I just went through one of those personal arguments (with myself) about getting a 600mm because all of the teleconverters I've tried with my 32 year old Nikon 300 2.8 degraded the image and frankly I'm spoiled. So I rented a 500 and a 600mm and did some testing. My personal opinion and some pixel peeping gave the 300mm the nod over the 500mm and I found the sharpness of the 300 compared to the 600 to be almost as good as. If I equal the framing the 600mm is very slightly better than my trusted 300. Bottom line is I'm not going to buy a 600mm for barely perceptible improvement. I'm going to stick with perfection.
So, to chime in with the theme, I agree that (my) Nikon 300mm 2.8 is the best glass Nikon makes and I would add it to my kit over any other lens.
hsswan, I kinda went through the same drill, comparing my old 300 to my new Sigma 500 f/4.5. I found the perceived sharpness, color, contrast, etc, indistinguishable (I think that's a word) but the 500 with the HSM is a snappier focuser than the screw-drive 300 with a TC. So I kept them both. Hell, it's just $$$ and you really can't take it with you.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
hsswan, I kinda went through the same drill, comparing my old 300 to my new Sigma 500 f/4.5. I found the perceived sharpness, color, contrast, etc, indistinguishable (I think that's a word) but the 500 with the HSM is a snappier focuser than the screw-drive 300 with a TC. So I kept them both. Hell, it's just $$$ and you really can't take it with you.
My little odessey started several months ago when I took shots of humming birds with the 300 using anywhere from 10 to 15% of the frame I was reminded of how good this lens was
That's when I decided to look at Nikon's finest, 600mm. It's hard to tell the difference but the results say it all. Here's a full frame shot from the same origination, camera and lens. Enlarge the hummer with it's eyes closed to compare:
There is a diffence with this lens. This 300 is really as good as the 600 and sharper more detailed than the 500mm. All done with a D7000, btw.
Yep, my 300 on the D800 is a stunning combo. But don't forget that when going to glass as big as the 600, little things really do count. Optimum apertures, dead on focus, mirror slap, etc. I feel the NPS copy of the 600 I used was excellent, but I only had my D3s that week. I would have LOVED to have done some shooting with the D800 and that lens.
These 300mm photos you've posted are amazing though. Very nicely done.
I have the 500 f4 and love it. I got it because it was lighter than the 600 and I found a deal on it too. But your question was the 300 2.8. That is a fantastic lens. I like that and the 400 2.8 and have been debating which one. I decided to go with the 300. Why is the flexibility. I can put a TC on it or I can pull the 500 out. If I was birding I would have held out for the 600 but as an all around Prime the 300 2.8 is hard to beat.
Comments
So, to chime in with the theme, I agree that (my) Nikon 300mm 2.8 is the best glass Nikon makes and I would add it to my kit over any other lens.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
My little odessey started several months ago when I took shots of humming birds with the 300 using anywhere from 10 to 15% of the frame I was reminded of how good this lens was
That's when I decided to look at Nikon's finest, 600mm. It's hard to tell the difference but the results say it all. Here's a full frame shot from the same origination, camera and lens. Enlarge the hummer with it's eyes closed to compare:
There is a diffence with this lens. This 300 is really as good as the 600 and sharper more detailed than the 500mm. All done with a D7000, btw.
These 300mm photos you've posted are amazing though. Very nicely done.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
I would buy used rather than grey market.