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

[joe43]

I have used 300mm f4 and 300mm f2.8 and 500mm f4 lenses as macro lenses with extension tubes. All such shots have been taken on tripods that are very stable with a top of the line ball head or gimbal head. I have done this with DSLRs and film cameras. Many of the subjects were nature related: dragon flies; frogs, snakes; large spiders etc.

 

[EricBowles]

Will that be impossible whereas with the 300pf it would be more of a possible shot?
And is a 300pf macro shot going to be sharper and more inspiring than one from a 500pf + 1.4 TC?

You can use teleconverters with the 300mm lens options as well. I find for close subjects, a long lens can require you to back up too far to be comfortable. With a minimum focus distance of 10 feet, you would need to be thoughtful about finding a place to stand and composing the desired background. With half that distance it becomes pretty easy. For example, a recent photo I made of a butterfly on a flower with blue sky in the background worked with 300mm and simply going to one knee. The same angle might not have been possible at a 10 foot distance.

It's easy to try the TC on the 500mm PF and see what you think. These F-mount lenses are very cost effective and work well if the base lens is good.

 

[EricBowles]

One more thing in response to your other question. It's very hard to hold a highly magnified scene at or near macro distances. Close ups - the range we were talking about initially - is very reasonable. But at macro magnification the entire frame is less than 1.5 inches across so a movement of 0.5mm would show obvious blur and be a discard. With IBIS, you can remove a lot of concern about movement, but it still requires very good technique.

 

[O]

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 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.

300 PF, 500PF, 300 F2.8 VR II, 70-200 F2.8 FL.

I am different in what i do.

That said, i can say that the milky stunning backgrounds that comes from my 300 F2.8 VR II is simply magnificent, i 98% of the time shoot it at F2.8 and it just isolates/pops the subject in a stunning back ground, the VR II delivers a incredible natural look, more micro contrast micro detail and far superior back ground than the PF lenses, again they are different tools, different formulas for different applications and very much dependent on how they are used.

The Z 400 F4 PF is close to the 300 F2.8 VR II for sharpness but for over all naturalness not quite as good.

Equally, used well my 70-200 FL is in a similar arena, stunning at F2.8 with the incredible milky back grounds, excellent micro contrast and detail with incredible naturalness.
Again as always with any tools, the outcomes depend on how the tools are used. The Z version is so similar you could throw a blanket over them, again its also dependent on the sample variations. The Z version may be for some better by a whisker to me the FL is more than good enough to warrant staying with it and putting the money elsewhere.

My suggestion is, just for the hands on experience, rent both lenses for a day, experience what it adds to or how it may change your photography, it may very well change the way you perceive things to be, or close the book.

The 300 pf is a excellent tool for what it is designed to do as is the 500 PF, both deliver outstanding results.
That said if you want light compact reach the 300 PF 500 PF are a first class choices in tools.

If i am doing nature, landscapes or walks in the woods with some friends, or a serious shoot, i take a CF mono pod, the outcomes make taking the 300 2.8 VR II used at F2.8 or even F4 absolutely worthwhile, equally from the same stable even doing close up macro type shots of fungi, flowers, insects the 70-200 FL at F2.8 is breath taking. F2.8 at 200mm is amazing even more so if get the distance right to the back grounds.

90% of what we achieve comes from you not just the gear.

Many PF owners love their lenses, and rightly so, but often wish for a F2.8, does F2.8 make a difference, only you can decide if that works for you.

If it ever eventuates the 300 F2.8 in Z and PF from Nikon may be interesting, certainly it will be expensive.

Only an opinion

 

[Winthor]

300 PF, 500PF, 300 F2.8 VR II, 70-200 F2.8 FL.

I am different in what i do.

That said, i can say that the milky stunning backgrounds that comes from my 300 F2.8 VR II is simply magnificent, i 98% of the time shoot it at F2.8 and it just isolates/pops the subject in a stunning back ground, the VR II delivers a incredible natural look, more micro contrast micro detail and far superior back ground than the PF lenses, again they are different tools, different formulas for different applications and very much dependent on how they are used.

The Z 400 F4 PF is close to the 300 F2.8 VR II for sharpness but for over all naturalness not quite as good.

Equally, used well my 70-200 FL is in a similar arena, stunning at F2.8 with the incredible milky back grounds, excellent micro contrast and detail with incredible naturalness.
Again as always with any tools, the outcomes depend on how the tools are used. The Z versions is so similar you could throw a blanket over them, again its also dependent on the sample variations.

My suggestion is, just for the hands on experience, rent both lenses for a day, experience what it adds to or how it may change your photography, it may very well change the way you perceive things to be, or close the book.

The 300 pf is a excellent tool for what it is designed to do as is the 500 PF, both deliver outstanding results.
That said if you want light compact reach the 300 PF 500 PF are a first class choices in tools.

If i am doing nature, landscapes or walks in the woods with some friends, or a serious shoot, i take a CF mono pod, the outcomes make taking the 300 2.8 VR II used at F2.8 or even F4 absolutely worthwhile, equally from the same stable even doing close up macro type shots of fungi, flowers, insects the 70-200 FL at F2.8 is breath taking. F2.8 at 200mm is amazing even more so if get the distance right to the back grounds.

90% of what we achieve comes from you not just the gear.

Many PF owners love their lenses, and rightly so, but often wish for a F2.8, does F2.8 make a difference, only you can decide if that works for you.

If it ever eventuates the 300 F2.8 in Z and PF from Nikon may be interesting, certainly it will be expensive.

Only an opinion

The 300 2.8 seems awesome. I hear often that the 300pf is fine and that the 300 2.8 isn't easy to use, so one would be smart taking just the f/4 PF. But hearing your experience, I think that you make very good sense of it. Big lens and worth carrying for a lot of things.

I saw some pictures of horseback riders from the 300 2.8 and it just seemed to pull me in completely and made me want to watch the movie Seabiscuit. Hauling it around looks worth it, but I can't say that with conviction (I should rent it, like you said!). And I only see 2 well-used ones for sale on MPB. I should work towards that someday. No more money after the 500pf and 70-200 vr ii. The well ran dry lol

 

[EricBowles]

The 300 2.8 seems awesome. I hear often that the 300pf is fine and that the 300 2.8 isn't easy to use, so one would be smart taking just the f/4 PF. But hearing your experience, I think that you make very good sense of it. Big lens and worth carrying for a lot of things.

I saw some pictures of horseback riders from the 300 2.8 and it just seemed to pull me in completely and made me want to watch the movie Seabiscuit. Hauling it around looks worth it, but I can't say that with conviction (I should rent it, like you said!). And I only see 2 well-used ones for sale on MPB. I should work towards that someday. No more money after the 500pf and 70-200 vr ii. The well ran dry lol

There is a big difference between the f/2.8 and the f/4 PF lenses.

Nikon Lenses

The f/2.8 lens is significantly bigger at nearly 5 pounds, has better image quality - especially bokeh, and offers you f/2.8 if you can use it. It's great for sports. It's not very good for close up work at 1:6.1 magnification. It's great with teleconverters. This lens is big enough that you carry it if it is your primary lens for the session - not just in case. Uses drop in filters.

The f/4 PF is the first PF lens so it's lighter at 1.6 pounds, and it provides the reach as well as better close ups with magnification of 1:4.1. The bokeh is not as clean - especially specular highlights. It's ideal for closeups of flowers, insects, and small reptiles. It works with teleconverters - especially the 1.4. The small size makes it a great second lens in a field bag. Uses 77mm filters - which means you can add a Canon 500D for more close up magnification.

The f/4 version is in between. Bigger than the PF but not in the league of the f/2.8. Excellent optically including good bokeh, but slightly behind the f/2.8. Best close up magnification at 1:3.7. Lowest price. Uses 77mm filters.

Neither of these lenses is really long enough for bird photography and wildlife on a regular basis.

 

[Copernicron]

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 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.

I stopped carrying things "just in case" years ago. I found I was taking way too much gear with me and the weight really added up in short order. When I go out shooting these days, I plan ahead and choose my gear according to what I'm going for. If I'm out for birds, I don't worry about landscapes or macro and vice versa. That extends to trips and vacations too. If I'm heading to a big city to see the architecture, I don't bother with super telephoto lenses and stick with something like the 14-30/4 and 24-120/4 combo. Sure I miss some shots but you're going to miss shots anyway if you're too worried about changing lenses all the time.

 

[O]

I stopped carrying things "just in case" years ago. I found I was taking way too much gear with me and the weight really added up in short order. When I go out shooting these days, I plan ahead and choose my gear according to what I'm going for. If I'm out for birds, I don't worry about landscapes or macro and vice versa. That extends to trips and vacations too. If I'm heading to a big city to see the architecture, I don't bother with super telephoto lenses and stick with something like the 14-30/4 and 24-120/4 combo. Sure I miss some shots but you're going to miss shots anyway if you're too worried about changing lenses all the time.

Makes a lot of sense, If i go out with the 300 VR F2.8 II, i usually use it for everything i want to do, or i pass on shots gladly, it makes me think and work more creatively, that said i do keep a 50mm 1.4 in my pocket just as stand by.

If i am out doing national or international surf events i usually carry the 1.4 TC III and a 2 times TC III, both work far more than good enough.

The shot below is a heavily cropped shot taken from a long way away , the publisher used the un cropped version adding text and logo's to their taste.
I have had excellent results with the 1.4 and 2 times DSLR TCs.

You could still edit the hell out of this image but i leave it usually in its very basic form.
Its not esoteric to some people but it got chosen by the media.
As well as a frontal version of the moment, i cant find just now LOL.

It was taken later in the day at the final heats.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Winthor]

Thank you, all in this forum. With your help I think I made just the right choice with the 500pf + 70-200 VR II. I don't get off the farm much, and I went to see my grandmother as she's nearing, and boy do I consider myself blessed that I had been impressed-upon to purchase that 70-200 f/2.8 and was able to use it in her assisted-living headquarters. I've been able to get some cool bird pictures, and I took some cool pictures of the farm from a 4-seater plane with the 500pf and I like the look. Yeah. Both are awesome. Thanks all.

Winthor

 

[PhilcTx]

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.

I recently simplified my photography life and sold down my camera gear inventory which included a 16mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2.8 macro primes as part of a package.

Now only have 3 lenses 24-105, 70-200 macro, 200-600 and so far not sorry not having any prime glass.

 

[Mr.Fox]

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 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.

I always take 400mm F2.8, 600mm F4 and 24-70 f2.8 with me on photo walks in the woods, all bundled with a Nikon Z8. All this goodness is carried in a Pelican 1535 case on my back. Sometimes I take a 70-200F 2.8 S in my unloader. In the woods I always take automatic weapon + spare magazines + first aid kit - meeting with a bear is not a pleasant thing.
No, I don't hold your opinion on zoom lenses and all of the above. Zoom lenses are fine.
If it is convenient and your budget allows and you find it on sale, you can carry even Sigma 200-500 mm F2.8 in the forest. You can find any subject in the woods for photography and videography.

 

[Winthor]

I always take 400mm F2.8, 600mm F4 and 24-70 f2.8 with me on photo walks in the woods, all bundled with a Nikon Z8. All this goodness is carried in a Pelican 1535 case on my back. Sometimes I take a 70-200F 2.8 S in my unloader. In the woods I always take automatic weapon + spare magazines + first aid kit - meeting with a bear is not a pleasant thing.
No, I don't hold your opinion on zoom lenses and all of the above. Zoom lenses are fine.
If it is convenient and your budget allows and you find it on sale, you can carry even Sigma 200-500 mm F2.8 in the forest. You can find any subject in the woods for photography and videography.

Do you own any of the affordable super-tele zooms with a variable aperture? What do you think of those?

 

[Mr.Fox]

Do you own any of the affordable super-tele zooms with a variable aperture? What do you think of those?

I've dealt with Sigma, which has super teleoptics with variable aperture, Nikon 80-400 with F mount. Tamron, but only teleoptics. It's a compromise. The quality of optics is one step lower than lenses with F2.8 aperture or fixes. A comfortable set of focal lengths. Large and long stroke of the “proboscis” of the lens - the length increases. In some cases not convenient and not safe. Confident sharpness at open aperture in the center of the frame at short lengths and a slight drop in sharpness at the long end. Dark at the long end. Sometimes this plays a cruel joke when there is not enough light. As a rule they are slow on autofocus, at high-speed shooting even with the latest software update of the camera and lens there is a problem with exposure - underlighting, overlighting, loss of autofocus. Unstable in terms of firmware-not always friendly with Nikon updates. Accuracy, speed or no autofocus may be affected, functions or functions that can be programmed via computer may not work. With non-native lenses, the speed of shooting is always reduced. If you want to squeeze all the juice out of your optics, take only native lenses. Sometimes a lens can turn from an autofocus lens to a fully manual lens after a proprietary software update and improvements. Just a mistake of programmers and you have a neutered lens on your hands for a certain period of time. Auto and pre-capture may not work in some cases.

 

[Winthor]

I've dealt with Sigma, which has super teleoptics with variable aperture, Nikon 80-400 with F mount. Tamron, but only teleoptics. It's a compromise. The quality of optics is one step lower than lenses with F2.8 aperture or fixes. A comfortable set of focal lengths. Large and long stroke of the “proboscis” of the lens - the length increases. In some cases not convenient and not safe. Confident sharpness at open aperture in the center of the frame at short lengths and a slight drop in sharpness at the long end. Dark at the long end. Sometimes this plays a cruel joke when there is not enough light. As a rule they are slow on autofocus, at high-speed shooting even with the latest software update of the camera and lens there is a problem with exposure - underlighting, overlighting, loss of autofocus. Unstable in terms of firmware-not always friendly with Nikon updates. Accuracy, speed or no autofocus may be affected, functions or functions that can be programmed via computer may not work. With non-native lenses, the speed of shooting is always reduced. If you want to squeeze all the juice out of your optics, take only native lenses. Sometimes a lens can turn from an autofocus lens to a fully manual lens after a proprietary software update and improvements. Just a mistake of programmers and you have a neutered lens on your hands for a certain period of time. Auto and pre-capture may not work in some cases.

Thanks. Very good! That’s accurate to my experience with variable apertures. I was surprised when the 70-200 2.8 fixed aperture zoom came in and satisfied me in terms of rectifying some of those drawbacks. And 2.8 is pretty excellent. So when you said Sigma 200-500 f/2.8, I quickly imagined one. quickly before seeing it looks to be $20,000 for a used copy. it’s a dream lens! Thank you.

Winthor

 

[ricardo00]

Thanks. Very good! That’s accurate to my experience with variable apertures. I was surprised when the 70-200 2.8 fixed aperture zoom came in and satisfied me in terms of rectifying some of those drawbacks. And 2.8 is pretty excellent. So when you said Sigma 200-500 f/2.8, I quickly imagined one. quickly before seeing it looks to be $20,000 for a used copy. it’s a dream lens! Thank you.

Winthor

It is 35 pounds, so a bit heavy for most people.

 

[MikeA]

The 500 PF is the lens I use the most, light and compact but good reach, tack sharp, super AF. I always use it for my walks in the woods. I do not use the TC with it because then the AF is not as good/quick and the D850 has enough resolution for some cropping anyway. It works great for butterflies & Co. too, having some distance does not scare them off so easily. My 300 PF is only on the shelf.

 

[Tom Reynolds]

I tried that approach carrying two Nikon D-500's on a dual Black Rapids strap one with a 500pf and one with a 300pf. However, at the South Padre Island Bird Park I found the combo both heavy and uncomfortable. The issue was when I picked up camera to shoot the BR Strap would become unbalanced and shift into an uncomfortable position.

Yes, great pictures but I gave the idea up and sold all my Nikon equipment.

 

[Patrick M]

I always take 400mm F2.8, 600mm F4 and 24-70 f2.8 with me on photo walks in the woods, all bundled with a Nikon Z8. All this goodness is carried in a Pelican 1535 case on my back.

How on earth do you get a pelican 1535 on your back!? I have one. It’s huge!!

 

[Winthor]

Eat more porridge or do some exercise in the morning 35 pounds is no weight And when you have Sigma 200-500 mm F2.8 your legs will carry you to the shooting and you will have strength and second breath, as well as all chakras ))))

But you won't go out with a 35lb lens every time. It's image-worship. It's abhorrent. You can't do anything useful but take a picture when you have a 35lb tube of optical glass hanging off ur body. You can do basic movements, but anything worth anything- not a chance. You secede into the role of just the photographer.

 

[pnbarne]

But you won't go out with a 35lb lens every time. It's image-worship. It's abhorrent. You can't do anything useful but take a picture when you have a 35lb tube of optical glass hanging off ur body. You can do basic movements, but anything worth anything- not a chance. You secede into the role of just the photographer.

There was a time long ago and far away that I carried a one hundred pound rucksack all day, every day for a year. I would never doubt someone’s ability to carry a load like that if they are in shape for it.

If you want to see a true mountain man look up Morten Hilmer on YouTube.

 

[Winthor]

There was a time long ago and far away that I carried a one hundred pound rucksack all day, every day for a year. I would never doubt someone’s ability to carry a load like that if they are in shape for it.

If you want to see a true mountain man look up Morten Hilmer on YouTube.

Carrying the load is just a tenth of the equation. You'll have to set the thing down to do other things, like move animals or feed animals or something. Or pick some corn. And then when the doeling comes crying, you go to pick up the lens and by the time you do it's already found out you're not mama and it's raced back to the treeline. It would've been a sweet shot but the gear was too big to keep on you while you picked the corn.

Today's lenses, a 35lb lens takes up a lot of space. Weight isn't the bottleneck. Bottleneck is the size.