Long(ish) Nikon telephoto

snerkler said:
Sorry, poor choice of words ;)
Click to expand...
I wish Nikons did disable AF points like the manual indicates ("user selectable"), being able to select a point that isn't going to be effective is quite misleading. Am I somehow supposed to remember which points are "good" depending on the effective aperture??? Even if I could, I doubt I would be able to apply it while actively shooting. That's part of the reason I only use f/2.8 lenses w/ TC's (well, except for my PC-E which isn't supposed to accept TC's at all).
 
sk66 said:
I wish Nikons did disable AF points like the manual indicates ("user selectable"), being able to select a point that isn't going to be effective is quite misleading. Am I somehow supposed to remember which points are "good" depending on the effective aperture??? Even if I could, I doubt I would be able to apply it while actively shooting. That's part of the reason I only use f/2.8 lenses w/ TC's (well, except for my PC-E which isn't supposed to accept TC's at all).
Click to expand...
Yep, disabling them altogether would be better. I can't afford f2.8 telephotos ;)
 
It's interesting that 3d and auto are disabled at f/8, but between f/5.6 and f/8 they will still attempt to use all of the AF points. It just becomes a lot jumpier/erratic/unreliable towards the edges. I believe it's the same is true for the d modes (but you can't see what point is/was used).
IDK, I suppose "trying" to maintain AF with all of the points might be better than just stopping/reverting... but not by much.
 
Im going to be buying the 300 f4 after the weekend guys, any input is usefull........
 
Hertsman said:
Im going to be buying the 300 f4 after the weekend guys, any input is usefull........
Click to expand...

If you can afford it, I'd definitely get the 300mm PF over the older version. Half the size and weight of the older one and with VR added (maybe VR is not needed though).

The older version is a cracking lens though and, if I didn't upgrade to the PF version, it would still be my main birding lens with a 1.4tc permanently attached (y)

This was taken with that older combo :

Mallard 300 F4 w/ TC 1.4ii Test by Wez Filtness, on Flickr
 
@wezza13 , cheers for that. Was it on a D500 OOI ?

I could stretch to the PF but would leave me nowt to buy the 70-200 2.8 I want. However, seeing how good this lens is, Im now not sure if Id need the 70-200 ?
 
Having recently obtained the 80-400 afs I am loving it (And thats just on my back up D3200 as my D750 is still at Nikon) IQ is exceptional and although it is not the lightest lens I dont feel its unmanageable in any way. First time I have gone for a 'more expensive' tele lens but so far I like what I see.

Also I had never seen that LR analyser but having just loaded my catalogue in looks like the 80-400 is going to be a 'favourite' as looking at last 6 months usage and having only owned the 80-400 for a week!!!!

Lens Usage
----------------------------------------

70.0-300.0 mm f/4.0-5.6 (6 photos)
90.0 mm f/2.8 (10 photos)
50.0 mm f/1.8 (35 photos)
85.0 mm f/1.8 (93 photos)
80.0-400.0 mm f/4.5-5.6 (169 photos)
16.0-35.0 mm f/4.0 (430 photos)
TAMRON SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD A007N (1485 photos)
 
Hertsman said:
@wezza13 , cheers for that. Was it on a D500 OOI ?

I could stretch to the PF but would leave me nowt to buy the 70-200 2.8 I want. However, seeing how good this lens is, Im now not sure if Id need the 70-200 ?
Click to expand...

@Hertsman

Hiya,

The photo that I linked was taken on a D600 but I have some photos of the old 300mm on the D500 too, I'll link a few.

These were all taken with the D500 and the older 300mm f4 + 1.4tc :

Bumblebee on the lavender by Wez Filtness, on Flickr

Male Emperor Dragonfly by Wez Filtness, on Flickr

Golden-ringed Dragonfly - Male by Wez Filtness, on Flickr

Black-Headed Gull by Wez Filtness, on Flickr

Greylag Goose by Wez Filtness, on Flickr

Mating Damselflies by Wez Filtness, on Flickr


This one was taken with the D500 and older 300mm + with a 1.7tc this time :

Kingfisher - Male by Wez Filtness, on Flickr
 
And this one was taken with the new 300mm PF, no tc, mounted on the D500 :

Water Rail by Wez Filtness, on Flickr




And these last ones were with the D500, 300mm PF and 1.7tc (both big crops btw) :

Dartford Warbler - Female by Wez Filtness, on Flickr

DSC_4224-Edit by Wez Filtness, on Flickr



Hope they go some way to help your decision making.

It really is amazing though how light the PF version is for a 300mm prime, so light for lots of walkaround style wildlife photography.
 
Stunning shots....

Do you think I'd still need a 70-200 ?

The close ranges on that look amazing.
 
Hertsman said:
Stunning shots....

Do you think I'd still need a 70-200 ?

The close ranges on that look amazing.
Click to expand...


Thank you.

It depends what you want to use it for?

I, personally, use my Tamron 70-200 2.8 for football each week and zoo trips.

For birding and wildlife though, I never use it as it's far too short in focal length. I did try it a few times but unless you're very stealthy and can get exceptionally close, then I wouldn't bother. IMO of course, you might be different.
 
wezza13 said:
Thank you.

It depends what you want to use it for?

I, personally, use my Tamron 70-200 2.8 for football each week and zoo trips.

For birding and wildlife though, I never use it as it's far too short in focal length. I did try it a few times but unless you're very stealthy and can get exceptionally close, then I wouldn't bother. IMO of course, you might be different.
Click to expand...

Kind of my use I think. I want the 300 and 1.4 for a HI Q long lens and the I think the 2.8 zoom for zoos because its easy to lose the wire and mesh at 2.8. Not sure how good the f4 prime would be at that ?
 
Hertsman said:
Kind of my use I think. I want the 300 and 1.4 for a HI Q long lens and the I think the 2.8 zoom for zoos because its easy to lose the wire and mesh at 2.8. Not sure how good the f4 prime would be at that ?
Click to expand...
Obviously this depends on where the animal is in relation to the fence, but assuming it's not right up against the fence I can 'lose' the fence better shooting with my 150-600mm at 500mm+ at f8 than I can with the 70-200mm f2.8.
 
snerkler said:
Obviously this depends on where the animal is in relation to the fence, but assuming it's not right up against the fence I can 'lose' the fence better shooting with my 150-600mm at 500mm+ at f8 than I can with the 70-200mm f2.8.
Click to expand...

At a similar standard of IQ ?
 
Hertsman said:
At a similar standard of IQ ?
Click to expand...
Well that wasn't what was discussed, we were just talking about the ability to get shallow DOF in order to blur out fences. So no, there's no way that the IQ of my 150-600mm matches the 70-200mm f2.8 in the perfect scenarios, but they are totally different lenses. For wildlife parks I will generally get better image quality with the 150-600mm as I have to crop the 70-200mm far too much. If I could get within say 10-15 feet of the animals and could get right up to the fence then I'd use the 70-200mm no question as it's the best lens that I have, but as it stands I use my 150-600mm and am happy with the results.
 
And that sums up my conundrum neatly I think.....
Which is why I am looking at the 300 and 1.4....
 
Hi Scott, I knew you had the 300 as I think Ive already asked you a few questions on it.
Have you used it for shooting through mesh ? Ive heard that YWP is very god and doesnt present that issue as much as other zoo's.
 
Hertsman said:
And that sums up my conundrum neatly I think.....
Which is why I am looking at the 300 and 1.4....
Click to expand...
300mm with f1.4 on a crop body will be more than enough reach, and be able to remove fencing, assuming the animal is far enough away from the fence of course. 630mm eq might be too much though, sometimes I'm shooting at 400mm and below.

Few examples of the Tamron (might be better viewing on flickr as this forum seems to over sharpen my images for some reason)

No fence

DSC_9073-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

Afternoon Stretch by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_6254-Edit-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr


Taken through mesh fencing which I was about 6ft away from (they don't allow you to get right up to the fence obviously ;))

DSC_2440 by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_6499 by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_4387 B&W cropped by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Great set Toby, love the last B&W.

With my arbitrarily set budget of approx £1500, I was thinking a used 70-200 and earlier 300 would make a pretty good set up on the D500 for almost anything..... ?
 
Hertsman said:
Great set Toby, love the last B&W.

With my arbitrarily set budget of approx £1500, I was thinking a used 70-200 and earlier 300 would make a pretty good set up on the D500 for almost anything..... ?
Click to expand...
Thanks. Yeah, I'd have thought so, would be a really nice setup. I guess as another option, if you're going to get the 1.4x TC anyway then you could try this on the 70-200mm as you'd get 420mm reach on crop body, then if you feel you want more then get the 300mm at a later date. 420mm might be enough for most things. First time I went to YWP I 'only' has the 70-300mm on FF.
 
foggy4ever said:
Don't have to shoot through much mesh at YWP.
Having breakfast very close to the fence.

YWP 14-01-2017_15 by Scott, on Flickr
Click to expand...
That's the great thing about YWP, they've set it out fantastically and a lot of the time you get fence free viewing. Sometimes the animals don't play ball though ;) TBH since they separated the Tiger Cubs from their mother they now spend most of the day pacing back and forth along the top fence as she's in the top enclosure. Not particularly nice to see tbh.
 
Its nice to see the giraffes in the Africa area as they have so much more space and get to interact with the other animals.

I'm glad I'm so close as it really is pot luck if the animals want to play, I'd love a shot of a Tiger up a tree
 
foggy4ever said:
Its nice to see the giraffes in the Africa area as they have so much more space and get to interact with the other animals.

I'm glad I'm so close as it really is pot luck if the animals want to play, I'd love a shot of a Tiger up a tree
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's getting better all the time imo. I have a few pics of the Tigers in the tree :D
 
Right, last orders in the Long(ish) Nikon lens thread please.....

Given my use and expections, am I right in thinking a 70-200 2.8 and 300 f4 will be a very good set up for my quite general useage ?
 
Hertsman said:
Right, last orders in the Long(ish) Nikon lens thread please.....

Given my use and expections, am I right in thinking a 70-200 2.8 and 300 f4 will be a very good set up for my quite general useage ?
Click to expand...
Both those lenses are great, but I can't help feel that there's not 'that' much difference between 200mm and 300mm so you'd have something a bit samey. I'd still go for the 70-200mm and 150-600mm combo to give you more scope, but I guess it depends what you want and also whether you want to carry such a big heavy lens.
 
The lump of a 150-600 doesnt fill me with joy tbh, and Ive yet to be impressed with the 150-600C....

..And whilst quite close, they appear to fulfill my needs based on past images reported via LR dash.......

Id rather one lens but I accept that that is too much of a compromise......
 
Hertsman said:
The lump of a 150-600 doesnt fill me with joy tbh, and Ive yet to be impressed with the 150-600C....

..And whilst quite close, they appear to fulfill my needs based on past images reported via LR dash.......

Id rather one lens but I accept that that is too much of a compromise......
Click to expand...
Then you've answered your own question ;)
 
Well, as you all know, after many hours of research and advice from you guys, I am now the owner of a 300mm F4.
Have to wait until after the weekend as we are in West Scotland this weekend, but looking forward to getting out with it....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top