Tamron 200-500 or Nikon 300mm AF-S IF ED with x1.7 converter?

[Sussex bird man]

I'd appreciate the forums views on the following before i shell out a lot of money.

I current use a D70 with the great tamron 200-500. I'm getting a D300 and i wonder if i can improve on the Tamron with a combination of the Nikon 300mm AF-S IF ED and x1.7 converter. The main areas of weakness of my Tamron are 1) slow focus speed 2) lack of image clarity at the 500mmm end. Would I do better with the combo? I have a Nikon AF 70-300 ED now which is a great lens but lacks AF-S and any abilty to multiply it up to x1.7 or x2.

I'd value any guidance before I bring out the debit card!!

Thanks,

RR

[Helios]

I would recommend the 300 f4 but with a 1.4 teleconverter. I used to own that tamron lens but sold it within weeks of buying the Nikon prime. Autofocus speed is really no better, but I never really had a problem with the Tamrons autofocus in the first place. The prime is appreciably sharper, so I don't think you'll really won't notice the slightly reduced focal length.

[Sussex bird man]

Thanks Helios. What is the reason for you specifying the x1.4? My logic is the sharpness but what would I lose from the prime if i use a x1.4 or x1.7? Of course as a straight prime I'd have the benefit of that clarity, wouldn't I? SBM

[steve.hinchliffe]

i would also recommend the 300 +1.4 take a look at the link
to my website most of the piccies were taken using this combination
cheers steve

[DFBHeron]

I use the 300mm AF-S f4 with a 1.4x on my D200. I also used it on my old D50 with similar results. I have not tried the 1.7x, but have seen images taken with that setup and have thought it not as sharp as my 1.4x images--and the guy using the 1.7x is a far better photographer than I am. If the 1.7x were better more people would be using them.

I have tried the 2x of both Nikkor and Kenko, and some decent images can be had, but in brief tests I did image quality suffered enough so that I stick with the 1.4x setup.

[DOC]

Don't think twice !. Get the 300 F4 +1.4 .
I had excatly the same combo ( D70 +Big T ) , got the D300 and i'm still craving for a good prime . The Tamron is just not good enough for the camera .
The D300 outranks the Tamron by a mile , and you feel you need something way better to let the D300 show it's capabilities ( especially with continous AF ) .
And don't get me wrong - I love the Tamron and have reached amazing results with it, but it is time for something like 400 2.8 ;).

[Duke Leto]

300 and 1.4 is a superb combo, I do have a 1.7 and it does work well but that combo works better in good light.

[Sussex bird man]

Thanks everyone. It looks like there is no question. Of course the faithful old 200-500 will still be around for when I need a little more reach.

A further question, assuming the combo 300/x1.4 if the right one: How does this combo work for flying subjects? SBM



300 and 1.4 is a superb combo, I do have a 1.7 and it does work well but that combo works better in good light.

[Duke Leto]

heres (http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/117592/ppuser/35693) one taken with a D200 300/4 and a 1.4

Or how about one (http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/127248/ppuser/35693) with the D200 300/4 and a 2x or here (http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/127378/ppuser/35693) to be fair the 2x was a tad disappointing but its a cracking combo with the 1.4 giving 420/5.6 or 510/6.3 with the 1.7

[rb_stern]

I now have both (Tamron and 300 F/4 with TCE17) and there's no doubt that the 300 + 1.7 is faster to focus and provides a sharper image with better bokeh than the Tamron. Neither have VR, and are both better when used on a tripod. The advantages, though, of the Tamron are that it is lighter to carry around, and it's a zoom. It's no slouch either, and with careful technique and a bit of pp sharpening, can also produce superb images.

My dilemma is now that over the years I have acquired a 80-400VR, a 300 F/4 ED-AF-S, a Tamron 200-500, a Kenko Pro 1.4X TC and now a Nikon 1.7X TC. All have their pros and cons, and I'm thinking of keeping some and selling some - but which? (I use D300 body).

What I find myself doing in the field more and more is - if I'm close to my car I carry the D300 + the 300 F/4 + 1.7TC mounted on a tripod, ready to set up and shoot quickly. If I'm on a trip - especially one that involves flying, I take the 80-400 and hand-hold - it is smaller, lighter, and has VR. I now always take a good quality point- and-shoot too (currently a Panasonic ZS-3). I also still do some digiscoping.

Richard

[Sussex bird man]

Thanks Richard. I hadn't considered the weight issue. Some may think it is not important but, as you say, depending on the circumstances it certainly is. A lot of what I take is hand-held, being an activitiy that i've always combined with either a business trip or a holiday and there just hasn't been space for a tripod. A monopod is the solution maybe.

Taking everyone's advice I think I'm going to get the D300, use it with the Tamron, and then get the 300+x1.4 if I'm not convinced by my new combo. I'm still sold on the 300+x1.4. Maybe I expect too much! Lets see. Needless to say I appreciate everyone's contribution. Thanks.

SBM




I now have both (Tamron and 300 F/4 with TCE17) and there's no doubt that the 300 + 1.7 is faster to focus and provides a sharper image with better bokeh than the Tamron. Neither have VR, and are both better when used on a tripod. The advantages, though, of the Tamron are that it is lighter to carry around, and it's a zoom. It's no slouch either, and with careful technique and a bit of pp sharpening, can also produce superb images.

My dilemma is now that over the years I have acquired a 80-400VR, a 300 F/4 ED-AF-S, a Tamron 200-500, a Kenko Pro 1.4X TC and now a Nikon 1.7X TC. All have their pros and cons, and I'm thinking of keeping some and selling some - but which? (I use D300 body).

What I find myself doing in the field more and more is - if I'm close to my car I carry the D300 + the 300 F/4 + 1.7TC mounted on a tripod, ready to set up and shoot quickly. If I'm on a trip - especially one that involves flying, I take the 80-400 and hand-hold - it is smaller, lighter, and has VR. I now always take a good quality point- and-shoot too (currently a Panasonic ZS-3). I also still do some digiscoping.

Richard

[Duke Leto]

if you going to shoot with any decent focal length you will need a monopod at the very least, always have my 300 & 1.4 mounted on the like.
If weight is an issue there are some nice travel tripods

[Sussex bird man]

Thanks DL. You are, of course, absolutely correct. However, many a time I just don't have the space. Poor excuse maybe. As far as support, I normally go for natural (some un-natural) supports such as fence posts, trees, walls, knees(!) etc. If you are out in the wilds there generally isn't much shortage of god's tripods. That said, and for flying shots, many of my shots are handheld, and in the gallery here. SBM

[Fozzybear]

I now have both (Tamron and 300 F/4 with TCE17) and there's no doubt that the 300 + 1.7 is faster to focus and provides a sharper image with better bokeh than the Tamron. Neither have VR, and are both better when used on a tripod. The advantages, though, of the Tamron are that it is lighter to carry around, and it's a zoom. It's no slouch either, and with careful technique and a bit of pp sharpening, can also produce superb images.

My dilemma is now that over the years I have acquired a 80-400VR, a 300 F/4 ED-AF-S, a Tamron 200-500, a Kenko Pro 1.4X TC and now a Nikon 1.7X TC. All have their pros and cons, and I'm thinking of keeping some and selling some - but which? (I use D300 body).

What I find myself doing in the field more and more is - if I'm close to my car I carry the D300 + the 300 F/4 + 1.7TC mounted on a tripod, ready to set up and shoot quickly. If I'm on a trip - especially one that involves flying, I take the 80-400 and hand-hold - it is smaller, lighter, and has VR. I now always take a good quality point- and-shoot too (currently a Panasonic ZS-3). I also still do some digiscoping.

Richard

I'm in a similar situation, I have a 300mm f/4 and 1.4x tc and the 70-300VR. The prime is astonishingly good but not so good handheld in poor light. Using the zoom handheld in poor light I seem to get better results, even though it isn't of the same quality. For that reason I tend to use the prime in my garden or at the local park on a tripod and for walkabouts take the zoom, which is better for close-ups too - dragonflies and butterflies mostly.


I would definitely go for the 300mm f/4 and 1.4x teleconverter over the Tamron Sussex bird man - the image quality of the prime would mean that even without the TC and cropping in you'd get better image quality than the Tamron. If you can support the prime well then it is an amazing lens, capable of fantastic results.

[Sussex bird man]

Again, thanks everyone. It looks like I'll be visiting the shop very soon and hoping comingout witha D300 and the 300mm (+ TC x1.4).... SBM

I'm in a similar situation, I have a 300mm f/4 and 1.4x tc and the 70-300VR. The prime is astonishingly good but not so good handheld in poor light. Using the zoom handheld in poor light I seem to get better results, even though it isn't of the same quality. For that reason I tend to use the prime in my garden or at the local park on a tripod and for walkabouts take the zoom, which is better for close-ups too - dragonflies and butterflies mostly.


I would definitely go for the 300mm f/4 and 1.4x teleconverter over the Tamron Sussex bird man - the image quality of the prime would mean that even without the TC and cropping in you'd get better image quality than the Tamron. If you can support the prime well then it is an amazing lens, capable of fantastic results.

[Sussex bird man]

Got them and now I need six weeks or so to absorb the manual!!!!!!! Unfortunately the x1.4 was OOS but I have it on back order. Thanks everyone for your advice. SBM

Again, thanks everyone. It looks like I'll be visiting the shop very soon and hoping comingout witha D300 and the 300mm (+ TC x1.4).... SBM

[Fozzybear]

Nice one!

It certainly isn't a simple camera to use, just take your time and don't expect too much to start with - my first shots were rather disappointing but once I got my head around using it I was blown away.

[Astrokev]

I would definitely go for the 300mm f/4 and 1.4x teleconverter over the Tamron Sussex bird man - the image quality of the prime would mean that even without the TC and cropping in you'd get better image quality than the Tamron.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I have a D300, 300 f/4 and the Tamron 200-500.

I bought the 300 believing that it would give far superior images to the Tamron (without a TC). Being a scientist by vocation, the first task I did was carry out a series of controlled tests to compare both lenses at different ISO and f stop settings. These were done on-tripod with images of test cards to compare resolution. For image scale and resolution, and for imaging targets which are small and which require significant cropping, the Tamron won hands down. It is simply not true to say that with cropping the IQ of the 300 f/4 is better than the Tamron.

Am I disappointed by my purchase of the 300 f/4 ? Absolutely not. AF speed of the 300 is far superior to the Tamron, especially important for BIF shots, and the bigger aperture obviously helps give faster exposures.

I therefore love both lenses - they both have pro's and con's - and I find I use both equally, depending on the subject.

For a general day's birding I favour the 300 f/4 since it is better for quick-reaction shots and BIF. As commented by an ealier post, the 300 is also excellent for butterflies due to it's close focus capability.

For more static subjects I favour the Tamron for the bigger image scale and flexibility of the zoom.

Please take a look at my blog - all the in-flight shots (including head-on swifts) were taken with the 300 f/4.

regards
Kevin

[Sussex bird man]

Thanks Astrokev for your post. I bought the 300mm and the D300 and I'm waiting for the x1.4 to arrive in stock now. So far, and it is early days yet, I am extremely happy with my purchase. I have to say that I haven't tried the Tamron on the D300 yet as I've fallen in love with the prime lens! Of course there will be a time and place and I'll certainly use it. The Tamron has been excellent for me and I wouldn't knock it, apart from its ability to capture in-flight shots crisply. For butterflies it has been great for me .. See http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/262819/ppuser/31912 as an example. And that was hand-held! I peeked at your blog ... very very nice! Happy birding! SBM

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I have a D300, 300 f/4 and the Tamron 200-500.

I bought the 300 believing that it would give far superior images to the Tamron (without a TC). Being a scientist by vocation, the first task I did was carry out a series of controlled tests to compare both lenses at different ISO and f stop settings. These were done on-tripod with images of test cards to compare resolution. For image scale and resolution, and for imaging targets which are small and which require significant cropping, the Tamron won hands down. It is simply not true to say that with cropping the IQ of the 300 f/4 is better than the Tamron.

Am I disappointed by my purchase of the 300 f/4 ? Absolutely not. AF speed of the 300 is far superior to the Tamron, especially important for BIF shots, and the bigger aperture obviously helps give faster exposures.

I therefore love both lenses - they both have pro's and con's - and I find I use both equally, depending on the subject.

For a general day's birding I favour the 300 f/4 since it is better for quick-reaction shots and BIF. As commented by an ealier post, the 300 is also excellent for butterflies due to it's close focus capability.

For more static subjects I favour the Tamron for the bigger image scale and flexibility of the zoom.

Please take a look at my blog - all the in-flight shots (including head-on swifts) were taken with the 300 f/4.

regards
Kevin

[yossi]

One additional comment on the 300/4 AFS - I use it a lot for close up shots, almost macro - as it can focus down to 1.5 meters or so and the bokeh of this lens is just stellar.
Here's an example I took last friday.

[Duke Leto]

nice shot