300 mm f4

dissent

IMHO it depends entirely on what the new Tammy can deliver for sharpness, and over what range of focal lengths. If the Tammy can be shown to be better than the 300/4 + 1.4, well, then there you go.

manhattanboy

IMHO it depends entirely on what the new Tammy can deliver for sharpness, and over what range of focal lengths. If the Tammy can be shown to be better than the 300/4 + 1.4, well, then there you go.

A good, trustworthy comparison of the new zoom's sharpness is here (albeit its only versus the Bigma and Canon):
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/01/tamron-150-600-telezoom-shootout

The Nikon version isn't released until April 1st anyways, so there is plenty of time for more reviews, and who knows, maybe this good Tamron supertele will prompt Nikon to finally get off their arse and release the updated 300f4. I suspect that with the released Canon version of it selling out quickly all over the world someone at Canon HQ has taken notice. That's good news because Canon might release an updated 100-400 or 400 5.6 and both of these would push Nikon to do something.

PB_PM

That reviews shows that the sharpness of the Canon 100-400mm IS is better. Now for the price the Tamron is good, but that isn't high high note of praise, since the 100-400mm IS isn't known for stellar performance.

Considering that the current Nikon 300mm F4 blows both of those lenses away in sharpness, I doubt it will push Nikon to do anything.

WestEndBoy

That reviews shows that the sharpness of the Canon 100-400mm IS is better. Now for the price the Tamron is good, but that isn't high high note of praise, since the 100-400mm IS isn't known for stellar performance.

Considering that the current Nikon 300mm F4 blows both of those lenses away in sharpness, I doubt it will push Nikon to do anything.

Perhaps. However, that is not saying much. It is a pathetic prime that cannot beat a zoom in image quality. I am amazed at the image quality that comes with my DX 18.5 prime (28mm FX equivalent). It is about $1,000 and comes with a free camera.

Well.....maybe the lens is overpriced by a factor of 4 or 5.

PB_PM

Are we talking about the same lens here? I would hardly call the Nikon AF-S 300mm F4D IF-ED pathetic, since it is optically superior (even with a TC) to the AF-S 80-400mm VRII, which costs over twice as much.

WestEndBoy

You misunderstand my English.

I am basically saying that zooms have such a large handicap when it comes to image quality, that a prime that cannot better it is pathetic. It would be like going to the effort to argue that Tiger Woods is a better golf player than those of us on this forum. Since the 300mm F4 is not a pathetic prime, but quite a good one, it is not even a contest.

Perhaps I exaggerate, but you get my drift?

PS:
That is why I own the 14-24 2.8. The 14 2.8 is a pathetic prime. Not really its fault, it is quite an old model and super wide has always been difficult.

WestEndBoy

PS:
Can you switch me to a "+1" now, or at least get rid of the negative?

PB_PM

I agree that zooms are rarely as sharp as modern primes, but I still disagree that the 300mm F4 is a pathetic performer. The fact that a 13 year old prime is still superior to modern computer designed zooms says a lot about it's performance.

Lets put it this way, if you put the 300mm F4 on a D800, you'll never feel short changed when you see the results.

WestEndBoy

PB_PM...........

..........I am saying that the 300mm F4 is a great performer and that comparing it to a zoom is not a fair fight (for the zoom).

PB_PM

Really?

It is a pathetic prime that cannot beat a zoom in image quality.

Since the 300mm F4 is not a pathetic prime, but quite a good one, it is not even a contest.

So which is it? In one post it is a "pathetic prime that cannot be a zoom" and in the next it isn't?

No point in going into this any more, I get where you are coming from on this.

WestEndBoy

Yup. The "it" in the first sentence does not refer to the 300mm F4, but a hypothetical prime.

PB_PM

I'll accept that, in part, but I would like to point out that the context of the paragraph, and the post you quoted, does not make it seem that way.

WestEndBoy

You are funny!

manhattanboy

Roger Cicala said:
Byron,
I was trying to keep this brief so I didn’t add the 300 f/4 (and don’t have with TC data – our lab can’t test past 400mm) but the 300 f/4, at f/4 is exactly as sharp in the center as the new 80-400 VR AF-S and better in the corners. Stopped down to f/5.6 (a fair comparison) it is a bit better in the center (not very much, just a bit).
I can’t say with the TC on what it would be like – but I suspect it would be very close to dead even with the new lens. I thought it a bit better than the old.
Roger

I do not think that performance of the Tamron is that bad, but I'm sure eventually we will get more comparisons. The 300 prime is superior than the new 80-400 (EVERYONE agrees on this), and maybe still slightly better even with the 1.4TC attached. The question is of price: $2700 for the 80-400 zoom is too much considering the superior IQ of 300+1.4, which together will be about $1800. The bigger question is that the Tamron will be $1000. If it even comes close to matching the new 80-400, that will be impressive. Autofocus is decent on the new Tamron and it has vibration reduction (which I think Nikon sued them for because they copied?). My original question was: will the better IQ of the 300+1.4 TC combo be worth it given that now you are adding almost another 200mm of flexibility on the far end with VR while subtracting $700+ dollars from the purchase price of the combo? If IQ were the main goal then we'd be talking about the expensive Nikon tele primes, but the 300 f4 is Nikon's only budget tele prime, so I think price matters.

PB_PM

The Tamron will grab the type of people that have been buying the Tamron 200-500mm and Sigma 150-500mm. People who want a prime will still get the 300mm F4.

PB_PM

You are funny!

As often as possible.

BrucePhotography

I love my Nikon 300 F4 lens on both my D800 and the D800E. I use it for Landscapes locked down on a tripod in live view using a shutter release. I have several 2 foot by 3 foot vertical prints that include more detail than most of my other lenses. I'm sure that I've got an exceptional copy because this lens is sharper than the Canon equivalent but since they don't have any 36mp cameras I really can't do an image comparison. I will never sell this lens -- I don't even lend it out to friends. It is my only "D" lens because of its age since all my other lenses are "G" type

dissent

Nikon announcement on February 11.

Come on, Nikon. Bring it.

PB_PM

February 11 is all about the D4s, nothing more.

Nik0n2011

okay, i'll keep saving :-x

dissent

February 11 is all about the D4s, nothing more.

Yes, but my life will not be complete until I see that this thread has as many posts as the D400 thread.

manhattanboy

February 11 is all about the D4s, nothing more.

If the only "real" thing they are announcing is the D4s, then likely they will throw in some coolpix iterations just for kicks.

However, I am holding out hope for a new 300 f4, which I put as 100x more likely to appear at the Feb announcement then a D400.

Nik0n2011

i think the 300f4 got 2 patents in the last 2 years (last 1 in september)
not many can count 2 patents in a short time,
and is one of the oldest awaiting for an update

it has to be 'her'

Nik0n2011

to manattanguy
and the 300f4 is there under the sun, clearly to be replaced
while the d400 might just never come or might come under a new 'name' : wishful thinking

henrik1963

I think a 300 F4 would look good on a D4s :-)