Really great photos of wildlife and action.
Thanks, and agree on the great action photos also.
I also have expended much thought and trials to match my lens suite to the outing, i.e. hiking and/or fieldwork versus shooting from a hide or a local amble from camp or study. All these wonderful instruments now available to today's outdoor photographer (plus budget juggling!) makes for hard choices compared to the era when manual IF-ED primes were the pinnacle of optical quality. And the argument by the late Galen Rowell rings all the more truer today - especially his essay 'When You Can't Take it with You' Outdoor Photographer, September 1998. cf links to his essays on the family website in the thread on the 20mm f4.
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1644.0.html
Agree with everything you say here as well.
The 300mm (6.4 lb) is what you want on a hike, not the massive 600mm (8.4 lb). As mentioned in the beginning of the thread, my combo gives me 300mm - 900mm range.
However, in a blind situation, the 600mm lens would double that with the same two cameras, giving me 600-1800mm of reach
For this reason, I plan on adding a the 600mm FL ED VR within a year, after I save up for it.
On a hike, though, it's too much IMO. Along with the 300mm VR II, I carry between 2 and 4 AI-S lenses on a front belt pouch: the 15mm f/3.5 Ai-S, 20mm f/2.8 AI-S (or 28mm), and 50mm f/1.2 AI-S.
No backpack needed, all available on my waist. It's wonderful.
So as empitomized in the fast 300 with TC's, the ideal 'Dinky Nikon Inventory' balances min weight with best possible performance ..... At least for DX, the collation of empirical evidence in this thread convinces me to take the 300 f2.8 VRII over the new 400 f2.8 FL VRII (let alone the cost differential). Still I argue cost & weight strictures rank a 300 f4 PF higher (provided any VR niggles with the particular purchase do not interfere). Obviously, one is running out of speed (f8) with the TC-20E III extending a 300 f4, but the TC-14E III delivers a 630 f5.6 thanks to the 'DX Effect'
http://www.richardpeters.co.uk/blog/2015/06/25/nikon-300mm-f4-pf-review-the-death-of-super-telephotos/
That is a great review, thanks for sharing.
I agree on the 400mm. Fabulous lens, but the $11,000 price, and the added weight, were too much for me. Esp. for hiking.
Now, as for ranking the 300 f/4 "higher" than the 300mm f/2.8, hmmm, that's a tough one. Weight-wise, convenience-wise, and cost-wise, yes. No question.
However,
sacrificing 270mm of reach is a big hit IMO. 630mm vs. 900mm is a
massive reach deficit (I know, because I get 600mm of reach with the D810, and almost never use it now because of how much more significant
that extra 270mm is that I get on my D500).
The 300 f/4 simply doesn't work as well with the 2x TC III as does the 300 f/2.8 II. AF doesn't work at all, and the resolution isn't as good.
It's an individual judgment call, of course, but to be reduced in my reach by 270mm would be unacceptable IMO. If I hadn't have seen the difference, I would be thrilled with getting 600mm on my D810 + 2x II ... but having seen the difference, I only use wides (and my macro) on my D810 now. The 300mm f/2.8 II is bolted to my D500
Hell, there are many times the combined 900mm isn't enough reach, let alone 600. Here is an example of a 900mm grab I got yesterday:
No crop here. That is as close as I was able to get with 900mm before this pregnant lizard ran back down its hole ... let alone if I lost another ~300mm of reach by using the 1.4x III. No thanks.
With birds, forget it. Many times 900mm shots need to be cropped ... so, to me, what makes the 2x TC III such a value
is the additional reach.
And, unfortunately, getting this reach does not work as well on the 300mm f/4 PF as it does the 300mm f/2.8 II.
So the 300 f/2.8 II is the way to go IMO.
Most grateful thanks to you all for yet another most valuable thread of shared expertise and advice
kind regards
Woody
Thanks to you as well, that was a great article.
The 300 f/4 looks like a handy and wonderful option, esp. with the 1.4x.
Its only weighing 1.6 lb sounds wonderful as well (not to mention its $2,000 price compared to $5600).
However, not working with the 2x TC III, and losing ~300mm of reach in the process, just was not a trade-off I personally was willing to make.
Jack
