Jump to content

Nikkor 300mm / f2.8 and teleconverters for a beginner in nature photography?


cham_saranasuriya

Recommended Posts

I have been reading the Nature photography field guide by John Shaw

and was interested in wild life photography. I usually shoot

landscapes, travel photography, portraits. I apologize if these

questions are asked before.

 

Wild life photography is new to me and I do not have a long lens

apart from 80-200mm f2.8. I am keen on mammals, birds, etc in

national parks. I do not know whether I will specialise in birds in

the future. I thought of getting a Nikkor 500mm/f4 lens after

discussions and reading archives on photo.net which was very helpful.

However it is out of stock in Hong Kong, where I was going to buy it

from. This lens is also very expensive as we all know.

 

Another option is to get a Nikkor 300mm f2.8 lens with x1.4 and x2

converters to start with. This would be a better option for me as I

am very new to this telephoto range and can save some money and space

as well, without compromising the image quality too much. I hope!!!

If necessary I might sell this and eventually get 500mm/f4 and 300mm

f4 lenses in the future (which I understand to be a highly practical

combination for wild life).

 

If I am not hassling too much, I would appreciate information with

regards to 300mm f2.8 and the converters on the following:-

 

1) What is your opinion with regards to 300mm f2.8 and x2 converter

with regards to image quality? Do you get softer images due to this?

 

2) Could we get good enlargeable shots with 300/2.8 and x2TC? I

understand this could be variable according to one's standard!!!

 

3) Is a vibration a big problem when 300mm and x2 converter been used?

 

4) Is a Gitzo 1348/ ArcaB1/ W. Sidekick an adequate combination for

300mm f2.8 and x2TC? Is this even adequate if I get a 500mm/f4 in the

future as well?

 

I appreciate you time and information. Have a nice weekend!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just bought the G1348 and I'm just using with a 420/5.6 but practically all the vibration I was seeing when trying to use the lens for wildlife was gone after I switched to the new tripod. It's very impressive. I would never have thought the tripod could make such a difference.

 

Still, obviously a 500/4 is much more wind-prone than my lens. I suspect that the 300/2.8 + 2x TC is less vibration prone as it exposes a smaller area to the wind than the 500/4. And if you want to wait for a 500/4 VR to come out, it's more likely to benefit from VR than the 300/2.8, which should work just fine without VR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Image quality has more to do with light and composition. Yes, the images will be softer with a 2X TC but I wouldn't sweat it. Get a good quality converter.

 

2) How large? As you say, standard vary from on person to another. Unfortunately, too many people worry about sharpness and not enough about image quality.

 

3) Yes, the whole thing vibrates.

 

4) Plenty for 300/2.8 and TC. No experience with a 500/4 but by reading the archives, it seems it would be adequate for that lens too.

 

Get out there and have fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to postings on the EOS forum, IS is great for removing image shake due to an unsteady tripod, unsteady ground and wind. I believe that VR (Nikon's answer to IS) does not allow use on a tripod and as Ilkka says, there are no long prime lenses with VR. I suggest you searth the EOS forum for useful information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tripod is equally important to the lens from my experience. I've used 600mm/5.6 lens with an average tripod and got 50% of the shots good even with velvia. But I tried to reduce the weight of the tripod and suffered. I couldn't get even a single nice shot after that. Now I'm going to get a Gitzo G1340 or G1345. Not to mention I cannot afford carbon fibre. When I bought my lens I didn't find some money for tripod. It's better you do...

Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cham, you have been contemplating a 500mm/f4 for a while now. My suggestion is to get the lens you need, not the lens that is available at the moment. 300mm is a useful focal length but is not long enough for a lot of wildlife and especially birds. IMO, the better version of 300mm is f4 because it is smaller, lighter and cheaper than the f2.8. I have all three the 300mm/f2.8 is the one I use least.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1,2) I'm spoiled by bigger glass, 300+2x TC will have less contrast than the 300 itself. 300+1.4x TC would be a far better combination.

3) Yes if you don't have a tripod/head appropriate for 600mm.

4) Yes if your lens tripod collar has two threaded holes and you use long plates like the Wimberley P-40 or P-50 to accomodate different balance points. Same applies without the Sidekick. About all the Sidekick gets you is some flight shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cham, You don't have to buy new or have the latest technology. There's a Nikon 500mm on auction with the reserve met at a very low price. Yes, it's MF but will meter with all current Nikon bodies and produce excellent images. This really isn't a bad way to go for starters. Put a used TC-14B on it and you've got 700mm for $200 extra. Your investment would be minimal and you'd be out in the field with good wildlife optics. And it comes in black! Best, Greg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is a 300 with a 2X tele as sharp as a prime 500 or 600? No. But you can get

decent enlargements if you use a decent 300/2.8 and 2x tele along with good

technique. I've used a 300/2.8 AF-I and TC-20E for awhile now and have

gotten very decent enlargements. The advantage to this combo is that it packs

up small and is easier to transport around than a 500 or 600 prime (but if you

can afford the longer lens go for it). I have also used the 300/2.8 AF-I and TC-

20E with a D100 for an effective 900 mm lens and was pleased with the

sharpness�.. the hairs on a mountain goat are nicely defined.

 

As to the tripod, I think the 1348 is marginally okay at 600. I have the 1325

with an Arca Swiss B1 and it works fine. The 1325 has one less leg section

than the 1348 (if memory serves) which (IMO) increases stability (and it also

decreases setup time). The disadvantage is it doesn't shrink down as short as

the 1348 but I�m very happy with the 1325/B1 combo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also think that the big advantage of the 300/2.8 with converters is that it's much easier to transport than a 300/4 and 500/4.

 

As to the 1348, well, you extend the legs only as far as you must. When it's used to support a long lens, it's rarely if ever necessary to extend the third locks. So I doubt that there is much difference in stability at equivalent height. I think a tripod with four-section legs without a center column is a lot better than one with three-section legs and center column extended to compensate for the lower height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>"I think a tripod with four-section legs without a center column is a lot better than one with three-section legs and center column extended to compensate for the lower height"<<<

 

Agreed - but a 3 section tripod without a center column should be more stable than a 4 section tripod without a center column. My 1325 has no center column and I extend the legs the same regardless of what lens I am using. In my case the third section legs are extended about 10-12" or so. With a 4 section tripod I would have to extend the 4th section legs to get an equivalent height and those legs are obviously smaller than the 3'rd section legs. When i tried both I felt the 3 section tripod was more stable. YMMV?..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are really a beginner, you might hold off on getting a big 300 2.8. I would recommend something lighter that you won't complain about carrying around. I have the 300 f4 AFS and while sometimes I do wish for the 2.8, I can hardly imagine carrying it. Even the f4 lens gets heavy after a day of hiking. The other lens I would recommend to beginners (this will probably be controversial) is the 80-400 VR. I love it. On my D1H it has an effective focal range of 120-600. In the local rainforests I carry my camera with just this lens, and SB-80DX flash, and a Flash Xtender. This is a good combination for birds. I also really liked the versatility of the 80-400 when on safari in Africa. It is excellent for those shots where you don't have time to set up a tripod and pull out a really big lens. This lens has a high "fun factor" which I think is important to beginners.

 

-Jon Hill<div>004hdt-11798984.jpg.f1dbc5743edcd65866efed4c28858da4.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ISO was 1600. This is higher than I like and there is more noise in the original shot than I like, but it allowed me to get my shutter up to 1/250th of a second without the background going too dark. Having an ISO control on a digital SLR gives a third area of adjustment from shot to shot. Sometimes I set the shutter speed and aperture to exactly what I want, then adjust ISO to get the proper exposure. The trade-off is noise, but the D1H does pretty good at making noise look like film grain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...