Nikon 300mm f4 D AF-S IF ED (1 Viewer)

[griffin]

On the verge of converting to Canon unless this lens will fullfil my birding needs. So in the words of Terry Tibbs "sell it to me" ! Not interested in the 80-400 VR as have read to many negatives esp. slow autofocus.

I currently have a D70s and a Tamron 200-500 which is okay, not stonking. I also have the Kenko Pro300 1.4x TC.

Is the f4 300 really that good with a TC attached ? If it is I could live easily with 420mm plus camera crop factor as I will mainly be shooting (crossbills) from a hide. I suppose 300mm will be enough some of the time. With the Tamron I tend to shoot at around 400mm max. hence my concern about IQ with the TC attached.

I will be upgrading from D70s to a D300 to go with this lens unless I suffer meltdown and go over to Canon - which is a strong possibility as the 400 5.6 may suit my needs quite well, and is an excellent lens. Someone on here said that the 300 f2.8 is only about 5% better for 2 grand more (he had both lenses) so that is probably not an option ( though I could be persuaded if it is worth the extra ). Is my Kenko good enough or should I get a Nikon TC ?

As a photographer I am a keen 'dabbler' - have had some photos used in Birdguides articles, photos published in BOS3 and more pending so not an absolute gimp, but not my main thing ! I am possibly more serious about my sound recording I guess. Just looking for something with better quality than what I currently use but offering excellent value for money rather than a big f**k off lens that adds to the UK's credit crunch.

Thanks for any help, assurances, examples (esp.finches from hides) that you can offer !

Lindsay

 

[tech45]

I can speak regarding the D300, which is fantastic, its fast sharp and consistent.
I am not unhappy with the 80-400mm, but that's me. I read a lot of good reviews regarding the fixed 300mm.

Simon.

 

[fugl]

Is the f4 300 really that good with a TC attached ? Lindsay

A question that's been asked before on BF--
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=106419

 

[pduxon]

some info here

http://bythom.com/300AFSlens.htm

you can hire lenses from a couple of companies for a few days. Maybe worth doing to see how you get on

 

[Fozzybear]

I use the D300 and Kenko 1.4x tc with an older non af-s 300mm f/4 and it really is an excellent lens... very sharp! The TC adds a little chromatic aberration, but nothing major and nothing that post-processing can't fix. This:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/2962404066/
Larger size image

was taken with that combo. It was a crop from 4288 pixels across to 3687 across and was taken at ISO 2000.

 

[fugl]

I use the D300 and Kenko 1.4x tc with an older non af-s 300mm f/4 and it really is an excellent lens... very sharp! The TC adds a little chromatic aberration, but nothing major and nothing that post-processing can't fix. This:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/2962404066/
Larger size image

was taken with that combo. It was a crop from 4288 pixels across to 3687 across and was taken at ISO 2000.

Wow--an impressive result, with the point of focus (eye) pin-sharp. Also impressively free of noise for ISO 2000. Did you use noise-reduction software or is what you posted more or less what came out of the camera? According to the EXIF data the exposure was 1/125" x f6.3, so I imagine you must have used a tripod?

 

[Fozzybear]

Thanks fugi. That was processed in Adobe Lightroom: it had a touch of colour noise reduction applied, I've sharpened it a little, cropped a bit and adjusted the colour/levels to suit. I think I put in a bit of a vignette too, to focus attention on the bird.

Noise is certainly pretty good on the D300, it really is a big improvement over my D80 which was not exactly brilliant for noise levels... or for the accuracy of it's matrix metering. I was reluctant to use the D80 above ISO 400 for nature shots that I have to crop in, but on the D300 I can go to ISO 2000 without 'too' much impact on detail.

You're right, I use the camera mounted on a tripod, via the lens mounting, A manfrotto 190ProB with a 486RC2 ball-head.

 

[griffin]

Thanks for everyone's comments ! Seems a good combo for me then.

Comes down to whether I want a 400mm prime and no TC with 50D Canon or stick with Nikon ( and all my current lenses, which may possibly be even better on the D300? anyway) and add the 300 AF-S f4 prime for sharpness.

Cheers,

Lindsay

 

[Helios]

I think the 400/5.6 will be a little faster with the autofocus, than the 300/4 and 1.4 tele. combination. I don't think my 300/4 afs is any faster than the Tamron 200-500 I used to own, even though the Tamron had a screw drive. I never did any tests or comparisons so I might be wrong, but it's what I remember. The 300/4 looses some speed with the teleconverter on.

Having said that, it's still fast enough for most BIF. And also has better close focus, making it very useful for dragonflies and tame birds. Quality wise it's almost as good as my 500/4, even with the converter on wide open.

I've attached a few of my best BIF, just incase I've overstated the autofocus speed.

 

[Fozzybear]

Not an easy decision, but I think ditching all your Nikon kit is a pretty big move and you'd need to be 100% certain that moving to Canon will give you a big benefit for the expense really. I would say that moving from a D70s to a D300 really would - I moved from a D80 to the D300 recently and was blown away by the improvement. Being able to take nature shots in less than ideal light at ISO 1600 or 2000 and still get pretty good results made it worth the cost in itself, but the overall improvement in quality of my shots was noted by my brother (a Canon user) who thought the D300 rather put his upgrade from a 40D to a 5D II firmly on the table.

The Tamron 200-500 is 'ok', but wouldn't compare to the 300mm for quality... I've not tried the Tamron but from seeing some samples I think the Nikon 70-300VR probably has higher image quality, which doesn't match the 300mm plus TC combo.

 

[pduxon]

http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/

a friend of mine has used them.

and you could try here http://www.fixationuk.com/Fixation/Fixation - Home/Fixation - Home.html

at least be sure what you are doing whatever way you go!!

 

[Dave Williams]

As you haven't got that much invested in Nikon gear, now is a good time to make a switch if that's the way you want to go. If you are thinking of getting a 4,5,600 big prime Canon is cheaper ( currently anyway).
Canon do have the 400mmf5.6 lens but I'm not sure that would be good for Scottish light half of the year.
Nikon have the 200-400f4 zoom which might suit your needs if your photography is mainly close ups but it comes at a hefty £3.5k. Nikon also have a 1.7TC.
Apparently Nikon are launching the 80-400 AF-S but that is probably f5.6. My version is much sharper at f8 so you need good light. The 300f2.8 is certainly more than 5% better than the 300f4 simply because of it's low light capabilities and superb bokeh. No one would pay that much extra if it wasn't, in their opinion, worth it. Lots of "experts" rate it as Nikon's best telephoto for image quality.
Having only ever used a D200 DSLR it's taken me 20 months to start to feel comfortable and personally I don't now like the Canon body lay out but, like swapping from right hand to left hand drive, I'm sure I could get used to it in time.
I wouldn't judge what you buy on what's available today, because tomorrow there will be something better from one or another manufacturer. I can however understand why there are so many Canon users out there, because for years they have been allowed to increase their market share by innovation. I only chose Nikon as a friend that advised me recommended it at the time. I did wonder if I had made the right decision 6 months on when you start to acquire a little more knowledge of this hobby, but now 18 months later I am perfectly happy with Nikon.It seems to me they have woken from their apathy and are producing a range to satisfy most needs.

 

[twolf]

I'm writing from a similar situation - former Nikon user (for almost 2 years), switched a few months ago to Canon.
I've used a variety of lenses on Nikon, starting with 70-300VR, 300 af-s + tc14e2 (for a very short while), 80-400VR and finally Tamron 200-500.
After a lot of thought I decided that Canon's 400/5.6L would suit my shooting preferences best and also have a more affordable perspective to the 500 f4 if my photographic skills will demand it.

As you've stated your preference regarding shooting from hides, I think switching to Canon won't provide that much benefit.
In most cases people want to do that in order to get either 400/5.6L or one of the big guns (5-600 f/4 IS). I'm one of them.
For your type of shooting 400/5.6L will be a mixed blessing - very sharp, very fast AF, but long-ish MFD and somewhat slow max aperture.
One of the big f/4s' seems certainly overkill.
There's also the 300 f/4 IS, but the only benefit you get is image stabilization, which might not worth the effort. You'll be supposedly shooting on a tripod. The two 300 f/4s are priced quite close.
I have no direct experience with the 100-400 L zoom, but overall I think it looks like the best lens to get if you decide to go Canon.
It's renowned as a sharp zoom with short MFD and fast AF, ideal for most bird hide photography situations

Nikon 300 f4 AF-S is without doubt an excellent lens and has a huge potential. I've seen plenty of tack sharp photos with TCs attached (both TC14 and 17) and the short MFD makes it excellent for any type of close-up photography.

As closing toughts - I think it's a good idea to hire some of the lenses you consider and also a D300.
I'm pretty sure that a few photo sessions with them will make matters very clear.

 

[Watts]

Is the f4 300 really that good with a TC attached ?

Lindsay

I’ve just put three shots taken with the 300mm AF-S and Nikon 1.4 converter in the gallery:
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/220880/ppuser/6605
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/220879/ppuser/6605
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/220878/ppuser/6605
The Heron on the front cover here (http://www.birdsillustrated.com/) was taken with the same combination. Others get even better results - as they do with the Canon 400mm.

Two further thoughts – the Nikon 300mm focuses to a shade under 1.5 metres (and, of course, retains that close focus with the converter). How close does the Canon 400mm f5.6 focus? And the Nikon combination gives you the option of a 300mm f4 or a 420mm f5.6

In your thread in the Canon forum, it was suggested you could keep your current Nikon body and use it alongside a new Canon with different lenses on each. I wish you luck with that option. I cannot operate effectively using two cameras with different layout of the controls. That may be just my inability, but I prefer to be able to pick up either body and know that my fingers will hit the right button without too much additional thought. When shooting film I had two bodies which differed only in colour (the black always held transparency). Even when using the D200 on one tripod and my earlier D70 next to it on another, I was losing valuable time switching between them when I need to alter the ISO, for instance. It’s much easier now using the D200 alongside the D300. That’s just a note of caution that I would not feel comfortable switching between Canon and Nikon bodies on the same shoot if speed was important. Others may be much more versatile than I am.

Bill

 

[Duke Leto]

you also get the added bonus of being able to use it with a 1.7tc which I'm not sure Canon do, look here for an example

 

[griffin]

Thanks again for the comments - some mixed advice there which is good !

Bill, if I thought I could get results with the 300 f4 like you get I would buy one tommorrow - absolutely love the Nuthatch !

Regarding not much outlay on my Nikon gear I add up that my lenses have cost about £1300 which is quite a lot for me ! My 18-70 kit lens I am happy with, the 28-300 Tamron is great for dragonflies and the BigRon is decent in perfect conditions.

Fast AF is desirable, but ultimately I want a pin sharp lens. I would hope that the high ISO performance of the D300 would compensate somewhat in using the f4 instead of the f2.8 which is simply too much money for me.

Great advice about hiring the lenses - I may just do that so thanks !

Cheers,

Lindsay

 

[tech45]

If you need an example of high ISO with a D300 try this link ISO is at 1600. Subject was a bit far away but the high ISO is incredible.
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/220440/ppuser/70875

 

[pduxon]

Thanks again for the comments - some mixed advice there which is good !

Bill, if I thought I could get results with the 300 f4 like you get I would buy one tommorrow - absolutely love the Nuthatch !

Lindsay this last comment puzzles me. You were also considering the canon 100-400 or the basis of pics in the gallery. Now just because others can take good pics with it doesn't mean you will. No offense intended but it just doesn't just follow, you may take better pics for all I know.

I've read a lot of stuff on BF and the net (especially regarding scopes and binoculars) and some of the opinions are totally contradictory and when I've used the kit totally misleading.

You need to try it, anyones view including my own is naturally biased.

if you hire kit then do look at Canon, if only to convince yourself that not changing is the right decision.

 

[Duke Leto]

Agree completely with Pete, try before you buy if you can, the advice offered should only be used for guidance and remember we only post our best shots which probably make up a small % of the total number of images, I'm sure I could take bad shots with a D3 and a 600/4vr.......
btw had a D70, moved to a D200 and now have a D300, to go from a D70 to a D300 would be unbelievable in terms of focusing, noise management & fps rate etc. I have the 300/4 AF-S and it is a superb lens, adding a 1.4 is has a negligible hit on performance, its a shame you weren't local you could play with mine and see for yourself.

 

[Watts]

Agree completely with Pete, try before you buy if you can, the advice offered should only be used for guidance and remember we only post our best shots which probably make up a small % of the total number of images, I'm sure I could take bad shots with a D3 and a 600/4vr.......

Of course, most shots never see the light of day (though I'm not as ruthless as I should be in culling them from my hard drive). But things get easier with practice. That's why I'm less certain about the idea of hiring lenses for comparison purposes. If you have the lens for a day, you will be able to see how quickly it focuses, how heavy it is, and so on, but I would doubt that you'll really be able to say with any certainty that lens X gives better results than lens Y when, if you hire them on different days, the conditions may not be comparable. And the cost begins to become significant if you hire a number of lenses and bodies (since you don't have a Canon at present) for an extended period.

But I do agree with try before you buy. Can you find any training courses or demo evenings local to you where you can try out the gear? I went on a day course run by Nikon and led by Chris Gomersall which gave us an opportunity to try out some serious kit in addition to the excellent tips we were given.

Bill