Bengt Nyman
Senior Member
Far out, literally ! Even without the TC1.4 you will be reaching 810mm.
Do you feel that the V2 AF is up to the challenge ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Nikon's New 300mm f/4 Looks Impressive
- Thread starter Rob Bye
- Start date
Do you feel that the V2 AF is up to the challenge ?
Far out, literally ! Even without the TC1.4 you will be reaching 810mm.
Do you feel that the V2 AF is up to the challenge ?
It wasn't great with the 55-300 but usable so hoping for better with the new set up.
Not had chance to look yet but this guy is using the 2x converter,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/birdsaspoetry/with/18809811774/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/birdsaspoetry/with/18809811774/
Not had chance to look yet but this guy is using the 2x converter,
https://www.flickr.com/photos/birdsaspoetry/with/18809811774/
I tried it but wasn't too impressed. It might work for stationary if you down-sample them heavily but for BiF I doubt you'll get many good shots in.
I tried it but wasn't too impressed. It might work for stationary if you down-sample them heavily but for BiF I doubt you'll get many good shots in.
I wouldn't try it just posted as a point of interest.
I was just speaking to a photographer I met a while back who is now a friend on facebook. He has just traded his 300mm 2.8 for this lens. He found the old 300mm f4 (which I assume he has also owned) was unusable with the 1.7x and 2x converters in his tests but says they all work well with this new version. How well they work I couldn't say but he seems happy with the combo.
Bengt Nyman
Senior Member
The crop factor certainly lengthens your reach, but remember that when using a lens designed for a larger format you loose the corresponding amount of aperture and light. In other words using the Nikon FX lens 300mm f/4 with or without a TC 14 on a Nikon 1 is not as practical as it might sound.I must admit I'm looking forward to trying the 300 and 1.4 on my V2,giving a FOV of 1134mm
Using a native lens designed for the Nikon 1 sensor format, however, does not introduce this loss of aperture and light, nor does it give you any crop factor advantage.
Last edited:
The crop factor certainly lengthens your reach, but remember that when using a lens designed for a larger format you loose the corresponding amount of aperture and light. In other words using the Nikon FX lens 300mm f/4 with or without a TC 14 on a Nikon 1 is not as practical as it might sound.
Using a native lens designed for the Nikon 1 sensor format, however, does not introduce this loss of aperture and light, nor does it give you any crop factor advantage.
Using a FX or DX lens via the FT-1 adapter on a 1 series camera maintains the max aperture of the lens with no light loss,the adapter just acts to make up the distance that would be between the back element of the lens and the sensor on a DSLR,as for the smaller sensor you end up with more pixels than you would with cropping a DSLR,because of the pixel size you may introduce more noise but thats a different story.
I have used my V2 with a 18-55,55-300,70-300 and sigma 105 macro and a few test shots with a Sigma 50-500.
Aim a flashlight at the wall and draw a square in the middle of the light-beam. Then draw a smaller square inside that one. Does drawing that smaller square affect the flashlight?
That's basically what happens when you put the same lens on different sized sensors. The light doesn't change, the square just gets smaller.
That's basically what happens when you put the same lens on different sized sensors. The light doesn't change, the square just gets smaller.
The crop factor certainly lengthens your reach, but remember that when using a lens designed for a larger format you loose the corresponding amount of aperture and light. In other words using the Nikon FX lens 300mm f/4 with or without a TC 14 on a Nikon 1 is not as practical as it might sound.
Using a native lens designed for the Nikon 1 sensor format, however, does not introduce this loss of aperture and light, nor does it give you any crop factor advantage.
This may help
Bengt Nyman
Senior Member
Agreed. However, there are two things to consider. If the adapter is free of optics and only serves to restore the proper lens flange distance the lens will cast an image on the sensor plane which is substantially larger than the image sensor, producing what we call a crop factor. At the same time, the light collected by the lens but not hitting the image sensor is lost, representing a loss of aperture and loss of light compared to a native lens using the same frontal lens area to illuminate just the image sensor. Consequently, from a size, weight and cost point of view an adapted lens can not compete with a properly designed native lens. However, I agree that the image produced within the cropped area will show the same illumination as the center portion of the larger image captured with the same lens on for example an FX camera.
I wish that the Nikon 1 offered a pro quality, prime 300mm f/4 native lens.
I am looking forward to checking out an Olympus OM-D with the new native Zuiko Pro, prime 300mm f/4 lens.
I wish that the Nikon 1 offered a pro quality, prime 300mm f/4 native lens.
I am looking forward to checking out an Olympus OM-D with the new native Zuiko Pro, prime 300mm f/4 lens.
Last edited:
Agreed. However, there are two things to consider. If the adapter is free of optics and only serves to restore the proper lens flange distance the lens will cast an image on the sensor plane which is substantially larger than the image sensor, producing what we call a cropping factor. At the same time, the light collected by the lens but not hitting the image sensor is lost, representing a loss of aperture and loss of light compared to a native lens using the same frontal lens area to illuminate just the image sensor. Consequently, from a size, weight and cost point of view an adapted lens can not compete with a properly designed native lens. However, I agree that the image produced within the cropped area will show the same illumination as the center portion of the larger image captured with the same lens on for example an FX camera.
I wish that the Nikon 1 offered a pro quality, prime 300mm f/4 native lens.
I am looking forward to checking out an Olympus OM-D with the new native Zuiko Pro, prime 300mm f/4 lens.
Think your getting it wrong,if the light hitting the sensor gives the same illumination as it would on a FX sensor ,(your words)then any lost light around the 1 sensor isnt needed any way,yes a 1 lens would be better for many reasons but none of the ones your talking about.
Bengt Nyman
Senior Member
J-see, agreed. That's what I said.
Last edited:
Bengt Nyman
Senior Member
mikew, you are wrong. Unfortunately much of the adapted lens is wasted. A native lens is preferred for exactly the reasons I mentioned.
Last edited:
You are wrong. Unfortunately much of the adapted lens is wasted. A native lens is preferred for exactly the reasons I mentioned.
I noticed before with your posts as your proved wrong your argument changes,you must be reading a different post from j-see to the one ime reading,you start by saying an f4 lens is not f4 on a smaller sensor and end up saying much of a FX lens (not the light) is wasted on a smaller sensor,ime not bothered what conclusion you have come to it only concerns me when incorrect information could mislead others.
Just because i will not reply again does not mean i think your right,it just means i have lost interest in the discussion.
J-see, agreed. That's what I said.
It also implies that it doesn't matter what cam you put a lens on; FX, DX or Micro; its illumination/square surface remains identical. That what doesn't make it to the sensor does not play any role in a photo.
Bengt Nyman
Senior Member
mikew and J-see, don't forget that using a crop sensor means that you are enlarging the image when you are viewing it. The light collected is then spread over the enlarged image reducing the ability to reproduce contrasts as well as resolution and sharpness. I don't blame you for not wanting to get too deep into the technical aspects. My point is this: Using a lens designed for a larger sensor, on a crop sensor is not what it is cracked up to be, compared to using a native lens with the same aperture.
mikew and J-see, don't forget that using a crop sensor means that you are enlarging the image when you are viewing it. The light collected is then spread over the enlarged image reducing the ability to reproduce contrasts as well as resolution and sharpness. I don't blame you for not wanting to get too deep into the technical aspects. My point is this: Using a lens designed for a larger sensor, on a crop sensor is not what it is cracked up to be, compared to using a native lens with the same aperture.
So what happens when I use the same FX lens on a 12Mpix and 36Mpix FX? Or the same DX lens on a 12Mpix or 24Mpix DX?
Last edited: