What are your thoughts on this....

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I really wanted to find some type of longer lens than what I have, but the problem always comes down to weight. Currently my longest is the 300mm f/4 PF coupled with a Nikon 1.4x teleconverter (focal length of 420mm).

The super zooms are out simply due to weight. And even the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF is hefty with a weight of 3.2 pounds. It weighs the same as the Nikon 300mm f/4 (non-VR) which was too heavy for the chronic tendonitis in my hand.

So I decided to try out this option - Nikon 300mm f/4 PF with a Nikon 1.7x teleconverter. Wide open the aperture is f/6.7. It brings my focal length to 500mm. What are your thoughts on quality? I did the same type of post processing I normally do. The images lack the incredible sharpness of most of my lenses yet it is still pretty good. Every image today had a purple sky - and didn't use a CP filter. Altered the sky's color which didn't take much of any extra time. Next time I might try a slightly faster shutter speed to compensate for the longer focal length - and possibly stop down to f/7.1 for a slight increase in DoF.

Here is a screen shot of a NEF with the purple sky.

screen shot NEF.jpg


Below are two images from today. In the second, the hawk must have been mid-blink. :eyetwitch: It's definitely the first time I've ever photographed that.

_DSC3265 low res.jpg


_DSC3280 low res.jpg
 
Last edited:

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
I read mixed reports about the 1.7 on this lens, one thing you could check out of interest is back-front focusing with the converter fitted.
 

Dangerspouse

Senior Member
I honestly think these hawk pictures with that setup are excellent. If you have to make accommodations for a physical limitation by using this lighter rig, I don't see where you should be disappointed at all.
 

Chris@sabor

Senior Member
They look good to me! Glad you found the reach you want in a light weight package. Remember too, it doesn't really matter what we think, good enough for you is good enough!
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I read mixed reports about the 1.7 on this lens, one thing you could check out of interest is back-front focusing with the converter fitted.

That is something I really need to check out. No focus tuning done yet as I just got it yesterday afternoon - and I went right out to look for the hawk. It does appear to front focus a little.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
They look good to me! Glad you found the reach you want in a light weight package. Remember too, it doesn't really matter what we think, good enough for you is good enough!

I am certainly open to suggestions but doubt there are many alternatives. Unfortunately I am not able to hold a great deal of weight due to tendonitis (and previous tennis elbow surgery). And I really don't want to break the bank for the 500mm f/5.6 PF - it's expensive and too heavy for me to hand hold.

I need to work with this teleconverter and see if focus tuning will help. The color shift might be a pain but can be fixed in Photoshop. Thanks for your thoughts.

Here is one more from yesterday with this combo.

_DSC3330 low res.jpg
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I can finally take the Blue Heron off my bucket list of things to photograph. :) Still on my list are a fox and a coyote (yes, even in the suburbs people have reported seeing and hearing them).

I haven't yet done any focus tuning since I ordered a refurbished teleconverter online. So I'll wait until it arrives and compare them.

_DSC3383 low res.jpg
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
So a couple of things. First, you're wide open at f6.7 so if it's gonna be soft with the 1.7x it's going to be there. But these really aren't that bad. I was using the 1.7x on rare occasion with the 300mm but I just wasn't crazy about the details I'd lose so if I put a TC on it would be the 1.4x (it's a moot point now that I have the 500mm f5.6).

With that said, as I mentioned in another thread I've fallen hard for a trio of Topaz AI filters - DeNoise, Sharpen, and Adjust. I use them in that order instead of using the sharpening and denoise in ACR. I only use Sharpen AI in cases where I'm trying to save a photo that's almost sharp (DeNoise has a very good sharpening function). While these photos are more than acceptably sharp I suspect they could benefit from them - as could some of the 1.7x shots I've never processed. It has 3 different sharpening modes: Sharpen, Focus, Stabilize. The first is not much better than what you get in ACR or Topaz DeNoise AI and I don't use it often as the filter can be very slow (turn the auto preview off and just refresh as needed). But the other two do a more than good job of salvaging stuff that's just a bit soft.

Here's a shot taken of a pair of mating Red Tailed Hawks I took from my Mom's front stoop. This is a 100% crop with the 500mm so they were a little too far off to really get. The bottom is straight out of camera (I've darkened it slightly so you can see the line) and the top is after applying all 3 filters. It's not "great", but it's something I could do a small print of or share online with a little more work.

J55_9088-Edit-copy.jpg
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
So a couple of things. First, you're wide open at f6.7 so if it's gonna be soft with the 1.7x it's going to be there. But these really aren't that bad. I was using the 1.7x on rare occasion with the 300mm but I just wasn't crazy about the details I'd lose so if I put a TC on it would be the 1.4x (it's a moot point now that I have the 500mm f5.6).

With that said, as I mentioned in another thread I've fallen hard for a trio of Topaz AI filters - DeNoise, Sharpen, and Adjust. I use them in that order instead of using the sharpening and denoise in ACR. I only use Sharpen AI in cases where I'm trying to save a photo that's almost sharp (DeNoise has a very good sharpening function). While these photos are more than acceptably sharp I suspect they could benefit from them - as could some of the 1.7x shots I've never processed. It has 3 different sharpening modes: Sharpen, Focus, Stabilize. The first is not much better than what you get in ACR or Topaz DeNoise AI and I don't use it often as the filter can be very slow (turn the auto preview off and just refresh as needed). But the other two do a more than good job of salvaging stuff that's just a bit soft.

Here's a shot taken of a pair of mating Red Tailed Hawks I took from my Mom's front stoop. This is a 100% crop with the 500mm so they were a little too far off to really get. The bottom is straight out of camera (I've darkened it slightly so you can see the line) and the top is after applying all 3 filters. It's not "great", but it's something I could do a small print of or share online with a little more work.

Thanks for the info as well as the image, Jake. I can see a big difference in sharpness and detail between the bottom and top portions of your image! The refurbished 1.7x teleconverter that I sent for should arrive today. Then I can try some AF focus tuning on both and compare their results. When I took the hawk images, the first TC arrived as I was walking out the door. I simply took it with me and put it on the lens while in my car - so no AF focus tuning done yet. Figured I'd wait and see how the refurbished one compares.

I appreciate your thoughts as well as an image that allows me to see the results. :encouragement:
 

PhilM_TX

Senior Member
Hi Cindy,

I have a few thoughts on this too.

As a relatively new convert to Nikon (Wifey & I switched from Canon about 18 months ago), I have been spending a good deal of time trying to learn & understand the the things that work best in my "new" Nikon world.

I started out (after selling a ton of Canon gear) with a couple D500's, D850, 300PF, 600F4, 200-500, and several other "standard" lenses. I also bought 1.4x, 1.7x, and 2.0x TC's.

I am quite familiar with AF Fine Tune (AFMA) and have done that with all my gear (both Canon & Nikon) for many years - all body / lens combos, with & w/o TC's.

I immediately notice that I was able to achieve excellent and reliable results w/o TC and with the 1.4x TC on all combos. *However*, I was only able to achieve mediocre results with the 1.7 & 2x TC's. I ultimately chalked it up to poor copies of the latter two TC's.

Then came the Z Bodies and things changed - immediately. First I got a Z6 and discovered that all my lenses, both with and w/o TC's, allowed me to consistently produce sharp images - including the same 1.7 & 2x TC's. NO AF FINE TUNE REQUIRED! :)

Now I've added a Z50 to the mix and the same is true with it. I can even use a 500PF (F5.6) + 2x TC (@ F11) and get great results.

So.... From a pure "weight perspective", you might consider a Z50 with your 300PF and even a 2x TC. It's light and it rocks. It may not focus as fast as the D500, D850, or D5, but it is certainly capable. :)

Z50, FTZ, 2.0x TCIII, 300PF = 3lbs, 12.9 oz.


49434943912_89aa999154_z.jpg


Z50, 300PF, 2.0x TCIII
49431236338_aecf3a86e2_h.jpg

49431934497_1f89adc86d_h.jpg

49412165911_b7b3969e8e_h.jpg

49411673978_2610e6cfe6_h.jpg


Z50, 500PF, 2x TCIII
49337239272_a95de819a2_h.jpg


Z6, 300PF, 1.7x TCII
48695091191_b979344779_h.jpg
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Hi Cindy,

I have a few thoughts on this too.

As a relatively new convert to Nikon (Wifey & I switched from Canon about 18 months ago), I have been spending a good deal of time trying to learn & understand the the things that work best in my "new" Nikon world.

I started out (after selling a ton of Canon gear) with a couple D500's, D850, 300PF, 600F4, 200-500, and several other "standard" lenses. I also bought 1.4x, 1.7x, and 2.0x TC's.

I am quite familiar with AF Fine Tune (AFMA) and have done that with all my gear (both Canon & Nikon) for many years - all body / lens combos, with & w/o TC's.

I immediately notice that I was able to achieve excellent and reliable results w/o TC and with the 1.4x TC on all combos. *However*, I was only able to achieve mediocre results with the 1.7 & 2x TC's. I ultimately chalked it up to poor copies of the latter two TC's.

Then came the Z Bodies and things changed - immediately. First I got a Z6 and discovered that all my lenses, both with and w/o TC's, allowed me to consistently produce sharp images - including the same 1.7 & 2x TC's. NO AF FINE TUNE REQUIRED! :)

Now I've added a Z50 to the mix and the same is true with it. I can even use a 500PF (F5.6) + 2x TC (@ F11) and get great results.

So.... From a pure "weight perspective", you might consider a Z50 with your 300PF and even a 2x TC. It's light and it rocks. It may not focus as fast as the D500, D850, or D5, but it is certainly capable. :)

Wow, Phil! Those are incredible and certainly show more sharpness. I'm not yet ready to add a mirrorless body - during the Black Friday sales, I picked up a second D750 because it's my favorite Nikon body ever. I appreciate knowing and probably down the road will make the move to add mirrorless. :encouragement: Thanks for the images. They are terrific and certainly give me hope. :)
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
With a mirrorless focusing with the sensor your days of focus tuning are indeed done. Nikon's yet to make one that'll keep up with my D500 for birding, but when they do I'll be looking to switch.

Wanted to dig into some of my 300mm + 1.7x images and see what I had. Some of them are real sharp, particularly when the subject dominates the frame. Not so much when they don't. Here's one that's just a tough soft. On the right is the 1:1 straight out of camera image, on the left is the same image after applying Topaz DeNoise AI, Topaz Adjust AI, and then Camera Raw as a filter in Photoshop. Like I said, I'm impressed with their AI filters for sharpening. Really good They just introduced DeNoise 2.0 (haven't played with it much yet) that lets you apply denoise settings to a batch of photos at once, plus it's $20 off and if you use that link you'll get another 15% off. Worth every penny.

Screen-Shot-2020-01-24-at-1.11.jpg
 
Last edited:

PhilM_TX

Senior Member
With a mirrorless focusing with the sensor your days of focus tuning are indeed done. Nikon's yet to make one that'll keep up with my D500 for birding, but when they do I'll be looking to switch.

One certainly can't argue that! :) I'll be keeping my D500's for the foreseeable future for the very reason.

I have to admit though, my 500PF has taken a HUGE amount of action from my 600F4 and I can see the same beginning to happen with the Z50 & D500. It's just SO light & convenient. I always have both bodies with me, but the Baby Z has been seeing more & more action as of late.

I am in 100% agreement with you on the Topaz products. Interestingly, on the files from my Z Bodies (Z50 & Z6), AI Clear still works better than DeNoise AI. For the D500 & D850, DeNoise AI is wonderful.

Sharpen AI is also a sweet product, but it's an incredible pig on my 2015 iMac. I've worked with Topaz on it and evidently, OSx is not reporting the proper amount of VRAM at application start, so Sharpen AI starts & runs as if I have no Video RAM. It makes that product virtually unusable (Slooooow!) for me. It's fine on a PC, but I despise PC's to I use what works for me. ;-)
 
Last edited:

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
With a mirrorless focusing with the sensor your days of focus tuning are indeed done. Nikon's yet to make one that'll keep up with my D500 for birding, but when they do I'll be looking to switch.

Wanted to dig into some of my 300mm + 1.7x images and see what I had. Some of them are real sharp, particularly when the subject dominates the frame. Not so much when they don't. Here's one that's just a tough soft. On the right is the 1:1 straight out of camera image, on the left is the same image after applying Topaz DeNoise AI, Topaz Adjust AI, and then Camera Raw as a filter in Photoshop. Like I said, I'm impressed with their AI filters for sharpening. Really good They just introduced DeNoise 2.0 (haven't played with it much yet) that lets you apply denoise settings to a batch of photos at once, plus it's $20 off and if you use that link you'll get another 15% off. Worth every penny.

View attachment 329442

Thanks for this comparison, Jake! One thing I need to do is to take photos of something smaller in the frame and possibly crop a little. I appreciate your input!
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
So the refurbished TC arrived this afternoon and without performing any AF tuning, I tested it out. It isn't a fair comparison to the hawk images because I stopped down to f/8 here and used a slightly faster shutter speed. However I tried to replicate my post processing to match what I did with the hawk photos.

Out of the shipping box, the TC arrived in a brown cardboard box sealed by Nikon. It listed the serial number and the fact that it is refurbished. The exterior of the TC shows some wear on the bubbled finish of the exterior, but that's just cosmetic. The rear element had me concerned as it looked like there were a few spots of coating missing. But I remembered seeing the same effect on my 1.4x TC that I purchased preowned at Allen's - and they carefully cleaned the rear element. So I carefully cleaned this rear element. All spots were removed. :encouragement:

So here are a couple from this afternoon. I haven't yet done any side-by-side comparisons but plan to do so for better comparisons. And like I mentioned in my reply to Jake, I really need to compare some cropped images. Both of these below have no crops.

Please feel free to let me know your thoughts. :)

_DSC3452 low res.jpg


_DSC3465 low res.jpg
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I have to admit though, my 500PF has taken a HUGE amount of action from my 600F4 and I can see the same beginning to happen with the Z50 & D500. It's just SO light & convenient. I always have both bodies with me, but the Baby Z has been seeing more & more action as of late.

I am in 100% agreement with you on the Topaz products. Interestingly, on the files from my Z Bodies (Z50 & Z6), AI Clear still works better than DeNoise AI. For the D500 & D850, DeNoise AI is wonderful.

Sharpen AI is also a sweet product, but it's an incredible pig on my 2015 iMac. I've worked with Topaz on it and evidently, OSx is not reporting the proper amount of VRAM at application start, so Sharpen AI starts & runs as if I have no Video RAM. It makes that product virtually unusable (Slooooow!) for me. It's fine on a PC, but I despise PC's to I use what works for me. ;-)

I was shooting eagles for an hour with a guy who obviously worked out more than me that was shooting with a D500 and a Sigma 60-600mm (or something like that) and he said he needed a hot tub (we were both shooting hand held). The Z50 doesn't have the fps that I want nor some other features, but I'm waiting both patiently and eagerly.

As for Sharpen AI, I'm on a 2014 MacBook Pro, so yes, I feel your pain. I did a video for a friend and had to edit out 2-4 minute chunks while I waited for either the preview to refresh or it to actually render the image. If I even think I'm going to use it everything else I have up will get shut down. I think it's actually mislabeled. It's not the best sharpening tool, but it is amazing for its ability to "(Re)Sharpen" an image.

Interesting note about Clear vs. DeNoise as I hadn't heard that.
 

PhilM_TX

Senior Member
Technically, the Z50 is capable of 11FPS (electronic shutter) vs. 10 on my D500's. *However*, the buffer on the D500 is way deeper.

Not trying to sell or influence anyone. Just sharing my experience. I still love my D500's.

Good weekend to all! :)
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Actually these might not be too bad of a comparison to the photos from the first hawk images. These were also shot at f/6.7 although I bumped up the shutter speed a notch with these. Although there isn't a great deal of DoF, the hawk's head looks to be in better focus. When I edited the photos the other day, I think I used a brush and applied a little sharpening to its head since that TC seemed to front focus. @BackdoorArts what do you think since this is a closer apples-to-apples comparison to the original hawk photos? The only difference is I removed some of the distracting branches in these. The first image below is a tad sharper than the second - and that probably has everything to do with user error. :rolleyes: There was 1 frame in between these two images.

Although these images don't have quite the depth that the original hawk images had, this refurbished TC seems to be a little sharper with an improved ability to get closer to the true focus point.

All the images have blue sky in these whereas the original hawk images had purple sky. Plus the metering seems to be more consistent with this TC. But I will still perform some tests over the next few days. :encouragement:

_DSC3444 low res.jpg


_DSC3446 low res.jpg
 
Top