p.61 #2 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
lara_ckl wrote:
How does the 300/f4 (PF?) +1.4TC compare to the 200-500?
I have not actually compared the two side by side but I would say that with 1.4 TC, 300/4 may have a slight edge. However, with D7100, both works very well with 1.4TC so 200-500 will have longer reach. I did not have much luck with 2xTC with 200-500 and D7100. AF is very slow and hunts a lot and IQ dropped quite a bit. However, 300/4 with 2xTC still has quite reasonable AF at f8 and not too bad at f10 and IQ is still not too bad. I think I will wait until D500 comes out though and see how AF is going with 2xTC with both lenses.
p.61 #3 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
IMO, the 300/4 PF, naked, with the 1.4 or the 1.7 is vastly superior. I will take a fixed prime (@ 2.8 or 4) over a zoom for IQ purposes consistently. If you can live without the zoom feature, the choice is apparent. (I should add that I have both lenses)
p.61 #4 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
Thanks suteetat and ariel777. Thinking along the same lines but wanted confirmation from people who have used both lenses. 300PF with 1.4TC would be incredibly portable. Now to decide if I need the D500.
p.61 #15 · Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR
few shots taken with the lens over the past week or so. Sharpness/detail produced from this lens is nothing short of amazing, especially at its price point. For me, I find AF acquisition speed is adequate for BIF size of mallard or larger. With anything smaller and/or faster, the lens can seem to be dreadfully slow...However, pre-focus does help to speed up AF acquisition.
Right now I am using it with the D7100 to hold me over until I can get my hands on the D500. Hopefully the lens will perform better in the AF dept with the newer body.
