Wildlife PhotograPhy

H

Hassan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9
Name
Hassan
Edit My Images
Yes
Do you think there’s a noticeable difference between the Nikon 300mm f/4E PF and the 500mm PF in real-world wildlife shooting? I’ve never tried the 500 but would love to hear if the extra reach is worth the weight and price.
 
If cost isn't too much of a problem, probably! The 300 with the 1.4 TC gets close in reach but loses its 1 stop speed advantage and adds extra elements which can only reduce ultimate Image Quality. If you can, have a try of the options side by side and see if the difference feels enough for you.
 
Thanks a lot!


That makes sense — I hadn’t fully considered the impact on image quality from the extra glass and the stop loss. If I get a chance to test both side by side, I’ll definitely do that. Appreciate your help!
 
IIRC, the 500 is already f/5.6 - the same as the 300 with the TC. Whether you'll see the degradation that the TC will add in real life is the question - you might be better off cropping into the straight 300 image to get the same angle of view but you'll (obviously!) lose some pixels. Again, something to try!
 
Good point — you’re right, the 500PF is already f/5.6, so with the 1.4 TC the 300 essentially matches it in speed. Whether the TC’s effect on sharpness is noticeable in practice is definitely something I’d like to see for myself. Cropping vs. TC — that’s a test worth doing for sure! Appreciate the insight.
 
I did a rudementary test with my Fuji 50-140 plus 1.4x & 2x TCs (although not on wildlife) and I found that there was no noticeable difference between TC shots and non-TC enlasrged to the same size on the monitor. What I did think was the extra reach of the TCs (or longer FL lenses) would likley make target aquisition easier with things like birds or small animals so I kept the 1.4x TC for just in case.
 
Last edited:
They resolve to the same level at f/5.6; the 300 does a little worse at f/4. And that means the 300 + TC will be a little worse yet at f/4 + TC. But there are so many variables that can negate small differences; especially with wildlife. If it were the 300/2.8 + TC vs the 500PF I would go with the 300. But in this case I think the winner is the 500PF; in the cases where you can maximize image quality.

As Paul noted, if you are using AI autofocus (subject detection stuff) having the subject larger in the viewfinder helps; otherwise it can be a hit/miss kind of tradeoff. In all cases having the subject larger in the viewfinder makes it faster and harder to track.
 
I have the 300PF, the 500PF, the 600mm f4, (non VR) and the 300mm f2.8 VR plus the 3 Nikon TC's, (1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 - I have had them for some time - all in all I have found the 500mm PF to be the most useful, (best compromise) lens for bird shots - with good image quality, it's (very) portable and can be used "hand held"
 
I've just swapped from Sony to nikon. and have the 500 f4 and the 500pf
the 500pf is a very good lens very Sharp. and very sharp with the 1.4 tc111 I cant really tell any difference in sharpness with or without the Tc fitted .
 
Topsy said:
I did a rudementary test with my Fuji 50-140 plus 1.4x & 2x TCs (although not on wildlife) and I found that there was no noticeable difference between TC shots and non-TC enlasrged to the same size on the monitor. What I did think was the extra reach of the TCs (or loner FL lenses) would likley make target aquisition easier with things like birds or small animals so I kept the 1.4x TC for just in case.
Click to expand...

This is something I have noticed, especially with my Fuji kit. If the subject is less than 25% of the frame, the focus isn't as sharp. One thing I have noticed is that when shooting without a 1.4TC, the images are much better, but of course, I need to be closer to the subject, which isn't always easy with wildlife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top