Think I'm ditching the zoom. Does anyone go out in the woods with a 500pf and 300pf?

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).

W

Winthor

New member
Member's gallery
Does it feel redundant having a 300pf and 500pf nikkor on you? The 300pf can get a bit closer. 300pf mfd is 4.60 ft giving you 1:4.2 reproduction, the 500pf is 9.8 ft giving you 1:5.555. My fuji xf 150-600 gives me at most 1:4.2, and that's the one thing I really love about the XF zoom lens, that and its ability to be at 600mm nicely sharp throughout.

I live in the woodlands. I spend a lot of time in fields and forests. I have a pop-up blind I plan to shoot from as well. And I'm new, but serious about photography. So full-frame might be my move someday. Having the full-frame lenses would be better than more designed for just aps-c.

Why I don't like the zooms: I don't like the feeling of a variable aperture as you change the focal lengths, or a varying minimum focus distance as you move throughout the zoom range. Those things make me feel less in control. But those are things I'd train myself with, and get slightly more in-control-of, IF i felt the zoom had sufficient speed like 5.6 at around the 500mm mark instead of f8 at 500mm. But the ones that DO, have questionable sharpness and/or an unpleasant out-of-focus area.

When I have even an old 2.5 105mm manual nikkor, I feel like I have more of a voice. And I get to say what's the subject. And I get to really demand it, because the out-of-focus area is pleasantly softened to the point all you have that ISN't confused peacefully into a blur is one the thing I want to focus the picture on. I can make the picture about something particular in the frame, rather than just a particular frame of my environment.

Does somebody else have this opinion? Does somebody understand my perspective and have some recommendations on which lenses I should have in my kit? I'm new to photography so if a vet can chime in that would be helpful.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
My day to day kit when I'm not carrying the Z9 and 600mm f/4 is: Z8, 500mm PF, 300mm PF, 24-70mm f/4 Z lens and 1.4x TC for the F mount lenses plus FTZ II adapter of course. That, a few filters, snacks and water is what I take into the field unless I'm specifically going out for landscapes or astro or something that warrants an ultra wide lens or the 70-200mm (which is mostly used for human portraits and occasionally some landscape work).

If I do carry the 600mm f/4 very far from the road I still have the 300mm PF, TC and a wide to normal zoom for occasional landscapes I come across along the way.

IOW, the 300mm PF is always in my nature kit as there are plenty of subjects where 500mm to 600mm of lens is too much and the close focus of the 300mm PF, sometimes with a TC mounted make it really handy for a lot of smaller subjects like butterflies, dragonflies, amphibians, reptiles, some macro floral work and the like.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
My day to day kit when I'm not carrying the Z9 and 600mm f/4 is: Z8, 500mm PF, 300mm PF, 24-70mm f/4 Z lens and 1.4x TC for the F mount lenses plus FTZ II adapter of course. That, a few filters, snacks and water is what I take into the field unless I'm specifically going out for landscapes or astro or something that warrants an ultra wide lens or there 70-200mm (which is mostly used for human portraits and occasionally some landscape work).

If I do carry the 600mm f/4 very far from the road I still have the 300mm PF, TC and a wide to normal zoom for occasional landscapes I come across along the way.

IOW, the 300mm PF is always in my nature kit as there are plenty of subjects where 500mm to 600mm of lens is too much and the close focus of the 300mm PF, sometimes with a TC mounted make it really handy for a lot of smaller subjects like butterflies, dragonflies, amphibians, reptiles, some macro floral work and the like.
Click to expand...
Excellent, Dave, thank-you. Your gallery is fantastic. You put the 600 f4 E to work so well. And the 500pf just as much- incredible pictures. And thankyou for giving me more confidence in my idea. I think I'll work towards buying both a 300 and 500 pf.

One question, Dave- have you had the 300 2.8? Has it ever been on your mind for any reason? It doesn't have impressive macro ability (7.2ft at 300mm, or 1:6.25) but the sharpness and maximum aperture sound like they'd make beautiful photographs of mammals and large birds, w/ great subject separation. Doesn't seem on the surface it'd provide anything unique to your kit right now being a 2,900g (6.39 lbs) 300mm. But I'd like to hear what you think.
 
Last edited:
If I were using Nikon equipment a couple of PF lenses would be my walk-around kit, most likely 300mm with FTZ and 600mm. I had considered adding a Z8 with these lenses to my Sony tools until the 300mm f/2.8 GM was announced. Using the 300 with TCs gets me a lightweight versatile walk-around 300mm f/2.8 - 420mm f/4 - 600mm f/5.6 kit with no apologies for image quality and a 2 meter MFD.
 
Member's gallery
Winthor said:
Excellent, Dave, thank-you. Your gallery is fantastic. You put the 600 f4 E to work so well. And the 500pf just as much- incredible pictures. And thankyou for giving me more confidence in my idea. I think I'll work towards buying both a 300 and 500 pf.

One question, Dave- have you had the 300 2.8? Has it ever been on your mind for any reason? It doesn't have impressive macro ability (7.2ft at 300mm, or 1:6.25) but the sharpness and maximum aperture sound like they'd make beautiful photographs of mammals and large birds, w/ great subject separation. Doesn't seem on the surface it'd provide anything unique to your kit right now being a 2,900g (6.39 lbs) 300mm. But I'd like to hear what you think.
Click to expand...
I had the 300 f/2.8 GII lens and it's a great lens for mammals and birds and I used it with the the 1.7 and 2.0 TCs. Examples are in my gallery, along with shots from the 500 PF and Z400 f/4.5. The listed weight (2900 g) is too low; with hood, caps, and a RRS foot I measured it at 3190 g (~113 oz or 7 lb--Nikon's published lens weights don't appear to include caps, hoods, or feet). When I got my Z8 bodies, I replaced the 300 and 500 with the Z400 and Z800. If Nikon comes out with a low-weight Z 300 f/2.8 lens, the 400 mm will be replaced by that 300 because I don't want to get the Sony, a lens adapter, and the TCs for that lens.
 
Member's gallery
Winthor said:
Excellent, Dave, thank-you. Your gallery is fantastic. You put the 600 f4 E to work so well. And the 500pf just as much- incredible pictures. And thankyou for giving me more confidence in my idea. I think I'll work towards buying both a 300 and 500 pf.

One question, Dave- have you had the 300 2.8? Has it ever been on your mind for any reason? It doesn't have impressive macro ability (7.2ft at 300mm, or 1:6.25) but the sharpness and maximum aperture sound like they'd make beautiful photographs of mammals and large birds, w/ great subject separation. Doesn't seem on the surface it'd provide anything unique to your kit right now being a 2,900g (6.39 lbs) 300mm. But I'd like to hear what you think.
Click to expand...
I’ve owned several different generations of Nikon 300mm f/2.8 from the old manual focus AIS to the VRII version. Fantastic lenses and very useful for things like indoor sports like hockey. But for wildlife I often found it too short by itself and too heavy when I was already carrying something like a 600mm f/4. Also as I recall it’s minimum focusing distance isn’t nearly as close as the 300mm PF.

[edit] Yeah, just looked it up the 300mm PF focuses down to 4.6', the 300mm f/2.8 VR II down to 7.5'. That's a macro ratio difference of 0.24x (300mm PF) vs 0.16x (300mm f/2.8), for the way I tend to use the 300mm lens for near macro subjects I'll take the PF.

Great lenses for sure but not something I carried much for wildlife when I owned them unless I knew for certain 300mm (or 420mm with a TC) was enough lens.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Other than my 60mm macro lens I haven't had a prime lens on a camera since I gave up film cameras about 20 years ago. Back in those olden days zoom lenses were, in general, pretty poor. To me prime lenses are too limiting, forcing me to crop too often to get the photo I want. Zooms let me crop in camera and I don't have to crop with my feet either -- which a lot of wildlife won't tolerate.
 
Member's gallery
I am still in both lens and camera camps: DSLRs and Mirrorless with mostly F mount lenses and the FTZii.

My current teles ( that work) are:
F mount
70-200mm f4
300mm f4 pf
300mm f2.8 (latest version)
500mm f5.6 pf
200mm f4 D macro
105mm f2.8 G macro
Z mount
100-400mm
600mm f6.3 pf
24-120mm f4

My cameras are D500; D 850 and a Z9. Most used camera is my Z9.
My most used (in order) F mount lenses are my 200mm f4 macro; (focus is done manually); 105mm macro; 70-200mm f4; 300mm f4 pf ;500mm pf and 300mm f2.8
My most used (in order) Z mount lenses are my 600mm pf; 24-120mm and 100-400mm.

I bought my 300mm f2.8 before my 300mm f4. Once I got the 300mm pf my use of the 300mm f2.8 was reduced substantially. I did use it with ext tubes as a long macro. I would not recommend anyone buying a f mount 300mm f2.8 unless they had an absolute need for this unique lens and would use it on a tripod. It is not a lens to use when walking around, at least not for me.

I will likely keep my 300mm and 500mm pf lenses even after I sell my D 500 and D850. If Nikon comes out with a Z mount version, that would change things. Same thing goes for my 200mm f4 macro. It is easy to focus accurately with manual focus. I will not be parting with it. My 105 mm G focuses with AF on my Z9. That is why I am keeping it.

I hope this helps you think about what lens comes next.
 
Member's gallery
I do. Haven’t bought into the mirrorless camp yet.
I have the D500 and D850.
I have the 200-70 2.8 E FL
Just bought the 300 PF f/4 used
Sold the 200-500
Bought the 500 PF.
I do rodeos, large birds inflight, running horses, and last April’s eclipse and photo workshops around the world.

Going to S Africa alone and debating which lenses to take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top