70-300 VR vs 70-200 /4 in the mountains

[Arild]

My second post ;-)
The photos attached might not qualify as pieces of art, they just are ment for my website and for information about what mountain we see from a certain summit in the mountains.
I do take a lot of these, a lot. The difference between using a small compact like my previous Canon G3 (the one made in 2003) and my gear today d750, is certainly formidable, I might not be able to grasp what I really can do with all them pixels....just that being able to take a small crop and still be able to distinguish details like antennas on the summit etc.

Please advice. Should I step up to a sharper, yet portable lens like the fab nikkor 70-200 f.4 -- or would I be just as happy with the lens I use today, the 70-300 4.5-5.6 G VR
I own the TC-17, I have some fantasy that with 70-200/ 4  I might get  a decent 400 mm f8 and thus be able to take photos of even more distant mountains, or is that bs ?

[Jakov Minić]

You are doing just fine
No need to change lenses.

[richardHaw]

70-300 will be more versatile

[atpaula]

I use the 70-200mm f/4G.
Reasons:
1- I don't like to spend money in lenses that appear to be more fragile, all plastic, not suitable to heavy use. I'd hate if it stops working in the middle of a remote trek. The 70-200mm has too a lot of plastic in its contruction, but it appear to be more resistant;
2- It seems to have better image quality than the 70-300mm, according to several reviews;
3- Lenses are a good investiment, so always spend your money on the best option. You won't regret in the future. It happens to me all the time.

[Oskar O]

I have not used the 70-300G so I can't comment on that. The 70-200/4 however is a very good lens, though it's worth noting that the best performance occurs in the wide end. I'm skeptical about TC usage: the maximum aperture will be small, further stopping will be needed to maximize image quality which is not likely to be stellar and vibration issues will be significant.

[chambeshi]

Using TCs on the 70-300 or 70-200 f4 is No optimal plan, but the consensus is the 70-200 f4 is a solid optic that delivers. Some reviews rate acceptable performance of the heavier 70-200 2.8 with the newer TCs (TC1.4 II and III and TCE2 III) but at some cost. But Used versions of the earlier VR versions are dropping as the new, and costly, E lens gains traction.

You likely have read the writings and seen the timeless images by the late Galen Rowell, pioneer outdoor photography, especially mountains. The principles of his advice on optimal camera gear for hiking and climbing remain relevant, notably his essay 'When You Can't Take it with You' - Outdoor Photographer, September 1998. It's among his essays on line here http://www.vividlight.com/articles/403.htm His books are still available,

http://www.bythom.com/chasing.htm

kind regards

[Hugh_3170]

Yes, Galen Rowell was not averse to using lighter weight camera bodies and  "consumer grade" lenses and restricting their operation to only their regions of established best performance - usually to just two or three of their sharpest apertures.  He was a keen long distance runner and mountaineer and frequently sought out his photographic hot spots on foot - these were often very long distances away from transport, so weight reduction was critical in respect of these jouneys - especially when food, water, and camping gear also had to be carried.

Using TCs on the 70-300 or 70-200 f4 is No optimal plan, but the consensus is the 70-200 f4 is a solid optic that delivers. Some reviews rate acceptable performance of the heavier 70-200 2.8 with the newer TCs (TC1.4 II and III and TCE2 III) but at some cost. But Used versions of the earlier VR versions are dropping as the new, and costly, E lens gains traction.

You likely have read the writings and seen the timeless images by the late Galen Rowell, pioneer outdoor photography, especially mountains. The principles of his advice on optimal camera gear for hiking and climbing remain relevant, notably his essay 'When You Can't Take it with You' - Outdoor Photographer, September 1998. It's among his essays on line here http://www.vividlight.com/articles/403.htm His books are still available,

http://www.bythom.com/chasing.htm

kind regards

[Les Olson]

TCs are rarely the right answer. 

For website use you can crop heavily because you can fill a computer screen with relatively few pixels.  FHD monitors are 1920 x 1080  = 2MP and 4K is 3840 x 2160 = 8MP.  Only a small proportion of users have 4K monitors now, although the number will go up.  A DX crop on the D750 is 3936 x 2624 = 10MP, so with un-cropped DX images you are future-proof - for a couple of years at least.  That assumes your images fill the screen: if they are only occupying half of the screen you can crop half of the DX image and still have enough pixels for 4K monitors. 

The 70-300 is weakest at 300mm, and the 70-200/4 is much better in the overlapping range, so if you use the wider part of the range the 70-200 is a better lens.  If you are always at 300mm you might consider the 300mm f/4 PF, which is about the same weight as the zooms but easily superior to both.   

[Oskar O]

The 300/4 PF is a good idea if two lenses can be carried, it's incredibly compact. In my mind it's currently one of the strong points of the Nikon system.

[Arild]

What needs to be carried?

I always carry d750 with my 24-120, in a think tank holster 20.

And I always carry these three Nikkors; the 18-35, the 105 micro VR and the 70-300 VR.
It is the last one I am thinking of replacing with a 70-200/4
Am I allowed to mention Sigma new 100-400 any good?
I already own the SIgma TC-1401, the dock and the 150-600
If I get the 100-400 it might solve all my problems, and even get a 500 tele with my sigma tc ....

A 300mm PF is tempting, but I really need a zoom in the area 100-300.

And I am carrying the usual, a 1 litre steel thermos of Lady grey tea, my tarp, my wool sweater, food for one day, food for the dog,
a pair of gloves,  Arcteryx GTX pants and of course som chocolate if weather goes haywire and I have to reside under the tarp for a while :-)

All in a Osprey Talon 22, tends to be heavy and crammed....

[pluton]

I might get  a decent 400 mm f8 and thus be able to take photos of even more distant mountains, or is that bs ?

A 400mm f/8 could be a relatively compact lens suitable for carrying on foot, although it will want to be braced or tripod mounted much/most of the time
Results with even the "best" 400 or 500 on long distance shots will vary wildly because of the atmosphere. Haze from moisture, smoke and other particles is almost always there.  Add refraction and shimmering effects from the air itself, and all made more visible and pronounced as the focal length increases. A mixed bag.

[Øivind Tøien]

A lens is no good if it is so heavy that it stays in the backpack, and in particular in the case of opportunistic use for wildlife.
Let me put in another vote for the 300 PF, which I carry in a Lenschanger 35 attached to the ThinkTank holster 20, always ready to be mounted on short notice. A TC-14E  converts it to a 420mm f/5.6 with still very high quality optics and fast AF.  Not having a zoom is not always a disadvantage, one just learns to preview subjects better at a fixed focal length, and look for the landscape details that fit within that frame, and there is always the possibility for stitching for a wider view. I also like to carry the small and compact 105mm f/2.5 AIS along with it.

[Arild]

 Not having a zoom is not always a disadvantage, one just learns to preview subjects better at a fixed focal length, and look for the landscape details that fit within that frame, and there is always the possibility for stitching for a wider view. I also like to carry the small and compact 105mm f/2.5 AIS along with it.

So.
Thats why my Micro Nikkor 105 /VR is my best friend.
Use it exclusive for plant portraits. When I kneel infront of a rare species, be it a large orchid or a petite Koenigia, I instinctually kneel at the right distance.

I reckon this might happen with a 300mm also -- alas I dont shoot wildlife I only portraits distant mountains

Wonder if I ever can get used to walk around with only this;
in the backpack
18-35
300 PF
105 micro VR

and 24-120 on the camera

Wouldnt I miss something in the long end?
The photo is my 70-300 at 170 mm, handheld. No crop.
(its home, where I live)

[longzoom]

Your copy of this lens is a real treasure. I have never seen so high resolving power with such the  lens, at 5.6. Its making a very good combo with your D750, light and sharp. Very nicely used CC, BTW!  You may have anything else, but keep this copy of the 70-300 forever! Well done!  LZ

[chambeshi]

I can only concur. I made the mistake of selling on a good copy of a D zoom lens: sold to afford another at that time, but a decision I will always regret....

In the case of your particular 70-300 VR any monetary return from a resale would be outweighed by the optical loss! There's been useful discussion of production variation in this model zoom and also the 300 f4E PF.

Your copy of this lens is a real treasure. I have never seen so high resolving power with such the  lens, at 5.6. Its making a very good combo with your D750, light and sharp. Very nicely used CC, BTW!  You may have anything else, but keep this copy of the 70-300 forever! Well done!  LZ