300 f4 or 200-500 f5.6 for shortish range birds on a stick?

Hertsman

Hertsman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,243
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Going back to Millers Wood next weekend and fancy hiring some glass...

This was taken from the same place with a 70-200 2.8 and 1.7 tc...



Millerswood-7 by Mark P, on Flickr
 
I've never hired glass although I've thought about.

Think its a case of, hiring top quality glass might make me want some :D

Not sure on how pricing system works when hiring glass, but I'd be tempted to try the 300 f4 and get the 1.7 tc for added length, I know someone who uses the combo on a D500 with excellent results :)
 
When I had the 300 f4 I used both the 1.4 and the 1.7 tc’s to good effect I found it a very fun combo at the time
 
i have the nikon 200-500 f5.6 and cannot recommend it highly enough it is so sharp for mid priced lens
if you go for the 300mm you are stuck composition wise at least with the zoom you can make your own composition
the 200-500 also takes teleconverters and i use the 1.7tc on my lens it is terrific
i use it mainly on my d500 dx so more focal length
 
Last edited:
Hmm, seems like 50/50 currently....

I should add that I use a D500 and have the 1.7 tc currently.....

I had the 300 non vr and loved it, but think I missed the VR....
 
You know the site at Miller's Wood, what would give you the greatest flexibility?
On the face of it, the 200-500 would seem to be best as you are (i assume) at a fixed point in a hide, therefore you can't move whereas the 200-500 can.
 
gramps said:
You know the site at Miller's Wood, what would give you the greatest flexibility?
On the face of it, the 200-500 would seem to be best as you are (i assume) at a fixed point in a hide, therefore you can't move whereas the 200-500 can.
Click to expand...

Tough to call I think...the birds are not very far away -- probably 15ish feet, but smal woodland birds are tiny in the viewfinder at that range....so whilst I want the lenght, I also want the ability to lose the BG with a large aperture.....
 
Depends what hide you are in, I've used my 70-200 with no problem, except on the one where the Jays are, for that I use the
sigma 150-600
Don't for the dual crop on your camera, which is useful for the site.
If the sparrowhawks come in you will need a shorter length to fit the entire bird in and you don't get time to swap lenses
 
Gremlin said:
Depends what hide you are in, I've used my 70-200 with no problem, except on the one where the Jays are, for that I use the
sigma 150-600
Don't for the dual crop on your camera, which is useful for the site.
If the sparrowhawks come in you will need a shorter length to fit the entire bird in and you don't get time to swap lenses
Click to expand...

Thanks Ingrid....last time I used my 70/200 and1.7, but was thinking of somthing a bit longer.....
 
Hertsman said:
Thanks Ingrid....last time I used my 70/200 and1.7, but was thinking of somthing a bit longer.....
Click to expand...

You could always try switching to the 1.3 crop, gives you bit extra reach on what you already have
 
Hertsman said:
Tough to call I think...the birds are not very far away -- probably 15ish feet, but smal woodland birds are tiny in the viewfinder at that range....so whilst I want the lenght, I also want the ability to lose the BG with a large aperture.....
Click to expand...

you can loose the bg easily in photoshop
 
nc_killie said:
I think John hires out his Nikon stuff if you are a Nikon user, FWIW. Enjoy
Click to expand...

...And our winner is...

Many thanks for your post John, I will hiring Johns 300 2.8 for this weekend....

Results, will of course, be posted on here...

Thanks all for the inputs...
 
Hertsman said:
...And our winner is...

Many thanks for your post John, I will hiring Johns 300 2.8 for this weekend....

Results, will of course, be posted on here...

Thanks all for the inputs...
Click to expand...

....not just a pretty face;)

Hope you enjoy your day and look forward to seeing some of the results!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top