Do I need a 300mm f/4 PF?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

I think the 300mm PF + Nikon 1.4iii TC is a very good option if price is your major consideration. I also have the 500mm PF and I use it a lot when in the field photographing wildlife where I usually cannot get close to the subject here in AZ. However, when I can get close (bird sanctuaries, wildlife preserves, zoos, backyard) or for longer hikes in search of subjects the 300 PF with the 1.4 TC in my pocket just in case is a really good set up. Super on your D780 I would think.
 
I've tested the 500 PF against my 600 F/4 and it's close enough not to care. :) For me, the big consideration is size / weight / F/stop.
Yep, the size & weight is a plus and the one stop penalty is a minus. With the lower cost and less weight after two shoulder reco’s The 500 PF was a no brainer for me.
 
I have seen a few writers here suggesting the 300 PF isn't long enough for smaller birds and the 500 PF is the one to get. Here in Canada it's $2000 more than the 300 PF, a not insignificant amount of money. So I'm thinking of the 300 PF with the TC14iii which would give me 420 and the same f stop as the 500 PF. I am using a Nikon D780 which I love. My question here is whether there is a huge advantage in the 500 PF compared to the 300 PF with TC and cropping a little? I am not aiming for award winning photos, just ones that appear sharp on my computer and TV
Interestingly, I just went through a very similar deliberation, albeit for slightly different reasons. I had set aside $$ for a photographic purchase and my quandary was where would I get the biggest photographic bang for my $. I do own the 300PF (and a 1.4 TC) which I just love and have been eyeing the 500PF since it was launched. I also often use it with the TC so, as you said, a 420mm f5.6...devilishly close to the 500PF. Therefore, wanting more low light, high ISO, focusing and speed capabilities (and debating this for most of this year), I went overboard and got a D6 instead. Just got it last week and have put my "first few rolls of film" through it. Attached image was shot with the 300mmPF, 1.4 TC on the D6. Problem is, I still want the 500PF too 😜
Topaz DeNoise-3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Dave for your reply. Your attached photo has convinced me the way to go is with the 300 PF and TC. It is certainly sharp enough for my needs.
 
Marcus, I can relate to your (and many other members here) desire to have just one more lens and "then I'll be completely happy". Not so, because there will always be another new lens that we are craving. How I deal with this is reminding myself that research shows happiness from purchases is short-lived and what brings happiness is experiences. So I remind myself, photography is about the experience of being in nature or a sport, the satisfaction of capturing images. I don't want to let my happiness be determined by slight difference in photo sharpness.
 
Marcus, I can relate to your (and many other members here) desire to have just one more lens and "then I'll be completely happy". Not so, because there will always be another new lens that we are craving. How I deal with this is reminding myself that research shows happiness from purchases is short-lived and what brings happiness is experiences. So I remind myself, photography is about the experience of being in nature or a sport, the satisfaction of capturing images. I don't want to let my happiness be determined by slight difference in photo sharpness.
Well said, sir. Photographically speaking, I'm never happier than when behind the viewfinder. However, I am partial to capturing sharp focused pictures.
 
Related question...currently using a Tamron 150-600 on a D7500 and looking for something lighter for hiking and handholdping. It don’t want to give up too much reach. So...a 30pPF and 1.7 TC gives 510mm and the 500/1.4 gives 700mm will use either on both the 7500, my wife’s new Z50, and perhaps a Z7 if I go that route myself. Output is almost exclusively web and screen...not print.

So...looking at versatility, IQ and other factors...which of these two combos seems wisest or should I consider the 20TC or 1.4TC with the 300 or 500 instead. Everybody is different but lots of smart different opinions is always good.
 
Related question...currently using a Tamron 150-600 on a D7500 and looking for something lighter for hiking and handholdping. It don’t want to give up too much reach. So...a 30pPF and 1.7 TC gives 510mm and the 500/1.4 gives 700mm will use either on both the 7500, my wife’s new Z50, and perhaps a Z7 if I go that route myself. Output is almost exclusively web and screen...not print.

So...looking at versatility, IQ and other factors...which of these two combos seems wisest or should I consider the 20TC or 1.4TC with the 300 or 500 instead. Everybody is different but lots of smart different opinions is always good.

The 300PF and 1.7 don't play all that well together, at least from my experience. The 500PF IQ is good with the 1.4TC, but AF is painfully slow and only useable on a. few point in a DSLR. I'd avoid the 2X converter for sure with those lenses.

However, the Tamron isn't as sharp as the 500PF, so I think I'd rather crop the 500PF to a 600mm field of view.

BTW - most of the time, for me anyway, a 500PF on a D7500 is plenty of reach - in many cases, more than I'd want.
 
The 300PF and 1.7 don't play all that well together, at least from my experience. The 500PF IQ is good with the 1.4TC, but AF is painfully slow and only useable on a. few point in a DSLR. I'd avoid the 2X converter for sure with those lenses.

However, the Tamron isn't as sharp as the 500PF, so I think I'd rather crop the 500PF to a 600mm field of view.

BTW - most of the time, for me anyway, a 500PF on a D7500 is plenty of reach - in many cases, more than I'd want.
The more wildlife photography I do, the more I realize longer than 600 mm-e isn't the solution. Getting closer is the solution. Too bad birds think I'm scary!
 
My experience is like Steve's. The TC17ii is disappointing on the 300 PF even when just looking at photos on the computer. Birds are just not crystal sharp. That's why I'm looking for a TC14iii and have seen a used one at a great price on Craigslist, which I hope to pick up tonight.
 
The more wildlife photography I do, the more I realize longer than 600 mm-e isn't the solution. Getting closer is the solution. Too bad birds think I'm scary!
This is really true. (y) The problem with getting into super long focal lengths for long-range targets is that the atmosphere itself starts to work against you and soften the images. I'm always happier when I'm at the proper range and go out of my way to shoot locations that allow it.
 
This is really true. (y) The problem with getting into super long focal lengths for long-range targets is that the atmosphere itself starts to work against you and soften the images. I'm always happier when I'm at the proper range and go out of my way to shoot locations that allow it.

See Steve, that's why you'll never succeed at that "influencer thingy" - you are telling people to actually work at what they want and to develop their technique and that not every problem can be solved by buying more expensive gear. (all tongue in cheek obviously) ;)
 
See Steve, that's why you'll never succeed at that "influencer thingy" - you are telling people to actually work at what they want and to develop their technique and that not every problem can be solved by buying more expensive gear. (all tongue in cheek obviously) ;)
LOL guilty :)
 
IMHO the 1.7x TC is disappointing on pretty much anything. I almost felt bad selling it to someone else....but, that’s what they wanted. The 2x TC is pretty limited value too and is likely the next to go.
 
The 300PF and 1.7 don't play all that well together, at least from my experience. The 500PF IQ is good with the 1.4TC, but AF is painfully slow and only useable on a. few point in a DSLR. I'd avoid the 2X converter for sure with those lenses.

However, the Tamron isn't as sharp as the 500PF, so I think I'd rather crop the 500PF to a 600mm field of view.

BTW - most of the time, for me anyway, a 500PF on a D7500 is plenty of reach - in many cases, more than I'd want.

Thanks…I was leaning toward the 500 and 1.4 anyway but since the thread was about the 300 figured it was worth making sure…because I wouldn't get both of them. I'm still thinking seriously about adding a Z7II as well for non action shots…although frequently non action has a way of turning into action because you spotted some critter you weren't expecting to see.
 
The more wildlife photography I do, the more I realize longer than 600 mm-e isn't the solution. Getting closer is the solution. Too bad birds think I'm scary!
Yeah…getting closer is always better…but frequently that just ain't possible. Either you're on a boardwalk where they frown on getting down in the swamp…or there are gators and snakes in the swamp…or the dad gum bird/elk/bear/whatever just insists on being 100 yards out there and you can't get any closer. In those cases…you either have a longer lens, or you crop the shot close and lose detail, or you crop out a bit and make it more of a scene, or you just skip the shot…and none of those are really great answers except the longer lens. If it's something like a grizzly on a bison kill at Yellowstone like we had summer before last…it isn't something you're likely to see again so you take the shots and just sacrifice the closeup views because some shot is better than no shot in unique situations like that.
 
Thanks…I was leaning toward the 500 and 1.4 anyway but since the thread was about the 300 figured it was worth making sure…because I wouldn't get both of them. I'm still thinking seriously about adding a Z7II as well for non action shots…although frequently non action has a way of turning into action because you spotted some critter you weren't expecting to see.
I know I certainly use my 500PF more than my 300PF, nice as it is. However, I also shoot full fame :)

As for action, it's not like you can't do it with the Z7ii - it's just that Nikon's higher end DSLRs still have an edge.
 
I know I certainly use my 500PF more than my 300PF, nice as it is. However, I also shoot full fame :)

As for action, it's not like you can't do it with the Z7ii - it's just that Nikon's higher end DSLRs still have an edge.
There is the full frame question…and the 7II is likely in my future as well. I remember back when I was in college in the 70s and shot film with a Canon F1…somebody gave me a Vivitar or some such inexpensive 300mm for it and it was usually not enough reach…at least for swamp tromping around the Everglades shooting birds…those were the days when we did…well…stupid stuff in efforts to get a shot. Luckily…I've outgrown a lot of that stupidity and try to be more careful now…although I'm not sure that my wife would agree.

The 7II isnt't really any lighter than the 7500 is…but it's got enough pixels to balance out the loss of crop factor which is another reason to go with the 500 instead. As I said…leaning toward the 500/14 combo for either body but when I'm spending that kind of bucks one wants to make sure. I would really like to have the fast f4 glass…but the bang for the buck just isn't there for amateur shooting in my view…and then there's the sherpa needed as those lens really aren't very conducive to hiking with them, at least not for me.
 
Back
Top