300 f4 afs vs 300 f2.8 VR? (1 Viewer)

Neil · Apr 19, 2008

rioja said:
Interesting thread ! I have made a comment on another topic regarding Neils quoted figures. I am not sure exactly where you're coming from Neil as on occasion you seem to contradict yourself. As you have all the lenses discussed you are obviously in a perfect position to pass judgement on their performance but it seems that you are biased towards the 300f4 because you want to carry it around all day.Fair enough. I briefly tried the 300f4 and D300 last week. Compared to the f2.8 D200 combination it was a peashooter to a canon. No doubt you could walk around with that no problem. The f2.8 does get heavy after a while and it's nice to put it down. However, as previously quoted, Nikon only recommend the 1.4 TC with the f4 whereas the f2.8 will support a 2.0TC. For anyone on a more limited budget than you appear to have the f2.8 might be a handy compromise solution. The ability to walk around with it and yet convert to a 600mm lens too. I was sat next to someone in a hide the other day who had a Canon 500mm and yes, I wished I had that lens as I was unable to get close enough to the small birds we were taking photo's of. On the other hand the previous day I had been on a 6 mile hike which would have been impossible with the 500mm lens. Yes, in reality both would be nice and that remains an ambition but for the meantime the f2.8 will have to do.It was half the price of the 500mm too.
As for hand holding, yes you can but you will get better results resting it on a beanbag or tripod... and that goes for any lens as far as I am concerned. For flight pictures I find 300mm perfect as the field of vision is much wider than at 500mm with a TC. The closer the subject the better the detail and sharpness. The other thing to remember too is that Neil based his judgement on his experience of using the lenses in Hong Kong. The rest of us might not be so fortunate to have those sort of lighting conditions. I know in Britain we don't for most of the time.
In summary I think it's great to read Neils judgements but remember his needs might not be the same as yours.

Rioja,
I'm just catching up with my emails after being away and I'm intrigued by your comment "..... as on occasion you seem to contradict yourself" . This is very possible ( I have jetlag at the moment so am likely to say anything ). Let me know specifically what you disagree with and I'll address it.
Neil.

Dave Williams · Apr 20, 2008

Hi Neil, I'm not sure now either !!!
You are however, in the very fortunate position of having virtually every lens to choose from in the birders wish list. I am under the impression you have an 80-400,300f4,300f2.8 and a 500vr. Maybe I have read your comments and appraisals between aquiring new glass ! I guess if you read mine the same would apply. I was a great 80-400 advocate until I tried better.
So, from a birding prospective. Which lens would you keep if you had to discard the rest !!!!?
or are there any you still aspire to own in their place ?

Neil · Apr 20, 2008

So, from a birding prospective. Which lens would you keep if you had to discard the rest !!!!?
or are there any you still aspire to own in their place ?[/QUOTE]

Rioja,
Well one thing I wish is that my 80-400 zoom wasn't broken ( I've already repaired it once at great expense after dropping it ) as I'm sure it would like the D3.
My comments these days are specifically related to using these lenses on the D3 , with some reference to the D300 which I have tested. As I still digiscope a lot and switch quickly between the two ( a lot in hides ) total weight carried is important to me here. I don't have a car in Hong Kong and so take buses, taxis,ferries and trains. Even so at Mai Po Nature Reserve where I do a lot of my photography a normal day there is 6 kms round trip walking in up to 35c and 90% humidity. Also when I travel overseas I wouldn't take the 500/4.
So in answer to your question I would choose the 300/4 plus 1.4x. With the D3 I can shoot at iso1600 with no loss of quality. I used it in Florida and will start posting some more photos in the Gallery but you can see my photos with it at-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7892550@N03/
Here are a couple of shots taken with it.
One lens I would still like to own is the 70-200/2.8 . It would have been great to have it in Florida with their egrets/herons/spoonbills/storks/eagles.
Neil.

greg g · Apr 21, 2008

Neil,
When a Nikon TC-14E II (1.4x) Teleconverter AF-S is used with a Nikon 300mm F4, does it allow you to still be on auto-focus?
Greg

Neil · Apr 21, 2008

greg g said:
Neil,
When a Nikon TC-14E II (1.4x) Teleconverter AF-S is used with a Nikon 300mm F4, does it allow you to still be on auto-focus?
Greg

Yes Greg. Not only AF on the lens but with the D3 you don't even notice any slow down in AF speed. The same was not true on the D2x. Neil.

Outboard · Apr 21, 2008

greg g said:
Neil,
When a Nikon TC-14E II (1.4x) Teleconverter AF-S is used with a Nikon 300mm F4, does it allow you to still be on auto-focus?
Greg

The 300 f4 AF-S lens and the TC-14E II is a super combination and I've used it effectively on a D70, D200, D300 and D3. There is little or no loss of quality with the TC.

greg g · Apr 22, 2008

Neil,
Would you know if this is also true when using the D300 with the (1.4x) Teleconverter w/300mm F4?
Thanks, Greg

greg g · Apr 22, 2008

Outboard,
Were you able to use AutoFocus with the combination D300, TC-14E II & 300mm F4?
Thanks, Greg

Outboard · Apr 22, 2008

greg g said:
Outboard,
Were you able to use AutoFocus with the combination D300, TC-14E II & 300mm F4?
Thanks, Greg

Absolutely, very little speed difference with and without the TC-14E II and no loss of quality just 1 stop difference f/4 to f.5.6.

yossi · Apr 22, 2008

A step further

In good light conditions (like we have here) there's no problem to use the 300/4 AFS even with a TC-20EII. Focusing is on the slower side, but if the limiter switch is set to 3m-infinity, it is useful.
Here's a sample taken with the lens+TC-20EII, stopped down 2/3 of a stop (F:10), and this was done mounted on the old D100. Not bad IMHO.
I've also tried the lens with a crazy combo - TC-20EII+TC-14. Manual focusing but the results were not bad.
Anyway, here are cranes @ 600mm (300+TC-20EII).

greg g · May 11, 2008

I wanted to inform you that we have purchased the 1.4 teleconverter and are tremendously happy with it. The decision on the 1.4 instead of the 1.7 was based on our living enviroment that has many cloudy days and we needed the speed. After viewing and using this 1.4 it sure makes the idea of also getting the 1.7 a consideration. Thank you for your input.
Greg

cadman342001 · Jun 18, 2008

Hi guys,

Just to add my 0.02c.

I have the D300, 300 f4 afs, 1.4 TC and 1.7TC.

As others have said, the 300 + 1.4 - AF works fine, IQ excellent.

My AF with the 1.7TC only works with 70-200VR after breifly working on the 300mm but apparently if I send the lens in there is an earthing/grounding mod nikon do that sorts it out (soldering wire from capacitor/board to lens body) - I think it's free in the US (but not in Aus. Thanks Nikon Aus!).
When I say AF doesn't work I mean nothing, nada on the AF front, not that it hunts but doesn't lock on. Adding the 1.7TC increases the resistance between body and lens too much. The 1.4 AF works fine.

I have used the 300 + 1.7 using MF and IQ seems excellent - see below for example.

HTH

Andy

plnelson · Jun 23, 2008

Neil said:
Roemer,
Save some money and get the D300 instead. With the D300 ( or D3 ) and the 1.4x you'll have lightning speed and about 3 stops of speed so VR is not necessary.

I agree the 300 f/2.8 is too heavy to carry around. But I have the 300 f/4 AF-S and I find that I can only get critically sharp results with the 1.4 TC in bright sunlight, otherwise I have to use too slow a shutter speed or take the TC off. The D300 buys you about 1 stop over the D200 noise-wise(and the D3 buys you another stop over that). I'm basing this on shooting at ISO 400. ISO 800 on the D300 is too noisy unless you turn on noise-reduction, which smears detail. I suppose it depends on how fussy you are about noise.

Dave Williams · Jun 24, 2008

The longer I have had the 300f2.8 the smaller it becomes. Carrying around all day isn't that much of a problem ! It's been easier since I have attached a Wimberley plate on the lens foot. You can use an extra finger to take the strain of the weight.

Highcountry · Jul 15, 2008

roemer said:
in that case i would partially have to switch to Canon (500 f4 IS) because the Nikkor 500 vr is way to expensive

Roemer, that is what I have done except I am converting everything to Canon as I cannot afford to keep both systems. As I get older, my eyesight is diminishing so I wanted to upgrade my Nikon 500mm AI-P to VR/AF. The big Nikon glass is just too overpriced to make sense so I opted for a Canon 40D and 500mm USM/IS. The 40D does an outstanding job and the 500mm is spectacular.

John

roemer · Jul 21, 2008

sticking to the dark side

Highcountry said:
Roemer, that is what I have done except I am converting everything to Canon as I cannot afford to keep both systems. As I get older, my eyesight is diminishing so I wanted to upgrade my Nikon 500mm AI-P to VR/AF. The big Nikon glass is just too overpriced to make sense so I opted for a Canon 40D and 500mm USM/IS. The 40D does an outstanding job and the 500mm is spectacular.

John

John,

I've decided to stick with Nikon, i just ordered (after reading a zillion reviews and forumthreads) a 300 2.8 VR. It was not easy to get a hold on a copy, but after more than 3 months there is finally a shop in Holland who had one in stock. I sold my 300 F4, for i am convinced that this new lens will solve my problems with focushunting and IQ degradation with the use of the tc 1.7.
And it has a built in tripod (VR)

I've really thought about the purchase of a 500 f4 IS, but i don't think it would fit my kind of shooting, and because i love my D300 I stay on the dark side although it comes at a price (literally)

Dave Williams · Jul 21, 2008

roemer said:
John,

I've decided to stick with Nikon, i just ordered (after reading a zillion reviews and forumthreads) a 300 2.8 VR. It was not easy to get a hold on a copy, but after more than 3 months there is finally a shop in Holland who had one in stock. I sold my 300 F4, for i am convinced that this new lens will solve my problems with focushunting and IQ degradation with the use of the tc 1.7.
And it has a built in tripod (VR)

I've really thought about the purchase of a 500 f4 IS, but i don't think it would fit my kind of shooting, and because i love my D300 I stay on the dark side although it comes at a price (literally)

Look forward to hearing your opinion. The 300f2.8 is a superb lens.One I will probably keep forever. Don't expect too much with the 1.7TC. I still want a 500af-s VR..... one day perhaps !

roemer · Jul 22, 2008

rioja said:
. Don't expect too much with the 1.7TC.

I know that everything is a kind of a compromise, if you go for the best possible IQ a 500 VR would be without doubt the best option, but what i've seen and read about the 300 + TC, it should be quite usable.

I even had a change of shooting with the sigma 300-800 mm (a loan from a friend) and i found the image quality mind boggling, but it would not fit my kind of shooting, much to heavy and only suitable on a tripod or used out of a car, and i am not the person to sit and wait for the subject to come my way.

roemer · Sep 20, 2008

Neil said:
Roemer,
The 300/2.8 is a better lens but I haven't noticed that much difference in speed (maybe 5%) and not that much difference in quality (also 5%). I've not been impressed by the 1.7x , either in speed or quality on either lens.
Neil.

I own the lens for about two months now and i must say that it is a terrific lens. I strongly disagree with your findings Neil, I find the difference in IQ between the 300 F4 and this lens very obvious; superb resolution, micro-detail and a beautiful bokeh, and the AF is from another planet.

IQ wide open with the TC 1.4 is nearly as good as the bare lens, with the
TC 1.7 E, you have to stop down a bit more, but then the IQ is still very good, although you can see the difference compared with the 1.4

And then off course the built in tripod (VR), the main reason that i sold my 300 afs and bought this optical jewel. I will never buy another telelens without it. At first I found the lens rather bulky, but after a while i got more or less used to it and i now find the lens absolutely handholdable. The result of handling such a big lens is that i now consider my 70-200 vr
as a featherweight lens, all is relative.

roemer · Sep 20, 2008

Highcountry said:
Roemer, that is what I have done except I am converting everything to Canon as I cannot afford to keep both systems. As I get older, my eyesight is diminishing so I wanted to upgrade my Nikon 500mm AI-P to VR/AF. The big Nikon glass is just too overpriced to make sense so I opted for a Canon 40D and 500mm USM/IS. The 40D does an outstanding job and the 500mm is spectacular.

John

John,

Still satisfied with the lens and camera combination? I am asking because since yesterday I am also the owner of a Canon 500 mm USM/IS. I more or less stumbled over it on a bird forum in Holland, and the offer was so good that i couldn't resist it. It came with a TC 1.4 and even a realtree lenscoat (i hate the colour of the canon lenses!) the whole lot was just over a month old and in mint condition.

But now the tricky bit, I don't have a camera yet and i am very curious about your findings on the 40D compared to the Nikon camera(s) you have used.

The only experience i have with a Canon DSLR was yesterday evening when i
tested the lens with the 40D from the seller, to short to give it a good judgment. The only clear difference i noticed was the LCD, clearly inferior to that of the D300.

I only wished that you could use Canon lenses on a Nikon body, but alas!

300 f4 afs vs 300 f2.8 VR? (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Active member

Attachments

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread