AF 300mm F4+TC-14B or a MF 400mm f5.6 ED-IF?

[marco_ritelli]

AF 300mm F4+TC-14B or a MF 400mm f5.6 ED-IF? For the comfort you've

got is better the first combination, but in terms of quality what do

you say? From what I know the lenses alone are generally better the

with converters, is it true? Also correctme if I'm wrong, the 14B is

the only 1,4x converter wich can use with the AF300mm F4, isn't it?

Bye

[Michael R Freeman]

Marco,

 

I used to own the first combination (300/4 + TC-14B). I can assure you that optically the combination is superb (and I am sure you will find others here that agree). For what it's worth, I have seen reports that the combo is actually SHARPER than the older 400/5.6 ED-IF alone, which in good condition tends to be pricey.

 

The 300/4 can use the TC-14A, but results will NOT be as good as with the TC-14B, which is the TC recommended by Nikon. Although I have not used them together with the 300/4, the Kenko 300 Pro or Tamron SP 1.4X converters are also very good and will allow you to retain AF ability (in good light).

 

Mike

[mark_chappell]

<I>AF 300mm F4+TC-14B or a MF 400mm f5.6 ED-IF? For the comfort you've got is

better the first combination, but in terms of quality what do you say? From what I know

the lenses alone are generally better the with converters, is it true?</i><P>

 

I used to own the 400/5.6 EDIF and used it happily for almost 20 years, from hot deserts

to the Antarctic. Fine lens; very sharp, fairly small; wished it focused a bit closer. I would

bet that this

is a sharper lens than the 300/4 + 1.4X combination, but have not used the latter so can't

say for sure. I would also bet than in most shooting situations, your results would be so

similar it would not matter which of the two optics you used.<P>

 

It seems to me that the one big factor to consider is autofocus: how important is this for

your intended uses?

[bryan_lardizabal]

I once owned the Nikon 300mm f4 and it is very sharp, and fairly lightweight. I believe the 300mm f4 will provide you with more flexibility in focal lengths when coupled with the TC14B or other teleconverters.

[greg s]

Am patiently awaiting one of these for my 300 f/4 that I purchased new for $154 = Kenko Pro 300 DG 1.4x Teleconverter (maintains AF)

 

I really like the 300mm and plan to use it more for a lightweight but sharp lens, especialy when travelling.

[greg s]

I mean the TC was $154 (the lens was purchased in new condition about 2 yrs ago for $360)

[marco_ritelli]

I really don't care about autofocus since I have a Nikon FE2:-)I could renounce to the 400 f 5.6 just because, as said above, in good condition that lens seems to be pricey.

 

Really some people say that the AF300F4 is better with the converter than without it?Since I'll mostly shoot wide open would you recommendme going by this way? Anyway I think it's a money matter, if I get a good deal on the 400f5.6 I'll probably buy it.

[greg s]

Two items... 1st I wanted to try experimenting/creating an active link (300mm at 1/15 sec, no flash) Sorry if the link is a flop! :}

 

Mountain_Gem

 

and the 2nd item is... make sure to know what the min focus distance of a lens is. The 300mm AF f/4 is about 9 ft (compared to newer AF-S at about 5 ft).

[Michael R Freeman]

<I>Really some people say that the AF300F4 is better with the converter than without it?</i><P>

No, you misunderstood me. Some say the 300 + TC-14B is better / as good as the 400/5.6. I expect any difference, one way or the other, is marginal or indistinguishable.<P>

I do know from personal experience that there is almost no discernible loss in quality when you mount a TC-14B with a 300/4, i.e. the image is not noticeably degraded. Given that you have a FE-2, the 400/5.6 might be better suited for manual focusing.

[Michael R Freeman]

Greg,

 

To create a clickable link use: <a href="url">url</a>

 

You will need to select "HTML" when you submit your post. If you want to post a picture inline you will need to use the <img src="url"> tag.

 

We are not very sophisticated here (at least as far as forum software). Good in many ways me thinks. :-)

 

Mike

[greg s]

Thanks Mike! I have to try it again.

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2957783">Mountain_Gem</a>

 

The forum is easy, straightforward to use in many ways... just need to master the 'fancy stuff'. -Greg-

[aaron_ng]

Since you are using a TC-14B, I assume that your body does not lose metering when not coupled with a non-CPU lens. If you can find one, the older non-IF 400mm f/5.6 (ED or non-ED) is sharper than the ED-IF version. The drawback though is its large size and that the focus ring rotation range is large, so even manual focus is slower than usual. Also, you might need to get it AI-modified (mine is modified).

[Matthew Currie]

As Aaron mentions, the non-IF ED 400/5.6 is nice and sharp. There was an AI version of this one too. It suffers somewhat from lack of close focusing, but it takes very well to extension tubes.<div></div>

[alex_lofquist]

The Nikkor EDIF 400mm f/5.6 has a "legendary" lens reputation. I have never used it so cannot speak from experience. I do use the Nikkor EDIF AF 300mm f/4, often with the TC14B. I find the images to be exemplary both with and without the TC. The 300 (without the TC) is slow autofocussing on the F4S, but quite acceptable on the F5. When using the TC14B the focus confirmation arrows in the viewfinder can be very useful, however. Its main advantage over the 400 f/5.6 is its duality of two focal lengths, and the brighter screen at f/4. If you want to have AF with a 1.4X TC you will need to get the Kenko.

[marco_ritelli]

it's impossible to find an AI 400mm f5.6 ED non IF, at least on this planet... I'm talking about the ED-IF version.

[aaron_ng]

There is actually an AI non-IF ED 400mm f/4.5.

 

<a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/late70nikkor/telephoto/400mm.htm#400mmf/5.6ED">Link to description</a>

[Matthew Currie]

I have the Non-IF AI ED, so I know it exists. It's pretty rare, though, and that may be what Marco meant.