Alan Ness wrote:
Lance
It seems all the pictures I have seen posted by you are fantastic, so I am waiting for some pictures taken with this lens by a normal photographer! Thanks for posting, this lens does look very inviting.
Very fast and accurate in normal light. I little slower in low light, but still need to do further testing in low light. As it is not my lens, this may take a while.
I pre-ordered the lens when it was announced. What I'm wondering is how is the AF speed with the 1.4x TC III? How big of a hit does the AF speed take compared to using it bare? Is it a noticeable difference? I'm wondering if I should order the teleconverter or just stick with my 80-400 when I need longer.
Thanks for the "first look" Lance. Looking pretty sweet. Although truth be told, I've yet to see a lens that didn't perform well in your hands. Now if I could get the same results with it, that would be saying something.
VinnieJ wrote:
How did I miss this thread. 5 days old already?
Thanks for the pics!!! They are wonderful.
I pre-ordered the lens when it was announced. What I'm wondering is how is the AF speed with the 1.4x TC III? How big of a hit does the AF speed take compared to using it bare? Is it a noticeable difference? I'm wondering if I should order the teleconverter or just stick with my 80-400 when I need longer.
Thank you for your lovely comments, Vinnie!
At this stage, I have only tried the 1.4x TCIII in good light and I didn't notice any noticable differnce in AF speed. If I had the 80-400, I would still buy the 300 f4 VR - that is if I didn't already have the 300 f2.8 VRII.
Jim8EL wrote:
Thanks for the "first look" Lance. Looking pretty sweet. Although truth be told, I've yet to see a lens that didn't perform well in your hands. Now if I could get the same results with it, that would be saying something.
Jim
You are way too kind but thank you for your wonderful comments, Jim!
Lance B wrote:
Thank you for your lovely comments, Vinnie!
At this stage, I have only tried the 1.4x TCIII in good light and I didn't notice any noticable differnce in AF speed. If I had the 80-400, I would still buy the 300 f4 VR - that is if I didn't already have the 300 f2.8 VRII.
Thanks. I will definitely get the 300 f/4, just debating about the new 1.4x TC. People here on FM have said good things about it. I've used many different kinds in the past and I've never had an issue with IQ, just AF speed.
Wow! A great review on this new lens - very tempting my NAS. I'd be interested to see if this could be leverage instead of a f2.8 for sports with low light situations without bumping the ISO up too high.
jeverton wrote:
Wow! A great review on this new lens - very tempting my NAS. I'd be interested to see if this could be leverage instead of a f2.8 for sports with low light situations without bumping the ISO up too high.
hoodlum90 wrote:
Here is a comparison with the old lens. I don't see any negative attributes in this comparison that might be attributed to the diffractive optics.
The bokeh in those samples is comparable to the older lens. Frankly it looks like a really nice lens, small, light, excellent optics, not outrageously priced. Sigh. Not sure I can justify the purchase.
I've yet to see anything that suggests this isn't as good or better than the old lens in every way. The poster over on DPR even thinks everything from contrast, to sharpness, to AF speed, to build quality is all significantly better. Combined with the enormous size/weight reduction, $2k is a bargain IMHO.
It's still early, but none of this should come as a surprise - Nikon knew it couldn't screw this one up, especially considering how long the wait has been! I'll wait for the professional reviews then probably pick one up.
Yup, glad I pre-orded mine the morning after it was announced. Pretty sure I'll have mine before lunch on Feb. 5, because my local dealer is top notch and he'll take care of me.
CanadaMark wrote:
The poster over on DPR even thinks everything from contrast, to sharpness, to AF speed, to build quality is all significantly better.
I think that is a pretty bold statement, there have been relatively few test that compare the two lenses directly back to back. In the referenced link which is the only direct comparison that I have seen, the top photo of the bottle taken with the older lens looks to have slightly better contrast. It does seem like a very nice lens for Nikons first attempt at PF.
WestcoastHD wrote:
I think that is a pretty bold statement, there have been relatively few test that compare the two lenses directly back to back. In the referenced link which is the only direct comparison that I have seen, the top photo of the bottle taken with the older lens looks to have slightly better contrast. It does seem like a very nice lens for Nikons first attempt at PF.
Agree with you and don't think otherwise - that's why I stated I will be waiting for professional reviews as well. The poster has more experience with the lenses than just a couple of bottle photos though, so his comments do hold some weight. Looks very promising, even if it's exactly the same in all areas as the outgoing model, the size/weight reduction + VR is mostly what people are after anyway.
It won't be long until the major websites do controlled head-to-head comparisons.
Thanks for posting, this lens does look very inviting.
