600 mm prime
- Thread starter Bengt Nyman
- Start date
The Sigma hands down wins with its ability to be tuned through the focal range. I'm still very happy with the Tamron for what I use it for. If I need to take something near the 150mm mark I'll throw on the 24-120mm which is tuned at 120 to get my shot.
Sent from my HTC One M8 using Tapatalk
Sent from my HTC One M8 using Tapatalk
When I fine-tuned her on the D7200, I used the 420mm since that's where she performs at her best. 600mm and 150mm both required a different value from + to - on the scale.
It's often better to tune focus somewhere in the middle of the range since that gives you a larger focal range that is in acceptable focus. If you tune her at the far end (or short end), only that area is good and all the rest becomes worse and worse. Or you can memorize the AF needed and manually adjust each time.
It's often better to tune focus somewhere in the middle of the range since that gives you a larger focal range that is in acceptable focus. If you tune her at the far end (or short end), only that area is good and all the rest becomes worse and worse. Or you can memorize the AF needed and manually adjust each time.
Last edited:
Thats good news. I hope it brings down the price of the 500mmG model!
Last edited:
Hi Elliot,
I have both the Tamron 150-600 and the older Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED with an older Nikon 1.4x teleconvertoer. The 300mm with teleconverter is sharper than the Tamron at 420mm, and also sharper cropped to the same image size as the Tamron at 600mm. This is on both my D7100 and D7200. The difference is not huge, but it is [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif normal]noticeable. Focus just a little slower with the Tamron on either of these bodies, and is a little less accurate. I notice this with birds in flight. The Tamron is more versatile because of the zoom, so that is a consideration as well. I have missed wildlife shots with the 300+1.4x when the subject is too close. This is rare, but it can happen.
If I had to choose between these two, I'd go with the Nikon 300 + 1.4x. I'm glad I don't have to choose and can keep both, though!
[/FONT]
Bengt Nyman
Senior Member
Hi Woody,
Thanks for your comparisons. They coincide with theoretical speculations based on available lens test scores.
Thanks for your comparisons. They coincide with theoretical speculations based on available lens test scores.
Bengt Nyman
Senior Member
I used to rule out the heavy ones. However, I have installed a fully balanced 3D gimbal camera mount on my boat. I just point and shot. When I shot birds on foot I use a 300 with a TC14.
Last edited:
Hi Elliot,
I have both the Tamron 150-600 and the older Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED with an older Nikon 1.4x teleconvertoer. The 300mm with teleconverter is sharper than the Tamron at 420mm, and also sharper cropped to the same image size as the Tamron at 600mm. This is on both my D7100 and D7200. The difference is not huge, but it is noticeable. Focus just a little slower with the Tamron on either of these bodies, and is a little less accurate. I notice this with birds in flight. The Tamron is more versatile because of the zoom, so that is a consideration as well. I have missed wildlife shots with the 300+1.4x when the subject is too close. This is rare, but it can happen.
If I had to choose between these two, I'd go with the Nikon 300 + 1.4x. I'm glad I don't have to choose and can keep both, though!
Hi Woody,
Thanks very much for this! Your experience couldn't be any more relevant to the choice I'll have to make. It might well come down to trying both lenses at a local store to get a better idea of weight and feel. I'm leaning 300mm f/4 as I want to get the best quality images I can, rather than quantity. If that means missing out on some shots here and there then it might be a price worth paying. Thankfully I've got plenty of time to think about this whilst I save up some more.
Elliot
I remember reading something about the previous 300mm performing better with the TC1.4 II than the TC1.4 III so you might double-check that before buying one.
isn't it something to do with the III being optimised for the new E series lenses?
I don't recall the exact reason but I remember reading it in some review. It might have been on photographylife when Nasim... err something... reviewed the new 300mm and compared it to the previous. It had a part about the TCs too.
Not PF then,interesting.
No I read it in some lens review but this will do as well I guess.
Bengt Nyman
Senior Member
Nikon 300mm D with TC14 II versus Nikon 300mm VR with TC14 III:
The new TC14 III is missing the mechanical aperture linkage between camera and lens. Therefore the 300mm D is not fully compatible with the TC14 III. You can only shoot in M or A and only at f/5.6.
If you use the 300mm D stay with the TC14 II.
The 300mm VR takes either the TC14 II or TC14 III.
The new TC14 III is missing the mechanical aperture linkage between camera and lens. Therefore the 300mm D is not fully compatible with the TC14 III. You can only shoot in M or A and only at f/5.6.
If you use the 300mm D stay with the TC14 II.
The 300mm VR takes either the TC14 II or TC14 III.
I expect a 400mm PF in the near future. What they did with the 300mm in terms of quality, size and weight would work well for a 400mm too.
Bengt Nyman
Senior Member
Size and weight, Yes!
Image quality, No!
PF lenses do not presently perform on par with conventional optics.
However, if the buyer is given the benefit of the savings in manufacturing cost it would offer a valuable option to conventional, large and heavy, long focal length lenses.