Imagemaster wrote:
[ Neither of those links shows any results from a 300 f4 with a TC on it. So what are you basing your comments on as to a non-issue with regard to IQ and AF speed?
You need to adjust your corrective lenses. The measurements for the Nikkor all have the results of the 300 f4, the same with the 1.4x, and the same with the 1.7x.
You might check out the Canon 300 f4 L IS, as that also seems to do well with the 1.4x, but I have no experience with that combo.
Tony look again.It does show the resolution for the 300 plus 1.4. 420mm that is quite a bit higher then the canon 400 @ 20mm more 1657 canon 400mm 5.6 VS Nikon 1847 300 1.4 tc 420mm Plus you have the option of 300mm f4 wich comes in handy for birds in flight.and psuedo macro because of its close focusing ability
Doug
Having said that i looked @ the OP images.They look real sharp.The 7d and 400 5.6 looks like a sweet combo.Seems to me to be a reliability issue.I am sure there are just as many Nikon shooters with issues.I am not one but all it takes is 1 lemon to sour you on a product. Doug
Doug Maclean wrote:
Having said that i looked @ the OP images.They look real sharp.The 7d and 400 5.6 looks like a sweet combo.Seems to me to be a reliability issue.I am sure there are just as many Nikon shooters with issues.I am not one but all it takes is 1 lemon to sour you on a product. Doug
Hi Doug,
I'm not speaking of you here, but most of my comments here have been to answer the OP question. There is no real answer to the question other than the 300/1.4 to replace the 400 f5.6L.
It is not my intention to belittle the Canon lens. The most important measure of any lens is how those that use it feel about it. To be honest, I have yet to come across an owner that didn't like the lens. If I shot Canon, I'm confident I'd have it in the kit because it fits how I shoot.
I also like the 300 f4 Nikkor, and shooting FX, the TC-14 is an important aspect for me. Similar to the universal approval of the Canon lens, those that shoot the focal length also praise the 300/TC-14 combo. I'm certainly one of that group. I simply took exception to a statement judging the quality without a basis of personal knowledge.
Both are great, long, and light solutions that focus fast. Both would be the top of the list for BIF for their respective mounts. Seems simple enough for me.
Doug Maclean wrote:
Tony look again.It does show the resolution for the 300 plus 1.4. 420mm that is quite a bit higher then the canon 400 @ 20mm more 1657 canon 400mm 5.6 VS Nikon 1847 300 1.4 tc 420mm Plus you have the option of 300mm f4 wich comes in handy for birds in flight.and psuedo macro because of its close focusing ability
Doug
Thanks, Doug, I looked again and found it this time.
If I end up getting the Nikon 300 plus 1.4, I will be able to form my own opinion. I do not take Photozone to be the Holy Grail of lens testing. Unless shown otherwise, I would guess that they tested one 300mm lens with the one 1.4x TC against the one 400mm. I have no idea what guarantee they have, if any, that they are testing perfect copies of any of them.
As far as Canon goes, I did not find their 300 plus 1.4 to be as sharp as the bare 400, and it certainly did not focus as quickly. If that is not the case with Nikon, more power to them.
fldspringer wrote:
Both are great, long, and light solutions that focus fast. Both would be the top of the list for BIF for their respective mounts. Seems simple enough for me.
Greg
Thanks again for those links, Greg.
If those Photozone tests are correct (and apply to all copies), I am sure I would be impressed with the Nikon combo. Let's hope they are.
fldspringer wrote:
The 300 f4 is good enough that the converter degrades it to about the same level as the Canon lens. If anything, the Nikkor may still have the resolution edge.
Neither of those links shows any results from a 300 f4 with a TC on it. So what are you basing your comments on as to a non-issue with regard to IQ and AF speed?