Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
p.2 #1Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
Wezre wrote:
One of the consistently high performers in the Wildlife & Nature forum is Louie Champan. He shoots the 300 2.8 with a 2X extender.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1929422/
RobertWith all due respect to him, I am not impressed by the quality of those images. I suspect the reason it's going to win Featured Thread is more due to the subject (male northern harriers) being very elusive and difficult to capture. Maybe it's how he processed the images, but they have a lot of artifacts from excessive sharpening. I'm not super familiar with how the 300GM performs with TCs, but I suspect that thread isn't a great demonstration.
EDIT: Here's a thread of his that I think better demonstrates what the 300GM + 2X TC can do: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1926287/
I do not see any artifacts in the Gray Ghost series on my 27” iMac screen. Yes, I recall that Bosque series too. And that Bosque series also illustrates the outstanding work he does with that combination
In my earlier years of wildlife photography I’ve owned three 300 2.8 Nikkors. The first was manual focusing, before AF…. in the 1980’s. The other two were AF and bought when they upgraded.
At one time I tested one of them with all three TC’s (1.4, 1.7 and 2.0). The difference in sharpness of images taken with all three was indiscernible to my eye/brain.
In my Common Loon work I favor zooms, because the distance between my small watercraft and the loons constantly changes.
Robert
bs kite wrote
Regarding the 300 2.8One of the consistently high performers in the Wildlife & Nature forum is Louie Champan. He shoots the 300 2.8 with a 2X extender.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1929422/
Robert
EDIT: Here's a thread of his that I think better demonstrates what the 300GM + 2X TC can do: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1926287/
I do not see any artifacts in the Gray Ghost series on my 27” iMac screen. Yes, I recall that Bosque series too. And that Bosque series also illustrates the outstanding work he does with that combination
In my earlier years of wildlife photography I’ve owned three 300 2.8 Nikkors. The first was manual focusing, before AF…. in the 1980’s. The other two were AF and bought when they upgraded.
At one time I tested one of them with all three TC’s (1.4, 1.7 and 2.0). The difference in sharpness of images taken with all three was indiscernible to my eye/brain.
In my Common Loon work I favor zooms, because the distance between my small watercraft and the loons constantly changes.
Robert
Jan 21, 2026 at 11:12 AM
p.2 #2Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
The debate between 300mm f2.8 and 100-300mm f2.8 (potentially with TC) is biased. Nikon has not yet released their Z mount 100-300mm f2.8 so people compare the F mount 120-300mm f2.8, belonging to the E FL generation started in 2013 (even if it was released in 2021 it shared the same build) to a 2025 Sony. The E FL lenses were both heavy and front heavy.
A modern 100-300mm f2.8 leveraging best in class Nikon lens technology is likely to weight no more than 2kgs and to be rear heavy. Which means easily hand holdable for hours.
Cheers,
Bernard
A modern 100-300mm f2.8 leveraging best in class Nikon lens technology is likely to weight no more than 2kgs and to be rear heavy. Which means easily hand holdable for hours.
Cheers,
Bernard
Jan 21, 2026 at 04:20 PM
p.2 #3Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
Sony 300/2.8 (1.5 kg) and Canon 100-300/2.8 (2.6 kg) were both introduced in 2023, so they clearly illustrate how much lighter the prime is compared to the zoom both developed at the same time by two leading manufacturers. The prime has a huge advantage in weight and also is much cheaper.
bernardl wrote:
The debate between 300mm f2.8 and 100-300mm f2.8 (potentially with TC) is biased. Nikon has not yet released their Z mount 100-300mm f2.8 so people compare the F mount 120-300mm f2.8, belonging to the E FL generation started in 2013 (even if it was released in 2021 it shared the same build) to a 2025 Sony. The E FL lenses were both heavy and front heavy.
A modern 100-300mm f2.8 leveraging best in class Nikon lens technology is likely to weight no more than 2kgs and to be rear heavy. Which means easily hand holdable for hours.
Cheers,
Bernard
bernardl wrote:
The debate between 300mm f2.8 and 100-300mm f2.8 (potentially with TC) is biased. Nikon has not yet released their Z mount 100-300mm f2.8 so people compare the F mount 120-300mm f2.8, belonging to the E FL generation started in 2013 (even if it was released in 2021 it shared the same build) to a 2025 Sony. The E FL lenses were both heavy and front heavy.
A modern 100-300mm f2.8 leveraging best in class Nikon lens technology is likely to weight no more than 2kgs and to be rear heavy. Which means easily hand holdable for hours.
Cheers,
Bernard
Jan 21, 2026 at 04:36 PM
p.2 #4Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Sony 300/2.8 (1.5 kg) and Canon 100-300/2.8 (2.6 kg) were both introduced in 2023, so they clearly illustrate how much lighter the prime is compared to the zoom both developed at the same time by two leading manufacturers. The prime has a huge advantage in weight and also is much cheaper.
A modern 100-300mm f2.8 leveraging best in class Nikon lens technology is likely to weight no more than 2kgs and to be rear heavy. Which means easily hand holdable for hours.
Cheers,
Bernard
How is a 2023 Canon first gen lens representative of a second generation 2026 Nikon lens? 😀
Nikon has clearly demonstrated that they are best in class in lens tech and in particular in light tele lenses. Canon has mostly demonstrated a focus on the consumer segment.
Cheers,
Bernard
Sony 300/2.8 (1.5 kg) and Canon 100-300/2.8 (2.6 kg) were both introduced in 2023, so they clearly illustrate how much lighter the prime is compared to the zoom both developed at the same time by two leading manufacturers. The prime has a huge advantage in weight and also is much cheaper.
bernardl wrote
The debate between 300mm f2.8 and 100-300mm f2.8 (potentially with TC) is biased. Nikon has not yet released their Z mount 100-300mm f2.8 so people compare the F mount 120-300mm f2.8, belonging to the E FL generation started in 2013 (even if it was released in 2021 it shared the same build) to a 2025 Sony. The E FL lenses were both heavy and front heavy.A modern 100-300mm f2.8 leveraging best in class Nikon lens technology is likely to weight no more than 2kgs and to be rear heavy. Which means easily hand holdable for hours.
Cheers,
Bernard
How is a 2023 Canon first gen lens representative of a second generation 2026 Nikon lens? 😀
Nikon has clearly demonstrated that they are best in class in lens tech and in particular in light tele lenses. Canon has mostly demonstrated a focus on the consumer segment.
Cheers,
Bernard
Jan 21, 2026 at 04:44 PM
p.2 #5Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I think when discussing a 300/2.8 for wildlife, people often expect to use it with TCs, and in this particular lens's case many users seem to be happy with the performance. The light weight and compact size makes it easier to use it more varied conditions, for example, walking about in the forest or on hills, either the Sony 300/2.8 or the Nikon 400/4.5 are easy to work with. The 400/4.5 Nikkor is considerably lighter than the Sony 300/2.8 with 1.4 X TC on, though, but one could then argue that some of Sony's camera bodies are lighter and that...Show more →
If given unlimited budget and no marketing consideration, would they be able to make a higher quailty 400/4.5 lens, I would think that they could. If they think the market would support 400/4.5 at the same price point as 300/2.8 and it won't eat up their 400/2.8s TC sale, they probably would have make one.
Needing to use TC most of the time is a deal breaker for me for best wildlife lens ever. While TC nowadays is better and when people say, there is no visible degradation, just look Imatest published on Photographylife for example (dont see one for 309/2.8 yet but you can see one for 400/2,8s tc and 600/4s tc, i dont think sony tc is going to be much better than that) After saying that, yes,
You can still get excellent images with it. My strategy, I have both 600/4s TC and 600PF. Now I have arguably best in class wildlife lenses. I can go light and portable with excellent images quality or I can go with ultimate IQ depending on situation. No need to mention cost, since original poster was comparing 400/4.5 to a much more expensive 300/2.8gm.
300/2.8gm is certainly a great lens but at least for me, the focal length is in a no man’s land. My experience with Nikon 300pf is that it just sat in my cabinet because I dont have many occasion where that focal length is ideal for me. There are many other Sony lenses that I would want to adapt before ever thinking about 300/2.8gm considering what I have and what I can use it for.
PS as a side note, looking at Imatest number, usually the drop in number after adding TC 1.4 is usually quite significant but honestly looking at the picture, I don't see a significant difference (unlike TC 2.0 where Imatest number takes a much much bigger hit and you can see some loss in detail but often not too bad). Regardless of brand, people also often said that the loss in negligible. However when comparing across a brand, much less difference in Imatest number suddenly become much more meaningful. Go figure
Edited on Jan 22, 2026 at 06:30 PM · View previous versions
suteetat wrote
Hard to see any 300mm ever become the best wildlife lens of all time unless you only shoot elephants and hippos.Earlier quote
Could Nikon make 400/4.5 sharper and higher quality, I would think they could. It is not always technology that limits what Nikon can do but also marketing, price point and position in the market. Nikon has so many options for 400mm, from 400/2.8s TC down to 28-400. When they think of light weight 400 prime, I don't think the best lens is the only criteria but the best lens they can make at a certain price point that would fit in with their lineup.If given unlimited budget and no marketing consideration, would they be able to make a higher quailty 400/4.5 lens, I would think that they could. If they think the market would support 400/4.5 at the same price point as 300/2.8 and it won't eat up their 400/2.8s TC sale, they probably would have make one.
Needing to use TC most of the time is a deal breaker for me for best wildlife lens ever. While TC nowadays is better and when people say, there is no visible degradation, just look Imatest published on Photographylife for example (dont see one for 309/2.8 yet but you can see one for 400/2,8s tc and 600/4s tc, i dont think sony tc is going to be much better than that) After saying that, yes,
You can still get excellent images with it. My strategy, I have both 600/4s TC and 600PF. Now I have arguably best in class wildlife lenses. I can go light and portable with excellent images quality or I can go with ultimate IQ depending on situation. No need to mention cost, since original poster was comparing 400/4.5 to a much more expensive 300/2.8gm.
300/2.8gm is certainly a great lens but at least for me, the focal length is in a no man’s land. My experience with Nikon 300pf is that it just sat in my cabinet because I dont have many occasion where that focal length is ideal for me. There are many other Sony lenses that I would want to adapt before ever thinking about 300/2.8gm considering what I have and what I can use it for.
PS as a side note, looking at Imatest number, usually the drop in number after adding TC 1.4 is usually quite significant but honestly looking at the picture, I don't see a significant difference (unlike TC 2.0 where Imatest number takes a much much bigger hit and you can see some loss in detail but often not too bad). Regardless of brand, people also often said that the loss in negligible. However when comparing across a brand, much less difference in Imatest number suddenly become much more meaningful. Go figure
Edited on Jan 22, 2026 at 06:30 PM · View previous versions
Jan 22, 2026 at 04:19 PM
p.2 #6Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
Maybe you live in a bright location where the PF lens shines, it just fall apart so quickly in non ideal situations.
suteetat wrote:
ilkka_nissila wrote
suteetat wrote
Hard to see any 300mm ever become the best wildlife lens of all time unless you only shoot elephants and hippos.Here there has been a shift from photographs showing the animals in their environment and some activity to showing a close-up of a single animal due to instagram and similar presentation platforms where it's not possible to really show landscapes in good detail, with animals. Instant attention and impact is there the game, I suppose. However, if you shoot for gallery or wall display then showing landscapes with animals or animals in their environment, then shorter focal lengths are suitable for that. Ultimately how an animal looks is not very interesting as we've seen so many examples of that. But if you can show some activity or animals in the grander scene of nature, that's much more interesting IMO. If you look at the statistics of the 100 best (selected by judges) images of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, it is typical that the average focal length is not that long (less than 300 mm).
Earlier quote
Could Nikon make 400/4.5 sharper and higher quality, I would think they could. It is not always technology that limits what Nikon can do but also marketing, price point and position in the market. Nikon has so many options for 400mm, from 400/2.8s TC down to 28-400. When they think of light weight 400 prime, I don't think the best lens is the only criteria but the best lens they can make at a certain price point that would fit in with their lineup.If given unlimited budget and no marketing consideration, would they be able to make a higher quailty 400/4.5 lens, I would think that they could. If they think the market would support 400/4.5 at the same price point as 300/2.8 and it won't eat up their 400/2.8s TC sale, they probably would have make one.
You can still get excellent images with it. My strategy, I have both 600/4s TC and 600PF. Now I have arguably best in class wildlife...Show more →
Jan 22, 2026 at 06:26 PM
p.2 #7Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
fnzmf25 wrote:
Maybe you live in a bright location where the PF lens shines, it just fall apart so quickly in non ideal situations.
I think when discussing a 300/2.8 for wildlife, people often expect to use it with TCs, and in this particular lens's case many users seem to be happy with the performance. The light weight and compact size makes it easier to use it more varied conditions, for example, walking about in the forest or on hills, either the Sony 300/2.8 or the Nikon 400/4.5 are easy to work with. The 400/4.5 Nikkor is considerably lighter than the Sony 300/2.8 with 1.4 X TC on, though, but one could then argue that some of Sony's camera bodies are lighter and that would compensate for the difference to some extent. However, the position of the weight along the optical axis is also important and for me at least having as much of the weight close to my body as possible makes hand-held use easier. The 300/2.8 Nikkor is quite a challenge to hand-hold though I do do that when e.g. photographing figure skating, but walking inside a forest with hills, snow, and/or bushes I would not consider comfortable with that lens or any 400/2.8. The 400/4.5, 300/4 PF by contrast are very nice to use in such an environment. Are they too short? No, for large mammals they're not since the trees limit visibility over long distances anyway. Also, if you're in a hide, a wide variety of focal lengths can be used successfully.
Here there has been a shift from photographs showing the animals in their environment and some activity to showing a close-up of a single animal due to instagram and similar presentation platforms where it's not possible to really show landscapes in good detail, with animals. Instant attention and impact is there the game, I suppose. However, if you shoot for gallery or wall display then showing landscapes with animals or animals in their environment, then shorter focal lengths are suitable for that. Ultimately how an animal looks is not very interesting as we've seen so many examples of that. But if you can show some activity or animals in the grander scene of nature, that's much more interesting IMO. If you look at the statistics of the 100 best (selected by judges) images of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, it is typical that the average focal length is not that long (less than 300 mm).
If given unlimited budget and no marketing consideration, would they be able to make a higher quailty 400/4.5 lens, I would think that they could. If they think the market would support 400/4.5 at the same price point as 300/2.8 and it won't eat up their 400/2.8s TC sale, they probably would have make one.I agree that there is the pricing and position in the lineup to consider; at this price it's better (sharper and has arguably nicer bokeh) than the 100-400 mm at 400 mm, focuses faster, has a larger maximum aperture, and is lighter as well, but the difference is not that big. The 400/2.8 TC of course is a completely different class of a lens with extremely high price but such lenses are not that comfortable to walk around in a position ready to shoot, which in practice limit the buyer base and use cases. Of course, the f/4.5 aperture of the 400/4.5 also limits the uses of that lens. There is something for everyone in the Z telephoto lineup, at least for wildlife and birds. For indoor sports, concerts etc. 200/2 and 300/2.8 would be useful and are still missing. I would expect a 300/2.8 or 120-300/2.8 within a few years, personally I would hope it is a prime priced similarly to other 300/2.8 lenses as I really don't need yet another telezoom, least of all a 10k€+ lens. People who are like US secretary Bessent recently suggested, owning 5-12 houses, might not care about the price, but there are not that many of those people around. And in the future the excess concentration of wealth in the hands of a few might lead to another world war as it has in the past, after which there are no guarantees that anyone can afford anything. IMO lenses like the 400/4.5 are very important because of the wide range of uses and relatively affordable price, and it's really great that Nikon covers this upper intermediate-level market.Needing to use TC most of the time is a deal breaker for me for best wildlife lens ever. While TC nowadays is better and when people say, there is no visible degradation, just look Imatest published on Photographylife for example (dont see one for 309/2.8 yet but you can see one for 400/2,8s tc and 600/4s tc, i dont think sony tc is going to be much better than that) After saying that, yes,
You can still get excellent images with it. My strategy, I have both 600/4s TC and 600PF. Now I have arguably best in class wildlife lenses. I can go light and portable with excellent images quality or I can go with ultimate IQ depending on situation. No need to mention cost, since original poster was comparing 400/4.5 to a much more expensive 300/2.8gm.
300/2.8gm is certainly a great lens but at least for me, the focal length is in a no man’s land. My experience with Nikon 300pf is that it just sat in my cabinet because I dont have many occasion where that focal length is ideal for me. There are many other Sony lenses that I would want to adapt before ever thinking about 300/2.8gm considering what I have and what I can use it for.
when it shines, sorry, TCx2 just can't compete.
Maybe you live in a bright location where the PF lens shines, it just fall apart so quickly in non ideal situations.
suteetat wrote
ilkka_nissila wrote
suteetat wrote
Hard to see any 300mm ever become the best wildlife lens of all time unless you only shoot elephants and hippos.Here there has been a shift from photographs showing the animals in their environment and some activity to showing a close-up of a single animal due to instagram and similar presentation platforms where it's not possible to really show landscapes in good detail, with animals. Instant attention and impact is there the game, I suppose. However, if you shoot for gallery or wall display then showing landscapes with animals or animals in their environment, then shorter focal lengths are suitable for that. Ultimately how an animal looks is not very interesting as we've seen so many examples of that. But if you can show some activity or animals in the grander scene of nature, that's much more interesting IMO. If you look at the statistics of the 100 best (selected by judges) images of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, it is typical that the average focal length is not that long (less than 300 mm).
Earlier quote
Could Nikon make 400/4.5 sharper and higher quality, I would think they could. It is not always technology that limits what Nikon can do but also marketing, price point and position in the market. Nikon has so many options for 400mm, from 400/2.8s TC down to 28-400. When they think of light weight 400 prime, I don't think the best lens is the only criteria but the best lens they can make at a certain price point that would fit in with their lineup.If given unlimited budget and no marketing consideration, would they be able to make a higher quailty 400/4.5 lens, I would think that they could. If they think the market would support 400/4.5 at the same price point as 300/2.8 and it won't eat up their 400/2.8s TC sale, they probably would have make one.
You can still get excellent images with it. My strategy, I have both 600/4s TC and 600PF. Now I have arguably best in class wildlife lenses. I can go light and portable with excellent images quality or I can go with ultimate IQ depending on situation. No need to mention cost, since original poster was comparing 400/4.5 to a much more expensive 300/2.8gm.
300/2.8gm is certainly a great lens but at least for me, the focal length is in a no man’s land. My experience with Nikon 300pf is that it just sat in my cabinet because I dont have many occasion where that focal length is ideal for me. There are many other Sony lenses that I would want to adapt before ever thinking about 300/2.8gm considering what I have and what I can use it for.
when it shines, sorry, TCx2 just can't compete.
Jan 22, 2026 at 06:31 PM
p.2 #8Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
fnzmf25 wrote:
Maybe you live in a bright location where the PF lens shines, it just fall apart so quickly in non ideal situations.
News to me. Broad-brush statement and I have never encountered any adverse conditions using the Z 600 PF.
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso3200
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso4500
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
Maybe you live in a bright location where the PF lens shines, it just fall apart so quickly in non ideal situations.
News to me. Broad-brush statement and I have never encountered any adverse conditions using the Z 600 PF.
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso3200
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso4500
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
Jan 22, 2026 at 06:55 PM
p.2 #9Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
I spent about 7 years using the Nikon 300mm primes + TCs for wildlife. I started with the Nikon 300mm f2.8 and, a few years later, got the Nikon 300mm f4 PF for when the size and weight of the f2.8 were an issue. In 2022, I got the Sony 200-600mm f6.3 so I would have a native E mount telephoto lens, and it ended up completely changing how I felt about telephoto primes. At this point I have a hard time recomending a 300mm prime, unless you are able to fairly often will the frame at 300mm or 420mm with a TC 1.4x. If you find yourself at 600mm with a TC 2x all the time, you're much better off trading 1/3 of a stop of light for a zoom. The ability to zoom out has gotten me many more photos than f6.3 vs f5.6 has lost me.
Jan 22, 2026 at 07:11 PM
p.2 #10Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
I would like a lightweight 300 f2.8 but preferably with a built in 1.4x TC. I can then marry it up with my Z 600 TC or Z 600 PF to cover 300 f2.8 up to 840 f5.6 or f9 depending on which 600 I choose to take.
Jan 22, 2026 at 07:17 PM
|
p.2 #11Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
Lance B wrote:
News to me. Broad-brush statement and I have never encountered any adverse conditions using the Z 600 PF.
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso3200
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175335511/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174741585/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso4500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174783523/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175682106/original.jpg
Great photos, Lance - but I wouldn’t consider those exposure to be even remotely “adverse” lighting conditions. I only wish I could have conditions that bright this time of year.
fnzmf25 wrote
Maybe you live in a bright location where the PF lens shines, it just fall apart so quickly in non ideal situations.Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso3200
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175335511/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174741585/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso4500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174783523/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175682106/original.jpg
Great photos, Lance - but I wouldn’t consider those exposure to be even remotely “adverse” lighting conditions. I only wish I could have conditions that bright this time of year.
Jan 23, 2026 at 12:31 AM
p.2 #12Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
Cliff L. wrote:
News to me. Broad-brush statement and I have never encountered any adverse conditions using the Z 600 PF.
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso3200
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175335511/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174741585/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso4500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174783523/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175682106/original.jpgGreat photos, Lance - but I wouldn’t consider those exposure to be even remotely “adverse” lighting conditions. I only wish I could have conditions that bright this time of year.
Thank you very much, Cliff.
They are all highish ISO, ie, f6.3 compared to an f4 lens, hence why I posted. You wouldn't consider 1/100sec at f6.3 ISO 4500 adverse?
Lance B wrote
fnzmf25 wrote
Maybe you live in a bright location where the PF lens shines, it just fall apart so quickly in non ideal situations.Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso3200
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175335511/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174741585/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso4500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174783523/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175682106/original.jpg
Thank you very much, Cliff.
They are all highish ISO, ie, f6.3 compared to an f4 lens, hence why I posted. You wouldn't consider 1/100sec at f6.3 ISO 4500 adverse?
Jan 23, 2026 at 01:12 AM
p.2 #13Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
Maybe it would be considered adverse conditions if the birds were flying and shutter speeds were above 1/2000 sec. Then ISO would be very high at an aperture of 6.3.
Jan 23, 2026 at 03:00 AM
p.2 #14Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
1bwana1 wrote:
Maybe it would be considered adverse conditions if the birds were flying and shutter speeds were above 1/2000 sec. Then ISO would be very high at an aperture of 6.3.
ISO 5.6 and 6.3 are not all that different though and in general, 1/3 stop of light is unlikely to be a break or make point.
Nowaday, sensor retain contrast and color so well at high ISO and denoising program is so much better. I don't see
1/3 of stop as big a deal as TCx2 degradation in resolution. All in all, 300/2.8 + TC as the best wild life lens ever, what a hyperbole. I took my 600/4s TC to Antarctica, to Africa, to 4500m altitude in -30C. If I am willing to spend that much and willing to go to the extreme, 300/2.8 + TC is not even worth the compromised to be bother to go on such trip period (although I did take 600PF as a second lens for zodiac cruise in Antarctica and no problem using it during Antarctica long twilight hour photographing porpoising penguin from the zodiac).
Now, hopefully it will be many more years before I will need to find something lighter to travel with, knock on wood
Also consider 600PF is quite a bit cheaper than 300/2.8GM and lighter, not including weight and cost of TCx2.
Maybe it would be considered adverse conditions if the birds were flying and shutter speeds were above 1/2000 sec. Then ISO would be very high at an aperture of 6.3.
ISO 5.6 and 6.3 are not all that different though and in general, 1/3 stop of light is unlikely to be a break or make point.
Nowaday, sensor retain contrast and color so well at high ISO and denoising program is so much better. I don't see
1/3 of stop as big a deal as TCx2 degradation in resolution. All in all, 300/2.8 + TC as the best wild life lens ever, what a hyperbole. I took my 600/4s TC to Antarctica, to Africa, to 4500m altitude in -30C. If I am willing to spend that much and willing to go to the extreme, 300/2.8 + TC is not even worth the compromised to be bother to go on such trip period (although I did take 600PF as a second lens for zodiac cruise in Antarctica and no problem using it during Antarctica long twilight hour photographing porpoising penguin from the zodiac).
Now, hopefully it will be many more years before I will need to find something lighter to travel with, knock on wood
Also consider 600PF is quite a bit cheaper than 300/2.8GM and lighter, not including weight and cost of TCx2.
Jan 23, 2026 at 04:20 AM
p.2 #15Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
suteetat wrote:
I think when discussing a 300/2.8 for wildlife, people often expect to use it with TCs, and in this particular lens's case many users seem to be happy with the performance. The light weight and compact size makes it easier to use it more varied conditions, for example, walking about in the forest or on hills, either the Sony 300/2.8 or the Nikon 400/4.5 are easy to work with. The 400/4.5 Nikkor is considerably lighter than the Sony 300/2.8 with 1.4 X TC on, though, but one could then argue that some of Sony's camera bodies are lighter and that would compensate for the difference to some extent. However, the position of the weight along the optical axis is also important and for me at least having as much of the weight close to my body as possible makes hand-held use easier. The 300/2.8 Nikkor is quite a challenge to hand-hold though I do do that when e.g. photographing figure skating, but walking inside a forest with hills, snow, and/or bushes I would not consider comfortable with that lens or any 400/2.8. The 400/4.5, 300/4 PF by contrast are very nice to use in such an environment. Are they too short? No, for large mammals they're not since the trees limit visibility over long distances anyway. Also, if you're in a hide, a wide variety of focal lengths can be used successfully.
Here there has been a shift from photographs showing the animals in their environment and some activity to showing a close-up of a single animal due to instagram and similar presentation platforms where it's not possible to really show landscapes in good detail, with animals. Instant attention and impact is there the game, I suppose. However, if you shoot for gallery or wall display then showing landscapes with animals or animals in their environment, then shorter focal lengths are suitable for that. Ultimately how an animal looks is not very interesting as we've seen so many examples of that. But if you can show some activity or animals in the grander scene of nature, that's much more interesting IMO. If you look at the statistics of the 100 best (selected by judges) images of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, it is typical that the average focal length is not that long (less than 300 mm).
If given unlimited budget and no marketing consideration, would they be able to make a higher quailty 400/4.5 lens, I would think that they could. If they think the market would support 400/4.5 at the same price point as 300/2.8 and it won't eat up their 400/2.8s TC sale, they probably would have make one.I agree that there is the pricing and position in the lineup to consider; at this price it's better (sharper and has arguably nicer bokeh) than the 100-400 mm at 400 mm, focuses faster, has a larger maximum aperture, and is lighter as well, but the difference is not that big. The 400/2.8 TC of course is a completely different class of a lens with extremely high price but such lenses are not that comfortable to walk around in a position ready to shoot, which in practice limit the buyer base and use cases. Of course, the f/4.5 aperture of the 400/4.5 also limits the uses of that lens. There is something for everyone in the Z telephoto lineup, at least for wildlife and birds. For indoor sports, concerts etc. 200/2 and 300/2.8 would be useful and are still missing. I would expect a 300/2.8 or 120-300/2.8 within a few years, personally I would hope it is a prime priced similarly to other 300/2.8 lenses as I really don't need yet another telezoom, least of all a 10k€+ lens. People who are like US secretary Bessent recently suggested, owning 5-12 houses, might not care about the price, but there are not that many of those people around. And in the future the excess concentration of wealth in the hands of a few might lead to another world war as it has in the past, after which there are no guarantees that anyone can afford anything. IMO lenses like the 400/4.5 are very important because of the wide range of uses and relatively affordable price, and it's really great that Nikon covers this upper intermediate-level market.Needing to use TC most of the time is a deal breaker for me for best wildlife lens ever. While TC nowadays is better and when people say, there is no visible degradation, just look Imatest published on Photographylife for example (dont see one for 309/2.8 yet but you can see one for 400/2,8s tc and 600/4s tc, i dont think sony tc is going to be much better than that) After saying that, yes,
You can still get excellent images with it. My strategy, I have both 600/4s TC and 600PF. Now I have arguably best in class wildlife...Show more →
I personally am not a fan of TCs and always felt with TCs you need to stop down the lens to get good results, and that is on top of the aperture loss from the use of the TC in the first place. At f/8 some TC+lens combinations can look good but in most cases where I'd use a long lens (apart from landscape) I would need to shoot wide open so there are just so many factors against it, but most people live in more brightly lit parts of the planet than I do and so it's understandable that some things can work in lower latitudes that don't work in many scenarios where I live in Finland.
In real-world hand-held conditions of wildlife subjects, the image sharpness is affected by residual camera shake and subject movement and ISO, and to get comparable to test chart results (made on a tripod and the lowest base ISO) one would need to have fairly bright lighting conditions. Nonetheless it's good to know what can be obtained in ideal conditions and as the phenomena (like optical aberrations and movement blur) are cumulative and to get good results, optimizing each factor helps even if the difference is not always decisive.
ilkka_nissila wrote
suteetat wrote
Hard to see any 300mm ever become the best wildlife lens of all time unless you only shoot elephants and hippos.Here there has been a shift from photographs showing the animals in their environment and some activity to showing a close-up of a single animal due to instagram and similar presentation platforms where it's not possible to really show landscapes in good detail, with animals. Instant attention and impact is there the game, I suppose. However, if you shoot for gallery or wall display then showing landscapes with animals or animals in their environment, then shorter focal lengths are suitable for that. Ultimately how an animal looks is not very interesting as we've seen so many examples of that. But if you can show some activity or animals in the grander scene of nature, that's much more interesting IMO. If you look at the statistics of the 100 best (selected by judges) images of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, it is typical that the average focal length is not that long (less than 300 mm).
Earlier quote
Could Nikon make 400/4.5 sharper and higher quality, I would think they could. It is not always technology that limits what Nikon can do but also marketing, price point and position in the market. Nikon has so many options for 400mm, from 400/2.8s TC down to 28-400. When they think of light weight 400 prime, I don't think the best lens is the only criteria but the best lens they can make at a certain price point that would fit in with their lineup.If given unlimited budget and no marketing consideration, would they be able to make a higher quailty 400/4.5 lens, I would think that they could. If they think the market would support 400/4.5 at the same price point as 300/2.8 and it won't eat up their 400/2.8s TC sale, they probably would have make one.
You can still get excellent images with it. My strategy, I have both 600/4s TC and 600PF. Now I have arguably best in class wildlife...Show more →
I personally am not a fan of TCs and always felt with TCs you need to stop down the lens to get good results, and that is on top of the aperture loss from the use of the TC in the first place. At f/8 some TC+lens combinations can look good but in most cases where I'd use a long lens (apart from landscape) I would need to shoot wide open so there are just so many factors against it, but most people live in more brightly lit parts of the planet than I do and so it's understandable that some things can work in lower latitudes that don't work in many scenarios where I live in Finland.
In real-world hand-held conditions of wildlife subjects, the image sharpness is affected by residual camera shake and subject movement and ISO, and to get comparable to test chart results (made on a tripod and the lowest base ISO) one would need to have fairly bright lighting conditions. Nonetheless it's good to know what can be obtained in ideal conditions and as the phenomena (like optical aberrations and movement blur) are cumulative and to get good results, optimizing each factor helps even if the difference is not always decisive.
Jan 23, 2026 at 05:22 AM
p.2 #16Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
Lance B wrote:
News to me. Broad-brush statement and I have never encountered any adverse conditions using the Z 600 PF.
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso3200
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175335511/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174741585/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso4500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174783523/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175682106/original.jpgGreat photos, Lance - but I wouldn’t consider those exposure to be even remotely “adverse” lighting conditions. I only wish I could have conditions that bright this time of year.Thank you very much, Cliff.
They are all highish ISO, ie, f6.3 compared to an f4 lens, hence why I posted. You wouldn't consider 1/100sec at f6.3 ISO 4500 adverse?
Those all look like they were shot in very beautiful light with some directional and diffuse components. I would only be able to dream on such conditions in wintertime where I live.
I don't have the 600 PF but have used the 300 PF and 500 PF extensively, and I found both to work well in frontal/side directional, high quality light but in overcast, low-contrast weather, the contrast can be low and the results a bit muddy, whereas non-PF lenses can still produce high contrast. Backlit conditions where the sun is just outside of the frame but within the cone of acceptance of the lens hood, there is strong veiling flare and this also does not look good with the PF lenses. Finally, in directional light with the sun hitting out-of-focus background features such as water surface the result can be quite ugly with PF lenses and I don't consider these lenses good choices for backlit subjects at least not in all conditions, though in some cases it can work. Anyway, I sold my 500 PF because I couldn't get used to the look of the images and developed a bit of a psychological allergy to the results from that lens, due to the somewhat harsh appearance of the main subject with extreme sharpness and not as good as some other lenses transition to out of focus (especially in backlit water cases), though when I look at the best images from that lens (especially tight close-ups of birds) that I got over the years of usage, I do like them, it's just that I wanted something a bit more mild-mannered for longer-distance and backlit situations, and the images from the 400/4.5 so far are very pleasing to my eye/brain and so it looks like it might be finally the long lens keeper for me. I don't want to spoil the pleasure people get from the 600 PF and the also very popular 800 PF as obviously it's producing excellent work, just I think the characteristics of the PF lenses are not for everyone's taste and in all conditions. If I had to choose between 400 + 1.4X and 600 PF I would obviously pick the latter, but for my subjects I think I will do fine with the 400/4.5 as it is, with no TC.
Cliff L. wrote
Lance B wrote
fnzmf25 wrote
Maybe you live in a bright location where the PF lens shines, it just fall apart so quickly in non ideal situations.Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso3200
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175335511/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174741585/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso4500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174783523/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175682106/original.jpg
They are all highish ISO, ie, f6.3 compared to an f4 lens, hence why I posted. You wouldn't consider 1/100sec at f6.3 ISO 4500 adverse?
Those all look like they were shot in very beautiful light with some directional and diffuse components. I would only be able to dream on such conditions in wintertime where I live.
I don't have the 600 PF but have used the 300 PF and 500 PF extensively, and I found both to work well in frontal/side directional, high quality light but in overcast, low-contrast weather, the contrast can be low and the results a bit muddy, whereas non-PF lenses can still produce high contrast. Backlit conditions where the sun is just outside of the frame but within the cone of acceptance of the lens hood, there is strong veiling flare and this also does not look good with the PF lenses. Finally, in directional light with the sun hitting out-of-focus background features such as water surface the result can be quite ugly with PF lenses and I don't consider these lenses good choices for backlit subjects at least not in all conditions, though in some cases it can work. Anyway, I sold my 500 PF because I couldn't get used to the look of the images and developed a bit of a psychological allergy to the results from that lens, due to the somewhat harsh appearance of the main subject with extreme sharpness and not as good as some other lenses transition to out of focus (especially in backlit water cases), though when I look at the best images from that lens (especially tight close-ups of birds) that I got over the years of usage, I do like them, it's just that I wanted something a bit more mild-mannered for longer-distance and backlit situations, and the images from the 400/4.5 so far are very pleasing to my eye/brain and so it looks like it might be finally the long lens keeper for me. I don't want to spoil the pleasure people get from the 600 PF and the also very popular 800 PF as obviously it's producing excellent work, just I think the characteristics of the PF lenses are not for everyone's taste and in all conditions. If I had to choose between 400 + 1.4X and 600 PF I would obviously pick the latter, but for my subjects I think I will do fine with the 400/4.5 as it is, with no TC.
Jan 23, 2026 at 05:32 AM
p.2 #17Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
Lance B wrote:
I would like a lightweight 300 f2.8 but preferably with a built in 1.4x TC.
The problem with built-in TC is that it typically increases the lens price by 2000-3000€ and the savings in lens weight of the modern technologies are partially lost if the TC has to be carried on the lens at all times.
I get it that if the 300 mm focal length is not what you want and would be often using it with a TC then it makes sense but for me the substantial extra cost and my lack of enjoyment of TCs would mean I would likely never buy such a lens if it comes with a built-in TC. Also if Nikon make such a lens with built-in TC it would mean that no fast medium long lens is affordable to students of photojournalism and probably would mean a lot of freelancers would also be out of the picture with the low pay of such work these days. The pay is reported to be often the price of a bus ticket, and you only get paid at all if you get the image published.
I would like a lightweight 300 f2.8 but preferably with a built in 1.4x TC.
The problem with built-in TC is that it typically increases the lens price by 2000-3000€ and the savings in lens weight of the modern technologies are partially lost if the TC has to be carried on the lens at all times.
I get it that if the 300 mm focal length is not what you want and would be often using it with a TC then it makes sense but for me the substantial extra cost and my lack of enjoyment of TCs would mean I would likely never buy such a lens if it comes with a built-in TC. Also if Nikon make such a lens with built-in TC it would mean that no fast medium long lens is affordable to students of photojournalism and probably would mean a lot of freelancers would also be out of the picture with the low pay of such work these days. The pay is reported to be often the price of a bus ticket, and you only get paid at all if you get the image published.
Jan 23, 2026 at 05:35 AM
p.2 #18Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
If you want the flimsy lens, then Sony might be good. Nikon users are not all so wimpy. They make the Z9, 600 TC for good reason, but not to be light and flimsy.
EBH
EBH
Jan 23, 2026 at 08:14 AM
p.2 #19Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
fnzmf25 wrote:
...it seems like some folks suggest Sony’s extreme aspherical element is the reason why Sony is able to make such lightweight lenses - I’m thinking of the 300 GM. Is this true? Does Nikon have any similar technology (disregarding PF)?
I haven't read the full thread but the mere idea that Nikon, which has been making lenses since 1933, cannot do what Sony does today in terms of optics production and underlying technology, makes me smile.
...it seems like some folks suggest Sony’s extreme aspherical element is the reason why Sony is able to make such lightweight lenses - I’m thinking of the 300 GM. Is this true? Does Nikon have any similar technology (disregarding PF)?
I haven't read the full thread but the mere idea that Nikon, which has been making lenses since 1933, cannot do what Sony does today in terms of optics production and underlying technology, makes me smile.
Jan 23, 2026 at 08:20 AM
p.2 #20Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
Lance B wrote:
News to me. Broad-brush statement and I have never encountered any adverse conditions using the Z 600 PF.
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso3200
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175335511/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174741585/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso4500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174783523/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175682106/original.jpgGreat photos, Lance - but I wouldn’t consider those exposure to be even remotely “adverse” lighting conditions. I only wish I could have conditions that bright this time of year.Thank you very much, Cliff.
They are all highish ISO, ie, f6.3 compared to an f4 lens, hence why I posted. You wouldn't consider 1/100sec at f6.3 ISO 4500 adverse?
In mid-day light here this time of year, I would be pushing ISO 12,800 or higher to get that shutter speed at f6.3 - which also seems to be the point at which the A1 II bird eye-AF starts to struggle a bit.
Cliff L. wrote
Lance B wrote
fnzmf25 wrote
Maybe you live in a bright location where the PF lens shines, it just fall apart so quickly in non ideal situations.Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso3200
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175335511/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/160s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174741585/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso4500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/174783523/original.jpg
Z8 + Z 600 pf, 1/100s f/6.3 at 600.0mm iso2500
https://pbase.com/lance_b/image/175682106/original.jpg
They are all highish ISO, ie, f6.3 compared to an f4 lens, hence why I posted. You wouldn't consider 1/100sec at f6.3 ISO 4500 adverse?
In mid-day light here this time of year, I would be pushing ISO 12,800 or higher to get that shutter speed at f6.3 - which also seems to be the point at which the A1 II bird eye-AF starts to struggle a bit.
Jan 23, 2026 at 10:27 AM