multibit wrote: Chris Dees wrote: Laslo Varadi wrote: ariel777 wrote:
After reviewing the captures on this thread, as well my own, with and without the 1.4 and 1.7 TCs, I question my judgment in initially purchasing and presently keeping the 200-500. I firmly believe that the IQ of a fixed length trumps that of a variable.
That’s why I am thinking of trading in the 200-500 for the 300f4e. The weight and IQ.
I have both and intend to keep both.
The IQ of the 300PF + 1.4TCIII is more or less the same as the 200-500 bare.
In good light you can use the 1.4TCIII on the 200-500 with good/acceptable results.
How do you find the 300mm f4 PF + TC-14e iii compares against the 200-500 for longer distance birds ? I love the 300mm pf with or without the x1.4 TC but find the IQ isn't so good for longer distance . I can't decide between 200-500 or 150-600 Sig sport if they offer better in that area
Those super zooms are compromises, as is a 300PF + TC.
At longer distance the IQ falls apart, that's territory of the super teles. There's a reason why they are so expensive.
I started with the Tamron 150-600 G1, then the Sigma 150-600 S (better but to heavy) and now have the 200-500 as a compromise between reach and weight (IQ and AF is more or less the same as with the Sigma S).
None of them are good on longer distances so I really need (want) a 500E/600E.
Oct 15, 2017 at 02:02 PM
Previous versions of Chris Dees's message #14216907 « AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Image Thread »
