sebastianmoran

<p>First test result is interesting, very interesting: I have been quite happy shooting my 300 f/4 on my D300 for several years. Most of what I've posted above is with one variation or another on that rig.</p> <p><strong>First result:</strong> Pixels make more of a difference than zoom vs. prime. That is, shots with the 200-500 zoom on a 24MPx body are much better than what I get from the 12MPx D300 body. From this I conclude that I'll be happy this trip with 24MPx and either lens.</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151217-D600-200-500Zoom-vs-D300-300-f4-2x.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>Karen, OK, I understand, then try a similar focus test from a longer distance. </p>

<p>Karen, I just cannot believe that the lens quality difference vs the "L" lens is responsible for what you are seeing. I've never seen a "50" that didn't give good images at f/4 or f/5.6, most of them at f/2.8. Maybe it is really soft at f/1.4, but that's something you can easily test.</p> <p>Here's the easiest focus test I know, a row of cans or a running fence. Lots of ways to do it. Purpose: make sure your lens is focusing where you want it. Or, if nothing is sharp, then maybe the lens is bad.</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/141204-FocusTest-DSC3169-Scr.JPG" alt="" /></p>

<p>Shun, thanks for the example and the pixel-level crop. </p> <p>You asked which 300 f/4 am I testing? I have the 200-500 on the way from LensRentals. I'll assume that all the 300 f/4 lenses have comparable enough image quality (biggest difference I've seen is in AF performance). So, I'll shoot my 1st generation EDIF-AF lens vs. the 200-500 zoom.</p> <p>I don't have the whole plan, but here's what I want to explore:</p> <p> - For my usual 450mm shot: 300 f/4 on DX vs. zoom at 300mm on DX vs zoom at 450 on FX</p> <p> - For a longer 750mm shot: zoom at 500 on DX vs 300 f/4 on DX and crop the image</p> <p>Probably all at wide open or one stop down. Just testing image quality, not AF and not handling.</p>

<p>Tom wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>it seems that critical sharpness is your 1st criteria</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, not that I don't care about other aspects, and I might like to improve on other dimensions, but I don't want to give up the sharpness I'm enjoying now.</p>

<p>How small? Give us some idea of the magnification you need (that is, the linear dimension of the subject and how much of the frame it has to fill)?</p>

<p>Karen, which f/1.4 lens do you have? If it's the Canon lens, you are probably in good shape. You have a 16MPx full frame body. You should be getting very sharp images.</p> <p>80 f/1.2 is pretty exotic. And, he must be shooting very small groups! </p> <p>Here's I quick group shot I just did for an event I attended -- Is this the kind of sharpness you are looking for? No setup, no prep, just a grab, with a medium-wide lens. At f/4, that keeps both rows of people adequately sharp. And, I did move in quite a bit closer than in your shot.</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151211-Sample-GroupShot-DSC2280-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>and here's the 100% crop, good enough for this, and definitely not painterly, but could be better:</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151211-Sample-GroupShot-DSC2280-ActualPixels.png" alt="" /> </p> <p> This with a 24MPx Sony crop sensor camera, 35mm equiv lens (A6000, 24mm lens).</p> <p> </p>

<p>Your image can certainly be sharper with that camera.</p> <p>My recipe:<br> - Check your camera/lens. Shoot a running fence at an angle and see where the focus lies at maybe f/2. Or maybe a row of some cans. Look at the straight-out-of-camera jpg to make sure nothing in your processing is messing with the sharpness. (e.g. you might accidentally have the sharpen or clarity slider fuzzing your image.)<br> - f/1.4 lenses aren't optimal at f/1.4; I shoot at f/2 or f/4 or f/5.6, depending. But, your's should be better at f/1.4.<br> - Today's cameras are fine at ISO 800; you don't need wide open for a daylight shot<br> - Half press and let the camera focus. I use continuous AF, so it will keep focusing. Shoot a burst; often the 2nd and 3rd shots will be sharper than the first. The usual advice: steady stance, elbows into the body, hold everything still and gently pull the shutter release down. <br> - If in doubt, print and shoot an ISO 12233 chart; post a link here to the full image. </p>

<p>Test coming up... 200-500mm vs. the 300 f/4 for sharpness wide open at 40-50'.</p>

<p>Portrait -- I use a 50, doesn't matter which one. I open it up and shoot available light with today's cameras, back to the D200. I love the results far more than the old days of flash for everything indoors.</p> <p>Landscape is harder, several good recommendations above.</p>

<p>Bill, thanks for the samples. Nice shots. Especially appreciate the bird at full reach.</p> <p>Yes, BIF is tough, especially at 900mm equiv focal length. At that length, I have real trouble getting and keeping the bird in view.</p> <p>This one was shot at half that focal length. That feels more comfortable to me.</p> <p>Heron in flight, Ding Darling, D300, 300mm f/4, 2015. Original image has more bite, and I like that.</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/150208-HeronBIF-DingDarling-D038105.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>I do think I see the sharpness difference between the prime and zoom. I think I'm going for sharp. Dieter, if you're still reading, sharpness like <a href="/photo/17687950&size=lg">this one</a> in your gallery.</p>

<p>For baby photos, I always found myself with the 105 f/2.5. On your body that would be a 70mm lens. I think you want no more than 85mm which will be 127mm equivalent.</p> <p>For people portraits, head and shoulders, I use a 50 on a body like yours (75mm equivalent). It's a nice compact kit, you get bokeh and separation from background.</p>

<blockquote> <p>while I have the bodies, I do not have any long lenses</p> </blockquote> <p>Javier, for reasonable prices you can rent just about <em>anything</em> from LensRentals.com and they do a great job.</p> <p>I own the old 30mm f/4, but more recently, I've rented the newer AFS f/4 or the 300mm f/2.8 from them. It's a great way to get access to glass you won't use so often.</p>

<p>Ofer wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>I will be in North Miami Beach and Vero Beach so if you have any more suggestions for the area please share.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> Ofer, if you are in the Miami area you have to go at least a couple of visits to Shark Valley. You'll be 30-50' from interesting birds along the water-filled trench, and a bit further in the fields. A great spot. Further away to the South is the Anhinga Trail. Another prime spot.</p> <p>Try to go very early, as the park opens (best light for Shark Valley).</p>

<p>Wakodahatchee, Grand Cay, Estero, Anhinga Trail, Shark Valley -- All these have features that put you in proximity to birds who are used to humans and not skittish. Typical shooting is 30', but sometimes it's 8-10'. It's not at all like walking in the wild, spotting a bird in the distance, and trying to approach.</p> <p>I've had the same experience many times with a bird on the rail, un-bothered by humans nearby. Here's an example.</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/130311-HeronOnRail-FL-D035657-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p> <h4>Heron on a Railing, probably Wakodahatchee, D300 300 f/4 EDIF, 2013</h4>

<p>Sharpness of the 300 f/4 -- Like this one, with the AFS lens on a D300. </p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/150200-Pileated-DingDarling-D038445.jpg" alt="" /></p> <h4>Pileated Woodpecker, D300, Nikkor AFS 300 f/4, Ding Darling, Feb 2015</h4>

<p>Tom -- (more)</p> <p>Yes, I'm familiar with moving AF from the shutter release to a back button. I do that when birding and go back for other photography.</p> <p>I'm mulling over a comment in Brad Hill's extensive review of this lens</p> <blockquote> <p>• <strong>Compared to primes?</strong> At the subject distance of 5.7m I brought the Nikkor 300mm f4 PF and the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E VR into the testing. Owners of these lenses can now take a sigh of relief. Both primes produced images that were instantly recognizable as sharper. And the difference in sharpness between the primes and the sharpest zoom (the Sigma Sport 150-600) was greater than between the 4 closest-competing lenses in this test (the 200-500, the two Sigmas, and the Tamron). Don't take this to mean the zooms are all soft - they aren't. It's just that the 300mm f4 PF and the 400mm f2.8E VR are crazy sharp.<br> <br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>I have always been really pleased with the sharpness of my 300 f/4 shots (both the original and AFS versions). Brad's got me worrying; how about the 200-500 at 300mm vs. one of the 300 f/4 lenses? For sharpness in particular? Bokeh looks good on both lenses.</p>

<p>Tom, we'll be at Wakodahatchee, Green Cay, and Loxahatchee. I've had best luck at Wakodahatchee and Green Cay. I'll also be on the Gulf side where I've had good luck at Ding Darling and Estero. I intend to explore some of the other West locations as well. </p> <p>Agree about reach. Loxahatchee action was too far. </p> <p>Thanks for the comments on the D7200, especially about AF. </p>

<p>Thanks, Shun. </p> <p>Anyone else with experience on the 200-500mm lens?</p>

<p>Shun, thanks for the response. Monopod is my choice support. And, can you say why you suggest the crop body? For more reach? I'm thinking the D7200 and D600 will have about the same image quality. Does that sound right?</p> <p>How's the 200-500 at 500mm wide open? Thanks for the example, but hard to tell from the screen image. Sharp?</p>

<p>More: <br> - AF performance is probably most important. I shoot continuous AF, single point, put it on the bird, and hold it there.<br> - With the fixed 300mm, I'm shooting loose, and cropping later. Zoom might be a little different<br> - Usually there's enough light. I'll shoot at 1/1000th or more. (Photo above is 1/2500, ISO 1000).</p> <p>The 200-500mm on a crop body could also be an option.</p>

<p>Planning for my annual bird photography trip to Florida.</p> <p>In the past, I've shot with D300, a 300mm f/4, and a monopod. I prefer this lighter rig to bigger iron (e.g. 500 f/4 on a full frame body, big tripod, gimbal head). But, it's time for some changes. The D300 feels out of date at 12MPx, and Nikon has just introduced the 200-500mm f/5.6 lens.</p> <p>I'm thinking of either:<br> - D7200 with one of the 300mm f/4 lenses<br> - D600 with the new 200-500 f/5.6</p> <p>What do I want to shoot? Here's a good example. (Borrowed a Canon rig for that trip.)</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/140204-Wakodahatchee-GBHx2-H9A0022-Ed-Scr.jpg" alt="" /></p> <h4>Two Great Blue Herons, Wakodahatchee Wetlands, Delray Florida, 2014</h4>

<p>Some LEDs flicker as well. </p>

<p>I have been using the A6000 for quite a while, after a good time with the NEX-5n.</p> <p>The A6000 is quite an improvement. At the sale prices we are seeing this week, it's a steal.</p> <p>The tip that the A6000 is doing Hybrid or PD AF is small dancing squares, probably a half dozen, in the frame, seen in AF-C mode. With the 18-55 on my A6000, yes, the dancing squares appear with the 18-55 and with the Sony 50 f/1.8 (a good lens, BTW). So, it's doing PDAF.</p> <p><img src="http://2under.net/images/151201-Sony-A6000-PDAF.png" alt="" /></p> <p>(See demo here: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/new-a6000-hybrid-af-explained-by-sony-learntv/ )</p> <p>Other comments:<br> - Yes, shooting a burst wide open, I do see that the first frame is not as well focused as the rest. Second frame, harder to tell. Probably wouldn't see this if I pause to let the camera fully focus before starting to shoot. <br> - The Sony/Zeiss 55 f/1.8 is fab. I also like the Sony/Zeiss 24mm. Both PDAF.<br> - The Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 has a firmware update that allows it to do PDAF. Send the lens to Zeiss for this update; their turnaround was exemplary in my case.</p> <p>Here's a <a href="https://us.en.kb.sony.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/37074/p/40096,40680,40758,70049,70053/c/65,66/related/1">Sony page listing lenses which do fast PDAF</a>.</p>

<p>Birds are hard to shoot; for me, this is the application for long lenses. Generally, I use 300mm on an APS-C crop body. Hard to find and stay on target with longer lenses.</p> <p>Once you have the lens, you have to find the target, keep it steady, and get the shot with the un-static subject. Birds in flight are the hardest, and even birds on perch are still moving.</p> <p>For me, the viewfinder the critical element. I haven't found an EVF that does the job, so I use a DSLR for birds. Have you found an EVF working well for birds and sport? I'll be curious to hear.</p> <p>If the EVF is up to it, then this lens on a monopod or tripod might just be a good combination for birds and sport.</p>