The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Your thoughts on a 300mm

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Dave

The biggest issue I ve had with the 300/2.8 and the new 2x is a very ugly bokeh. I was shooting polo with the combination last week and the background sometimes went to a nervous pattern...which is definitely an issue.

This is most visible when the subject is at a distance Like the far side of a polo field.

Next week I will shoot again with the 600/4 so I will have a direct comparison.

The other issue is the 2 stop loss of speed with no gain in DOF . On a very bright day this pushed me to iso 800 @f6.3 to achieve over 1/2000. This combination works fine for baseball.

The 200-400/4 is an excellent lens at close to mid distances(like tennis) but not very good even with the 1.4x at distances.

Of course using any lens in the 400-600 range requires some real effort to achieve precise focus and avoid camera motion.




QUOTE=D&A;300004]Hi Glenn,

I'm surprised by this result. I generally dislike most teleconverters, especially any previous 2x I've tried with any lens, (since I am very particular about optical performance and degredation of image), but found the new 2x TC 20E III worked superbly with both the 300 f2.8 VRI and VRII. Used with the lens wide open (something I'd rarely do with a teleconverter), results were much more than acceptable (while being critical) and one stop down, slightly little of consequence, if anything was lost resolution wide, except lower contrast of the image. Although not 100% certain if that was Nikon's intent, but they released the new 2x along with the 300 f2.8 VRII simultaniously for the Olympics and the press to use, as sort of a matched "ideal" pair" and I was taken back in a suprisingly good way when I saw the results of my first tests with this pairing. So much so, it put on hold my other options in another longer Nikon Supertelephoto, for my partiular application. I completely agree with you, that both the 1.4x and new 2x work remarkably well on the newer 70-200 VRII zoom lens.

Dave[/QUOTE]
 

D&A

Well-known member
Dave

The biggest issue I ve had with the 300/2.8 and the new 2x is a very ugly bokeh. I was shooting polo with the combination last week and the background sometimes went to a nervous pattern...which is definitely an issue.

This is most visible when the subject is at a distance Like the far side of a polo field.

Next week I will shoot again with the 600/4 so I will have a direct comparison.

The other issue is the 2 stop loss of speed with no gain in DOF . On a very bright day this pushed me to iso 800 @f6.3 to achieve over 1/2000. This combination works fine for baseball.

The 200-400/4 is an excellent lens at close to mid distances(like tennis) but not very good even with the 1.4x at distances.

Of course using any lens in the 400-600 range requires some real effort to achieve precise focus and avoid camera motion.


QUOTE=D&A;300004]

Hi Glenn,

I would agree with you that the bokeh is not stellar with the 300 f2.8 VR I or II and the new 2x. Resolution is remarkably good with the 2x using this combination...far better than I would have hoped for. With certain backgrounds though as you pointed out, the bokeh can be distracting if the background is filled with distracting objects such as fences, trees, etc. Capturing Birds in Flight with this combo, from a kayak for a wildlife project is where bokeh took a back seat to other concerns.

Yes, the 200-400 f4 lens doesn't do well at distance, especially if the 1.4x is used (which is only used in a pinch with this lens)....and don't even think of using the 2x in any situation with this lens.

I briefly used the new 2x with both the 400 f2.8 VR and 600 f4 VR at seperate times and with the 400 f2.8, it was a match made in heven..but had only fair-good but not definitely not stellar results most of the time with the 600 f4...which does much better in my opinion with the 1.4x . Problem may have been stability as much as anything else. All the postings in this thread have been great insight into some remarkably capably equipment.

Dave (D&A)
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Dave

I need to do much more testing to get my technique down with the 600/4 VR. I shot surfing yesterday and polo today. Series 5 Gitzo monopod . Even at 1/2000 camera motion can be an issue . Next I will try the 5 series tripod with a Gimbel head to see if that helps.

Surfing is actually not too difficult...its obvious where they are going and you can smoothly pan with them. Polo is a real test . The 300/2.8 and the 2X compares favorably with the 600/4 but its a full stop slower . The 600 s AF is faster (or appears to be) . The bokeh on the 600 is about the same ..must be the highlights in the trees as the surfing shoots are all fine.
 

jsf

Active member
The 300mm f/4 AF has superb bokeh. But it seems that you have shifted from a prime to a zoom. I haven't used a VR lens so I cannot comment on the bokeh of the newer lenses, but at ISO 800 which the Nikon certainly excels at, camera motion certainly isn't an issue in daylight. Joe
 

Lloyd

Active member
Hi Tim,

I made the jump from the 70-200 VRI to the VRII version, and am more than pleased. Not only is the vignetting no longer an issue (which I really didn't care about for portraiture), but I think that the lens is superior in other ways: sharper, better contrast, color, etc. I still have the VRI version, but only use it on my D300, always opting for the VRII on the D3 or D3s. I do agree with the 200-400 VR comments here. I love mine, and use it occasionally with the 1.4x converter, but never with the 2x.

I had the 200/f2, and it was a wonderful lens, but I found that I too often opted to shoot the 70-200 to justify keeping both. I loved the look of the 200/2 wide open, but there were other things to put the $$ into as well.

If you really want the 300mm focal length, I've been more than happy with the VRI version of the 2.8. It really is a wonderful lens, and I don't think I've ever not shot it wide open. For me, that's why I want the lens, and it really is a performer.

I've never owned, but have shot the 300/4. Love the size, and the bokeh is wonderful. Cost is right as well.

I don't envy you the decision. Good luck!
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
This discussion has been very helpful. Clearly those posting have put their time in with this group of lenses and the shared advice is like going to school. Thanks a ton. If I ever quit waffling, I'll post a picture with my lens of choice.

Best,
Tim
 
Top