Nikon 80- 400 mm, Sigma 150-500 mm

[tclune]

To help Brown Bear I would ask will there be much difference between a x1.7 and a x1.4 tele converter in light transmission?

With a 1.4x tc, you lose half the light of no tc. With a 1.7x tc, you lose 2/3. FWIW

[NorthernFocus]

...The only point that confuses me is why are prime lenses, being easier to design, so much more expensive? It seems that it should be the opposite.

You have to compare apples with apples. It's not a valid comparison to look at say a 500mm f4 prime and a 150-500mm f6.3 zoom. The price premium is mostly associated with the maximum aperture. Compare the size/weight of a 600mm prime with the 150-600mm zooms on the market. The bulk is necessary to accomodate the size of the objective lenses needed to achieve the wide apertures. In addition to sheer material costs, the larger diameter lenses are much harder to manufacture to the exacting tolerances needed to achieve the best optical performance. Economies of scale also kick in. Nikon will likely sell ten or fifty times as many 70-300mm lenses as they will 300mm f2.8. The more they sell the more the cost of design and tooling gets distributed across many copies.

To demontrate the premium cost of wider apertures, here are a few examples:

1) Nikon 300mm f4 VR prime(newest model) vs 300mm f2.8 prime, $2000 vs $6000

2) Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f4-5.6(new version) vs 200-400mm f4 , $2700 vs $7000

3) Nikon 70-200mm f4 vs 70-200mm f2.8, $1400 vs $2400

One criticism against Nikon is that they don't offer a line of lower cost super tele prime lenses. With the exception of the 300mm f4, they offer nothing. It would be nice if they offered a 500 and/or 600mm f5.6 in the $2-3000 price range. Honestly with modern, high ISO bodies available I would likely choose to shoot such a lens. The size/weight advantage would factor significantly into such a decision.

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks Dan. Again, that's a good explanation. Surprising how there is so much more cost associated with getting just a couple of stops more light. I noticed Nikon doesn't offer any super telephoto zooms, above 400 mm, it seems like the third parties are trying to overtake that portion of the market.

[Manfred M]

Nick part of the cost difference is related to the production costs of these pro lenses.

One tradeoff that the lens designers have to make is finding the appropriate manufacturing techniques and tooling for a specific lens. A high volume lens can support the high capital costs of automation and more expensive tooling, but with a low volume lens, more traditional manufacturing technology will be used. This means that the company will save on specialized tooling (dies, moulds, etc), but it will have higher material and labour costs.

These costs are passed on to the consumer.

Add to this that the cost of developing a lens is not going to be substantially different for a high production volume lens versus a low volume lens, and the R&D costs are amortized over the number of lenses produced, so once again. specialty lower volume lenses are going to be hit with a higher development cost.

Again, these will be passed on to the purchaser.

[NorthernFocus]

...I noticed Nikon doesn't offer any super telephoto zooms, above 400 mm, it seems like the third parties are trying to overtake that portion of the market.

I suspect they intentionally create the exact dilemma that you find yourself in. The third party manufacturers offer something that does not have a direct OEM comparison and at an attractive cost. That way they avoid directly fighting the OEM vs third party battle and make the consumer decide between added functionality and brand loyalty. Quite an effective tactic.

I think it is a common progression for wildlife togs to go through where you are now. We want more length but need the versatility to avoid breaking the bank. As you skills improve and if you stay interested enough, you reach the point of making the decisions to either invest in the high end glass or not. I recommend that people rent a high end lens prior to making a decision. If you can't tell the difference in results, then your technique and/or eye hasn't improved to the point that it'll do you any good so no need to invest in it. From my own experience I can say that it is definately different and once you shoot with long prime glass, it is difficult to go back.

[Nicks Pics]

I suspect they intentionally create the exact dilemma that you find yourself in. The third party manufacturers offer something that does not have a direct OEM comparison and at an attractive cost. That way they avoid directly fighting the OEM vs third party battle and make the consumer decide between added functionality and brand loyalty. Quite an effective tactic.

I think it is a common progression for wildlife togs to go through where you are now. We want more length but need the versatility to avoid breaking the bank. As you skills improve and if you stay interested enough, you reach the point of making the decisions to either invest in the high end glass or not. I recommend that people rent a high end lens prior to making a decision. If you can't tell the difference in results, then your technique and/or eye hasn't improved to the point that it'll do you any good so no need to invest in it. From my own experience I can say that it is definately different and once you shoot with long prime glass, it is difficult to go back.

Thanks Dan, I was looking at some of the canine photography on your web site, what equipment do you use for that? Do you do it professionally, may I ask? I'm just doing my home work, I'm glad I don't need to be in a hurry to buy anything for a little while.
I need to figure out my photography vision, that would help me decide what I need, and also I would like to try out some different lenses hands on.

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks Dan, I was looking at some of the canine photography on your web site, what equipment do you use for that? Do you do it professionally, may I ask?...

All of the canine photography other than my own dog is indeed for commercial purposes. I use a variety of equipment depending on conditions. This past weekend I shot an agility trial indoors under mercury lights. I used a D4/200-400mm VR on a tripod and a D810/70-200 f2.8 handheld. I typically do use two bodies in this manner.

Ironically paying customers are not as picky as I am about image quality. Plus nearly all of those sales are either for prints 8x10 or smaller or for web resolution digitals. Consequently, when lighting allows, I now shoot jpeg files with a D7100/AF-S 80-400mm and D810/70-200mm f4(shooting in DX mode).

The zoom lenses are in their element shooting dog agility. The arena is 100ft x 100ft with the obstacles typically arranged to utilize all of the space. Access is limited to where one can set up to shoot. Add further restrictions of lighting, the layout of the course, varioius size dogs, etc, and it gets very tricky. So maximum flexibility is key to success. That is where zoom lenses really shine.

In your situation, probably the biggest potential downside to some of the zoom lenses that you are considering is loss of light due to the max apertures. The D7100 isn't real forgiving in low light. And what I'm really saying by that is not that it's bad but that you don't get the full potential out of it. Christina has done very will shooting her 7100 at higher ISO settings. If you have done any shooting in the ISO1600-3200 range and are happy with the results, then you've nothing to fear with any of the lenses that have been discussed in this thread.

[Brownbear]

Hi John,

Thank you for taking the time to ask the question, and thank you to Tom for answering.

When photographing birds typically in low light/foggy/misty conditions, especially if they are in flight I've learned from experience that when I use my 1.7 teleconverter that it is sometimes impossible to manage sharp focus. If I remove the teleconverter focusing is so much easier. But of course the extra reach provided by the teleconverter is sometimes needed, hence my wish to trade in my 1.7 for a 1.4 is a compromise. I feel that the extra little bit of light is more important than the reach.

To help Brown Bear I would ask will there be much difference between a x1.7 and a x1.4 tele converter in light transmission?

[Nicks Pics]

All of the canine photography other than my own dog is indeed for commercial purposes. I use a variety of equipment depending on conditions. This past weekend I shot an agility trial indoors under mercury lights. I used a D4/200-400mm VR on a tripod and a D810/70-200 f2.8 handheld. I typically do use two bodies in this manner.

Ironically paying customers are not as picky as I am about image quality. Plus nearly all of those sales are either for prints 8x10 or smaller or for web resolution digitals. Consequently, when lighting allows, I now shoot jpeg files with a D7100/AF-S 80-400mm and D810/70-200mm f4(shooting in DX mode).

The zoom lenses are in their element shooting dog agility. The arena is 100ft x 100ft with the obstacles typically arranged to utilize all of the space. Access is limited to where one can set up to shoot. Add further restrictions of lighting, the layout of the course, varioius size dogs, etc, and it gets very tricky. So maximum flexibility is key to success. That is where zoom lenses really shine.

In your situation, probably the biggest potential downside to some of the zoom lenses that you are considering is loss of light due to the max apertures. The D7100 isn't real forgiving in low light. And what I'm really saying by that is not that it's bad but that you don't get the full potential out of it. Christina has done very will shooting her 7100 at higher ISO settings. If you have done any shooting in the ISO1600-3200 range and are happy with the results, then you've nothing to fear with any of the lenses that have been discussed in this thread.

Thanks for the very helpful posts Dan, learning a lot. Your point makes a lot of sense that one would need wide aperture and/or high ISO for shooting at fast shutter speeds indoors, frankly I'm slightly surprised it can be done. But like I said, need to take some thought to decide what I plan to do, so I'll know what my needs will be.