I currently have the Nikon 200-500 and considering the 300f4e. I will be using it with the D850. How does it work with the Nikon TC 1.4II? Any examples with that combo? Thank you.
After reviewing the captures on this thread, as well my own, with and without the 1.4 and 1.7 TCs, I question my judgment in initially purchasing and presently keeping the 200-500. I firmly believe that the IQ of a fixed length trumps that of a variable.
ariel777 wrote:
After reviewing the captures on this thread, as well my own, with and without the 1.4 and 1.7 TCs, I question my judgment in initially purchasing and presently keeping the 200-500. I firmly believe that the IQ of a fixed length trumps that of a variable.
That’s why I am thinking of trading in the 200-500 for the 300f4e. The weight and IQ.
Laslo Varadi wrote:
That’s why I am thinking of trading in the 200-500 for the 300f4e. The weight and IQ.
I have both and intend to keep both.
The IQ of the 300PF + 1.4TCIII is more or less the same as the 200-500 bare.
In good light you can use the 1.4TCIII on the 200-500 with good/acceptable results.
Chris Dees wrote:
I have both and intend to keep both.
The IQ of the 300PF + 1.4TCIII is more or less the same as the 200-500 bare.
In good light you can use the 1.4TCIII on the 200-500 with good/acceptable results.
How do you find the 300mm f4 PF + TC-14e iii compares against the 200-500 for longer distance birds ? I love the 300mm pf with or without the x1.4 TC but find the IQ isn't so good for longer distance . I can't decide between 200-500 or 150-600 Sig sport if they offer better in that area
multibit wrote:
How do you find the 300mm f4 PF + TC-14e iii compares against the 200-500 for longer distance birds ? I love the 300mm pf with or without the x1.4 TC but find the IQ isn't so good for longer distance . I can't decide between 200-500 or 150-600 Sig sport if they offer better in that area
Those super zooms are compromises, as is a 300PF + TC.
At longer distance the IQ falls apart, that's territory of the super teles. There's a reason why they are so expensive.
I started with the Tamron 150-600 G1, then the Sigma 150-600 S (better but too heavy) and now have the 200-500 as a compromise between reach and weight (IQ and AF is more or less the same as with the Sigma S).
None of them are good on longer distances so I really need (want) a 500E/600E.
ariel777 wrote:
After reviewing the captures on this thread, as well my own, with and without the 1.4 and 1.7 TCs, I question my judgment in initially purchasing and presently keeping the 200-500. I firmly believe that the IQ of a fixed length trumps that of a variable.
That has always generally been true, super zooms were always a compromise , the newer ones seem to be doing way better , generally the size and weight of the prime is better too.
The 300 2.8/1.4tc is easily handheld and I’ve hand held the 400 2.8/1.4tc a lot too.
I e never used the 200-500 but it looks like a beast of a lens I think I would rather drag around the 400, unless a zoom was necessary
I really miss my 300 f/4, and will more than likely get another one soon , however there is a good deal on a 2.8 at my local shop that’s calling me, someone needs to get it lol.
My 70-300 has produced some decent images stopped down but nothing like my 300 f/4 was and it was better imo even with with a 1.4 than my 70-300 bare.
