p.6 #1 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Gary Irwin wrote:
I haven't read Brads review recently, but I do recall him acknowledging the IQ takes a hit with the TC engaged, which isn't unreasonable. The problem is that he primarily shoots the D5. Anything looks good with the D5. Suggest going back to review Steve Perry's initial tests. Also check out all the MTF test charts. Finally try searching for user experiences. There is a trend.
All his formal testing was done with D850....not D5.
These quotes from the article I linked to doesn't sound like he saw much of an IQ hit with the TC:
"A. Optical Performance: I can honestly say that from an optical perspective the 180-400 is one of the most "solid" lenses I have ever owned - at every aperture, every focal length (including those accessed only by engaging the built-in 1.4x teleconverter),, and at all camera-to-subject distances, this lens delivers stunning edge-to-edge sharpness.
"C. How well does it perform when shot wide open at focal lengths OVER 400mm (so with the TC engaged and at f5.6)? Over the years I've found that the minute a teleconverter was added you pretty much had to stop down (often a full stop) from wide open before getting decent sharpness. But...as it turns out...it's not so with the 180-400 - you can get GREAT shots with the TC-engaged when shot wide open at f5.6."
"E. OK...what happens when you screw up and use the 180-400mm's built-in TC for focal lengths UNDER 400mm - is there a big hit on image quality? Hey...this happens! And the good news is, there is no obvious decline in image quality. Here's a few samples of some of most memorable "oops...should have disengaged the TC but didn't" screw-ups:"
"Can you really use ALL the focal lengths and get "prime-like" results? Yep. And...at all focal lengths you can shoot at ANY aperture and get sharp results...there is absolutely NO NEED WHATSOEVER to stop down from wide open to get that extra "biting" sharpness we all want in an image."
p.6 #2 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Sometimes reviewers get very excited about a product and the review may be slightly tinted because of it, and not completely objective.
I've seen an MTF test of the 180-400 where the MTF drops significantly from 300mm to 400mm and another where it holds up to 400mm but then drops when the (internal) TC is put in the optical path. This could be a question of sample variation or procedural differences between the tests.
I saw Moose Peterson's article on the 180-400mm in Nikon Owner (it is a high-quality customer magazine) and the results were really good both with and without TC. He also gushes over the performance with stacked TCs (1.4x internal and 1.4x and 2.0x external) but if I recall correctly, none of those images were printed in the magazine.
I think the finer points that we see when we zoom in the images to see the finest details may not necessarily relevant to most applications. I recall Moose saying that he doesn't take shots where the subject doesn't fill the frame. So he's used to shooting in this way, doing it all in the camera. That means in the typical application of magazine photography, there is plenty of detail even if the actual pixels of the original might show some differences between focal lengths or when the TC is applied. The color, contrast, bokeh and sharpness were really nice in those printed images.
If the intention is not to shoot frame-filling compositions in camera but to crop deep then the story may be different, of course. But still I would consider it an amazing lens just from those images in the magazine. I am not surprised that Brad would be gushing. But this doesn't mean the differences shown in the MTF tests aren't correct findings - but sometimes you have to see the actual results to appreciate a lens rather than only look at the graphs or crops.
I'd be delighted to own the Nikon 180-400mm but given its price it's very unlikely that I would ever be in such a position and the same is true of the 120-300/2.8.
p.6 #4 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
chambeshi wrote:
In his latest blog post, Brad Hill justifies the 120-300 f2.8E for his uses. As he has used the Sigma, he knows what he needs for what, where
For what Brad shoots I'd certainly consider the 120-300 alongside his 180-400. I'm joining him on a bear trip this September so I guess I can get a glimpse of this lens and a D6
For myself, I'm more into songbirds (all be it a little closer than 25 meters) so I'll stick with my 600-1200mm options
p.6 #5 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
arbitrage wrote:
For what Brad shoots I'd certainly consider the 120-300 alongside his 180-400. I'm joining him on a bear trip this September so I guess I can get a glimpse of this lens and a D6
For myself, I'm more into songbirds (all be it a little closer than 25 meters) so I'll stick with my 600-1200mm options
Have fun with Brad... he's a good guy and a lot of fun to be around.
He is a man with a lot of stories, as a result, the dinners were never boring!
When I was on my marine mammals tour in 2017, he was using the Sigma pro gear (24-70, 120-300, and 500 f4). For him, it was all about hand-holdability AND maintaining optical quality. I think that all of the Sigma gear is gone now that Nikon updated their optics.
BTW... I think you are right, he will have both a D6 and 120-300 w/ him, as he does love his high-end gear.
cheers,
bruce
p.6 #7 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
1) It is darned heavy
2) It is darned big
3) Optically? It is just MAGICAL!
4) 1.4 TCIII worked very well
i have to tell you the original rendition of this lens from Sigma in the S model was and is as follows"
1) It is darned heavy/119.6oz vs 114.6 on the Nikon
2) It is darned big/roughly same length and largest diameter
3) Optically? excellent technically proficient (i never use words like "magical")
4) their own matched TC-1401 works well
and they did it years earlier.
there are those that said it focused slow. not so.
for those price conscious individuals:
Sigma as of this date is $3099.00
Nikon showing at $9500.00
p.6 #8 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
sjms wrote:
i have to tell you the original rendition of this lens from Sigma in the S model was and is as follows"
1) It is darned heavy/119.6oz vs 114.6 on the Nikon
2) It is darned big/roughly same length and largest diameter
3) Optically? excellent technically proficient (i never use words like "magical")
4) their own matched TC-1401 works well
and they did it years earlier.
there are those that said it focused slow. not so.
for those price conscious individuals:
Sigma as of this date is $3099.00
Nikon showing at $9500.00
Yes, certainly a hard sell at 3x the price when the Sigma has been a proven performer. I think Brad used to have the Sigma but I don't believe he still has the Sigma to compare during his evaluation of the new lens.
p.6 #9 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
arbitrage wrote:
Yes, certainly a hard sell at 3x the price when the Sigma has been a proven performer. I think Brad used to have the Sigma but I don't believe he still has the Sigma to compare during his evaluation of the new lens.
The last time I talked with Brad about the new lens he said that he was keen to compare his Sigma 120-300 to the Nikon.
With the exception of his 400 f/2.8 and 70-200E, Brad was primarily using Sigma glass (500 f/4, 120-300 f/2.8, and 24-70 f/2.8) during the marine mammals tour that I joined. Given that he has been happy with his 120-300S, I think he will do a thorough comparison of the two.
As you might recall, he chose to keep the Sigma 500 f/4S over the Nikon 500 f/4E based on a performance : price calculation... that is, the Nikon's increased performance (little as it was) could not compete w/ the Sigma once the respective prices were considered.
When you consider that he uses the 180-400 f/4 and the 70-200E, I wonder if the 120-300SR would be of much value... then again, 300 f/2.8 on a D500 or D850/Z7 (for crops) would make the lens very useable in a place like the Khutzeymateen.
When I traveled to the Khutzeymateen last year where all of the grizzly photography occurred from a zodiac, I left my 200-400 home and shot w/ a 24-70, 70-200E, and 500PF. With the 500PF on my Z6 and the 70-200 on a D500, I found that I used the 70-200 f/2.8 for about 65% of my photography... during that trip, a 120-300 f/2.8 would have felt heavy,... and perfect.
p.6 #10 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
OwlsEyes wrote:
The last time I talked with Brad about the new lens he said that he was keen to compare his Sigma 120-300 to the Nikon.
With the exception of his 400 f/2.8 and 70-200E, Brad was primarily using Sigma glass (500 f/4, 120-300 f/2.8, and 24-70 f/2.8) during the marine mammals tour that I joined. Given that he has been happy with his 120-300S, I think he will do a thorough comparison of the two.
As you might recall, he chose to keep the Sigma 500 f/4S over the Nikon 500 f/4E based on a performance : price calculation... that is, the Nikon's increased performance (little as it was) could not compete w/ the Sigma once the respective prices were considered.
When you consider that he uses the 180-400 f/4 and the 70-200E, I wonder if the 120-300SR would be of much value... then again, 300 f/2.8 on a D500 or D850/Z7 (for crops) would make the lens very useable in a place like the Khutzeymateen.
When I traveled to the Khutzeymateen last year where all of the grizzly photography occurred from a zodiac, I left my 200-400 home and shot w/ a 24-70, 70-200E, and 500PF. With the 500PF on my Z6 and the 70-200 on a D500, I found that I used the 70-200 f/2.8 for about 65% of my photography... during that trip, a 120-300 f/2.8 would have felt heavy,... and perfect. ...Show more →
I just checked back on some earlier blog posts he made about the 120-300 and it seems like he does still own the Sigma so it will be a direct comparison with that lens. That should be very valuable information since the weights are very similar and the prices are so far apart. The Nikon will have to really have some IQ or AF magic to be worth the price.
OwlsEyes wrote:
The last time I talked with Brad about the new lens he said that he was keen to compare his Sigma 120-300 to the Nikon.
With the exception of his 400 f/2.8 and 70-200E, Brad was primarily using Sigma glass (500 f/4, 120-300 f/2.8, and 24-70 f/2.8) during the marine mammals tour that I joined. Given that he has been happy with his 120-300S, I think he will do a thorough comparison of the two.
As you might recall, he chose to keep the Sigma 500 f/4S over the Nikon 500 f/4E based on a performance : price calculation... that is, the Nikon's increased performance (little as it was) could not compete w/ the Sigma once the respective prices were considered.
When you consider that he uses the 180-400 f/4 and the 70-200E, I wonder if the 120-300SR would be of much value... then again, 300 f/2.8 on a D500 or D850/Z7 (for crops) would make the lens very useable in a place like the Khutzeymateen.
When I traveled to the Khutzeymateen last year where all of the grizzly photography occurred from a zodiac, I left my 200-400 home and shot w/ a 24-70, 70-200E, and 500PF. With the 500PF on my Z6 and the 70-200 on a D500, I found that I used the 70-200 f/2.8 for about 65% of my photography... during that trip, a 120-300 f/2.8 would have felt heavy,... and perfect. ...Show more →
p.6 #13 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Well, it seems like a great lens but when I look at the price of this lens vs what I have I can’t find a scenario that would make me spend that kind of money. I have the video button on my D850 set up to go to crop mode in an instant. With my 70-200e on the D850 (With or without a 1.4) and my 300 VRii on a D5 I’m covered and can’t find a way to convince myself that this lens is worth the money even if I would shed equipment and pay the difference. Seems to me to be a great lens that will be a hard sell.
p.6 #14 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
Some images from Brad Hill. Somewhat ironically, he seems to be relying a lot on TC14 III ie 168-420 f4, which scarcely differs from his 180-400 f4E TC. At 3.26kg (vs 3.5kg) the faster zoom reaches to 240-600 f5.6 with TC2 III
p.6 #15 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
chambeshi wrote:
Some images from Brad Hill. Somewhat ironically, he seems to be relying a lot on TC14 III ie 168-420 f4, which scarcely differs from his 180-400 f4E TC. At 3.26kg (vs 3.5kg) the faster zoom reaches to 240-600 f5.6 with TC2 III
I think he isn't able to use the lens for his original intended purpose/subjects until he resumes his normal tours. Shooting around the "backyard" is very difficult with only 300mm even on a crop sensor. So that is probably why he is having to rely on the 1.4TC more than he would have if he was currently going to shoot whales and bears. Still, I really don't see a point in owning both the 120-300 and the 180-400....two heavy lenses with way too much overlap. Will be interesting to see where he ends up after testing but I can't see him keeping both of those.
p.6 #18 · AF-S NIKKOR 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR is coming
sjms wrote:
just for my memory on my 120-200/2.8 Sig
Just for your memory, but physically wrong: the FL of a lens does NOT change if you change the body you use.
During the film era, nobody said that a 6x6 Hasselblad 80 mm was a 129 mm when mounted on 24x36.
