Said bye bye to my 500mm

[matthewo]

So, wanted to work on paying off some bills. so I sold the 500mm vr. It will be missed. I pre-order the new tc14e iii to go with the new (used) lens I bought. any guesses on this lens, the following pictures are a few from my back yard. I guess you can check the exif if you want or you could play fair.

 

[tirediron]

A nice piece of glass, whatever it is!

 

[sscarmack]

Very nice indeed.

I'd guess something in the 400 range still and rarely large aperture f5.6 maybe.

70-200 2.8 maybe.

Either way, you got some nice results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

Looks longish I'd guess...200-400VR? 300 f/4 AF-S?

 

[matthewo]

Very nice indeed.

I'd guess something in the 400 range still and rarely large aperture f5.6 maybe.

70-200 2.8 maybe.

Either way, you got some nice results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good guess, I do have a 70-200 already though.

 

[matthewo]

Looks longish I'd guess...200-400VR? 300 f/4 AF-S?

I did think about buying a 200-400, but the softness at long distance swayed me away.

 

[matthewo]

As some of you may know im a new father as well, that did help play into a bit. I do feel this lens has the ability to be so much more versatile over the 500 f4.

These images were also taken with the same lens and my cheap yongnuo triggers and broken umbrella and small softbox and old sb-26 and sb-600.

 

[Derrel]

Looks longish I'd guess...200-400VR? 300 f/4 AF-S?

I did think about buying a 200-400, but the softness at long distance swayed me away.

Yeah...that is a big, big issue with the 200-400 VR...it's just NOT as sharp at long distances as many of the prime lenses are. Besides, it is HUGE and very heavy for "what it really is" over the majority of its length...it's a 200mm f/4!!! And it's a 300mm f/4? BOTH 200mm and 300mm lenses of f/4 speed are easily, easily obtainable in tiny packages, for less weight and less money. Around here, used 200-400 VR's go for about $3400 used, one or two a year.

 

[matthewo]

oh well, its a 300mm 2.8 VR 1, personally I think its an amazing lens. one of the sharpest telephotos IMO. $1500 cheaper than the VR II version for pretty much the same thing, I think the 300mm 2.8 VR 1 is the only lens that is not a VR II to have nano coating. bought it from KEH and it was in pretty good shape.. some of you may know I shot with a 300 mm afs-ii 2.8 about a year and half ago for a while and loved it, but just wanted something a little bit longer, at that time I was also shooting FX, but now that I shoot the d7100 a lot I find I don't need much more than 500mm and I think I can get away with less most of the time and possibly if Nikon releases a III version of the tc1.7 then that will be the perfect TC for the 300mm 2.8 IMO

also another thing to remember is the new Nikon teleconverters like the tc14e III only autofocus with G lenses so they are getting away from compatibility with aperture ring lenses.

 

[matthewo]

Yeah...that is a big, big issue with the 200-400 VR...it's just NOT as sharp at long distances as many of the prime lenses are. Besides, it is HUGE and very heavy for "what it really is" over the majority of its length...it's a 200mm f/4!!! And it's a 300mm f/4? BOTH 200mm and 300mm lenses of f/4 speed are easily, easily obtainable in tiny packages, for less weight and less money. Around here, used 200-400 VR's go for about $3400 used, one or two a year.

Yeah the 200-400 was very tempting but I'm glad I went 300 2.8. If I had the 200-400 it would've at 400 90% of the time where it is weak. I think the new tc14e iii and 300mm 2.8 = 420mm should still beat it wide open at f4, heck I'm even wondering if I might be similar to the 500mm f4 as the 300 2.8 noticeably has a sharpness and contrast advantage over the 500 f4 bare lens

Maybe later on I may look at getting a 600mm early afs if prices drop low when the new Nikon telephotos roll out. That way I an have a really long lens that may weigh 14 lbs but I only use on a monopod