matthewo
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 1,445
- Reaction score
- 645
- Location
- the south
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Well last Saturday I had the pleasure of getting a chance to shoot with some long glass. I thought I would make a post with how everything went and my thoughts.
Well first of all I would like to thank my friend for letting me try out these lenses.
The line-up for the day included:
my D800
my 300mm F2.8 AF-S version II
his 500mm F4 AF-S version II
his 600mm F4 AF-S version I - AKA = The Beast....
my various teleconverters (tc14e ii & tc20e iii)
Anyways let's get on with this. I had the glass, I had about 8 or 9 hours and plenty of egrets and herons, and a few eagles... the majority of the day was very cloudy and white cloudy backgrounds where a problem sometimes.
I started off with the 500mm F4, I just love that lens, will most likely be the replacement for my 300mm, with the af-s II version the weight is only 7.5 lbs, only 1 lb heavier then my 300mm f2.8, but is a bit longer. it's still very hand hold able, but of coarse doesn't take long before you need some support of a monopod or tripod. I shot a lot with it wide open at f4 and it did great, also shot a little with the lens with my tc14e on it, and stopped down to F8 and it was still just as sharp, no difference noticed even at 100% crops. I just love the lens, it seems like the perfect super telephoto. long reach and works well with a 1.4 converter for 700mm, also tried the 2x converter on it, and it auto focused most of the time, even in the low light of a very cloudy day. Sharpness at F8 was "OK" but didn't really improve much stopping it down to f10 or above. also it was hit and miss with sharp photos.
Now I switched over to the 600mm f4 AF-S version I, let's just say this lens is not just massive in its size but also its weight. we all know the I version of all these super telephotos, on average weighs a few lb more and the 600 is no different. weighing in a 12.5lb it is pretty much the heaviest super telephoto made by Nikon, of course there are crazy lenses like the 1200-1700, but I am taking somewhat common lenses. just to be a retard, I hand held the lens for a few shots just to say I did... But getting back to the size and weight, I was using my monopod all day with this lens and it was a hand full, not so much as a problem with balance or being unsteady, but just moving it on a fast moving subject was somewhat challenging, but I still got 95% of the shots I wanted after a little practice. If you plan to let the lens rotate on the tripod collar while using a monopod to make up for your angle, if you know what I'm saying, let's just say that's rather hard to do, and takes a good firm grip and a workout. I found a few of my shots needing to be twisted a little to fix the horizon.
Getting back to it, If you really need the 600mm reach, and plan to get around 900mm with good quality using a tc14e ii, then you really don't have much choice then to get a 600mm lens. I will tell you this, it's amazing. If you are a photographer who is into wildlife and have never tired these super telephotos, I would say rent one or find a friend and talk nice to him/her, and try it out for a day. it's really a new experience, and one you will not forget. The reach and quality of the 600mm lens, and what it does to the background is just amazing. it's really a reach out and touch something lens, that turns the background to mush, and makes the subject tack sharp. I used the 600mm most of the day wide open at f4, and it was very sharp. I would also like to say that its built like a tank. I hiked a little ways with it through some woods, and set it up multiple locations on my monopod, removing and mounting it many times, and a few times shooting over my head with it. It gets rather taxing on a monopod with a tilt head, but is completely doable, but of course if you own the lens, get a gimble/Wimberley head.
I would also like to compare the lenses and give you the "what I thought" about them.
I just love the 600mm lens, it feels like it's in a class by itself just because of it reach while keeping a large F4 aperture. you can actually tell a difference in photos shot with the 500mm and the 600mm, because the background is noticeably more out of focus and it gives more emphasis on the subject. I noticed little to no difference in autofocus speed and performance when used with my d800, the 500mm af-s II may have been slightly more consistent with locking on focus the first time.
I will say that Nikon really tried to make all these lens as consistent as possible. It's funny to say, but the only real difference that sticks out with these lenses is: Size, Price, Weight, and Focal Distance. Nikon really did a good job at making the build quality, image quality, and autofocus, as constant as possible between their super telephotos. But that is what should be expected when we are talking about lenses that can cost as much as a used car.
If I was to pick a clear winner for IQ and AF-S it would be the 300mm F2.8, it is the sharpest wide open, even comparing F2.8 on the 300 and F4 on the 500mm and 600mm, and at all apertures. The difference is minimal at best, and hardly noticeable, only when you examine multiple raw files at 100% do to actually notice any difference. also AF Speed on the 300mm is slightly faster and more accurate, this is most likely down to the 2.8 aperture and the amount of light available to help it focus. Once again only minimally different. saying the 300mm is slightly better is really irrelevant anyways because we buy these lenses based on our needs. The focal distance of the lens we need determines which lens we buy and we will not have to compromise quality, because all 3 of these lenses excel.
So buy the lens based on the focal distance you are going to be using the most. the 300mm is extremely versatile, but if you constantly have a 2x converter on it, you will be much better off with a 500mm lens. while the 300mm 2.8 works good with a 2x converter, it just is not anywhere near what a 500mm f4 is on its own or even with a tc14e ii converter. if 420mm is more then what you need, then I would say the 300mm is a great option, its flat out amazing at 300mm wide open, and does very well with a tc14e ii converter. Now for those where 700mm isn't enough, or subject isolation is wanted, I would say the 600mm is the must have. It's not a walk around lens, I tried some of that, it feels like a brick after a mile or so. this is a tripod lens, but works fine on a heavy duty monopod.
Well first of all I would like to thank my friend for letting me try out these lenses.
The line-up for the day included:
my D800
my 300mm F2.8 AF-S version II
his 500mm F4 AF-S version II
his 600mm F4 AF-S version I - AKA = The Beast....
my various teleconverters (tc14e ii & tc20e iii)
Anyways let's get on with this. I had the glass, I had about 8 or 9 hours and plenty of egrets and herons, and a few eagles... the majority of the day was very cloudy and white cloudy backgrounds where a problem sometimes.
I started off with the 500mm F4, I just love that lens, will most likely be the replacement for my 300mm, with the af-s II version the weight is only 7.5 lbs, only 1 lb heavier then my 300mm f2.8, but is a bit longer. it's still very hand hold able, but of coarse doesn't take long before you need some support of a monopod or tripod. I shot a lot with it wide open at f4 and it did great, also shot a little with the lens with my tc14e on it, and stopped down to F8 and it was still just as sharp, no difference noticed even at 100% crops. I just love the lens, it seems like the perfect super telephoto. long reach and works well with a 1.4 converter for 700mm, also tried the 2x converter on it, and it auto focused most of the time, even in the low light of a very cloudy day. Sharpness at F8 was "OK" but didn't really improve much stopping it down to f10 or above. also it was hit and miss with sharp photos.
Now I switched over to the 600mm f4 AF-S version I, let's just say this lens is not just massive in its size but also its weight. we all know the I version of all these super telephotos, on average weighs a few lb more and the 600 is no different. weighing in a 12.5lb it is pretty much the heaviest super telephoto made by Nikon, of course there are crazy lenses like the 1200-1700, but I am taking somewhat common lenses. just to be a retard, I hand held the lens for a few shots just to say I did... But getting back to the size and weight, I was using my monopod all day with this lens and it was a hand full, not so much as a problem with balance or being unsteady, but just moving it on a fast moving subject was somewhat challenging, but I still got 95% of the shots I wanted after a little practice. If you plan to let the lens rotate on the tripod collar while using a monopod to make up for your angle, if you know what I'm saying, let's just say that's rather hard to do, and takes a good firm grip and a workout. I found a few of my shots needing to be twisted a little to fix the horizon.
Getting back to it, If you really need the 600mm reach, and plan to get around 900mm with good quality using a tc14e ii, then you really don't have much choice then to get a 600mm lens. I will tell you this, it's amazing. If you are a photographer who is into wildlife and have never tired these super telephotos, I would say rent one or find a friend and talk nice to him/her, and try it out for a day. it's really a new experience, and one you will not forget. The reach and quality of the 600mm lens, and what it does to the background is just amazing. it's really a reach out and touch something lens, that turns the background to mush, and makes the subject tack sharp. I used the 600mm most of the day wide open at f4, and it was very sharp. I would also like to say that its built like a tank. I hiked a little ways with it through some woods, and set it up multiple locations on my monopod, removing and mounting it many times, and a few times shooting over my head with it. It gets rather taxing on a monopod with a tilt head, but is completely doable, but of course if you own the lens, get a gimble/Wimberley head.
I would also like to compare the lenses and give you the "what I thought" about them.
I just love the 600mm lens, it feels like it's in a class by itself just because of it reach while keeping a large F4 aperture. you can actually tell a difference in photos shot with the 500mm and the 600mm, because the background is noticeably more out of focus and it gives more emphasis on the subject. I noticed little to no difference in autofocus speed and performance when used with my d800, the 500mm af-s II may have been slightly more consistent with locking on focus the first time.
I will say that Nikon really tried to make all these lens as consistent as possible. It's funny to say, but the only real difference that sticks out with these lenses is: Size, Price, Weight, and Focal Distance. Nikon really did a good job at making the build quality, image quality, and autofocus, as constant as possible between their super telephotos. But that is what should be expected when we are talking about lenses that can cost as much as a used car.
If I was to pick a clear winner for IQ and AF-S it would be the 300mm F2.8, it is the sharpest wide open, even comparing F2.8 on the 300 and F4 on the 500mm and 600mm, and at all apertures. The difference is minimal at best, and hardly noticeable, only when you examine multiple raw files at 100% do to actually notice any difference. also AF Speed on the 300mm is slightly faster and more accurate, this is most likely down to the 2.8 aperture and the amount of light available to help it focus. Once again only minimally different. saying the 300mm is slightly better is really irrelevant anyways because we buy these lenses based on our needs. The focal distance of the lens we need determines which lens we buy and we will not have to compromise quality, because all 3 of these lenses excel.
So buy the lens based on the focal distance you are going to be using the most. the 300mm is extremely versatile, but if you constantly have a 2x converter on it, you will be much better off with a 500mm lens. while the 300mm 2.8 works good with a 2x converter, it just is not anywhere near what a 500mm f4 is on its own or even with a tc14e ii converter. if 420mm is more then what you need, then I would say the 300mm is a great option, its flat out amazing at 300mm wide open, and does very well with a tc14e ii converter. Now for those where 700mm isn't enough, or subject isolation is wanted, I would say the 600mm is the must have. It's not a walk around lens, I tried some of that, it feels like a brick after a mile or so. this is a tripod lens, but works fine on a heavy duty monopod.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/30/30875-d76f1fa085aee4334cb6b0cd62bb5e2d.jpg?1619734491)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32179-99b00fe3df8a5ed7303ced76980128fd.jpg?1619735235)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32177-3a3d923fa1584c6ef7d6602aaa24fbc6.jpg?1619735235)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/30/30878-f33da8abe01acde1dcee7898f41310e1.jpg?1619734493)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/36/36423-4f4abd5f32da2219d4967c7a13b07a8c.jpg?1619737566)
