sebastianmoran

<p>Bill, thanks for the comment. I have for years been quite happy with one or another of the 300 f/4 lenses. Good AF, great sharpness, easy handling. I think the extra stop helps AF; of course the 300 f/2.8 would be even better. </p> <p>Thanks for the comments about low light focusing. I'll be shooting in good light. </p>

<p>Why be afraid of a file type? The issue is the possibility that the software of tomorrow won't be able to read the files we create today in anything but the most important filetypes. </p> <p>As a prime example, try to open a PhotoCD. Photoshop dropped this capability around CS4. There are probably still a couple of ways, but it's getting slimmer and slimmer. (Other examples: 8-track music, floppy disks, SCSI scanner, etc.)</p> <p>I'm keeping my .NEF files. I use Lightroom, but I export the sidecar files, because I'm not counting on my Lightroom catalog being usable forever, more likely something will open the .NEF with the sidecar. I make good jpegs of every image and for special images a TIFF as greater insurance of future usability. </p> <p>I'm betting someone will keep producing software that opens .NEF files. Will future software be able to open DNGs? PSDs? Lightroom catalog? The iPhoto catalog? I'm not counting on any of these. </p>

<p>I'm thinking of doing this and have some questions:</p> <p>Use an enlarger color head as the light source? I have a Nikor 6x7 color head.</p> <p>How to hold the film flat? Elsewhere, I saw a promo video for a top-end museum-quality rig by Zeiss. They set the film on a flat plate and laid down what appeared to be flexible magnetic strips around the negative. </p> <p>Finally, what to do about color with color-negative material? All our out-of-camera jpegs and all our raw conversions are gamma-encoded, and I wonder how that messes with the color rendition when inverted? Any advice, beyond white balance and invert?</p> <p>What's the best light source for color-negative material? The orange base makes me think I want cold light, not 3000K, so that the white balancing is not such a brutal adjustment.</p>

<p>Ditto what Shun said: The 200-500 will definitely be useful wide open, and that's what you'll get with your old bodies.</p> <p>Nice to see a D200 in service. I got great photos from mine, and from my D300. But, once you've seen the advantage of 24MPx... Some of the new bells/whistles are pretty good as well.</p>

<p>Shun, thanks. Nice to see that we can get good AF, a sharp image, and capture birds in flight (BIF). Just out of curiosity, what was your "hit" rate on the BIF. Mine has been no more than 1 in 3.</p>

<p>Here's a little bitty from our family Christmas celebration. I hope you are all enjoying your holidays. </p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151225-SantaGingerbread-DSC2334-Ed-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Nice shot Pat. I just wish they would perch at our level, and maybe a little closer. </p> <p>200-500 seems to do well.</p>

<p>Re the CA comments: I assume we are talking about the purple fringing at the bird's neck-body transition and on the vertical lines of the bird's neck, right?</p> <p>Yes, it's there. There's <strong>no</strong> lens correction applied in the crops above. Lightroom's "Adj Defringe" removes the purple. </p>

<blockquote> <p>is your 300 f/4 the original AF one, or the AF-S version<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Shun's correct, the original 1988 lens, screwdriver AF, 82mm front, drop-in filter/polarizer. <br> <br> It's been one of my most trusted lenses for years. I've shot the AF-S version as well, and I expect, but can't verify, that it would come out the same in this comparison.</p> <blockquote> <p>you need to take it out to the field and use it in real-life situations ... better for static subjects such as a bird on a tree rather than one in flight<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks, Shun, and I'll second all that. I've invited all my local photo-friends to come give it a try. As for BIF, these shots are tough, very tough in the realm of moderately priced, easier to carry, gear (my focus in all this). From my use, the AF on this lens is way better than my old 300 f/4 and subjectively feels to me on a par with the 300 f/4 AF-S. <br> <br> For a moderately priced bird lens, for my upgrade today, I'm choosing this zoom over either of the 300 f/4's. <br> </p> <blockquote> <p>it's maybe 160 degrees</p> <p> </p> </blockquote> <p>Good catch. You are right. Looks like 170 to me, still a long throw.</p>

<p>Rajiv, I've been testing out the 200-500 zoom myself on a D600. I find the AF to be very good, maybe not ultra fast, but very good. At EV 13 (two stops below bright direct sunlight) it's great.</p> <p>OK, just tried some indoor shots. Indoor lighting, D600 ISO 800 1/50th at f/5.6, this is EV 8, 7 stops down from bright sunlight. The AF is fine in this dim lighting.</p> <p>And, the VR performance is astounding to me. I won't give a number, but I have sharp images at low shutter speeds I wouldn't have believed.</p>

<p>I wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>Best would be the 200-500 on a new 24MPx body...</p> </blockquote> <p>Should be: Best would be the 200-500 on a new 24MPx <em><strong>DX</strong></em> body...</p>

<p>Ofer wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>Just for fun, I am curious, when I am at Oleta River State Park in Florida, hoping catch some birds, I will have the following gear<br />D750,D7200, 70-200 f4, 300 pf f4, TC1.4II<br />which lens should I put on which camera to start with? </p> </blockquote> In my opinion, the D7200 and the 300 PF f/4. Maybe with the TC and certainly with some camera support, monopod or tripod. The 70-200 doesn't get me close enough on any body.

<p>Correction. In the 10:00 post above, I wrote</p> <blockquote> <p>Bring up FX shots at 200%, DX shots at 300% in Lightroom X-Y comparison panel.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Should read: ...24MPx shots at 200%, 12MPx shots at 300% in Lightroom X-Y comparison panel.<br> <br> This is the show things at the same size for comparison. Note that the 24MPx shots are at 200%, not 100%; I find I can see things better this way. It introduces some blur, so just judge these as comparisons, not vs. 100% crops you've seen in other tests.</p>

<p>To all -- I'm worried about the magnified image comparison above being misleading. The magnification, blowing up the 12MPx image to match the 200% crop of the 24MPx image makes the right-hand sample look awful. The 300 f/4 produces quite sharp images on every sensor I've tried it on.</p> <p>Tom -- Thanks for your note. Yes, the comparison above is pretty much a sensor MPx comparison. I'm realizing that 24MPx will be a lot more image quality than I've been getting from my D300.</p> <p>Yes, current bodies are truly amazing. On the other hand, I thought my D200/300 were both pretty amazing at the time. I thought my D70 was amazing. We'll see in a couple of years.</p> <p>How much gear am I renting? We'll see. Right now, I'm inclined to buy the 200-500 zoom and just use it on my D600. Remember, I've been happy in the past with the results of the D300 and 300 f/4. It's obvious that the D600 plus the zoom will be a big step up, because the lens IQ is comparable, the MPx is double, and it has VR. I'll probably just do that for this seasonal trip, shoot with the D600. I won't have the extra reach, but I haven't had it in the past. I'll consider a current DX body sometime later. Shun's general recommendation of D7200 and the 200-500 zoom for birds is a good one. (Mentioning a D610 was an accident. That's not in my picture at this time.)</p> <p>I've started a <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dds7">new thread with my full comparison test results</a> so the 200-500 vs 300mm comparison can be there, and further comments on FL Bird Shooting can be here.</p>

<p>My net conclusions for these two lenses:<br> - The new 200-500 f/5.6 zoom has comparable sharpness to my reliable 300 f/4. I release my concerns about shooting with this long zoom (even wide open, and it will generally be wide open for birds).<br> - Best would be the 200-500 on a new 24MPx body with current AF technology. This will be a big step up from my 12MPx body, and the lens is as good as what I've been using.<br> - It will also be a step up to shoot the 200-500 on my FX body. I won't have the advantage of longer reach.<br> - It's not shown above, but the VR makes a big difference. I can see this in the informal shooting I've done with the 200-500 lens. And, in my testing on tripods, with the 300 f/4 prime (no VR) about 1/4 of my shots were visibly unsharp from camera movement. With the zoom and VR, also on tripod, none were unsharp.</p> <p>I want to thank all the friends here and off-site who gave me help and advice. Especially my pal Mike who pushed me to the zoom in the first place.</p> <p>I'll welcome comments on these comparisons and tests. I know there are other medium-priced long zooms which are comparable. I've simply omitted these because I have no experience with them, not because I think they are inferior.</p> <p>Other threads here have links to sample images and reviews of the 200-500 zoom. I think it's terrific. I wish you all good shooting.</p>

<p>Next question: OK, sometimes I need longer reach. With a DX body, compare a crop of the 300 f/4 prime vs the longer reach of 500mm on the zoom.</p> <p>Shoot both lenses with the Sony APS body. Live view critical focusing. There's no VR in this setup. Both are wide open.</p> <p>The result is no contest. Shoot the 200-500 zoom at 500mm, not the 300 f/4 and crop.</p> <p>Here's the high contrast area of the Loon:</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-DXPrime-300-Cropped-vs-DXZoom-500-Bird.png" alt="" width="800" height="507" /></p> <p>Here's the lower contrast area of the toy horse:</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-DXPrime-300-Cropped-vs-DXZoom-500-Toy.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>Next Question: What's best for my typical shot at 450mm equiv focal length?<br /> <br /> Shoot the 300 f/4 on Sony APS body. Shoot the 200-500 zoom at 450mm on my FX body. <br /> <br /> Same magnified 200% pixels X-Y comparison in Lightroom. My conclusion: The zoom on FX is better than the prime image from DX. Both bodies are 24MPx. Both are on tripods; the zoom has VR, and I'm sure that is helping. So, I'll shoot the new zoom even on just on an FX body for the same reach and better image quality than I've been getting.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-DX-Prime-vs-FX-Zoom-450mmEquivFL.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>First Question: Will I lose sharpness with a zoom vs. the 300 f/4?</p> <p>Shoot both on the Sony APS-C body, 300 f/4 prime and the 200-500 zoom at 300mm. Here's the result. I call it a toss-up. In judging these screen grabs, remember I've magnified the result so you'll see a little blur below, and remember than my 300 f/4 produces good images.</p> <p>My concerns about sharpness of the 200-500 zoom are erased. </p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-DX-Prime-vs-Zoom-300mm.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>The test:<br /> - I rented the 200-500mm lens from LensRentals, a terrific outfit.<br /> - I have a D600 FX 24MPx body, and a D300 DX 12MPx body.<br /> - I don't have a current 24MPx DX Nikon body, but I have a good Sony APS-C 24MPx body and adapter. I can't shoot birds with this adapted lens setup, but I can use Live View for precision focusing to test image quality. <br /> - I'll use stuffed animals for my subject. Lit quite brightly with LED spotlights to EV13, not that much below the shooting conditions.<br /> - Cameras on sturdy tripod at about 50'.<br /> - Here's the full image of my test set from shooting position. This is at 450mm on FX; the view is the same with 300mm on DX. Typical shot is 1/750 at ISO800 and f/4 (Exp comp -1.5EV, just like when shooting a white bird). I'll add an ISO12233 test target once with each lens. With the Nikon bodies, I use AF. With the Sony, it's manual focus in magnified live view with focus peaking.</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-TestScene-D600-ZoomVR-450mm-f56-DSC0184.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /></p> <p> - I have some high contrast areas (the loon and white-toy) and lower contrast areas (the basket and horse).<br> - Processing: Shoot RAW. Process in Lightroom. Equalize brightness, white balance. Bring up FX shots at 200%, DX shots at 300% in Lightroom X-Y comparison panel. Screen shot. Add captions. No additional sharpening. </p>

<p>I wanted to see how the new Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 VR zoom performs in comparison to the 300 f/4 lens I've been using for birds.</p> <p>First a little background:<br> - I've been happy with my results from the 300 f/4 on a DX body, typically shooting with a monopod. I shoot birds at FL locations where they are close and un-bothered by humans on the boardwalks. Sometimes I could use more reach; instead, I just shoot loose and crop.<br> - I was ready to buy the new 300 f/4, but savvy friends encouraged me to think about the 200-500 zoom. I've been leery of zooms; I like a really sharp image. <br> - I'm not interested in the rig the serious pros use: 500 or 600 f/4, pro body, TCs, heavy tripod and gimbal head. This comparison is about lenses for bird shooting at a more moderate price point.<br> - My present DX body is getting old, only 12MPx (a D300). My lens is the original 300 f/4 AF from 1988. It's time to upgrade some of my gear.</p> <p>Here's a sample of the kind of shot I'm making:</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/150200-AttitudeInWhite-SanibelFL-D038271.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>So my questions are:<br> - Will I lose sharpness with a zoom vs. the 300 f/4? <br> - For my typical shot at 450mm equiv focal length, what's best: 300 f/4 on a DX body, the zoom at 300 on the same DX body, or the zoom at 450mm on an FX body?<br> - For longer reach on a DX body, do I want the 300 f/4 and crop the image vs. the zoom at 500mm?<br> - Will the VR help a lot for bird shots?</p> <p>(I started <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dd7c">another thread on shooting birds with these lenses</a>; I wanted to separate this thread to focus on the lens test and comparison.)</p>

<p>Shun, yes tripod, no I used AF on both lenses for this comparison, several samples.</p> <p>The 12MPx shot on the right (above) is magnified to make it comparable to the 24MPX shot on the left, 1.5x in linear dimension. Is my lens now below spec after 20 years? Well, it's possible. On the other hand, on a 24MPx body this same lens gives 2800+ LW/PH, so I think it's OK. I think the big difference in the comparison above is 24 vs. 12 Mpx. My conclusion: It's time to shoot birds with a better body.</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-DX-24MPx-Prime-f4-2844LWPH.png" alt="" width="404" height="316" /></p> <p>More to come. </p>

<p>Suggest trying a sample shot with the 17-55 at 50mm and also with a 50mm prime. </p> <p>If the zoom result is close to the prime, then you know the lens is OK.</p>

<p>Thanks, friends, for all the comments and advice. I have test results. My concerns about using a zoom were unfounded; the 200-500 lens will be superior to the non-VR 300 prime that I have been enjoying over the years. At 300mm, VR off, it is just as good as my 300 f/4 AF. And, it's clear that VR helps quite a bit, even in my tests on a tripod. I know VR will make a difference on a monopod or handheld. So, the verdict is to the 200-500 zoom for this year's shooting.</p> <p>I'll assume the 300 AFS (non-VR) version is pretty comparable to mine. I did not try the new 300 f/4 PF VR lens; that comparison might be different.</p> <p>I'm going to leave this thread in place for continued comments about birding in Florida.</p> <p>I'll start a new thread to focus on the comparative test results.</p>

<p>Robert, that's a great shot, and thanks for the Tamron suggestion. Is that shot hand-held? </p>

<p>Here's the test setup:<br> - shoot from about 50'<br> - little scene on a table top; white-toy, horse, bird's neck and eyes, and front of basket all in focal plane<br> - some Christmas lights in the background<br> - cameras on sturdy tripods<br> - two LED spotlights give me EV13 on the purple braids, close enough to actual conditions at Wakodahatchee</p> <p>Overall scene, 200-500 zoom at 450mm f/5.6 on a D600 (DX and 300mm gives same view):</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-TestScene-D600-ZoomVR-450mm-f56-DSC0184.jpg" alt="" /></p>