Andre Labonte wrote:
Nope ... if weight is not your issue, then maybe too much coffee?
Seriously though, I guess depending on the situation 1/100 @ 300mm or more (with a TC) might be hard to get critical sharpness. I forget that on the 70-200 +TC I have VR to help in that area. But you mentioned less that 3X the focal length range which implies to me 1/900 which should be plenty fast. I'm thinking you meant 1/3rd.
Yep coffee might be an issue I should of been more specific and I had BIF on my mind along with breakfast .
I have the 70-200VR and 300 f4 AFS and 300 VR etc. The 300mm F4 AFS lens is difficult to achieve critical focus handholding static objects at less than 1/3 of the focal length and even a bit higher and for BIF 1/1250-/1600 works well for me and less is hit and miss. I do use TC's making the focal length 510mm or 420mm so the difficulty is increased but this lens takes TC's while keeping exceptional image quality. Got to love it!
Avi B wrote:
This is the exact comment I was referring to. And I stand by my comment, unless you meant shutters 1/3 the focal length (but you did say 3x). Anyway, this is one of those rather subjective things, different people can handhold at different speeds. Physical strength does help with the ability to handhold at slower speeds, though.
Very true and I cleared it up in the prev post I think .
Ray
Nov 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Humanoid wrote:
Yep coffee might be an issue I should of been more specific and I had BIF on my mind along with breakfast .
I have the 70-200VR and 300 f4 AFS and 300 VR etc. The 300mm F4 AFS lens is difficult to achieve critical focus handholding static objects at less than 1/3 of the focal length and even a bit higher and for BIF 1/1250-/1600 works well for me and less is hit and miss. I do use TC's making the focal length 510mm or 420mm so the difficulty is increased but this lens takes TC's while keeping exceptional image quality. Got to love it!
Interesting that you need such fast shutter speeds for BIF. I found 1/1000 plenty fast at an air show, and we are talking jets moving at just under the sound barrier. Also, I have gotten clean shots of prop planes at 1/150 or 1/200 so as to get prop blur ... admittedly though, much harder and hit or miss at those slow speeds.
I say all this because I wonder if there is something you can do in your technique that might help. Maybe even a mono-pod, after all with the big long lenses some form of support is almost always needed.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Interesting that you need such fast shutter speeds for BIF. I found 1/1000 plenty fast at an air show, and we are talking jets moving at just under the sound barrier. Also, I have gotten clean shots of prop planes at 1/150 or 1/200 so as to get prop blur ... admittedly though, much harder and hit or miss at those slow speeds.
I say all this because I wonder if there is something you can do in your technique that might help. Maybe even a mono-pod, after all with the big long lenses some form of support is almost always needed....Show more →
I use TC's exclusively and maybe shooting at 510 mm VS 300mm is the difference. I also use a monopod but for static objects and its dangling in the air when shooting BIF most of the time. I feel my technique isn't that bad but I'm sure there are some holes.
Here are a few recent captures taken handheld with the 300 f4 afs with TC17. The little blue was the exception to the rule for me.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Interesting that you need such fast shutter speeds for BIF. I found 1/1000 plenty fast at an air show, and we are talking jets moving at just under the sound barrier. Also, I have gotten clean shots of prop planes at 1/150 or 1/200 so as to get prop blur ... admittedly though, much harder and hit or miss at those slow speeds.
I say all this because I wonder if there is something you can do in your technique that might help. Maybe even a mono-pod, after all with the big long lenses some form of support is almost always needed....Show more →
You may have steady hands, but it is not fair comparing BIF and a flying airplane. In shooting a flying airplane, you fly with it, "same speed", even the speeddy jets, and the plane wings don't move relative to the body or head. That can't be said about the birds. The wings move in diffferent directions of the head/body and their path are not as predictable as airplanes's
Nov 13, 2009 at 07:59 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
nugeny wrote:
You may have steady hands, but it is not fair comparing BIF and a flying airplane. In shooting a flying airplane, you fly with it, "same speed", even the speeddy jets, and the plane wings don't move relative to the body or head. That can't be said about the birds. The wings move in diffferent directions of the head/body and their path are not as predictable as airplanes's
AH!!! Now that makes sense. As you can tell, I've never done BIF. I don't have lenses long enough --- yet It's on my list. Thank you for the explenation, that is very helpful.
I say all this because I wonder if there is something you can do in your technique that might help. Maybe even a mono-pod, after all with the big long lenses some form of support is almost always needed.
You may have steady hands, but it is not fair comparing BIF and a flying airplane. In shooting a flying airplane, you fly with it, "same speed", even the speeddy jets, and the plane wings don't move relative to the body or head. That can't be said about the birds. The wings move in diffferent directions of the head/body and their path are not as predictable as airplanes's
AH!!! Now that makes sense. As you can tell, I've never done BIF. I don't have lenses long enough --- yet It's on my list. Thank you for the explenation, that is very helpful.
Andre, you have more than you need for BIF shots. Now is the time to go to Bosque del Apache. You would be in heaven shooting cranes, snow birds, egrets and untold number of other birds in flight.
This is a great wildlife and nature lens, very light and portable, and sharp! This is a recent purchase for me, and the quality is stellar. Also, as others have stated it adapts well to a tc, and have used one with a tripod with no special mount with good success. I have gone back and forth between Nikon and Canon, and this lens is really a standout in the lineup.
One thing I have noticed so far that with the tc especially is it's harder to grab the bird in the viewfinder initially than with the 70-300.
I am having to reform my technique entirely. I missed almost all of the smal fast moving birds I saw today. Kingfishers etc would zoom by and be out of site before I got a lock on them. With the 70-300 you can throw it up and zoom out to 70 if you have to to get them in the viewfinder easier and zoom in on them. Was much harder for me initially.
I got very few keepers today for as much as I shot compared to the number I am used to getting with the zoom. Not the lenses fault just their is a learning curve to get used to for people thinking about this lens.
I did however come out with some good static shots with it though.
I found I was using the tc 99% of the time and it was still to short, just goes to show a lens is never long enough for wildlife
I love this lens. The only down side, if you could really consider it one, is that with the 1.7X TC (which it isn't really designed for) is that it isn't the best in low light. The focus gets pretty slow and I struggle getting the shot I am looking for. That probably has more to do with my technique, but I don't think that combo was intended for low light - we are looking at f/6.7 or so - it works great with enough light.
Maybe the lack of VR could be considered a weakness, but it does just fine without it just the same. Maybe someday Nikon will release a VR version, but that will likely drive the cost up, removing some of the value of this lens.
As for IQ, I have no complaints on that front. It is not embarrassed by any other lens I have. If you are okay with the 70-200 for keeping away from the heavy lenses, the 300 f/4 is about the same as was previously mentioned. While I would love to have the 300 f/2.8, or even a VR version of this lens, I'm very satisfied with how the 300 f/4 performs and suspect that any future lenses will have to work hard to convince me to replace it.
In my opinion, the 300 f/4 is one of the best bargains that Nikon offers. Highly recommended.
eaglewolf wrote:
I love this lens. The only down side, if you could really consider it one, is that with the 1.7X TC (which it isn't really designed for) is that it isn't the best in low light. The focus gets pretty slow and I struggle getting the shot I am looking for. That probably has more to do with my technique, but I don't think that combo was intended for low light - we are looking at f/6.7 or so - it works great with enough light.
Maybe the lack of VR could be considered a weakness, but it does just fine without it just the same. Maybe someday Nikon will release a VR version, but that will likely drive the cost up, removing some of the value of this lens.
As for IQ, I have no complaints on that front. It is not embarrassed by any other lens I have. If you are okay with the 70-200 for keeping away from the heavy lenses, the 300 f/4 is about the same as was previously mentioned. While I would love to have the 300 f/2.8, or even a VR version of this lens, I'm very satisfied with how the 300 f/4 performs and suspect that any future lenses will have to work hard to convince me to replace it.
In my opinion, the 300 f/4 is one of the best bargains that Nikon offers. Highly recommended.
I hiked around 6 miles with it today, my camera bag with various other lenses and a camel back. I'm wondering how I would feel if I had dragged the 2.8 or the 400 2.8 around that much.
I had it balanced over my left shoulder with the monopod and it was fine, my right shoulder is semi sore from my bag however.
eaglewolf wrote:
I love this lens. The only down side, if you could really consider it one, is that with the 1.7X TC (which it isn't really designed for) is that it isn't the best in low light. The focus gets pretty slow and I struggle getting the shot I am looking for. That probably has more to do with my technique, but I don't think that combo was intended for low light - we are looking at f/6.7 or so - it works great with enough light.
Maybe the lack of VR could be considered a weakness, but it does just fine without it just the same. Maybe someday Nikon will release a VR version, but that will likely drive the cost up, removing some of the value of this lens.
As for IQ, I have no complaints on that front. It is not embarrassed by any other lens I have. If you are okay with the 70-200 for keeping away from the heavy lenses, the 300 f/4 is about the same as was previously mentioned. While I would love to have the 300 f/2.8, or even a VR version of this lens, I'm very satisfied with how the 300 f/4 performs and suspect that any future lenses will have to work hard to convince me to replace it.
In my opinion, the 300 f/4 is one of the best bargains that Nikon offers. Highly recommended.
OK David, I am convinced. The new US lens will be here in 2 days. After waiting for the VR for a year, I decided to go for this one in the meantime. The way I read it, I may not have to get the VR one. Using D3 and D300 I can shoot high ISO, specially D3, I think I can compensate for f4. Long time ago I had the 300/2.8 shooting F100 ISO 60 and 100, I didn't know it was sooo slow. Now I shoot D3 very seldom below ISO 800. I turn down to 200 only for landscape and tripod. D3 can be shot at ISO 3200 ( x6 faster than 100), raw getting excellent IQ. Can't wait.
Nov 15, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I like you have been waiting for a VR version of this lens. Fortunately (or unfortunately as the case may be) for me, there are enough other things I must get that I can go after those while waiting. But my list grows shorter all the time.
. 
Very nicely done! I'd say your technique is just fine. 