[dre@ms]

Thanks for the responses on the importance of VR. I particularly think, VR comes in handy for any zoom lens.

Was going through Amazon and came across the one suggested already and a new lens. Which one do you suggest.

http://www.amazon.in/Nikon-AF-S-Zoom...2622744&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.in/Nikon-AF-S-DX-1...2622744&sr=1-3

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by dre@ms

Thanks for the responses on the importance of VR. I particularly think, VR comes in handy for any zoom lens.

Was going through Amazon and came across the one suggested already and a new lens. Which one do you suggest.

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cam...1041548/review

http://www.amazon.in/Nikon-AF-S-Zoom...2622744&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.in/Nikon-AF-S-DX-1...2622744&sr=1-3

Depends on what you shoot. One is wide angle and the other telephoto.

Please bear in mind that these are slow lenses and will work on DX format only. The saving grace is that they are relatively inexpensive, so you can dispose them off with marginal loss (in absolute terms), once you get better glass.

Also note that these zooms are not all that good at the two ends of their range. For review of these lenses
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...3p5-5p6_vr_n15
http://www.bythom.com/1855lens.htm

The price quoted are slightly lower than MRP, and you may be able to get them at these prices after bargaining with authorised retailer.

[dre@ms]

Originally Posted by Aroy

Depends on what you shoot. One is wide angle and the other telephoto.

The price quoted are slightly lower than MRP, and you may be able to get them at these prices after bargaining with authorised retailer.

I will use them on my D5100.
I am an amateur photographer shooting whatever I see at. Be it portraits, landscape, scenery, group photo in a party, functions et al.
I did see the 18-55mm zoom lens at Hyper City, which is the default kit lens for D5100 with VR. For some reason I didnt find it that sharp/vibrant like my 50mm lens. So, I am just finding other options than this, to simply avoid the kit lens shipped with DSLRs.
I wont be sourcing the suggested lens online, since the price at retailers would/will be lesser and I can bargain.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by dre@ms

I will use them on my D5100.
I am an amateur photographer shooting whatever I see at. Be it portraits, landscape, scenery, group photo in a party, functions et al.
I did see the 18-55mm zoom lens at Hyper City, which is the default kit lens for D5100 with VR. For some reason I didnt find it that sharp/vibrant like my 50mm lens. So, I am just finding other options than this, to simply avoid the kit lens shipped with DSLRs.
I wont be sourcing the suggested lens online, since the price at retailers would/will be lesser and I can bargain.

In general the 50mm prime lenses are the sharpest and relative least expensive prime lenses. Most of the zooms are not as sharp as the prime lenses, and consumer grade even less so. That is a fact of life. Sharp and properly corrected lenses are pretty expensive, hence are usually made in FX format.

Some lenses are better than others, so to get an idea of how each lense performs and to compare them agains each other visit sites like DPreview, DXO etc and study the reviews and comparizon charts.

To give an example the the 18-55 DX zoom is between 5K and 8K, while the professional version 18-35 is 40K+. What you get is slightly faster lense with much better optics. If you want a fast wide angle consider the 20mm/f2.8 at 35k, or the 24mm/f2.8 at 24k. These will give you much better results.

What you have to decide is what quality (or inferiority) you are willing to accept. DX zooms are good enough for casual use, especially if you are not going to use them beyond Web/Facebook. They let you record memories, which by itself is an important factor as an indifferent shot is better than no shot.

One fact which you will soon realise is that good lenses last for years (decades in some cases), while the bodies change every year. If you are serious about photography, think about getting good prime lenses so that over the years you have a good collection.

[nilanjanray]

Waiting to see real life image quality from the Canon 70D. If it matches or exceeds Nikon 7100's, and if Canon comes up with its 7D Mk2 early next year, I might just jump ships to the Canon and buy the 7D Mk2. Nikon wildlife lenses are heavier and somewhat more expensive (for same reach) than their Canon counterparts

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Waiting to see real life image quality from the Canon 70D. If it matches or exceeds Nikon 7100's, and if Canon comes up with its 7D Mk2 early next year, I might just jump ships to the Canon and buy the 7D Mk2. Nikon wildlife lenses are heavier and somewhat more expensive (for same reach) than their Canon counterparts

There is not a single Canon super telephoto that is cheaper than an equivalent VR Nikon telephoto except the 800 5.6. The 70D sensor may even be worse except for better video performance or live view AF where Nikon truly sucks.

[govigov]

I have to agree, even though being a canon user, there is no worthwhile body to upgrade to comparing to the brilliant D7100 or the D800E. I am hoping that 70D fills the gap, the IQ of 70D is still unknown, but looking at the dual cmos chip and its functionality, it only seems to improve on live view and phase detect AF for videos.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

There is not a single Canon super telephoto that is cheaper than an equivalent VR Nikon telephoto except the 800 5.6. The 70D sensor may even be worse except for better video performance or live view AF where Nikon truly sucks.

The jury is out on the 70D sensor. It might or might not be as good as the D7100's. I am waiting to see. The 100 -400L still provides great vfm as a one size fits all lens. Better than the old 80-400mm and much cheaper than the new AF-S. Nikon wildlife lenses are heavier - more difficult to handhold.

Do you shoot wildlife? If so, I am sure you are aware what role buffer can have on capturing those fleeting action moments in field conditions. I do hope Nikon crippled D7100's buffer to bring out a D400.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Do you shoot wildlife? If so, I am sure you are aware what role buffer can have on capturing those fleeting action moments in field conditions. I do hope Nikon crippled D7100's buffer to bring out a D400.

While going through an interesting thread on DP reivew, if 70D spells end of line on 7D, many posts suggest, that it may not. Canon has left many of the main 7D features out of 70D. And that mainly indicates there should be a 7D MKII.

There was also an info stating that it may happen this year. But more importantly Canon may push it into premium pricing (some where near or above 2000$)

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

The jury is out on the 70D sensor. It might or might not be as good as the D7100's. I am waiting to see. The 100 -400L still provides great vfm as a one size fits all lens. Better than the old 80-400mm and much cheaper than the new AF-S. Nikon wildlife lenses are heavier - more difficult to handhold.

Do you shoot wildlife? If so, I am sure you are aware what role buffer can have on capturing those fleeting action moments in field conditions. I do hope Nikon crippled D7100's buffer to bring out a D400.

I thought you are talking about pretty serious fast telephotos and not slow zooms. But still the 80-400 is optically better than the old push pull 100-400. But I believe a new one is in the works and will surely surpass the nikon atleast in price seeing the past trends.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by ampere

While going through an interesting thread on DP reivew, if 70D spells end of line on 7D, many posts suggest, that it may not. Canon has left many of the main 7D features out of 70D. And that mainly indicates there should be a 7D MKII.

There was also an info stating that it may happen this year. But more importantly Canon may push it into premium pricing (some where near or above 2000$)

Yes, I know which one you are talking about. I am hoping that Canon ups it game so that Nikon is forced to. Else Nikon will keep milking the D7100.

Originally Posted by SPARKled

I thought you are talking about pretty serious fast telephotos and not slow zooms. But still the 80-400 is optically better than the old push pull 100-400. But I believe a new one is in the works and will surely surpass the nikon atleast in price seeing the past trends.

If I were looking at 200-400mm or 400mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4 (or longer) lenses, I wouldn't be even talking about 70D.

Btw, have you shot with both the XX - 400mm Canon and Nikon lenses? For a so called 'VFM' lens (which is still expensive), there are multiple constraints that need to be balanced. I shot with the Nikon and tested out the Canon with someone's 7D. The old Nikon is slow to focus - I might get a few good sharp shots, but I might miss many too. That is why I said that the Canon is a good VFM compromise.

Yes. I am afraid the new Canon would cost as much as the new Nikon. Perhaps the new one would make the old one's price go down.

Here's my take - I have got used to Nikon. But if Nikon doesn't cater to serious action/wildlife cropped-sensor shooters, and Canon does in a better manner (which is a hypothetical scenario), then I will have no issues on going over to the white side.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Yes, I know which one you are talking about. I am hoping that Canon ups it game so that Nikon is forced to. Else Nikon will keep milking the D7100.

If I were looking at 200-400mm or 400mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4 (or longer) lenses, I wouldn't be even talking about 70D.

Btw, have you shot with both the XX - 400mm Canon and Nikon lenses? For a so called 'VFM' lens (which is still expensive), there are multiple constraints that need to be balanced. I shot with the Nikon and tested out the Canon with someone's 7D. The old Nikon is slow to focus - I might get a few good sharp shots, but I might miss many too. That is why I said that the Canon is a good VFM compromise.

Yes. I am afraid the new Canon would cost as much as the new Nikon. Perhaps the new one would make the old one's price go down.

Here's my take - I have got used to Nikon. But if Nikon doesn't cater to serious action/wildlife cropped-sensor shooters, and Canon does in a better manner (which is a hypothetical scenario), then I will have no issues on going over to the white side.

I have shot with a Canon 100 400 and it's a strictly good light lens. The last time I was at tadoba at around 630 am in a heavily wooded area no amount of IS could get a good shot of a pack of dholes frolicking and I had to keep my friend's 550d with 100-400 down and pick up my 180 2.8 and D50 to get decent shots. If you are serious about wild life you can't get away with just a slow zoom like the 80/100-400.
Another thing unless you are always pulling out extreme detail from shadow areas or consistently shooting at very high iso, all Canon bodies are pretty good competitors against the best that Nikon has to offer. I think specs wise the 70D is better than the D7100 in every way and if you really need that 100-400 you must seriously consider switching.
The D400 or the 7D may never come for all that we know. If I have to buy a budget wildlife system, the Canon 70D would be very high on my wish list.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

I have shot with a Canon 100 400 and it's a strictly good light lens. The last time I was at tadoba at around 630 am in a heavily wooded area no amount of IS could get a good shot of a pack of dholes frolicking and I had to keep my friend's 550d with 100-400 down and pick up my 180 2.8 and D50 to get decent shots. If you are serious about wild life you can't get away with just a slow zoom like the 80/100-400.
Another thing unless you are always pulling out extreme detail from shadow areas or consistently shooting at very high iso, all Canon bodies are pretty good competitors against the best that Nikon has to offer. I think specs wise the 70D is better than the D7100 in every way and if you really need that 100-400 you must seriously consider switching.

There will always be those shots you can't take even if you have better gear. There were some folks who were shooting with the 200-400f/4 but they missed some key shots that I got. Always a tradeoff in the Indian jungles (space in a safari vehicle, ability to handhold if you can't use your beanbag or tripod), unlike in Africa where you have far better chance of sightings, open spaces and more suitable vehicles.

I have been doing alright with my current limited kit, if you head out to the non-auto images section you might come across some of the photos that I have shared. But the lenses you are referring to and which I would love to have someday - there are current financial commitments that prevent me from going for them. Same old story

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

There will always be those shots you can't take even if you have better gear. There were some folks who were shooting with the 200-400f/4 but they missed some key shots that I got. Always a tradeoff in the Indian jungles (space in a safari vehicle, ability to handhold if you can't use your beanbag or tripod), unlike in Africa where you have far better chance of sightings, open spaces and more suitable vehicles.

I have been doing alright with my current limited kit, if you head out to the non-auto images section you might come across some of the photos that I have shared. But the lenses you are referring to and which I would love to have someday - there are current financial commitments that prevent me from going for them. Same old story

I think this discussion has gone completely off track

I responded specifically about your question whether I had done any wild life shots with a 100-400.
If I remember correctly you were comparing Nikon and Canon telephoto offerings and were ready to shift to Canon 7D mk2, if the sensor is equal or better than the D7100, without any need for the super telephoto exotics and only on the strength of the Canon 100-400. So all I was saying is that if you need that 100-400, the sensor in a canon camera should not stop you. It may not be better than the D7100, but everything else is and even the sensor is no push over. Another thing is that if the current 100-400 production stops, the new Nikon 80-400 may look like a bargain against the new Canon 100-400.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

I think this discussion has gone completely off track

My initial statement - a personal comment, not a post asking for advice - wasn't meant to trigger such a discussion in the first place. I am pretty clear about what I want and what suits me. Whichever company satisfies my need, will get my money. And I would do my thorough research and will rent out or borrow the competitors before putting my money.

Originally Posted by SPARKled

If you are serious about wild life you can't get away with just a slow zoom like the 80/100-400.

BUT statements like this make me react strongly. These are very superficial comments based on limited or one time experience. If you had taken tens of thousands of wildlife photos, or were actively using so called 'pro' gear in the field, I could understand. But your statement comes out as a motherhood statement that contradicts the thousands of great wildlife photos taken with these lenses (just visit 500px or Flickr or Pbase, the evidence is there).

Let me respond this last time:

1. Amateurs can be serious about wildlife without buying super expensive fast primes. Yes, some of us might wish for the D4 + 400mm 2.8 + 2X TC + Wimberley head + one of the heavy duty Gitzos + an entire Gypsy to ourselves to have flexibility with such a set-up....but we shoot with what we have while evaluating what we might buy next.

2. Some of us try to squeeze the most out of our gear. So that when we do upgrade, we know exactly what we want based on our unique needs and style. And based on where we fall in the "crawl - walk - run - sprint" continuum of our skills and budget. And sometimes we accept that the gear is not capable of handling a situation and then simply enjoy what is happening in front of our eyes . And no, we won't sit at home twiddling our thumbs because we don't have the 'right gear' yet - we would rather be out shooting. Yes, shooting seriously and passionately.

3. For folks who are wondering whether the 'budget' Nikon or Canon zooms are adequate for wildlife, here are a few shots with a poorer cousin of those XX - 400mm lenses. And advise for newbies - the person behind the gear is as important (sometimes more) as the gear.