NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: JKoerner007 on March 04, 2018, 18:37:43
-
Okay, I have just taken delivery of the Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR this last Friday, and will now offer my opinions :)
Let me qualify my preferences by stating I am a hiking-photographer (not a hide- or blind-photographer, who remains in one place). I hike, and am perpetually-mobile, and I capture the wildlife that I see as I do so. In other words, I seldom hike 'to a destination,' to photograph 'there'; I have no destination ... other than to capture what I see as I progress.
I am not trying to be an 'artist,' either; I simply enjoy the thrill, and the unknown, of the anticipation of nature's randomness, and I try to capture authentic, in-situ, images of the wildlife I encounter.
That said, as a background, when I shot Canon, my mainstay lens was their 180mm f/3.5 Macro. When I switched to Nikon, my preferred lens became the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro, which is a terrific lens. After reading posts about the Voigtländer 125 f/2.5 APO Macro, I sold my Sigma and utilized the CV 125 for awhile, but quickly realized I need AF for wildlife—and the limitations of the CV's reach, plus its 620° focus throw, were not meant for impromptu photography, but planned, methodical photography, particularly nature stacks.
While I love (and still do love) the CV 125, I purchased the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II as my primary tool to have 'at-the-ready,' and have been lugging this barbell around for nearly 2 years. The quality of the lens is Otus-like, but its weight [6.39 lb (2.90 kg), being particularly front-heavy] has removed a certain amount of joy from my hiking ever since. My other lenses were never a burden ... but this lens certainly was. [FYI, I bought (and sold) the terrific Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO, twice, for the same reason: terrific, super-sharp lens ... but too heavy to carry with 4 other lenses in a pouch.]
Yes, the 300mm VR II is 3x as heavy as the Zeiss, but it is also 10x as useful for wildlife photography, with even better-quality single images, and so I dealt with it for a long time. Further, I wasn't carrying my 300mm f/2.8 VR II 'in a pouch,' but as my primary lens mounted on a tripod, slung over my shoulder.
However, after about a year of lugging this damned thing around, I had been looking for a way to justify dumping my 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II, for almost another year, just to lighten my load, seeking an easier-to-carry alternative with more mobility. After rubbing my chin on the Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED for a long time ... I finally took the plunge :D
First, let me state, no, it is not as good as my 300mm f/2.8 VR II ... but it is close enough! 8)
What this lens *IS*, however, is a delight to carry and it certainly delivers images that will please all who view them, except perhaps the most fastidious of curmudgeons ;)
As proof for this, below are some images I took on my first day's trial. The reader needs to keep in mind three very important things: 1) these are not 'staged, stacked shots,' composed with all the time in the world to execute; 2) these are live, impromptu shots, taken on the go, and with but a fleeting moment to capture them ... before the moment was lost. Finally, 3) they were all hand-held; I left my tripod at home for the first time in years. That said, take a look:
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example1.jpg)
Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1600 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250] - 40% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example2.jpg)
Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1600 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250] - 5% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example3.jpg)
Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1600 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250] - 15% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example4.jpg)
Ruby-Crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1600 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250] - 10% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example5.jpg)
Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1600 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250] - 15% cropped-in
I am very pleased with these results, even knowing my 300 VR II would have perhaps rendered them a bit better. They're good enough!
For the first time since dumping the former, and using the latter, I left a barbell + a tripod at home, and just carried this lens on the chest-slot of my Cotton Carrier (https://www.cottoncarrier.com/collections/all/products/new-grey-camera-harness-2).
To be able to walk, hands-free, but be immediately ready for 'whatever nature may throw' was a breath of fresh air! I even tried this lens as a macro equivalent:
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example6.jpg)
Unknown Flower (Mom's garden) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/320 | f/6.3 | ISO 640] - No Crop
Again, this is a single image, hand-held (no stack, no crop). To be able to stand back 4.5 ft. (1.4 meters), with a ~630mm lens, hand-held, and fill the frame with an image like this, is to take live macro shooting to another level. I am positive this lens, if used with a tripod, plus the D850's ability to internal-stack, will produce some incredible results of authentic floral wildlife.
So that is my initial impression: I am absolutely thrilled ... THIS is the hiking lens I have always wanted ... super-light, super-versatile, super-capable :D
I will post more photos as time progresses ...
In the meantime, feel free to post your own, or ask/offer any questions/suggestions.
Thanks for reading 8)
-
Obviously very impressive image quality shown. And impressive handheld technique utilised.
Very interesting post thank you for sharing.
-
I’m glad to hear you’re enjoying the 300 PF. It is very much fun to shoot with, and carry. :)
-
Beautiful John, great colours and details !
-
John, It does look like a really capable lens. All very nice photos. I especially like the two hummingbirds. Looks like a lens that would be fun to rent and try out as the weather improves in the next few months.
I currently use the older/lower tech 300 mm f/4 AFS on a D810, usually with the TC-14 EII. This works well enough for my level of amateur bird photography (much as I'd like one, I'm never likely to own one of the super-teles). Though it may sound perverse, I actually like the heft of both camera and lens, and don't mind carrying them hiking up and down mountains. I find it easier to steady heavy gear when I don't have a tripod along. VR obviously fixes that for low shutter speeds, but perhaps not for bird photos at 1/1000 sec or shorter. As with yours the old AFS lens is also very capable for 'macro'-like photos. I like being able to swap from birds to flowers, and I really like the long-lens perspective at macro scales. The TC degrades the backgrounds a bit, so if I'm too lazy to detach it I have to frame carefully. Lately I've started to carry a couple of extender rings to swap out for the TC, which let you get very close. However this has taught me that outdoor flower close-ups, focused manually, in the breeze, are a fairly frustrating exercise ...
-
Excellent results, a lovely set of pictures.
All were shot at full aperture with the TC-14III, which suggests a 400/5.6 PF would be an ideal lens, hopefully the designs patented recently make it to market.
-
Obviously very impressive image quality shown. And impressive handheld technique utilised.
Very interesting post thank you for sharing.
Thank you. I thought folks (who were hiking photographers) would find this interesting :)
This lens enables me to concentrate on nature, without really thinking about my gear. Before, being burdened with the weight, I was thinking more about my gear than what I was doing.
Also, the 300 f/4E PF's small, unobtrusive stature allows for more stealth to be deployed, which adds two dimensions that you simply cannot get with a 'rocket launcher' on your shoulder: 1) you're able to get closer to the subject, 2) brings out more of a feeling of connectedness with nature as opposed to 'photographing from afar.'
_____________
I’m glad to hear you’re enjoying the 300 PF. It is very much fun to shoot with, and carry. :)
Indeed, thanks :)
_____________
Beautiful John, great colours and details !
Thanks, John!
_____________
John, It does look like a really capable lens. All very nice photos. I especially like the two hummingbirds. Looks like a lens that would be fun to rent and try out as the weather improves in the next few months.
Thank you, and it is. I encourage you to do so ... you will have fun, which (sometimes we forget) is the whole point of getting outside the city limits :D
I currently use the older/lower tech 300 mm f/4 AFS on a D810, usually with the TC-14 EII. This works well enough for my level of amateur bird photography (much as I'd like one, I'm never likely to own one of the super-teles). Though it may sound perverse, I actually like the heft of both camera and lens, and don't mind carrying them hiking up and down mountains. I find it easier to steady heavy gear when I don't have a tripod along. VR obviously fixes that for low shutter speeds, but perhaps not for bird photos at 1/1000 sec or shorter.
I will still probably purchase a 600mm F/4, at some point, but not for hiking.
We all have our preferences for weight. I don't think your older model would bother me at all; but hiking for hours with a 6.5 lb lens is not fun. (You notice it the whole way.) However, hiking with a 1.7 lb lens is a piece of cake, I didn't even think about it, especially hands-free like I did yesterday, except when I realized how much nicer a time I was having :)
All I know is, right now, I am enjoying not to have to bring a tripod + barbell with me when I hike :o
The saying, "I feel like a great weight has been removed from my shoulders," was my literal (not figurative) sentiment ;D
I am finding I can keep excellent quality, if I keep my ISO at 1250 (or below), and not have to crop-in more than 25%. (The bluebird leading the deck is a 40% crop, and it's okay, but the hummingbird and others are all decently-rendered IMO.)
All of these images were taken on an overcast day, at 1/1600. Below 1/1000, hand-holding, I didn't like the sharpness too much. At anything over ISO 2500, I'm not liking the image too much—which is a D500 issue, not a lens issue. That's my initial report.
As with yours the old AFS lens is also very capable for 'macro'-like photos. I like being able to swap from birds to flowers, and I really like the long-lens perspective at macro scales. The TC degrades the backgrounds a bit, so if I'm too lazy to detach it I have to frame carefully. Lately I've started to carry a couple of extender rings to swap out for the TC, which let you get very close. However this has taught me that outdoor flower close-ups, focused manually, in the breeze, are a fairly frustrating exercise ...
I think the background is pretty decent with this lens + a TC, provided your light is good, and your ISO doesn't go over 640. Maybe up to ISO 2000, if you don't have to crop.
Mention of the D500 needs to be made as well. All of my images were cropped-in. I wouldn't have had the same results cropping-in another 50%, with the D850, and especially with the D5. The 300mm f/4E PF is literally made for the D500 IMO.
I would leave my TC on for a butterfly, for reach, but agree I will likely take it off for a flower, for optimal rendering. Will post some like this soon :)
-
Excellent results, a lovely set of pictures.
Thanks, Roland.
All were shot at full aperture with the TC-14III, which suggests a 400/5.6 PF would be an ideal lens, hopefully the designs patented recently make it to market.
Good point. However, I would rather see a 400 f/4 PF, to allow for more light with a 1.4 TC.
The final difference (on a D500 + TC) would be an equivalent 840mm f/5.6 vs. 840mm f/8. My hope is they revise the patent a bit :)
Now, a 600mm f/5.6E PF would be the lens of my hiking dreams 8)
But, in all honesty, I am pretty pleased with what I have right now ...
-
wow, another impressive demonstration of your talent and skill. chapeau!
-
wow, another impressive demonstration of your talent and skill. chapeau!
Very kind of you to say, Frank, thank you.
I guess the moral is, you don't have to spend $10K, and lug 20-lb of gear around, to get pleasing results.
There is a time, and a place, where the 'rocket launcher'-type lens is needed ... but, mostly, they are not needed to capture pleasing images of skittish creatures, even very small birds.
One other thing that I noticed is the ability to adapt, and react with precision, with the tiny 300 f/4E PF should not be overlooked, either.
(Hand-holding this will allow you to nail shots that would be missed, attempting to 're-position a super-tele on a tripod' ...)
However, for lions in Africa, I would definitely prefer taking images from afar with a high-mag super-telephoto ;D
-
John, Your photos are excellent. I agree with you on the 300 PF. Since May 2016 I have been using the D500+TC 14E III+300 PF combo for wildlife and close ups and I like it a lot. I also have the 300/2.8G VRII which I use on a monopod or tripod. For the money and the ease of use the 300 PF is unbeatable. Try it on the D850, you will love the results.
I am attaching 3 photos with the D500 and 2 with the D850
-
Good point. However, I would rather see a 400 f/4 PF, to allow for more light with a 1.4 TC.
The final difference (on a D500 + TC) would be an equivalent 840mm f/5.6 vs. 840mm f/8. My hope is they revise the patent a bit :)
Now, a 600mm f/5.6E PF would be the lens of my hiking dreams 8)
right now ...
A 400/4 or 600/5.6 would be at least the size and weight of the 300/2.8 so you'd be back to carrying a barbell :o
A 400/5.6 PF should be only a little longer and heavier than the 300/4 PF, so you would have a similar light-weight portable setup, with better IQ.
From memory, Nikon also had patents for 500/5.6 PF and 600/5.6 PF lenses. Nikon has made very few f/5.6 telephotos probably because the options for using TCs are very limited compared to f/4 lenses. But as camera resolution goes up, it becomes harder to make lens+TC or zooms with high enough quality, and the high ISO performance of cameras is now good enough that f/5.6 is fast enough for many purposes, so we might see some quality primes in this area ...?
-
John, Your photos are excellent. I agree with you on the 300 PF. Since May 2016 I have been using the D500+TC 14E III+300 PF combo for wildlife and close ups and I like it a lot. I also have the 300/2.8G VRII which I use on a monopod or tripod. For the money and the ease of use the 300 PF is unbeatable.
Thank you for the kind words, and we agree :)
Try it on the D850, you will love the results.
I am attaching 3 photos with the D500 and 2 with the D850
I am going to purchase the D850 by April, so indeed I will.
In your own images (very cool, btw :) ), I do prefer those taken with the D850; however, that is mainly due to the harsher lighting in the D500 images (not your fault, just the time of day). The images taken with the D850 appear to have been taken in much softer, more optimal light, particularly the last, which has very smooth, pastel evenness throughout.
Thanks for sharing!
___________________
A 400/4 or 600/5.6 would be at least the size and weight of the 300/2.8 so you'd be back to carrying a barbell :o
A 400/5.6 PF should be only a little longer and heavier than the 300/4 PF, so you would have a similar light-weight portable setup, with better IQ.
Great point ... and, funny you mention it, because I almost felt the "new gear buzz" wear-off at the thought of toting another large lens around :-\
Right now, I am too thrilled with the 300 f/4E PF to want anything else at the moment 8)
From memory, Nikon also had patents for 500/5.6 PF and 600/5.6 PF lenses. Nikon has made very few f/5.6 telephotos probably because the options for using TCs are very limited compared to f/4 lenses. But as camera resolution goes up, it becomes harder to make lens+TC or zooms with high enough quality, and the high ISO performance of cameras is now good enough that f/5.6 is fast enough for many purposes, so we might see some quality primes in this area ...?
Another good point. Thinking about it, I might be tempted to upgrade to a 400 f/5.6E PF, due to not much size/weight increase, but the jury is still out on that. I don't think I would opt for a 600 f/5.6E PF though.
Reason being, part of what makes me so happy with the 300 f/4E PF is its small size, not just the light weight. I had considered the 200-500 f/5.6, as a lighter alternative to the 300 f/2.8 VR II, and I have seen some terrific images with the 200-500 f/5.6. However, at the end of the day, the 200-500 is a big, honkin' lens ... with an unwieldy size ... that gets even bigger as you zoom.
(http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/200-500mm/810_6315-nikon-f3.jpg)
(taken from Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/200-500mm.htm))
No thanks! :o
I much prefer this:
(http://www.imagechaser.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/D750-300.jpg)
(taken from The Image Chaser (http://www.imagechaser.com/phase-fresnel-from-wildlife-photography-to-portraiture))
The 300 f/4E PF is just such a conveniently-sized lens (even smaller than a 180mm macro, yet twice the reach), it really is in a league of its own. It is sharper and better than any Nikon zoom (save the 200-400), while being lighter and more wieldy to boot. You can move from one subject to another (or follow a single subject with it) quicker, and more naturally, with this lens than any other IMO.
Yes, there are better lenses, if you want to study charts. However, if you want to enjoy a hike, with a very versatile, light, beautifully-manageable piece of glass ... that can take truly superb images ... you'd be hard pressed to scan the internet for a lens that can match this one on all levels: convenient dimensions, weight, versatility, capability.
"You had me at, 'Hello' ..." was my immediate gut impression of this lens after just one hike ;D
-
Had a chance to take some more photos with my new toy :D
Had a trucking fatality case to investigate, with a witness appointment in Camarillo, CA at 6:30mp.
So I went there 4 hours early, so I could take a detour near an irrigation canal to fire-off almost a thousand shots with my new 300mm f/4E PF ED before I had to deal with another casualty case :-\
Anyway, admittedly, with the exception of the first two shots, the lighting was sub optimal today.
In addition, I had reach issues each time (had to crop-in with every image), on top of the challenging lighting conditions, but the results were still acceptable.
I remain absolutely delighted with the light-weight and ease-of-deployment. Hiking is fun again :D
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example7.jpg)
Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/4000 | f/6.3 | ISO 640 - 70% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example8.jpg)
Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1600 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250 - 20% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example9.jpg)
Rock Wren (Salpinctes obsoletus) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/3200 | f/71 | ISO 640 - 50% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example10.jpg)
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/2000 | f/7.1 | ISO 640 - 60% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example11.jpg)
Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/2000 | f/6.3 | ISO 2500 - 25% cropped-in
All shots hand-held, no tripod.
The last two shots were an exercise in opposites: one with extremely harsh light, the other with not enough light (the end of the day).
(FYI, the first two species are tiny, and very squirrely.)
Again, with the extreme cropping required with the 300PF and the D500, I don't think the D850/D5 would have made the cut with this lens, like the D500 did.
I also noticed, with the D500, at ISO 640 and below, an image can take extreme cropping and still look okay ... but anything over ISO 1250 cropping over 20% degrades unacceptably ...
-
Very nice images, John.
-
Very nice images, John.
Thank you, Jakov.
The lil lens didn't do too bad ... for a reach disadvantage shot in not-so-good light.
The next images I post will be with the D500/300 f/4 PF combo, mounted on a tripod, using the RRS LC-A12 Pkg Collar (http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/LC-A12-Pkg-Lens-collar-and-foot-package), taken in good light ... where I can also fill the frame with each image, rather than crop-in. (An example would be the macro shot I took, on the opening post, but even that was hand-held.)
Should be able to get this done by the weekend.
Jack
-
Amazing images, love those birds feeding off flowers! I could never get one in focus when I lugged my 300mm f/2.8 around, it's always a miss :(
Maybe I should try the 70-200mm FL + TC14E mk3 combo. Not as light weight as the 300mm f/4E PF... but should give me better results than an MF lens.
-
Amazing images, love those birds feeding off flowers! I could never get one in focus when I lugged my 300mm f/2.8 around, it's always a miss :(
Maybe I should try the 70-200mm FL + TC14E mk3 combo. Not as light weight as the 300mm f/4E PF... but should give me better results than an MF lens.
Thank you :)
Agreed. The only way I got crisp shots with my 300 f/2.8 was when mounted on a tripod, standing still, waiting for birds to come to me (in an area known to have them). This is the kind of situation for which I will be replacing my 300mm f/2.8 with a 600mm f/4 (which I am going to obtain, not the 400 f/2.8, ultimately for purely reach purposes).
However, for hiking, the 300mm f/2.8 is much more difficult to deploy in a fast-reaction situation "that I have come into" (rather than "I have stood around waiting for").
Two different types of photography, both with their strong points.
The 300 f/4 PF is just so much more nimble, and able to be instantly deployed, to follow moving birds flitting through bushes and whatnot, they're not even in the same universe for quick-reaction situations.
Take hummingbirds, for example. It's one thing to point a tripod + super-telephoto at a particular flower, in a hummer-infested area (like a garden), knowing one will eventually stop at that flower ... to nail your shot. Superb images result from such planning and positioning, no doubt, but it's a lot different to come up on some flowers on a hike, and see a hummer swoop-down 30' ahead of you, totally unexpected, and to have but a few seconds to react in a wildlife setting.
Different situations require different tools. The 300mm f/4 PF is just a great 'have at the ready' tool whilst hiking.
I had considered the 70-200mm FL ... great optic. However, for wildlife, 70mm is pretty useless and even 200mm is pretty short.
Even with a 300mm + 1.4TC + 1.5 crop camera, I almost never find a situation where my (effective) ~630mm is "too much" ... almost without exception, I still have to crop-in a bit, which would be exacerbated by having 100mm less in my lens.
So I guess it depends on what your primary targets are going to be.
Since you're into macro, the 70-200 FL ED is comparable to the 300mm PF for larger macro subjects (butterflies, hummers), but slightly disadvantaged.
Both have great AF with an 'E' electronic aperture (not a G manual one).
However, some points to consider (other than size/weight) is the fact the 70-200 has its worst stats at 200mm, while the 300mm is 300mm, its optimum length.
At its longest setting, 200mm, the 70-200 allows you 0.21x magnification (1:4.76) from 3.61 ft MFD away. (That is pretty darned good, for a non-macro, actually.)
However, the 300mm f/4 PF allows you .24x magnification (1:4.17) from 4.6' feet MFD away, which gives you slightly greater magnification from a step further back.
Compared both to the 300mm f/2.8, which only allows you 0.16x magnification (1:6.25) from 7.55 feet MFD away. (The 7.55 ft distance is nice, but the reproduction ratio/magnification is not.)
It's pretty hard to beat the size, quickness, and flexibility of the 300mm f/4E PF ED as an all-around nature lens :D
-
Here is an interesting blog post from Nikon Ambassador, Richard Peters:
Nikon 300mm f4 PF review: the death of super telephotos? (https://www.richardpeters.co.uk/nikon-300mm-f4-pf-review-the-death-of-super-telephotos)
Here is a photograph to illustrate just how insanely small, delightful, and handy this little lens is to use (taken inside the lens hood of a 600mm f/4 FL ED):
(https://www.richardpeters.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/25-9833-post/Nikon_300f4_pf_vs_600VR-650x323.jpg) (https://www.richardpeters.co.uk/nikon-300mm-f4-pf-review-the-death-of-super-telephotos)
A picture's worth a thousand words. Which lens does the reader feel is likely to be more enjoyable to carry/deploy for a full day's hike? :o
Some notable quotes from Peters' blog:
- Picking this lens up for the first time, it almost feels weird. It’s like you’re experiencing something that your brain is telling you shouldn’t be possible. As a photographer who has lugged around the beautiful but monstrous 600 f4 for many years, I can’t state enough the appeal of the newer generation of lighter lenses that are gradually coming to the market.
- So we know it doesn’t weigh much and we know it doesn’t take up much space in the camera bag. At this point I think you’d almost forgive the 300 PF if its optics were only good, given the other benefits it achieves. But they’re not just good, they are in fact exceptional.
- ... where it really, really shines is when paired up to a DX sensor. I had the use of a D7200 during my testing and found the two to be a truly impressive combination. It was a breath of fresh air walking around with a setup that gave me an equivalent focal length of 450mm or 630mm when using a converter.
- Going one further and pair the 300 PF with the Nikon D500 ... you get an exceptionally powerful and easily manageable wildlife setup.
- The latest 300mm prime in the Nikon stable is a special lens. There’s simply no doubt about it. Its insanely compact size and weight make it a complete joy to use and I’ve no doubt it wouldn’t be an unfair statement to say this is possibly the perfect travel telephoto lens ....
"A complete joy to use" were my own sentiments, exactly.
Sorry to be a broken record on this lens, but I honestly have never been so thrilled with the potential I see out of one, single lens before. Not even close.
I will lay off for awhile and post some more photos later. Would like to see others' too.
-
Here is an interesting blog post from Nikon Ambassador, Richard Peters:
Nikon 300mm f4 PF review: the death of super telephotos? (https://www.richardpeters.co.uk/nikon-300mm-f4-pf-review-the-death-of-super-telephotos)
Here is a photograph to illustrate just how insanely small, delightful, and handy this little lens is to use (taken inside the lens hood of a 600mm f/4 FL ED):
(https://www.richardpeters.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/25-9833-post/Nikon_300f4_pf_vs_600VR-650x323.jpg) (https://www.richardpeters.co.uk/nikon-300mm-f4-pf-review-the-death-of-super-telephotos)
A picture's worth a thousand words. Which lens does the reader feel is likely to be more enjoyable to carry/deploy for a full day's hike? :o
Man I rate that illustrative photo 20 out of 10, it really shows the day and night difference between super-teles and the light weight PF lens. Oh, and maybe you would like hold off purchasing a 600mm, since nikon already hold patents for a 400, 500 and 600 f/5.6 PF lens. Not sure if they will materialise or not. https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/01/the-latest-nikon-patents-400mm-500mm-and-600mm-f-5-6-phase-fresnel-pf-lenses.aspx/
There are some obvious downsides of PF elements, but with lenses weighing less than a conventional 70-200, it's a great trade-off. Whatever gets the photo! I've hiked with the 300mm I used to own, it was not fun. :o
-
I also agree with the usefulness of the 300/4E PF. I absolutely love it. I've used the 300/2.8VR and used to own the 300/4 AF-D. The 300/4 AF-D was excellent optically, but weighty...the f/2.8 more so and not something I would want to just bring along.
I picked up the 300/4E PF to use for my trip to Yellowstone NP. I partnered it with a Tokina 11-16/2.8 and Nikon 18-140 on the D500. I wanted for nothing on that trip and used the 300 with the TC14E-III with no regrets.
-
Man I rate that illustrative photo 20 out of 10, it really shows the day and night difference between super-teles and the light weight PF lens.
Indeed!
Oh, and maybe you would like hold off purchasing a 600mm, since nikon already hold patents for a 400, 500 and 600 f/5.6 PF lens. Not sure if they will materialise or not. https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/01/the-latest-nikon-patents-400mm-500mm-and-600mm-f-5-6-phase-fresnel-pf-lenses.aspx
What I am going to do now is ... enjoy hiking again 8)
I have my perfect setup now: light, high-quality, mobile & at-the-ready.
My intention for obtaining a 600mm will not be for hiking, but for "wait-and-shoot" photography on location. I will likely opt for the FL ED version, for the f/4 + converter, turning my lens into an 840 f/5.6 (and, with the D500 crop factor, an effective 1260mm).
There are some obvious downsides of PF elements, but with lenses weighing less than a conventional 70-200, it's a great trade-off.
There are no downsides to this lens, at all, actually :)
I've seen the reviews that talk about flaring, but that's an intentionally-created "error," just to have something to write about. In the real world, I would never waste my time shooting into the sun like that with this lens. When you're actually attempting to get good wildlife shots, in good light, this lens delivers 8)
The truth is, there are 10x as many 'downsides' to a standard super-telephoto lens for hiking (starting with price, weight, comfort, mobility ... and ending with rigidity in deployment) than there are to this one 8)
Whatever gets the photo! I've hiked with the 300mm I used to own, it was not fun. :o
Agreed!
Based on personal experience hiking with both lenses (2 years with the 300 f/2.8, 2 days with the 300 f/4 PF), I can heartily confirm I get 10x as many keepers with my PF than my 2.8. My ability to react quickly is much improved, and my enjoyment of the entire process of nature photography is dramatically-improved :D
-
I also agree with the usefulness of the 300/4E PF. I absolutely love it. I've used the 300/2.8VR and used to own the 300/4 AF-D. The 300/4 AF-D was excellent optically, but weighty...the f/2.8 more so and not something I would want to just bring along.
Hear-hear!
I picked up the 300/4E PF to use for my trip to Yellowstone NP. I partnered it with a Tokina 11-16/2.8 and Nikon 18-140 on the D500. I wanted for nothing on that trip and used the 300 with the TC14E-III with no regrets.
Sounds like a great team 8)
Mine is similar: D810 + CV 125 holstered on my right hip, with the D500 + 300 f/4 PF carried in-hand. (I can also holster the latter on my chest (https://www.cottoncarrier.com/collections/all/products/new-grey-camera-harness-2), for hands-free hiking.)
I carry a Zeiss 15mm f/2.8, an AI-S 20mm, 28mm, and Micro-Nikkor 55mm all in a single pouch (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/981165-REG/ruggard_psb_136b_commando_36_dslr_shoulder.html), strapped cross-wise on my chest, resting on my left hip, to utilize if I decide I need landscapes or up-close, wider perspective. (I find myself leaving the Zeiss home, though, more often than not.)
I used to use a photo backpack (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/149853-REG/Tamrac_76701_767_Photo_Trail_Backpack.html), which I still do at times, but I much prefer the Cotton Carrier + Pouch. Reason being, I don't have to take anything off my back ... I can just reach down, unzip the pouch, and make a lens switch (D810 only) ... if I want to use a landscape lens instead of a macro.
Like you, I want for nothing as well ... and, having replaced my 300mm f/2.8 with the 300 f/4 PF, it's all in complete comfort.
-
Another nice feature of the 300 PF is that, being an E lens, the iris remains fully open when the lens is not mounted on the camera, allowing the use of the lens scope converter, transforming the lens in a 30x scope. This does not apply to the G type lens whose iris remain fully closed, one detached from the camera (unless you play some "trick").
Andrea
-
I love the 300PF on the D500 as well as the D850. The weight is so small I have the lens on me very often. Very interesting to hear about a 5.6/500PF. I would surely test it and consider to buy it. But. For me the limiting factor currently is demanding non photographic projects. Not equipment.
-
I have used the NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED IF, the older lens, for years for close-up work, mostly because of its relatively-short minimum-focus distance of 4.6' (1.40 m). I would then crop from there. It's a nice lens. When I was selling off lenses I seldom use, that was one of the few I kept.
-
Another nice feature of the 300 PF is that, being an E lens, the iris remains fully open when the lens is not mounted on the camera, allowing the use of the lens scope converter, transforming the lens in a 30x scope. This does not apply to the G type lens whose iris remain fully closed, one detached from the camera (unless you play some "trick").
Andrea
Interesting.
As a principle, I will no longer buy any G lenses, simply because the 'mechanical aperture' is an anachronism in today's photographic world and is fast going the way of the Dodo.
Even if there is a complete mirrorless transition (of which I am not altogether convinced), the E lenses will be those most likely to be able to handle an adapter—and therefore still remain relevant.
Other than a Nikkor E, I will only purchase MF lenses, again due to the ease of adapter compatibility to future change.
-
I love the 300PF on the D500 as well as the D850. The weight is so small I have the lens on me very often. Very interesting to hear about a 5.6/500PF.
Agreed, Frank.
-
I have used the NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED IF, the older lens, for years for close-up work, mostly because of its relatively-short minimum-focus distance of 4.6' (1.40 m). I would then crop from there. It's a nice lens. When I was selling off lenses I seldom use, that was one of the few I kept.
I believe you mean the Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED, a different animal, but (yes) a quality lens in its own right.
The optical qualities are similar in the two lenses; however the difference is size and weight and speed of AF is night-and-day.
Here is a visual comparison to illustrate:
(https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Nikkor-300mm-f4D-IF-ED-vs-Nikkor-300mm-f4E-VR.jpg)
Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR (the subject lens) vs. the Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED
(Photo borrowed from Photography Life (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr))
-
I received curious glances when I climbed onto a Safari jeep in South Africa wearing a 300 mm PF on one of my camera bodies because people assumed that this very small lens was a 24-70mm lens — hardly something which would normally be used on a game drive!
The 300 PF is a truly remarkable lens and I have used mine extensively and very happily (often in conjunction with a TC) during the past 18 months.
-
The 300 f/4D produces beautiful results. But it is SLOW to AF. If the PF produces similar quality but with increased speed and reduced weight, then it is indeed a wonderful lens.
-
Here is a photograph to illustrate just how insanely small, delightful, and handy this little lens is to use (taken inside the lens hood of a 600mm f/4 FL ED):
(https://www.richardpeters.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/25-9833-post/Nikon_300f4_pf_vs_600VR-650x323.jpg) (https://www.richardpeters.co.uk/nikon-300mm-f4-pf-review-the-death-of-super-telephotos)
Just for nitpicking, that lens on the picture is not the FL version of the 600 but rather the preceding 600/4 G VR - easy to determine by the double lens shade and the up front mount position
-
Another nice feature of the 300 PF is that, being an E lens, the iris remains fully open when the lens is not mounted on the camera, allowing the use of the lens scope converter, transforming the lens in a 30x scope. This does not apply to the G type lens whose iris remain fully closed, one detached from the camera (unless you play some "trick").
Andrea
Andrea you made my day. I was thinking of the lens scope converter being long gone due to G-Series lenses. So far i did not spend a thought to use the lens scope converter with an AF-E lens.
Dont have the 300 PF but should work on other E-lenses as well
-
Just for nitpicking, that lens on the picture is not the FL version of the 600 but rather the preceding 600/4 G VR - easy to determine by the double lens shade and the up front mount position
"The devil is in the details" :D
Detail conceded, but the point remains unchanged ;D
-
Back to images with this lens 8)
Okay, so I headed out for some late afternoon/early-evening crepuscular-critter shooting.
Most of the birds were sulled-up deep in foliage, but a couple made some clean appearances for non-distracting background shots.
(Sometimes I like a background, though, because it can add to the ambiance, especially if the colors blend with the subject.)
I was going to bring a tripod–but it really defeats the whole point of this terrific little lens–so I left the tripod at home and once again hand-held, this time as it started to get dark (approaching D5 territory). I have read some 'reviews' by 'internet experts' claiming the AF of this lens is substandard, but as far as I am concerned that is baloney. Even in darker conditions, even with mixed light, and even with lots of foliage in the way, the AF was lighting-fast, and super-accurate–more accurate than my late 300mm f/2.8G VR II.
Most of the images were decently-sharp (considering they were being hand-held at slower shutter speeds). Here's the take:
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example12.jpg)
Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonnii) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1000 | f/5.6 | ISO 1250 - 10% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example13.jpg)
California Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/640 | f/6.3 | ISO 1600 - No Crop
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example14.jpg)
White-Crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/500 | f/5.6 | ISO 1600 - 7% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example15.jpg)
Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/400 | f/6.3 | ISO 2500 - 10% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example16.jpg)
Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/800 | f/6.3 | ISO 2000 - 10% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example17.jpg)
Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/640 | f/5.6 | ISO 2000 - 10% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example18.jpg)
Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/400 | f/71 | ISO 2500 - No Crop
Normally, I try to shoot over 1600-2500 shutter speed for hand-held (no VR). This time, however, because of the waning light, it would have raised my ISO too high to have a fast shutter, so I tried much lower shutter speeds, with the "VR-Sport" setting activated, so as to keep my ISO down to acceptable levels. Doing this, as long as I was able to fill the frame, or close, the D500 keeps things relatively noise-free. I don't think these shots would have come out acceptably, with higher shutter-speeds + higher-ISO, so the VR definitely worked for me :)
My takeaway is this: who needs a 10-lb lens to get bird shots ... if you have the little 300 f/4E PF gem :D
Thoughts? Suggestions?
-
I received curious glances when I climbed onto a Safari jeep in South Africa wearing a 300 mm PF on one of my camera bodies because people assumed that this very small lens was a 24-70mm lens — hardly something which would normally be used on a game drive!
The 300 PF is a truly remarkable lens and I have used mine extensively and very happily (often in conjunction with a TC) during the past 18 months.
I'd love to see your shots!
-
John, your images, even some heavily cropped ones, are all stunning!
One question to you and other users for such skittish animals and birds:
Wouldn't the rather loud shutter noise be surprising to them and make them run or fly away? Can you keep the distances from them so that the shutter noise won't cause any problems?
-
Hi Akira, most don't bother but it really depends on the animal. I'm shooting small birds and the very shy red squirrel very close in a blind, less than 2 meters, and they don't mind. Same with beavers at 5 meters. Often, they stop and look around at the first click but soon resume. Eurasian jay, carrion crow or the common buzzard, on the contrary, just immediately fly away, even at longer distance.
-
Hi, Bruno,
Thank you for sharing your experience and the behavior of animals and birds you are familiar with. The seemingly very skittish animals can be surprisingly nonchalant.
-
There are no downsides to this lens, at all, actually :)
I was actually referring to innate optical physics, but as I've said yes, it's pretty much negligible. Some reports show its centre sharpness to be greater than the older version but corner sharpness not so much, also something I won't worry about because I don't take chart photos... well I do for my photomacrography work, but it's not something I want to be known of. "Oh it's that guy, he specialises in taking photos of quartz glass resolution charts and snobbery!" haha
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2015/01/diagram1.jpg)
Phased Fresnel elements reduce CA greatly with just one element (rather than heaps, looking at you Sigma, which causes colours to be pale and unpleasing), at the cost of weird flaring with some odd colour casts at certain angles. This is also something I just do not care about. My laowa 12mm flares extremely strongly at a particular angle, but in real world shooting, it never happened.
The 300/4E PF + D500 combo is also Steve Perry's favourite hiking combo, that's telling! He carries a tc14e3 in his pocket too. This lens is somewhere on my list, also I might have to decide between it and the 200-500 which is chunky, but has great optics, VR, and I don't mind using a monopod when I hike. It's the most I'm willing to endure myself in terms of weight. The 200-500 is certainly a lot cheaper. Aiming to upgrade to the d850 first, the ergonomics of my d810 is just bad for my macro needs. I do stuff that goes beyond 2:1, not having a flippy touchy screen deducts greatly from the photographic experience. :P I might just try out the 70-200 with a TC first to see if wildlife is my cup of tea or not, before going into the mind war of 200-500 f/5.6E VS 300 f/4E PF. ;D
-
The 300 f/4D produces beautiful results. But it is SLOW to AF. If the PF produces similar quality but with increased speed and reduced weight, then it is indeed a wonderful lens.
In daylight outdoors I found a dramatic increase in focus keeper rate with the 300/4 PF compared to the D AF-S version with the D810 at the time. I think optically both have advantages and disadvantages but overall the two are at a similar level. The PF has VR SPORT which I find invaluable and makes hand held use easier (though as we know there are limitations at certain speeds with this lens) and the AF is superb in most conditions. It is not only fast but also highly accurate.
In indoor sports (figure skating) the 300 PF doesn’t focus quite as fast as the 70-200/2.8 FL or the 200/2 I/II. But it is quite usable still. Generally shots are in focus at f/4 but at the closest distances there can be occasional misses. The ice reflections also reduce contrast. The 200/2II is my favorite choice for this application but for tight close ups a bit more length would be good.
When the TC-14E III is mounted, the AF can become a bit jittery compared to the prime lens by itself, at least in low light. For example at f/5.6 1/500s ISO 6400-20000 (D5) it will still AF but the consistency is not as good as without TC in these conditions, and taking the TC off is probably the best course of action (in case a f/2.8 is not available).
-
John, your images, even some heavily cropped ones, are all stunning!
One question to you and other users for such skittish animals and birds:
Wouldn't the rather loud shutter noise be surprising to them and make them run or fly away? Can you keep the distances from them so that the shutter noise won't cause any problems?
Thanks Akira :)
My answer is similar to Bruno's. To that I would add, it depends on time of day and how used to people the animals are.
Time of Day: Butterflies, for example, can often be closely-approached right after a light rain, when still warm (Florida), or early morning. They tend to bask at this time, languid, wings-open; it's the perfect time for close approach, for both opportunity/light reasons. By mid-day, they are much more wary. Small birds, morning or dusk is best. The light is better in the morning; dusk a bit trickier as the images above reflect.
Used to People: If you have feeders in your garden, or are on well-populated hiking trails (where animals frequently see hikers), they can be extremely tolerant of your presence, almost oblivious to it. If, however, you're out in virgin territory, stepping on dry leaves/sticks, your chances of getting close enough to do anything are slim/none.
Finally, in addition to species-variance, as well as exposure to human presence, how each human conducts him-/herself can affect animals also. Calm, nonchalant movement, being relaxed and patient, can cause many animals to realize you're not a threat and go about 'business as usual' in your presence. (By contrast, being super-intent, and creeping after critters, can make you look like a predator.)
If you come upon a water source, and just wait patiently, many birds that fly away to the treetops when you get there will cautiously return if you keep a respectful distance. While the camera noise can cause some subjects to flee, most of the time the sound results in alert postures to be assumed, which can actually enhance the image. Most birds will grow used to it after a bit. Still, cameras with subtler shutter-sound are preferred.
-
I was actually referring to innate optical physics, but as I've said yes, it's pretty much negligible. Some reports show its centre sharpness to be greater than the older version but corner sharpness not so much, also something I won't worry about because I don't take chart photos... well I do for my photomacrography work, but it's not something I want to be known of. "Oh it's that guy, he specialises in taking photos of quartz glass resolution charts and snobbery!" haha
;D
Phased Fresnel elements reduce CA greatly with just one element (rather than heaps, looking at you Sigma, which causes colours to be pale and unpleasing), at the cost of weird flaring with some odd colour casts at certain angles. This is also something I just do not care about. My laowa 12mm flares extremely strongly at a particular angle, but in real world shooting, it never happened.
Exactly. You have to try to make this lens take a lousy photo. In the real world, esp. in optimal light, the colors it produces are sublime and realistic.
The 300/4E PF + D500 combo is also Steve Perry's favourite hiking combo, that's telling! He carries a tc14e3 in his pocket too.
Yep. Once you've experienced it, it's hard to go back to anything else. My TC III is simply glued to my lens. Never need to take it off, unless photographing inanimate objects.
This lens is somewhere on my list, also I might have to decide between it and the 200-500 which is chunky, but has great optics, VR, and I don't mind using a monopod when I hike. It's the most I'm willing to endure myself in terms of weight. The 200-500 is certainly a lot cheaper.
There's a reason the 200-500 is cheaper: its optics are good, not great ;)
I think Perry compared the two, and even with a TC the 300 PF is sharper. At the long-end, the 200-500 does give a hair longer reach (vs. 420 w/TC), but the difference in size/weight/portability is literally night and day. After Perry's comparison, while he did say the 200-500 offered an occasional advantage, the most important observation to remember is which one he kept for hiking ;)
Aiming to upgrade to the d850 first, the ergonomics of my d810 is just bad for my macro needs. I do stuff that goes beyond 2:1, not having a flippy touchy screen deducts greatly from the photographic experience. :P I might just try out the 70-200 with a TC first to see if wildlife is my cup of tea or not, before going into the mind war of 200-500 f/5.6E VS 300 f/4E PF. ;D
If you're worried about price, the 70-200 is more expensive than either, and far less desirable as a wildlife lens. It's more a 'nature, sport, and portrait' lens, than for animals (which invariably need far more reach).
Like I said, the 200-500 is capable of producing excellent photos. So is the 300 f/4 PF + 2x TC.
The difference is the 200-500 is 3x the weight, and 3x the length (fully extended), and nowhere near as convenient to deploy. (I personally owned the even bigger, even better, Sigma 150-600mm sport, but it is no fun to go hiking with :o)
While somewhat smaller, the 200-500 remains a behemoth lens compared to the compact 300 PF. Look at both attached to a camera, and remember the fixed prime 300 f/4 PF edges the other in image quality. Of course, we all have different tolerances/preferences, but if a person were to make a benefit/liability line-item assessment chart, for the hiking photographer, the 300 f/4 PF would offer 10+ advantages to every one advantage the 200-500 might have.
-
In daylight outdoors I found a dramatic increase in focus keeper rate with the 300/4 PF compared to the D AF-S version with the D810 at the time. I think optically both have advantages and disadvantages but overall the two are at a similar level. The PF has VR SPORT which I find invaluable and makes hand held use easier (though as we know there are limitations at certain speeds with this lens) and the AF is superb in most conditions. It is not only fast but also highly accurate.
Agreed. Overall, the speed/accuracy of the AF is excellent.
Agreed again: IMO the VR Sport is the only way to hand-hold this optic in lower-light situations.
In indoor sports (figure skating) the 300 PF doesn’t focus quite as fast as the 70-200/2.8 FL or the 200/2 I/II. But it is quite usable still. Generally shots are in focus at f/4 but at the closest distances there can be occasional misses. The ice reflections also reduce contrast. The 200/2II is my favorite choice for this application but for tight close ups a bit more length would be good.
The 200 f/2 is 3x the cost, and possibly one of the best, most incredible lenses Nikon makes :D
When the TC-14E III is mounted, the AF can become a bit jittery compared to the prime lens by itself, at least in low light. For example at f/5.6 1/500s ISO 6400-20000 (D5) it will still AF but the consistency is not as good as without TC in these conditions, and taking the TC off is probably the best course of action (in case a f/2.8 is not available).
That's pretty much true with a TC on any lens, though.
-
My answer is similar to Bruno's. To that I would add, it depends on time of day and how used to people the animals are.
John, thank you for your very detailed answer.
It is a bit surprising to know that the shutter sound seems to be less bothering than I expected. But that would also very much depend on the behavior of the photographer.
Even though the birds continue their usual jobs when I go by them, they would flee the moment I stop to hold the camera and shoot them...
-
over the years birds have learned that some moves are more threatening than others. Aiming something at them is not considered a friendly gesture :)
Building up on John's answer, you can look for places where they are used to people doing different moves, like the exercise spot in a park. You can also freeze and only move when they don't look at you, if they stay put long enough, of course. I'm also using a military camo scarf to break the shape. It does not always work but it is often very useful.
-
Bruno, thank you for the further advice.
Here in Tokyo, the pigeons are fairly accustomed to the human beings. I posted some images of an eastern turtle dove to "Show Birds" thread sometime ago, and I could shoot it a number of images.
-
Okay, so how about some more images? 8)
It has been misting/raining here in So. CA over the last couple of days (rare in this arid land), which has created not just much-needed sustenance for the pending spring, but ideal lighting + slower animals (who for the most part are lazy and sulled-up not wanting to move too much). As mentioned in the exchanges between Akira, Bruno, and myself, this setting creates the opportunity for closer approach ... which, in combination with overcast misty-rain light, can create some pleasing results.
That said, here's the take [all images captured hand-held (no tripod necessary)]:
Rainy Day Shots:
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example19.jpg)
Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/640 | f/5.6 | ISO 2000 - 15% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example20.jpg)
California Towhee (Melozone crissalis) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/640 | f/6.3 | ISO 1600 - 7% cropped-in
And so Spring begins ...
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example22.jpg)
Unknown Flowers (Unknown) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/800 | f/6.3 | ISO 2000 - No Crop
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example23.jpg)
Honey Suckle (+ Honey Bee) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/2000 | f/6.3 | ISO 640 - 15% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example27.jpg)
Unknown Flower (Unknown) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/800 | f/6.3 | ISO 2000 - No Crop
Some birds did step out:
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example21.jpg)
Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/800 | f/5.6 | ISO 2000 - 10% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example24.jpg)
Lesser Goldfinch ♂ (Spinus psaltria) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/800 | f/6.3 | ISO 1600 - 10% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example25.jpg)
Lesser Goldfinch ♀ (Spinus psaltria) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/640 | f/5.6 | ISO 2000 - No Crop
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example26.jpg)
Anna's Hummingbird ♂ (Calypte anna) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/1600 | f/6.3 | ISO 1250 - 60% cropped-in
One last 'Macro':
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example28.jpg)
Unknown Flowers (Unknown) [D500 + 300mm f/4E PF + 1.4 TCE III = ~630mm | 1/2000 | f/6.3 | ISO 640 - No Crop
All of these shots were taken without the burden of a tripod ... a Gimball ... a backpack ... or anything other than a 5.8-inch, 27-oz lens (+ TC) attached to a D500, gripped effortlessly with one hand as I strolled on a mildly-rainy morning.
It's Official: I am caught-up in a torrid love affair with this lens ... the likes of which I've not experienced before :)
Forget engagement; I have an appointment with the Justice of the Peace ... we are married ... the 300 f/4 PF and I, every time I go on a hike ... 'till death do us part :)
-
John:
I am thoroughly enjoying the beautiful photographs which you have been taking with the incredible 300 PF.
I feel that I am intruding on your most interesting thread but you did ask me to post examples of photographs shot with the 300 PF . . . so here is a shot taken on a D5 with the 300 PF in conjunction with the TC 1-14 iii of a tiny (less than 70 mm beak-to-tail!) Volcano Hummingbird in the rain.
I moved up on him slowly, taking a few shots and then taking a few steps nearer, and he let me get very close before he flew off.
(http://nikongear.net/revival/gallery/0/1358-040318084808-399925.jpeg)
This is a shot of a Nectar-eating Leaf-nosed Bat which I also shot with the 300 PF:
(http://nikongear.net/revival/gallery/0/1358-020318214220-3841196.jpeg)
And a portrait of a wild Great Green Macaw, also with he 300 PF:
(http://nikongear.net/revival/gallery/0/1358-110318030535-422841.jpeg)
-
Wow!
Fantastic images of the hummingbird. Congratulations and thanks for posting.
Kindest regards,
Stany
-
I am waiting/hoping for a 600 PF but it's becoming harder and harder to resist this lens ...
Great pictures of the Spotted Towhee and Hummingbird.
-
John:
I am thoroughly enjoying the beautiful photographs which you have been taking with the incredible 300 PF.
I feel that I am intruding on your most interesting thread but you did ask me to post examples of photographs shot with the 300 PF . . . so here is a shot taken on a D5 with the 300 PF in conjunction with the TC 1-14 iii of a tiny (less than 70 mm beak-to-tail!) Volcano Hummingbird in the rain.
I moved up on him slowly, taking a few shots and then taking a few steps nearer, and he let me get very close before he flew off.
This is a shot of a Nectar-eating Leaf-nosed Bat which I also shot with the 300 PF:
And a portrait of a wild Great Green Macaw, also with he 300 PF:
Hello Ann, thank you for your kind words :)
Not 'my' thread at all; it's the Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED's thread :D
Thank you for sharing!
_____________
Wow!
Fantastic images of the hummingbird. Congratulations and thanks for posting.
Kindest regards,
Stany
Thank you for stopping by and I appreciate your kind words :)
_____________
I am waiting/hoping for a 600 PF but it's becoming harder and harder to resist this lens ...
Great pictures of the Spotted Towhee and Hummingbird.
Thanks, Bruno.
I may opt for a 600 FL (PF?) in the future, but right now my desire to change is zero.
The handling/deployment of the 300mm f/4E PF is so effortless and natural it's difficult to imagine wanting to 'add anything' (throw a wrench into the mix) to what, for me, is the perfect setup.
With the TC III + D600, to have a very nice-quality, compact and comfortable, 630mm is a feeling of freedom (yet capability) I'd encourage you to experience. As Nikon Ambassador Richard Peters said, "It (is) a breath of fresh air ..."
It really is just that.
-
If you're worried about price, the 70-200 is more expensive than either, and far less desirable as a wildlife lens. It's more a 'nature, sport, and portrait' lens, than for animals (which invariably need far more reach).
Like I said, the 200-500 is capable of producing excellent photos. So is the 300 f/4 PF + 2x TC.
The difference is the 200-500 is 3x the weight, and 3x the length (fully extended), and nowhere near as convenient to deploy. (I personally owned the even bigger, even better, Sigma 150-600mm sport, but it is no fun to go hiking with :o)
While somewhat smaller, the 200-500 remains a behemoth lens compared to the compact 300 PF. Look at both attached to a camera, and remember the fixed prime 300 f/4 PF edges the other in image quality. Of course, we all have different tolerances/preferences, but if a person were to make a benefit/liability line-item assessment chart, for the hiking photographer, the 300 f/4 PF would offer 10+ advantages to every one advantage the 200-500 might have.
The difference is that I already own a 70-200 FL, it will not be sold ;D
Looking at your recommendations, I've made up my mind. If I ever want a wildlife combo, 300 PF and TC14Eiii there I go! That 200-500 is massive, and I'm guessing it'll be a pain to handhold. Lugging a monopod around brings the advantage of a self defence tool at the expense of trouble juggling it, me no like, it's an extra annoyance! I see you also posted new shots ;D Let me enjoy them in the meantime.
-
The difference is that I already own a 70-200 FL, it will not be sold ;D
Looking at your recommendations, I've made up my mind. If I ever want a wildlife combo, 300 PF and TC14Eiii there I go! That 200-500 is massive, and I'm guessing it'll be a pain to handhold. Lugging a monopod around brings the advantage of a self defence tool at the expense of trouble juggling it, me no like, it's an extra annoyance! I see you also posted new shots ;D Let me enjoy them in the meantime.
I hauled the 200-500/5.6+D500 through Scotland:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3494.0.html
and immediately after exchanged it for the 300PF. What a relief. Most of my shots in the Maastricht Thread are taken with the 300PF+D500:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3723.0.html
BTW: What a great meetup!!!
-
and immediately after exchanged it for the 300PF. What a relief. Most of my shots in the Maastricht Thread are taken with the 300PF+D500:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3723.0.html
BTW: What a great meetup!!!
Nice images, Frank, especially these (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3723.msg55798.html#msg55798).
Lovely light and bokeh—not to mention a creative way to handle this versatile lens.
-
Looking beautiful while awaiting the rain ...
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/788/25962275417_55c845b1c4_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FycrYe)
Anna's Hummingbird ♂ (https://flic.kr/p/FycrYe)
by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
-
The thing that blew me away about this lens was last fall in California, when it became clear that it was perfectly realistic to carry it in the pocket of a light jacket and dispense with the bag if necessary while keeping something of a more "normal" angle alongside. It's a liberating lens from this standpoint. I probably need to replace my TC14E though with the III; as good as it is optically with the TC14E, the AF can be finicky and the VR starts working actively against you to the point that you're better off switching it off with the TC attached. Anyone had this experience before with the old versus the new TC?
-
I probably need to replace my TC14E though with the III; as good as it is optically with the TC14E, the AF can be finicky and the VR starts working actively against you to the point that you're better off switching it off with the TC attached. Anyone had this experience before with the old versus the new TC?
Which camera body are you using? I think the camera body may have more to do with the VR effects than the generation of the TC-14E. You could talk to Nikon service about this.
-
Nice images, Frank, especially these (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3723.msg55798.html#msg55798).
Lovely light and bokeh—not to mention a creative way to handle this versatile lens.
thank you. Your compliment is greatfully appreciated coming from someone who really knows what he is doing
-
the extended 300PF is a great macro lens. 23mm is the sweet spot:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=6255.30
-
god is dead, long live god! (=Easter Sunday in the Christian tradition)
D500 & 4/300PF
1) 1/25th of a second
2) 1/320th of a second
3) in flight
4) Whole of 1
5) Whole of 2
6) Another Whole
-
I like the first one a lot, Frank. Shooting it from the back yet showing it all gives an unusual and efficient expression to the blackbird. We're not looking at it, were looking with it. Great composition.
-
god is dead, long live god! (=Easter Sunday in the Christian tradition)
D500 & 4/300PF
1) 1/25th of a second
2) 1/320th of a second
3) in flight
4) Whole of 1
5) Whole of 2
6) Another Whole
Nice shots, Frank. :D
Here are some recent results from a hike this morning ... all these are hand-held ... all taken with the D500 + 300 f/4E PF ED + 1.4x TCE III:
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example35.jpg)
Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonnii) 1/1250 | f/5.6 | ISO 640 - 15% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example29.jpg)
Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria) 1/320 | f/5.6 | ISO 640 - 20% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example30.jpg)
Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria) 1/400 | f/5.6 | ISO 640 - 15% cropped-in
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example31.jpg)
White-Crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) 1/320 | f/5.6 | ISO 640 - No Crop
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/03-2018/Example32.jpg)
Dark-Eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) 1/320 | f/5.6 | ISO 640 - 10% cropped-in
After a month of using this gem, it is without question the most valuable single wildlife lens I have.
I had a little bit of "seller's remorse," after selling my 300 f/2.8 VR II, replacing it with this one ... but now ... I never want to see the f/2.8 version again.
Completely satisfied with the trade-off, my virtually-weightless, hands-free autonomy ... and would never go back to that front-heavy, cumbersome prime + tripod again ... so it's a satisfied good riddance :)
The 300mm f/4E PF ED is a delight to use and produces more than acceptable results ...
If someone were to put a gun to my head, and make me go down to "one" lens, this would be it!
If they were generous, and let me have "three" ... those three would be 1) the 300 PF + 1.4 TC; 2) the CV 125; and 3) the Zeiss 25 f/2.8.
I can do pretty much anything I want to do on a hike with these 3 lenses.
-
You are obviously a very experienced and talented guy with a lot of time and energy to invest into this kind of photography.
How do you see all these birds?
How do you get near enough to shoot them from these perspectives?
How many hours do you throw in?
As a family man with kids & wife & job & money projects & unpaid projects & household & friends I do not see any of this before I retire or the kids are on their own feet, whatever happens first. When my youngest finishes university I will be ~72, so probably I will retire first. Or , of course , one of my money projects will make me rich and I can retire early , but still my youngest will be out of the house in 12 years, hopefully not much dependent on us in 9???
-
You are obviously a very experienced and talented guy with a lot of time and energy to invest into this kind of photography.
As a family man with kids & wife & job & money projects & unpaid projects & household & friends I do not see any of this before I retire or the kids are on their own feet, whatever happens first. When my youngest finishes university I will be ~72, so probably I will retire first. Or , of course , one of my money projects will make me rich and I can retire early , but still my youngest will be out of the house in 12 years, hopefully not much dependent on us in 9???
Thank you for the compliment ... and, while I do have a lot of energy, sadly I have little time for wildlife photography :(
I am a casualty investigator, serving the most populated, litigious counties in the United States (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego).
I work 250+ hrs/month ... but I do operate out of a home office.
Another perk is every lens I purchase for wildlife photography is a tax write-off, as I also use my equipment as an investigator :D
How do you see all these birds?
I know where to look :)
How do you get near enough to shoot them from these perspectives?
Now that is an interesting, multi-dimensional question.
First of all, I add the 1.4x TCE III.
The second answer is more complex, so I will share some secrets 8)
- By far the easiest way is put bird feeders out in your yard (different types, for different birds), and wait to shoot them in the nearby trees/shrubs;
- Buy field guides, learn about and study birds, and go to geographical places the species you enjoy are likely to be, when they're likely to be there;
- Buy the program iBird Pro (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ibird-pro-guide-to-birds/id308018823?mt=8) or iBird Ultimate (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ibird-ultimate-guide-to-birds/id872771050?mt=8) (or something comparable for your location). These are phone apps that give bird calls of any species in your area. This can encourage closer approach;
- Become a member of eBird (https://ebird.org/home) (a project of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, along with founding partner The Audubon Society) in order to find "hot spots" in your area;
- Get to know one or two "hot spot" areas near your home really, really well;
- When you approach birds, move slowly, calmly, nonchalantly.
If you add all those factors up, even with a couple hours a day, a few times/week, you should have lots of opportunities.
For example, those shots taken above I took during a two hour hike.
The following shots, at the bottom, I took on a 1.5 hour lunch break yesterday:
The shots at the bottom should give you an idea as to how close I got, as well as the value of this little 300mm f/4 PF.
- The top two shots (at the bottom) were taken with the 300 f/4 PF + 1.4x TC on a D500 (effective reach of 630mm);
- The middle shot was taken with the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo Macro on a D810;
- The bottom shot was taken with the Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 on a D810.
These are not "park ducks," that will eat out of your hand; they're wild mallards that will take-off the first "crack" of leaves/sticks they hear when you come toward them a hundred yards away.
I have seen them many times, over the last 4 years I've lived here, and this was the first time I've ever got close enough to shoot them.
Apparently, in keeping with #5 above, by hiking the area regularly, these ducks have apparently gotten used to me.
I got to within maybe 125-150 feet of them ... a useless distance for a 25mm ... or a 125mm macro ... but more than close enough for my new "favorite lens" :D
How many hours do you throw in?
Honestly, 1-2 hrs/day, usually 1-3x week. That's all I have time for :(
Unless I go on a vacation :)
I am going to Madera Canyon, AZ at the end of April and will spend 5 days birding in one of the top 4 spots in the US ... hope to get some cool shots 8)
Hope the info helps,
Jack
-
For some reason the name didn't pop-up in the 3rd image. It was taken with a Voigtländer 125mm f2.5 Apo Macro on a D810.
-
Very generous. Thank you. I will check out which of these conditions can be reproduced in Western Germany. Biodiversity of birds without a significant drive is not comparable to Southern California. My own garden I do not have yet. Which birder society exists here I do not know and there is a billions of reading stuff to do for my work that does not concern birds.
My take home lesson is that to take great shots of birds you have to make a decision that you want to invest the nevessary time to learn and prepare for it. If I decide to set other priorities I will not take shots of birds that can come close to yours.
Thank you again
-
No need for a garden, Frank. Half an hour at a pet store and 1 hour max to set up can bring you over 20 bird species in front of your window. In order not to hijack this thread, I'm opening a new thread on "How to see them".
To know which birds are around you, you can go here: http://www.ornitho.de/. If you register, you have access to maps. Lots of info also here: http://www.dda-web.de/
-
Bruno: wonderful. we should create a "birding basics" NG meetup
-
Very generous. Thank you. I will check out which of these conditions can be reproduced in Western Germany. Biodiversity of birds without a significant drive is not comparable to Southern California. My own garden I do not have yet. Which birder society exists here I do not know and there is a billions of reading stuff to do for my work that does not concern birds.
You bet, Frank.
I am not sure what avian biodiversity is in Germany, but it is likely greater than you think :)
Me? I live 3.5 miles from San Dimas Canyon, where I am in the uninhabited mountains within a 5 min drive.
Even if this were not available to me, there are several botanical gardens available, which local birds tend to use as a sanctuary.
I am sure there are similar botanical gardens close to you.
My take home lesson is that to take great shots of birds you have to make a decision that you want to invest the nevessary time to learn and prepare for it. If I decide to set other priorities I will not take shots of birds that can come close to yours.
Thank you again
Well, you have to invest some time and effort into 'anything' if you expect to get improved results.
It is not realistic to think you can make 'no effort at all' and vastly improve in anything, with great images flying into your camera without you doing 'anything extra' to make that happen ::)
Your priorities are yours, so I can't make those kinds of decisions for you; I can only make suggestions (since you asked). I cannot, however, compel you to implement the suggestions (i.e., horses and water).
So you're right, a person's priorities determine their results as well as their improvements in yielding them.
For example, you will never see me with a 'polar bear' portfolio, as I have neither the time nor the bankroll to fund weeks-long adventures up into the Alaskan frontiers necessary to photograph these amazing animals. Same thing with lions, cheetahs, and the like: I don't have the time nor the bankroll to fund weeks-long adventures into Africa any time soon. However, I surely do appreciate the sacrifices of time, effort, and expenses put into the results of those who have and do produce these amazing images.
The cool thing about bird photography is you do not have to make that much of a sacrifice of your time/effort expense to get some very nice images :D
Items 1-6, that I listed above, only involve local efforts. But they do involve 'some' extra effort, albeit not really that much.
Bruno's suggestion is exactly the kind of small extra effort which will lead you to these improvements, and are essentially items #1, 4, and 5 I mentioned above. Developing new connections/friends of like-minded local birders (for meets and park-walks) is extremely helpful, and perhaps the best way to learn of 'local hotspots' (Item 5) in your area. (In fact, the D500 + 300mm PF is literally advertised (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review/birding-dream-team-nikon-d500-and-nikon-300mm-f4) with this in mind.)
But, the same principle applies with all photography: if you want to take shots of rock musicians and nightclub life, then you have to read the local entertainment section, get to know the schedules, and make the modest effort to 'be there' when they are :)
Same thing with sports: if you want great sports shots, then you have to keep up with the teams that interest you, and make the modest effort to 'be there' when they are, too :)
Birding is no different: you'll not get much unless you make 'some' kind of effort to put yourself where they are going to be.
I take that back: birding is different ... it's even easier ... because (if you implement Item 1 and Item 3), they will literally come to your back yard (which none of the above will ever do ;) ).
Cheers, and hope to see more bird photos from you and Bruno :)
-
I am going to Madera Canyon, AZ at the end of April and will spend 5 days birding in one of the top 4 spots in the US ... hope to get some cool shots 8)
Hope the info helps,
Jack
Hey, Jack. I live in Tucson. If you are interested in some company for a morning or afternoon when you visit, let me know.
Jim
-
thank you again for your generous advice, JKoerner!
I am not interested in horses for example, but my daughter is so I have to spend time with horses anyway and many hours of it. Sooooo. I take my camera to the horses and get acquainted to them. Now people as they see my pictures start to ask me for horse pictures although I am a bloody beginner. The point is: beginner to the topic, not to photography wich does make a difference.
I am a regular to our botanical gardens of Bonn University. Trouble is that it is closed during the hours of highest bird activity.
When I got the D500 and my first tele I was quite motivated to bird. but they always hid behind leafs and came out with the light levels low and probably the light quality and angle destined for culling material.
I feel it is better to plant a garden that features the right plants, backgrounds and light directions in mornings and evenings. In fact I have a development project in the pipeline that features a Permaculture garden of extremly high Biodiversity. Hope my pitch will catch fire with the city planning commission!
-
Hey, Jack. I live in Tucson. If you are interested in some company for a morning or afternoon when you visit, let me know.
Jim
What a nice gesture, thank you Jim.
I will definitely look you up, and will send you an email via your website.
Cheers,
Jack
-
thank you again for your generous advice, JKoerner!
I am not interested in horses for example, but my daughter is so I have to spend time with horses anyway and many hours of it. Sooooo. I take my camera to the horses and get acquainted to them. Now people as they see my pictures start to ask me for horse pictures although I am a bloody beginner. The point is: beginner to the topic, not to photography wich does make a difference.
Heh heh, I got into photography when my little niece kept asking me to "send her butterflies" from Florida (where I lived at the time). I did for awhile, but didn't like killing them, so I decided to send her pictures of them instead ... which is how I got into macro :)
After 10 years of macro, I got my first bird lens (300 f/2.8G VR II), and have only been shooting birds the last 2 years (although a decade of macro got me pretty keen on light, etc.).
Birding is entirely different from macro, faster-paced, less time-consuming on the computer :)
I am a regular to our botanical gardens of Bonn University. Trouble is that it is closed during the hours of highest bird activity.
When I got the D500 and my first tele I was quite motivated to bird. but they always hid behind leafs and came out with the light levels low and probably the light quality and angle destined for culling material.
Yeah, birding can be frustrating, especially due to low light and them always 'hiding behind' branches/leaves (particularly small ones).
One of the reasons I recommended the phone app. bird call ... tends to make them 'come out and see' who's makin' that noise ;)
I feel it is better to plant a garden that features the right plants, backgrounds and light directions in mornings and evenings. In fact I have a development project in the pipeline that features a Permaculture garden of extremly high Biodiversity. Hope my pitch will catch fire with the city planning commission!
That is a great idea, hope it comes to fruition!
Cheers,
-
thank you for your good wishes!
The current idea of the planning commission is to have classical single family houses with private gardens around them. Waste of ressources in my opinion. My proposal is a single structurized building offering the same space for each family including a private garden but in a five story by avarage manner, meaning space requirements will shrink and green space will enlarge. Green space that will be a highly biodiverse highly productive garden of the permanent agricuture ecosystem management approach, feeding the inhabitants of the dwelling.
As I am the developer I can take some artistic freedom to encourage birding in the design. Architect is a friend etc.
-
Frank, things are definitely more difficult over here in Germany. It is in general far more difficult to get close to the birds - there's a reason why most German bird photographers use longer focal lengths than Jack does, like the f4/500mm (plus TC if necessary) on a DX body, or, in the case of Canon shooters, the 100-400 (plus TC), once again on a DX body (usually the 7D Mark II). Even in places where there are hundreds of thousands of birds on migration, like the Wattenmeer, you need long lenses, patience and some luck. Local knowledge helps, no doubt about that, and ornitho.de is a good starting point, but if you want to get really good shots it's a fulltime hobby. In addition, using a tape to lure birds closer is generally frowned upon over here, for good reason: It far too often disturbs birds in places where they might breed.
Which is why I only do bird photography to document rarities, that is birds that shouldn't really be here or only occur here only rarely on migration, or to document "interesting" behaviours, unusual plumages or hybrids. For those purposes I don't need technically "good" shots, as long as the relevant field marks and so on are visible in my shots.
Hermann
-
Looked for some flying objects in the Botanical Garden here in Bonn today with the 300PF+TC1.4 (D850)
Only found one big black bird and one tiny yellow butterfly (all others were high up in the large trees, no chance to catch them) 8)
with some crops:
-
Nice going.
The plane of focus on that crow makes it look like there's a helicopter overhead ... a circular area of grass, in complete focus, surrounds him :)
Good eye on spotting that butterfly too!
-
Thank you, Herman for your interesting points and hints!
Werner. I do not see no Butterfly in your picture. Am I blind?
-
What a nice gesture, thank you Jim.
I will definitely look you up, and will send you an email via your website.
Cheers,
Jack
I sent you an email via NikonGear with my contact info; the contact info on my website leaves a lot to be desired (to put it mildly!). Let me know if you don't get it.
Jim
Jim
-
within the red line :)
-
I sent you an email via NikonGear with my contact info; the contact info on my website leaves a lot to be desired (to put it mildly!). Let me know if you don't get it.
Jim
Good morning!
Received and returned :)
Much obliged,
Jack
-
If you hike up out of Madera Canyon you eventually get to the top of Mt Wrightson, the highest peak in the Santa Rita mountains. There are amazing 360 views. Here is an example (I am pretty sure that Madera Canyon is down and a little left of this view, but this is from a couple years back):
-
If you hike up out of Madera Canyon you eventually get to the top of Mt Wrightson, the highest peak in the Santa Rita mountains. There are amazing 360 views. Here is an example (I am pretty sure that Madera Canyon is down and a little left of this view, but this is from a couple years back):
Acrophobia is setting in ;D
-
The 300 f/4D produces beautiful results. But it is SLOW to AF. If the PF produces similar quality but with increased speed and reduced weight, then it is indeed a wonderful lens.
Anthony
The PF focuses lightning fast on my D500' honestly I don't think one could realistically measure the focus time, it's pretty much instantaneous, with the 1.4 attached it is merely very fast if the light is good, a touch slower in poor light. It also performs fantastically well on my D810, on either body the image quality is always fabulous. I think this lens is literally a modern miracle not once have I ever had any flare issues.
-
Acrophobia is setting in ;D
Lol.
Just want to say a big thank you for creating this excellent thread and sharing your fabulous results, your photos are superb.
I agree with everything you have said about this marvellous optic, some say it's expensive but considering the performance and small very manageable form factor I think it's a steal.I currently have three lenses I won't part with, my 600mmf4 vr, Sigma 24-35 GSM Art f2.0 and the 300mm PF. For hand-held birds in flight the 300 PF is unbeatable in my view.
Cheers
Tony.
-
The 300mm + 1.4x TC III on the D500 continues to impress as a macro ... esp. considering it's being "shot from the hip," hand-held, as below:
(First two in harsh light, cropped-in 25%, then 50%, respectively, with the last one taken in soft light and a full image):
1. Bee Fly
2. Lotus Hairstreak
3. Unk. Flower
-
300pf plus extension 23mm:
-
one question: which teleconverters work well with the 300PF?
I learn there is
a 1.4x 3rd generation
a 1.4x 2nd generation
that are fully compatible but I like to have something longer.
http://cdn-5.nikon-cdn.com/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/EN_Comp_chart.html
What about SIGMA and KENKO
-
one question: which teleconverters work well with the 300PF?
I learn there is
a 1.4x 3rd generation
a 1.4x 2nd generation
that are fully compatible but I like to have something longer.
http://cdn-5.nikon-cdn.com/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/EN_Comp_chart.html
What about SIGMA and KENKO
From what I have seen, Frank, the 1.4 III is the perfect mate.
The 1.7 II can work very well also, sharp.
The 2.0 III is a compromise: can be somewhat sharp, but significant loss of contrast, "pop," and a significant reduction in AF accuracy.
-
I just bought a used 17x II for 199€
-
Here is my first try with the 17E II on the D500:
1) original Frame
2) 100% crop (right click "view image" to see it in full)
colors are a bit off, due to green cast in the canopy
-
Nice Frank.
Here are some recent images taken with my own 300 PF + the D500, all hand-held, all with the TC 1.4x TCE III:
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/_DSC2361.jpg)
Desert Bighorn Ewe (Ovis canadensis nelsoni), Joshua Tree, CA
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/_DSC2387.jpg)
Desert Bighorn Ewes (Ovis canadensis nelsoni), Joshua Tree, CA
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/_DSC2282.jpg)
Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus), La Verne, CA
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/_DSC2283.jpg)
Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus), La Verne, CA
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/_DSC2518.jpg)
Great Basin Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes), Joshua Tree, CA
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/_DSC2340-1.jpg)
Sagebrush Checkerspot (Chlosyne acastus), Joshua Tree, CA
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/ringlet.jpg)
Common Ringlet (Coenonympha tullia), Laguna Canyon, CA
To understand how much detail this great little lens retains, the last image is an 80% crop from the original, and (while not perfect) is acceptable enough for display.
Below is the original ...
Hope you like them :)
-
The 14E III seems to not reduce IQ in any way. I guess I will get one of these ASAP. Thank you for sharing this convincing footage.
-
Officially Nikon says you cannot use the TC 20 with the 300 PF. It works. I am posting some shots taken with D810+TC 20 III+300 PF.
-
Nikon say there are AF limitations with 1.7x and 2x (but otherwise the 300 PF is TC compatible).
http://cdn-5.nikon-cdn.com/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/EN_Comp_chart.html
-
yes. I can use GRP but not AUTO and such stuff. my problem is reduced resolution and color fidelity, which I will test to prove or falsify
-
How are things going for people with the teleconverters? So far I've used my 300PF with the original TC14E autofocus converter from the 1990s, but while the acuity is impressive, the focus is flaky and the VR worse when the TC is attached. How does the jump from the TC14E (or the apparently similar TC14EII) to the TC14EIII affect things?
-
How are things going for people with the teleconverters? So far I've used my 300PF with the original TC14E autofocus converter from the 1990s, but while the acuity is impressive, the focus is flaky and the VR worse when the TC is attached. How does the jump from the TC14E (or the apparently similar TC14EII) to the TC14EIII affect things?
I have not noticed any particular problems when using the 300PF with TC-14E (I). The following captures were both with VR on, 0 focus tuning. That said I had to look to find practical captures with the TC. A 24 Mpix DX sensor in combination with the high resolution of the 300 PF makes less need for the TC, and there is some laziness involved with respect to carrying and mounting the TC. Besides I like the balance and weight of the 300PF better without the TC. But when needed I have no hesitation to mount it. The 300PF is always used with TC for moon and sun imaging (latter with solar filter!), and I am most often taking advantage of the small sensor/high pixel pitch of the AW1 then.
One should keep in mind that longer focal length and the relative light loss of a TC inherently makes it more challenging both for the autofocus system, keeping focus point on the target, and hand holding. I doubt that the latest version of the TC would alleviate that (I have not had the chance to try one). What can help if not already doing so is to always have a tripod collar mounted when handholding. I find that I both get a better grip (and less prone to accidentally moving the focus ring), and the little added weight near the rear/middle of the lens helps with stability.
#1
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2843319332.jpg)
420mm, 1/1000 sec f/8, VR on, likely in sports mode
#2
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-3/p2843319330.jpg)
420mm, 1/100 sec f/6.3, VR on, likely in normal mode
-
For Spain with lots of light I now bring the 17e2 and the 14e3 teleconverters to test with the 300PF. I am eager to scan the botanical garden and other gardens for tropical birds
-
Great shots. I do not see that many birds in ten hikes. You are really lucky to have such a great hiking area.
-
That squirrel is just perfect... :-)
-
That squirrel is just perfect... :-)
Thanks Jacques, I thought that squirrel was perfect too :) , it was my favorite squirrel that coexisted very peacefully with me. Sadly it became the victim late last year when someone in my neighborhood went on to hunt down several rouge individuals of the species that got into our roofs and made a mess. He did not know that this one was my favorite that did no harm (the rouge ones were in two different territories on each side of this one). Another one has moved in to its vacant territory now, but it has not been showing itself enough that I have had time to create a relationship to it.
-
Sad story ! But great picture none the less... :) Time to train the newcomer as the Fox with the Little Prince (Saint Exupery) ? :o
-
Sad story ! But great picture none the less... :) Time to train the newcomer as the Fox with the Little Prince (Saint Exupery) ? :o
I had to google that, but quite fitting, as the squirrel would sit eating on the top of my outhouse in plain view just line of sight above my computer screen. And I believe she could view into my cabin to me working at my computer. :D
The newcomer has not discovered that possibility yet.