Nikon's New 300mm f/4 Looks Impressive

T

T-Man

Senior Member
What about splitting the difference between the TC-less 300 and 300+TC2.0 by trying the TC1.4 instead? You'll still get 420mm while only losing 1 stop of light, and it should focus faster/better at f/5.6.

I use the TC1.4 with my non-VR 300 f/4, and I can't tell a difference in IQ with vs. without. I use it for taking photos of wildlife early and late in the day, and there are many times when I wish I had more light than f/5.6 gives me as-is, so I can't imagine being limited to f/8 max.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
T-Man said:
What about splitting the difference between the TC-less 300 and 300+TC2.0 by trying the TC1.4 instead? You'll still get 420mm while only losing 1 stop of light, and it should focus faster/better at f/5.6.

I use the TC1.4 with my non-VR 300 f/4, and I can't tell a difference in IQ with vs. without. I use it for taking photos of wildlife early and late in the day, and there are many times when I wish I had more light than f/5.6 gives me as-is, so I can't imagine being limited to f/8 max.
Click to expand...


I'm actually pretty satisfied with the Tam at 420mm. She takes a pretty sharp shot on the D810 when using f/6-6.3. The difference would be too little at focus level and most likely at IQ.

In the end I'd be investing another 500$ to make a 2000$ lens shoot like a 1000$ zoom.
 
T

T-Man

Senior Member
Totally understand the concern, except if you were looking to expand the reach of the 300, I don't believe the TC1.4 will handicap your lens performance anywhere close to the degree the TC2.0 does, so I think you'd still find the 300+TC1.4 an advantageous combo versus the Tam @ 420, in a lighter, shorter package. If you're looking for quality first, reach second, the TC1.4 won't cause much noticeable reduction in IQ and won't slow down focusing, while at the same time giving you at least the same or slightly larger max aperture vs. the Tam at the same FL. And, you can find them on eBay for $250 or so. With the TC2.0 you're at a 1-stop disadvantage to the Tam @ 600 wide open, with focusing handicaps thrown into the mix.
 
Last edited:
J

J-see

Senior Member
According my EXIF, focus distance was 32m.

3001.jpg

3002.jpg

3003.jpg

The shot was a bit noisy.

Unprocessed:

3004.jpg
 
Last edited:
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Dont know if you have noticed any VR problems but a guy on another forum (think he works for some company) has had three since the fix,none have had any problems with a D7200 but they all had VR problems with a D810 if used without the grip,this was the same as before according to him.
No idea at all what difference the grip is supposed to make.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
Beats me too what the grip and VR have in common. I'm not a heavy VR user but will put it to the test when the weather clears up. I dot-tuned her and it makes quite the difference. I guess I'm going to give the TC another try too, if only to finally know exactly how much quality degrades.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
Another one:

_DSC6366.jpg

_DSC6366-2.jpg

_DSC6366-1.jpg

_DSC6366-5.jpg

I'm pretty satisfied with what she delivers. She could have been a bit cheaper but it's not that she's massively overpriced. Her being a lightweight alone is worth quite some money. You don't need a pod for this lens and can shoot her handheld all day long.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
mikew said:
Dont know if you have noticed any VR problems but a guy on another forum (think he works for some company) has had three since the fix,none have had any problems with a D7200 but they all had VR problems with a D810 if used without the grip,this was the same as before according to him.
No idea at all what difference the grip is supposed to make.
Click to expand...

I've been doing some quick VR test. I took shots using AF-S single shots each time from 1/400s down to 1/10s and then checked them in post at 100% to see shake.

From 1/400s to 1/160s everything was normal.
From 1/125s to 1/100s it didn't perform too well.
From 1/60s to 1/50s it started to pick up again and did reasonable ok.
From 1/40s to 1/20s it actually did better then the previous.
1/10s was the end of it.

I did try to take an as good shot as possible each time but I'm sure I didn't always succeed. I've certainly not been shooting like a gunslinger. My long lens technique is also subpar.

This is not a very scientific test but even so 1/125s-1/100s was noticeable weaker. Then again I was surprised to take good shots below 1/40s. You have to keep in mind I'd need around 1/360s to shoot the lens handheld if I'd not use VR. I got 23% more pixels which picks up shake 23% faster too.
 
Last edited:
Top