James Markus wrote:
Jim, Just pointing out there are manual focus 600mm Nikkors. ...
I hear what you are saying but I have no intention of acquiring another lens in the near future! If I did it would probably be a modern AF zoom, though I have no justification for it. I'm just doing this for the fun anyway.
Yesterday I repeated that FL comparison, shot a series with the 200, 300, and 300 x 1.4, at least three apertures each (5.6, 8, 11). I mounted the camera on a heavy old-school Manfrotto tripod, target was a lawn chair about 100 meters away. (With the high viewfinder magnification the tripod was surprisingly jiggly with a high oscillation frequency than if I were hand-holding it.) The light was bright but variable due to swaying tree shadows. I cropped them to the same subject matter, about 1465, 2200, and 3100 pixels, re-zised them to 1200, the applied PaintShop Pro's Sharpen filter.
I won't show any pics but here are my impressions. At the smaller apertures the 300 and 300x1.4 were nicer than the 200 because processing artifacts were apparent in the 200. When the 300 combos were wide open the 200 was equal or a bit better for clarity. When the light happened to be more direct on the target the 300 and 300x1.4 pics seemed better than when the light was diffuse because there was more obvious contrast between shadow and lit areas.
Under these circumstances the longer FL's were better but I'm still impressed by the old 200mm f/4. For printing or display on a larger screen the differences would likely be more pronounced.
Now back to your regularly scheduled picture display.