• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Nikon D7000 and Sigma 300mm f2.8 (1 Viewer)

I use a Fotodiox adapter (with "dandelion" focus confirmation chip) to mount a Nikon-mount lens to my Canon, the Cosina Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4. It is truly a magical lens. The adapter needed some tweaking to tighten it, and that damaged my admittedly cheap jeweler's screwdriver!

The bokeh highlights via this little Voigtlander may not be quite as smooth as the very best "normal" lenses in terms of bokeh...although they're smooth enough for me...but oh that sharpness!! Other than the 50mm Zeiss Makro Planar (which is an f/2 maximum lens, not 1.4)...I do believe this Voigtlander may be the absolute sharpest ~50mm lens there is. I've only used it on my crop camera, but I doubt the IQ drops off much even on a full frame, to the corners. One other quirk is that it won't meter light very accurately on my camera, with the aperture closed down. But it's possible any lens would do the same, with a manual aperture ring...since the only way to mimic light metering with automatic lenses to compare, would be to try to hold down the "depth of field preview" button while light metering. I doubt many DSLR's can do that, if any...nor would you want to, obviously.

The corners on the crop sensor via this lens, wide open (at least at or near infinity focus) stay absolutely sharp...with essentially zero lateral CA...and a small to normal amount of longitudinal (bokeh) CA. And there's very little vignetting wide open, if any...which is astounding and unheard of, to me. The color and contrast are up there near or with some of the very best, as well. Certainly the Canon 85mm f/1.2 "magic canonball" had more vignetting at f/2.2 than this Voigtlander has at f/1.4, on my camera. That 85mm also wasn't as sharp anywhere near the wide aperture end. By f/5.6 the "canonball" was a bit sharper than the Voigtlander is at the same aperture. But that's a huge, heavy, motor-focus driven $2000 lens!

Not many people know or care about this Voigtlander "Nokton", but it's a pleasure to use. Obviously it is "only" manual focus, and manual aperture. The build and feel are identical to other Zeiss lenses I have rented...and at much lower cost. It was the Photozone.de resolution test that ultimately convinced me to try this lens. I will probably never sell it.

A wonderful lens indeed ! I love Voigtlanders. I don't have that one yet but I do have the (much cheaper) Voigtlander 50/1.8 and it's a gorgeous little lens, beautifully made and one of the best manual focusing rings I've ever used. I keep picking up an putting down the 90/3.5 ... it's only that f3.5 that is putting me off. I'll wait for the 125mm I think ;)

There is a major difference between the VLs and the Contax Zeiss lenses though (I have 3 of those) .. the Zeiss lenses are much heavier. Not for the weak-wristed :eek!: The 28/2.8, whilst not the ultra-expensive Hollywood 2.0, is still a superb and incredibly sharp lens and is my #1 landscape lens bar none. It's incredible value for money at around $350.

As far as 'exotic' 50's go though my favourite bar none is the Cosina 55/1.2 .... a bokeh unlike any other lens out there, wonderful !

Three examples. The last one isn't in perfect focus (hand held 1/15 sec after a few of those !) but illustrates the wonderful treatment the Cosina gives to specular highlights.

Cosina-55-f12-2-XL.jpg


Cosina-55-f12-4-XL.jpg


Bokeh-Pentax-User-XL.jpg
 
Kenneth, my understanding was that none of the FD mount lenses ever had autofocus, so how could it use the electrical contacts to confirm AF? It looks like you're saying they did have autofocus. Perhaps I read something wrong at wikipedia? I still wonder which of the FD lenses is worth seeking out to use on an EOS body?

My Voigtlander with the Fotodiox adapter does confirm focus on any of the AF points in my camera, as long as it is set at or near wide open aperture. It always says "f/1.4", even when I close down the aperture...so that's annoying.

Frogfish, those are great shots, but alas they don't have enough bokeh or color....JOKING! Btw, the last shot is my favorite, by far! I don't think my 58mm f/1.4 would do highlights quite that well, but it's close enough for me. And I'm willing to bet it is sharper through most of the stop range, than your f/1.2, but I could be wrong. How much did you pay for your 55 f/1.2, and how long ago? I'm not very familiar with it. What mount was it made for?

As far as Zeiss lenses go, if I had to buy only one, I would probably buy the new 25mm f/2, even though I haven't tried it yet. Everything I have read, seems to say it is optically superior to the 35mm f/2, which is really saying something. I did try that one, and it had almost the sharpness of my 58mm Voigtlander, and had the most extreme contrast of any lens I have ever tried, including some supertelephotos. It also had more contrast, and was more neutral in color, than the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro Planar (some might say comparing a wide angle lens to a telephoto overall, isn't a valid comparison, but I don't care.)

Here's a link to my submissions to Outdoor Photographer magazine.

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/your-favorite-places/photographers/232191-carl-eberhart.html

None of these was shot with the Voigtlander, and a couple were shot with the Zeiss 100 f/2. Some were shot with the Sigma DP2, with a wide conversion lens. The image that finally got published in the March 2012 issue, was "Milky Way over my Driveway"...shot with "only" a Sigma 17-70 zoom lens, on my Canon. I've since sold that lens...however, it is still by far the best wide zoom I have used...and it was quite affordable. It's since been discontinued, and replaced with one with optical stabilization and slightly different optics, which sells for twice the price. I doubt the OS version is optically a match, let alone superior. The only other wide zoom that looks like it might be better, is the new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II. I doubt I will buy that one anytime soon, but might rent it. Certainly the version 1, (based on side by side MTF tests online using the same camera body) looks optically quite inferior to the Sigma I sold, other than having more bokeh due to the faster f-stop toward the telephoto end.
 
Last edited:
This thread seems to have drifted several miles off topic, particularly since the orriginal photograph was taken using a Nikon camera
 
Perhaps "electrical contacts" is misleading. If the adapter is chipped as per photo, this will allow the camera to confirm when in focus, rather than autofocus, You use the len's manual focus ring, then when subject is in focus, the A/F will confirm this. the effect is the same if you take a modern lens such as my Canon EF-s 18 - 135 and change from AF to MF. You'll get confirmation of focus but have to do the work yourself

You are not limited to FD adapters, I own M42, Pentax PK and PB to Canon as well as M42 to Nikon

This page might help http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/m42_eos_focusing_adapter.html
The attatched pic might be clearer than the previous, I suggest searching for "AF confirm M42 (or whatever) to Canon adapter" on eBay
 

Attachments

  • a33_1.jpg
    a33_1.jpg
    37.1 KB · Views: 98
Last edited:
OK let's go back to the OP. I like the eye contact and the bird's shadow caught on its wing. Sharpness & composition :t:The only thing I would do is not crop so tight - give the bird space to fly into.
 
Last edited:
OK let's go back to the OP. I like the eye contact and the bird's shadow caught on its wing. Sharpness & composition :t:The only thing I would do is not crop so tight - give the bird space to fly into.

Thanks for your comments, you're right about the cropping which isn't my usual style.
 
This thread seems to have drifted several miles off topic, particularly since the orriginal photograph was taken using a Nikon camera

Apologies Alex. Was quite carried away there for a moment ;)

It is really a very nice shot, sharp with good detail - even in shadow under the wings, noise under control and as has been said the water droplets add a nice touch.
Also as has been said maybe next time a little more space for the bird to 'fly into', but you are well aware of that already.

That combination seems to be working well for you.
 
Kenneth, that's very interesting.

Apbarr, I apologize for the thread no longer focusing on your original post, or on Nikon in general. Is it really that much of a bother to you, though? I'm learning new things here, and I didn't realize we had to adhere to your wishes, per se.

However, I do believe much of my time in this thread has discussed my Voigtlander lens, which is in NIKON mount...

If you had told us at the outset, that you only wanted to hear from Nikon camera fanboys, perhaps we wouldn't have felt as much freedom to contribute as we did. But then, you're using a Sigma lens, so perhaps you're not enough of a Nikon fanboy for your own thread?
 
i did the same as apbarr ,but switched last year from canon to a nikon d7000 ,initially i was only going to use it as a back up but found myself using it more and more ,the only problem with nikon is a lack of cheap good lenses such as the canon 400 f5.6 L ,i struggled for a while with a sigma 150-500os ,but it was heavy and although good images they lacked oomph ,i decided to change to a nikon 300mm F4 afs ,and this has changed the whole ball game ,its cheap (around a grand) very lightweight ,portable and works extremely well with nikon t/c's i.e. the 1.4 and 1.7 giving effective focal lengths of 300mm,420mm and 500mm and turning out very sharp pics to .
now to the camera i fell totally in love with the d7000 its so versatile and the options imho leave canon way way behind ,and though canon may have a replacement planned for the 7d i am sure that a d7100 is also waiting in the wings
 
The Black Fox, I like some of your bird shots. I agree on the lack of affordable Nikon lenses. The latest versions of many of Canon's super-telephotos, however, are even less reasonably priced than Nikon's have been. If I had to buy any Nikon lens right now, within a reasonable price range (i.e. under $1500), I would buy the 28-300. According to the tests available online, it does look like a fantastic lens value, and is optically superior to all competitors. And for me, if I bought a Nikon body, the first lens I would buy would be a "do it all" wide range zoom.

When comparing the lens alone, I do question why you think the Nikon 300 f/4 is superior to Canon's. I notice the Nikon is $1370 on Amazon right now. However, the Canon has image stabilization at a slightly LOWER price point, at $1360. Its price might even fall more, since there are some rumors about an update or replacement in the near future.

The only advantage I see to the Nikon over the Canon 300mm f/4, is the ability to use Nikon's 1.7x teleconverter. Canon needs to make one of these. In this case the development problem is similar to the f/4 zoom. Canon has been deliberately late to the party, where Nikon has had its 200-400 f/4 for about a decade. If or when Canon's zoom does come out, it will cost radically more than Nikon's, but also be a bit better.

But, are you saying your D7000 can autofocus with the 300 f/4 and 1.7x combo? This combination makes a roughly 510mm f/6.8 lens. If your camera can't autofocus this combination, then I don't see much advantage to using it. My own bias leans more toward using AF for wildlife. If it actually can autofocus this combo, then I can understand the advantage a bit more.

As for the Canon 400 f/5.6L, it's a great lens for what it is. I rented and enjoyed one about a month ago. According to the rumors I last read (haven't had a chance to check lately), this lens will supposedly be phased out when the replacement for the 100-400 L zoom goes on sale. I'm not sure why they want to quit producing the 400 f/5.6, other than they must think the market prefers a zoom lens with IS, and doesn't mind paying handsomely (i.e., more than twice the price) for it.

In using the 400 f/5.6, I was able to achieve fast autofocus in extremely late twilight conditions, and the AF was always accurate. The only disadvantage was the need to use high ISO, and obviously the lack of IS.

Given Canon's new pricing structure, I am guessing the version 2 of the 100-400 will cost about $400 more than the previous version...which in my opinion affects its value, regardless of any improvement in IQ.

As for your D7000 being better than a 7D, which you seem to imply, I am curious in what ways (other than slightly better noise performance) it is better? I don't own a 7D, and I actually don't like the feel of its buttons and dials compared to my own slightly older Canon body. However, I liked the feel of the D7000 even less.

I wouldn't necessarily count on a future "D7100" being able to trounce handily, whatever Canon offers, whenever that happens. However, if crop bodies follow the trends of most of the full frame bodies this year, they might keep the same, or go down in MP count, rather than increase it. For bird photography via crop cameras, this is a disadvantage, because of lower pixel density. You're just not able to make use of the resolution of whatever telephoto lens you happen to be using, if you step down from 16MP to 14, or from 18 to 16...better noise or not. You're using a crop body to take advantage of the smaller pixels when mounted on a telephoto lens in the first place. If you need to shoot at dusk, you either live with the higher noise and deal with it in post, or use a full frame body and live with the less detail (via the same lens).

For instance, I feel many of the great telephoto and super telephoto lenses, could easily resolve a 30 to 60 megapixel crop sensor, if not higher. So given count alone (and the noise performance rivals or exceeds that of the Nikon D7000), the Sony sensor kind of beats the pants off both Canon and Nikon right now, and has done so for nearly a year. Going to Sony as a system is an entirely separate issue though, of course...and in my opinion, not an easy choice at all.

I freely admit Canon has dropped the ball in the case of crop bodies, and obviously decided to focus on full frame development. They put crop sensors on the back burner for going on 2 years later than they should have (the 7D is a mid 2009 camera). Will this lack of emphasis on crop sensor "pro sumer" cameras continue? Time will tell. By the way, the 60D was an extremely bad idea, in my opinion, but I know it has its fans.

As of right now, the 7D replacement will be my next crop camera purchase. I admit having a personal bias toward Canon as a company. But oddly enough, the Nikon D800 intrigues me more than the 5D3. So at this time I am purchasing neither, and bought binoculars instead.
 
Last edited:
But, are you saying your D7000 can autofocus with the 300 f/4 and 1.7x combo? This combination makes a roughly 510mm f/6.8 lens. If your camera can't autofocus this combination, then I don't see much advantage to using it. My own bias leans more toward using AF for wildlife. If it actually can autofocus this combo, then I can understand the advantage a bit more.

Pic attached using this combo which autofocuses very well. 1/500th sec, ISO 5600, f6.7
 

Attachments

  • BF Rook.jpg
    BF Rook.jpg
    356.2 KB · Views: 169
Last edited:
Interesting, I had no idea the D7000 could AF at aperture smaller than f/5.6 (most Canon bodies won't, as you probably know). So yes, I'll concede that one advantage to your D7000 for sure.

That picture has nice focus, although that particular bird isn't very pretty to me, to look at. I suppose its mother still loves it!

The noise looks low for ISO 5600. I assume you shot it as a NEF file? Where did the NR take place, if any? I know Nikon is fond of using a bit of NR in their RAW processing which can never be bypassed (nor do they even admit doing it at all)...but your image here looks like they're getting better at it (assuming you didn't edit with NR in post...which you could have, I don't know).

Let me ask you this. Will that lens combo work in servo AF mode at all? Do you notice the AF speed being slowed any, when compared to using the lens without the teleconverter?
 
Yes it was shot in RAW format and I carried out my usual editing in Photoshop including sharpening and NR. Had a quick look at the original .nef file and noise is fairly low on that as well.
I always use servo mode for AF. Never used the bare lens as yet but I would think it will AF quicker than with the converter. I'll be in the Algarve next week and will see how the lens performs in better light and post a couple of pics for critique.
 
I look forward to seeing them. Yes I could tell by the fine grain that you hadn't used much NR in Photoshop. Do you mostly perform NR in Adobe Camera Raw, or do you do it in the full Photoshop, after converting to a TIFF file or whatever? I really prefer Camera Raw, even though the full Photoshop has more gadgets to tinker with. Tiff file conversion...to me...adds a bit of lossy looking grain, similar to what jpeg conversion does...at least with my RAW CR2 files.

I have to admit the D7000 is obviously miles ahead of my older Canon, and as you know it's also quite a bit better, noise wise, than the 7D. Of course the 7D is a 2009 camera, and mine is a 2008.

Out of curiousity, have you ever tried any third party NR software (perhaps in the past, since you don't need much with the D7000), or perhaps scaling software (such as the formerly known "genuine fractals")?

It's a shame (I assume that) your Nikon 1.7x TC can't work with your Sigma 300 f/2.8...because that would be a fantastic combination.
 
Last edited:
The Algarve holiday has been cancelled unfortunately due to me being ill this week. I tend to carry out most of my sharpening in Camera Raw and NR in Photoshop, I've used other software in the past but am happy with my current setup.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top