned Owl." )

This particular species of Owl is widely seen throughout the U.S. and a bit further south, but that's it.

I'm sure if you google "Owls in England" you'll find all the species available to you over there, and then just refine your searches to find out where to go to find see them in the field.