Small, lightweight, sharp, close MFD, AF, VR: What's not to like? Maybe some Fresnel flare issues that could be a deal-breaker? I know it's early, but as soon as anyone has had a chance to try one out, I'd love to hear your impressions.
Printable View
Small, lightweight, sharp, close MFD, AF, VR: What's not to like? Maybe some Fresnel flare issues that could be a deal-breaker? I know it's early, but as soon as anyone has had a chance to try one out, I'd love to hear your impressions.
I would be interested in the review, but since most people already have extenders, for $300 more I would get the 70-200 vrII.
I have regained my interest in Bird photography shooting with it.
Probably Nikons best ever lens and with the 1.7 you are shooting at 340mm at f4.8 and with the 1.4 you are shooting 280mm at F4.
It is so versatile for portraits, Landscape, and is a really fast sharp wildlife lens.
Hi Dan. No question that you've gotten some great images with that combo. And the zoom can be a very useful attribute. But with a 300 plus 2.0 TC on a crop body, I could get almost the reach of my 500 + 1.4 (admittedly only at f8), in a system that I could easily travel with and carry all day without killing my septuagenarian shoulders. That is, IF it lives up to its promise, without relying on sketchy Nikon software to correct a possible flare problem. I've been aching for a 300f2.8 but sticker shock has kept me from getting one. I wonder if this might be the answer.
What's not to like are the cost and limited reach. I don't know about possible flare issues, but before I would consider this almost $2,000 lens, I'd look at the $1,069 Tamron 150-600mm lens for Nikon, which I happen to own. It has quality optics and image stabilization, is a much more versatile lens, and has greater reach (w/o TC's). And my results with the Tamron lens have been excellent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Dix
But because so many Nikon shooters are aware of the Tamron lens, you will likely join others on a wait list to get one.
The only issue with this lens would be doughnut shape OOF specular highlights so I would be hesitant to use it around water.
Which, of course, is exactly where I make the majority of my images. That's the big issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Lacy
I just saw this video review on Nikon Rumors, where they claim that flaring is actually less of a problem with this lens than with many other lenses. They also claim that it seems that at the same aperture, more light is reaching the sensor with the fresnel lens than with lenses without this technology, giving it an advantage in low light situations. I'm just parroting here, I have no hands-on experience with this lens.
I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on this lens too. It's a serious candidate for me because of the low weight compared to other options (currently I'm also considering the new 80-400).
i'm very interested in your thougths and experience on this lens. i'm a serious candidate to buy it in next summer.But now I wait and read.
Its not flare that you will see but the actual bokeh of specular highlights that will appear as doughnot shape. Canon has lessen this with their new 400 DO with coatings and Nikon is using software.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry van Dijk
I just saw this on lensrentals.
Not exactly. Seems like they were able to manufacture the diffractive elements without the air gap between them. This video has more info and some diagrams:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Lacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkBOsTVfpdA&t=4m49s
Lots of images and opinions here from actual users...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1346257
I just discovered one other factor to throw into the mix. The rest of you probably already knew this. Mounting the 1.7 TC on the 300f4 PF will allow AF only when shooting at AF-S, that is, single point. No multiple focus points, no dynamic tracking. I had hoped the lens would be the answer for birds in flight, but perhaps not. It seems this is also true with the 80-400 and other f/4 - f/5.6 lenses. Single point AF only, with 1.7 TC. This may cause me to lean in favor of the 80-400, since I'm not in a position to go for the 300f/2.8.
That is no good.
I wonder if better altrnatives than 80-400 with a 1.4 tc would be the Tamron 150-600, the sigma 150-600 c, or the sigma 150-600 sport with no tc?
Hi Bill,Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Dix
Is this something specific to this new lens? I have the previous version 300f4 and use it almost always with the 1.7x TC and my D800e can AF-C with most of the points. The max aperture is f6.7
That's very interesting, Shane. My information came from the user's manual of my new D7200, which specifically singles out the 300 f/4 PF in some small print on lens compatibility. But a phone call to Nikon, and a field trial by someone in a camera shop (using the f/4-5.6 VR 80-400 lens), seemed to confirm that the issue applies to other f/4 - f/5.6 lenses. I'm encouraged by your experience. It wouldn't be the first time that actual use differs from Nikon's technical data. (I once successfully paired my 500f4 with a friend's borrowed 2X TC, even though Nikon says it can't be done.)
Please keep us posted on the outcome of your tests
I am also looking forward to see how that D7200 performs ;).
All the best with your new camera!
I have had the 300m f/4E PF for about 3 months - first rented it for a Birds of Prey workshop with Tony and Carol Dilger. I wasn't too sure about it, not having had much experience with prime lenses. But I decided to buy one - think I am one of the few people in the UK who actually have one! And I love it. Have used it on my D750 (no flare issues) on wildlife, including puffins, ganets and my favourite subject - gulls! :-) I am going to Kruger in a couple of weeks and am taking this with me, but also renting a 80-400 - I have pre-ordered the new 200-500 - due in 17 Sept - but am not holding my breath on that one! I am not a pro, just a serious enthusiast and I really like the IQ that I get from the 300 - on the D750 and the D7100 - excellent.
You can see my D750 + 300 in my galleries (Puffins & seabirds; Birds of Prey workshop) on my website...www.charleenratcliffphotography.com
Thanks everyone!
Thanks for the feedback, Charleen. Now that I've gotten the 80-400 upgrade and the new 7200, it will be awhile before I can get another new lens, but I'll keep the 300 in mind. My 7200 + 500f4 + 1.4 TC, my most-often used combo, is working well. I don't use the 80-400 often, but when I need it, it is also a huge improvement over the old 80-400 + old 7000. Have you tried the 300 with teleconverters?
And btw, you have some great raptor shots on your site.
Thanks Bill - I hear good things about the 7200 so look forward to seeing some of your image! :S3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Dix
I have tried TCs - only the 1.4III - didn't like it.
Yes, the new 80-400 is a super duper improvement on the old one...My 2 main lenses are the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII and the new 300 f/4E PF....My budget doesn't yet stretch to a 500 f/4 - sigh, sigh...hence me thinking about the new 200-500....I have tried the Tamron 150-600 twice (gave the first one to a friend who took good care of me in Namibia) - bought another one, took it to Tanzania last July and when I got back sold it! Just wasn't happy with the IQ at all - not that I am a pixel peeper or anything and I know some folks swear by it. Oh well....:e3
You are very kind to compliment my raptor shots, thank you very much.
So thanks again, happy shooting!
Kind regards, Charleen
