300pf vs 80-400 vs 200-500 Nikon lenses

[EnjoyPics]

I have a 70-300dx that takes great pics of hummers in my backyard garden. I have a D3300 and Z50. I would like the hummers if possible a little bigger in the pics. Sometimes I can get within 4 feet. Other times I am 14 feet away. What would be your suggestions for the best sharpness, clarity, and color? I read complaints about receiving a bad copies of the 200-500. How often is receiving a bad copy a problem? How do you avoid that? The reports of the 300 prime with 1.4 extender are very good. Are 99% 300 primes across the board excellent? Are they noticeably better then the 80-400? I don’t read too much about that lens. What is the speculation on the upcoming Z Mount 100-400 and 200-600 quality?

 

[Turberticus]

I'd go with the 300 F/4 + TC, especially since you can get pretty close to the backyard hummingbirds. I use the older 300 AF-S F/4 D with a TC14 and am very happy with it. Both the older 300 F/4 and 300 PF are very sharp and focus closer than the zooms you listed. The MFD of the 200-500 is 7 feet and the 300 F/4 is 4.6 feet.

 

[DRwyoming]

The reports of the 300 prime with 1.4 extender are very good. Are 99% 300 primes across the board excellent? Are they noticeably better then the 80-400?

Yes, the Nikon 300mm primes (both the f/2.8 and f/4 versions) are very sharp lenses and the current 300mm f/4 PF lens is a joy to work with as it's small light, has VR for hand holding and as posted above has a very close minimum focusing distance and takes the TC-14 iii teleconverter well. For Hummingbirds and other small birds you can get close to the 300mm PF with or without at 1.4x TC is a great combo. If you can't get as close as you'd like then the 500mm PF is a great lens but it's a bit bigger, of course more expensive, and its minimum focusing distance is longer than the 300mm PF which usually doesn't matter but it does limit how close you can work.

And yes, I'd say the 300mm PF is noticeably better all around than Nikon's 80-400mm zoom and that includes better image quality and faster focusing.

 

[EnjoyPics]

Do you think the 300pf will probably be better image quality then the upcoming Z Mount 100-400 or 200-600 because it is a prime and the others are zooms? Have any Z zooms matched primes?

 

[anthonyrobinson]

Do you think the 300pf will probably be better image quality then the upcoming Z Mount 100-400 or 200-600 because it is a prime and the others are zooms? Have any Z zooms matched primes?

Nothing scientific, just subjective, but yes the f2.8 zooms are phenomenal (especially the wrong end of the spectrum that you're enquiring about, the 14-24) and there's little doubt in my mind that they aren't better than their f-mount prime counterparts.