Nikon 300 f4 PF + 1.4TC | or Nikon 70-200 2.8VR II + 2.0TC ?????

D-B-J

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
9,027
Reaction score
2,175
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
So, I'm going to British Columbia / Seattle / Victoria in July with my uncle to fly fish for Salmon and get out on the water and fish for Halibut....I'm trying to figure out what kinda gear to bring with me, and I know I'll wanna rent some stuff. My current gear list is D800, Tamron 70-200 2.8VC, Sigma 35 Art, Nikon 85 1.8G, Nikon 16-35 f4 VRII, bunch of lee filters, etc.

I'll be out there for about 12 days, and I know I'll have lots of time to photograph. I'm trying to fit all my gear in a Pelican 1500 case, so it's small enough to carry-on and be waterproof. So I don't have A TON of space for extra gear, nor do I want to rent a large long lens. I will have the 16-35 to cover all sorts of landscapes, definitely bringing the sigma as it's my go-to walk around, and I need/want to bring something longer but not heavy.

I was thinking I can rent the Nikon 300 f4 PE and a 1.4TC, which will give me a 380mm 5.6, or the Nikon 70-200 2.8VR II and a 1.7 and 2.0TC.

Now, I'm sure there's other things I'm missing. What are your thoughts??



Thanks in advance!
Jake

P.S., Also, looking at the Mefoto globetrotter to replace my full-sized Induro tripod for this trip. I need the small-size to travel easily.
 
Last edited:
I would probably go with the 16-35mm and skip the 35mm (sounds like the 35mm gets enough attention and its time to use that zoom a bit). Not sure how that Tamron is with a TC, I would probably just take that with no TC. Seems like a good trip for a minimal case. The tripod sounds good, probably most the time to photograph will be in the evening.
 
I would go with the 70-200 & 1.7 TC for the versatility over the 300 f4. Give me a should if you get over here!
 
I would probably go with the 16-35mm and skip the 35mm (sounds like the 35mm gets enough attention and its time to use that zoom a bit). Not sure how that Tamron is with a TC, I would probably just take that with no TC. Seems like a good trip for a minimal case. The tripod sounds good, probably most the time to photograph will be in the evening.

No way in he** am I leaving that 35 at home. It's a wonderful lens. The 16-35 is my landscape monster, so those two will for sure come with me. It's the longer end setup I'm undecided about.

Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There's quite a gap between 35mm and 300mm. The 300 would be great for the wildlife, but not sure what you would be missing in the gap I mentioned.
 
There's quite a gap between 35mm and 300mm. The 300 would be great for the wildlife, but not sure what you would be missing in the gap I mentioned.

That's why I'm leaning towards the 70-200 and a few TC's. I say the Nikon not only because it'll work with Nikon TC's, but I'm not convinced the tamron is really all that sharp wide open. I wanna try out the Nikon and see how it shoots.

Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OK, the 35mm goes with you, no problem on that - especially if you will have some walking around time in Victoria and such (I would also never leave home without a prime tucked in the bag). For the long end, it actually would be good to rent that new 300mm. It looks like 99% of your landscape shots are done at the wide end, this would be a good chance to add some good telephoto landscape to the mix and the 300mm is really good for that.

I've done a lot of fly fishing in the Rockies, usually two or three days fishing and then a day or two of photography and then fishing again. I usually don't find myself mixing up the fishing a photography too much on the same day, but I'm sure you'll have the Pelican case close by or you wouldn't be a photographer :).

As for the Halibut fishing, I would rather just take pictures while out on the boat.
 
OK, the 35mm goes with you, no problem on that - especially if you will have some walking around time in Victoria and such (I would also never leave home without a prime tucked in the bag). For the long end, it actually would be good to rent that new 300mm. It looks like 99% of your landscape shots are done at the wide end, this would be a good chance to add some good telephoto landscape to the mix and the 300mm is really good for that.

I've done a lot of fly fishing in the Rockies, usually two or three days fishing and then a day or two of photography and then fishing again. I usually don't find myself mixing up the fishing a photography too much on the same day, but I'm sure you'll have the Pelican case close by or you wouldn't be a photographer :).

As for the Halibut fishing, I would rather just take pictures while out on the boat.


I guess my main worry with the 300 is a lack of flexibility. I don't think I'll be able to bring my 70-200 AND the 300... I wish Nikon made a 135 prime...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In the film days a Nikon 135 prime and 2x converter were in many a camera bag.

The 300mm is not flexible compared to a 70-200mm, but if your goal is a few portfolio quality shots and not a full record of the trip then the 300mm can certainly deliver in that. If your comfortable using the 35mm all day then having the 300mm on the camera is similar, only that moving to the right place for the shot takes longer.
 
In the film days a Nikon 135 prime and 2x converter were in many a camera bag.

The 300mm is not flexible compared to a 70-200mm, but if your goal is a few portfolio quality shots and not a full record of the trip then the 300mm can certainly deliver in that. If your comfortable using the 35mm all day then having the 300mm on the camera is similar, only that moving to the right place for the shot takes longer.

I want the best of both worlds... Why can't I have it all?!

I'm also wondering about the image quality. My brain says the 300 and a 1.4 would be optically superior to the 70-200 with a 2.0....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In the film days a Nikon 135 prime and 2x converter were in many a camera bag.

The 300mm is not flexible compared to a 70-200mm, but if your goal is a few portfolio quality shots and not a full record of the trip then the 300mm can certainly deliver in that. If your comfortable using the 35mm all day then having the 300mm on the camera is similar, only that moving to the right place for the shot takes longer.

I want the best of both worlds... Why can't I have it all?!

I'm also wondering about the image quality. My brain says the 300 and a 1.4 would be optically superior to the 70-200 with a 2.0....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hear ya! I want a 10-600 mm f2.8 zoom with no aberrations and under a grand. Oh yeah, it has to be light as well. ;)
 
I can't speak directly for the nikon 70-200 f2.8 and 2x Tele converter but my friend uses the Canon 70-200 f2.8 II IS with the newest 2x Tele. His photos with this are good, but they definitely take a hit on the lens by itself. I think a 2x converter is asking a bit much of most systems
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top