Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4 +1.4TC, or...

[mikew_RIP]

It's never long enough. However, ever since I've seen those shots on Flickr from this lady with the 300mm+1.4, I can't stop thinking about it....Plus I'll have it on the D7100 which adds another 1.5X FOV to the equation.

The main question as far as i can see is will it be long enough for you,the 70-200 2.8 takes some beating on IQ but it wouldn't be long enough,i could have got the new 300mm pf but even with the converter and cropping it would still be too short in my situation,i end up doing 50% crops on 600 for small birds most of the time.
If 300 and 1.4 would have the reach for you than that could be your best bet,have a good look at small birds on your 300 and see how much your cropping that should tell you.

 

[mikew_RIP]

J-see uses the 300PF

 

[Blacktop]

The main question as far as i can see is will it be long enough for you,the 70-200 2.8 takes some beating on IQ but it wouldn't be long enough,i could have got the new 300mm pf but even with the converter and cropping it would still be too short in my situation,i end up doing 50% crops on 600 for small birds most of the time.
If 300 and 1.4 would have the reach for you than that could be your best bet,have a good look at small birds on your 300 and see how much your cropping that should tell you.

Is that on the 7200 or was this the case with the D750?

Either way, you are too far away. I didn't even do that with the 70-300mm on my D7100. If I had to crop that much, I just trashed the shot. The thing that I'm researching is, how much IQ difference is between the 200-500 and the 300mm prime.
If it's negligible I may go with the former.

 

[mikew_RIP]

Is that on the 7200 or was this the case with the D750?

Either way, you are too far away. I didn't even do that with the 70-300mm on my D7100. If I had to crop that much, I just trashed the shot. The thing that I'm researching is, how much IQ difference is between the 200-500 and the 300mm prime.
If it's negligible I may go with the former.

A lot of the time thats as close as i can get,a small bird on 600mm with no crop would need a distance of about 15ft,cant get that stalking and no chance of working from a hide.

 

[J-see]

Is that on the 7200 or was this the case with the D750?

Either way, you are too far away. I didn't even do that with the 70-300mm on my D7100. If I had to crop that much, I just trashed the shot. The thing that I'm researching is, how much IQ difference is between the 200-500 and the 300mm prime.
If it's negligible I may go with the former.

When I used the Big Tam on the D750 I mainly used the 420mm length for birding. Sure it wasn't always long enough but short does require a slightly different approach to birding. I find the 300mm on its own too short on the D750. It's good enough for me on the D7200/D810.

Combined with a TC it should do well on all.

 

[mikew_RIP]

Out in the open a bird like this will not let you get to within 15ft or very unlikely,yes i could bin all my shots and take up fishing but i dont want to

Full image with nothing done,not sure of the distance but i would guess at least 30 ft,D7100 and Tamron 150-600

 

[J-see]

I personally got less stressed while birding when I decided I did not need to catch the bird each time I spotted it and that the chase can be as rewarding as the catch.

That makes shooting short more tolerable.

 

[mikew_RIP]

I personally got less stressed while birding when I decided I did not need to catch the bird each time I spotted it and that the chase can be as rewarding as the catch.

That makes shooting short more tolerable.

Yes i have heard that theory before and do subscribe to it a bit, when your main interest is bird photography the perspective can change,i enjoy my walks even if i dont get a image,i enjoy them even more when i do.

I never get stressed walking with my camera

 

[singlerosa_RIP]

I can get a nice used one for under a grand. A new one is 1400 at Nikon. You must be thinking about the 300mm f/2.8 maybe?

Nope, current 300 f/4 VR. You're talking about the old lens (not that there's anything wrong with that). While you say VR isn't that important to you, I've found that if you want to hand hold this lens, VR can be very beneficial.

 

[Blacktop]

As of this morning I am leaning towards the 200-500mm lens. A lot can change between now and when I actually make the purchase. I Have a few months to torture myself looking at the photo pools on Flickr.

 

[mikew_RIP]

As of this morning I am leaning towards the 200-500mm lens. A lot can change between now and when I actually make the purchase. I Have a few months to torture myself looking at the photo pools on Flickr.

As good as the 300 and 1.4 is i think you have made the right choice for now,we await further developments

 

[hrstrat57]

What are you planning to shoot with the new bit of kit @Blacktop ?

I am planning on the Nikkor AF-s VR 300 f4 and the 1.4 TC for shooting surfing in mostly bright light. I intend to rent and demo however before handing over the$$$$!

 

[Blacktop]

What are you planning to shoot with the new bit of kit @Blacktop ?

I am planning on the Nikkor AF-s VR 300 f4 and the 1.4 TC for shooting surfing in mostly bright light. I intend to rent and demo however before handing over the$$$$!

Mostly birds and birds in flight. Good idea on the renting. For the 200-500 it's 75 dollars for 7 days. Seems an inexpensive way to make sure that is what I want.

 

[J-see]

Mostly birds and birds in flight. Good idea on the renting. For the 200-500 it's 75 dollars for 7 days. Seems an inexpensive way to make sure that is what I want.

If you rent you can check the AF difference between 200 and 500; if there is any. It's one of the reasons I no longer buy zooms. Even my 70-200mm has a difference between both ends which isn't that much of a problem for that length (or shorter) but sucks b*lls for long reach.

 

[Physoc]

This topic comes-up now and again. My experience is that a cropped image, from a 300mm lens, will be much sharper and have less fringes than using a TC. Also a TC limits the aperture to around f8 on a lens that you paid good money to have at f4....

 

[Blacktop]

This topic comes-up now and again. My experience is that a cropped image, from a 300mm lens, will be much sharper and have less fringes than using a TC. Also a TC limits the aperture to around f8 on a lens that you paid good money to have at f4....

A 1.4TC on an F/4 lens would be at F/5.6

 

[aroy]

If you plan to use the TC14 with 300mm, then you might as well use the 200-500 zoom. The advantage of zoom is that you get a range of 200mm to 500mm, with a TC you are either at 300mm F4 or 420mm F5.6.

I always planned to get the 300mm F4 with TC14, but now that the 200-500 has come, there seems to be sense in getting the prime, unless the IQ is significantly better and I need the F4 for low light (but then it will be 300mm only).

300mm F2.8 is way too expensive and heavy for me.

 

[Blacktop]

If you plan to use the TC14 with 300mm, then you might as well use the 200-500 zoom. The advantage of zoom is that you get a range of 200mm to 500mm, with a TC you are either at 300mm F4 or 420mm F5.6.

I always planned to get the 300mm F4 with TC14, but now that the 200-500 has come, there seems to be sense in getting the prime, unless the IQ is significantly better and I need the F4 for low light (but then it will be 300mm only).

300mm F2.8 is way too expensive and heavy for me.

This is my thinking as well.

 

[J-see]

The advantage of zoom is that you get a range of 200mm to 500mm, with a TC you are either at 300mm F4 or 420mm F5.6.

That might be appropriate for a DX but once you start birding with an FX, you hardly ever use the shorter ranges of a tele-zoom. I don't think I've shot 2% of my bird-shots with anything below 400mm using the Tam 150-600mm.

If you buy the 200-500mm to shoot birds on an FX, you're not as much looking for a versatile zoom as you're looking for a cheap 500mm.

 

[mikew_RIP]

That might be appropriate for a DX but once you start birding with an FX, you hardly ever use the shorter ranges of a tele-zoom. I don't think I've shot 2% of my bird-shots with anything below 400mm using the Tam 150-600mm.

If you buy the 200-500mm to shoot birds on an FX, you're not as much looking for a versatile zoom as you're looking for a cheap 500mm.

And compared with the cost of 500 primes you would be getting one