Airliners.net

Currently I'm facing one of the biggest decisions in my life. At the moment I own the new Nikon 70 200mmE FL f/2.8. And what a gem of a lens it is !! But unfortunately it's a bit on the short side when shooting small aircrafts and fighters(my main interest). So I need a longer lens with the same quality of the 70 200E. My main options are either the 500mm f/4 on a Full Frame body or the 300mm f/2.8(maybe with TC14III) on the D500. Any opinions ?

I use the Simga 120-300mm f2.8 and 150-600mm sports

The 300mm F/2.8 will give you more options - because it is F/2.8. The 500/4 is a wonderful lens too, but it is less flexible. There are plus sides to both lenses.

I would go for Nikon D800E with 500mm f/4

I use the 70-200 + 1.7X Tele Converter on a D7100 and it works well. I also use a 200-500mm f5.6 on a D800 with equally good results. The 200-500mm f5.6 is an excellent lens for the price (about $1400 in the US) and will work with both the DX and FX bodies. The lenses you refer to are expensive glass. So if this is "one of the biggest decisions of your life", I'd not fret so much about it and spend less money on it. Check out my images on a.net...most of the recent ones are taken with the 200-500 mm with the D800.

Jehan

I would go for the D500 with 300/2.8+1.4 Converter where necessary to complement your superb 70/200.

Thanks a lot for your help !! I have a question which although I read a lot of reviews and articles, I'm still without a proper answer. Does FX cameras produce better image quality in normal situations(decent light etc) ? because one reason I'm considering switching to FX is because of the perception or maybe fact that FX bodies(especially the very high resolution D810) produce better pictures than DX.

jelpee wrote:

I use the 70-200 + 1.7X Tele Converter on a D7100 and it works well. I also use a 200-500mm f5.6 on a D800 with equally good results. The 200-500mm f5.6 is an excellent lens for the price (about $1400 in the US) and will work with both the DX and FX bodies. The lenses you refer to are expensive glass. So if this is "one of the biggest decisions of your life", I'd not fret so much about it and spend less money on it. Check out my images on a.net...most of the recent ones are taken with the 200-500 mm with the D800.

Jehan

I used to own the Af-S version Nikon 80 400 which thankfully I got rid off. I was very disappointed at all with it's quality and compared to the Nikon 70 200 it's a total crap. So it's enough for me with zooms with the only exception being the amazing 70-200mm f/2.8. This is the reason I'm opting for a prime. It's a lot of money yes but hopefully I'll be happy this time.

antoinepsaila wrote:

Thanks a lot for your help !! I have a question which although I read a lot of reviews and articles, I'm still without a proper answer. Does FX cameras produce better image quality in normal situations(decent light etc) ? because one reason I'm considering switching to FX is because of the perception or maybe fact that FX bodies(especially the very high resolution D810) produce better pictures than DX.

DX vs FX: To my eyes and my uses, I get equally good images from DX as I do with a FX for aviation photography. I used a D300s before I switched to the D800. If you are doing magazine photography or poster sized images or working under difficult lighting conditions, you will likely see a difference in the FX with the larger sensor. I am a hobbyist/enthusiast and honestly speaking the DX bodies served me quite well. While I use the D800, I'm not convinced that I need it. IMO, the lens makes a bigger difference than the body.

Jehan