ps09
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #12 · 300 2.8 vr i or ii vs 300 PF | |
I have both lenses and may be able to help or I might make things worse. For the last two years I have wanted to get rid of one of my 300mm primes, but I cannot make the decision on which one would go. At present, I have 3 ways to get to 300mm. In the interest of full disclosure, I have the 300mm afs ii, the lightest and last 300 before VR. Despite it being the lightest, it is still quite heavy to handhold.
Why do I keep both? Is one clearly better than the other? Honestly, it depends on what I am shooting, in what condition and what I hope to achieve.
I like to shoot hummingbirds in the summer. My setup involves using multiple flashes with a green screen and I am often shooting before sunrise and/or in very low ambient light to freeze wings. In near darkness (without any AF aid of course) the 2.8 grabs onto the birds and the PF hunts. I have tried them head to head with D500's (my hummingbird camera of choice) and I have absolutely no doubt that the 2.8 focuses better in low light conditions. The other factor that came into play was balance on a gimbal. The 2.8 is very easy to balance on a gimbal. The PF, not so much and it is so small that there isn't much room to rest the left hand over the lens for balance. The PF is great on a ballhead, but when I am shooting with the gimbal and a camera of real weight, I have to bring a long lens plate to attach to the PF collar just to balance the combo.
3D. At larger ISO (2.8-5.6) the 2.8 has a 3D like quality to it that the PF does not have. The PF looks more flat in comparison. The PF is sharp, no doubt. There is just something about the 2.8 at or near open that makes the subject POP. If this doesn't matter to you, favor the PF.
At 6.3/7.1 and beyond, I cannot distinguish one lens from another as far as IQ goes, even corner to corner, but still, the 2.8 seems to slam into focus quicker, especially in lower light. If focus speed doesn't matter, favor the PF.
So, why do I keep the PF? The PF goes in the kayak, goes with me to any sporting event my son participates in and is my 300mm choice whenever I want to handhold or not be burdened by a tripod or monopod. I also have the 500pf and the 70-200f4. I can load all 3 of those lenses along with a 1.4tc and 50mm 1.8 in a 15L backpack with a gripped D850 and I have 50-700 covered no tripod or big bag needed. The 300pf has proven to focus fast enough to freeze owls in flight (coming straight at me) and, once again, from 6.3 on, I think the two lenses are indistinguishable. It also takes the 1.4 tciii as though it wasn't even on. Size advantage, PF.
In controlled environments, and shooting at f8, I would choose the PF. You will be able to handhold it with no issues, offering you even more flexibility and less additional equipment to bring along. Honestly, at f8, if I am looking at purely sharpness and not performance, many of Nikon's lenses that achieve 300mm look much the same. The 200-500 (which I have) is very good at 300mm but it is dog slow. It also has great VR. But, it is also like carrying 3 bricks compared to the 300pf. The 80-400 which I sold 2 years ago was very good at f8 and 300, but the focus was nervous so I dumped it.
In the end, I think the 300pf is the better lens for you. You said, "I think I was pretty clear that I am asking about image quality, not bokeh, not handling, not auto focus speed, not ISO effects, not balance and handling. Don't care about any of those things. Simply the finest rendition of fine feather details in my case. Any of the direct comparisons you mentioned would be welcomed info provided I understood what the test was and what were the results." As a fellow bird shooter, I know that, unless you will be shooting wide open to isolate an eye or other feature, you will be stopping down to achieve DOF. By doing so, you are negating the advantage of the 2.8. I guess I am saying that around f7.1 I find both lenses to render pretty much the same IQ ( I can't tell the difference) which says a lot about the pf.
So, why keep the 2.8? I have had it for about 7 years. I replaced the motor 4 years ago. I wouldn't sell it for what someone would pay for it. It's a mint copy with a new motor, but I'm not willing to sell it for $1600. For me, the 2.8 is a specialty lens. It's tripod or monopod only. It's better in low light situations and at or near wide open it has a different look than the PF. 3d is the only way I can describe it. Also, if I am in a stationary spot like a blind shooting from a tripod, I choose the 2.8.
If I have enough light and WANT to shoot at f8, the 2.8 is overkill. The results between the two at f8, in good light, are just so close, I really can't give the 2.8 an advantage. One other advantage I can give the PF is that I am better at hand-holding and following objects flying erratically than I am with a gimbal. Anyone who has spent time shooting hummingbirds lured to a feeder know how predictable their flight patterns can be.
If you want to PM me, I can take some sample shots this weekend with the 2.8 and PF on d850s in live view (so you know I'm focusing on the sensor) and email them to you. A few weeks ago I could have sent you z7 samples, but the z7 and I have parted company. Just PM me what kind of samples you want, in what conditions and what fstop. I'll try to get them to you by Monday.
|
