Nikkor 300mm f/4

haroldp

I would always use a collar because I believe it lessens the possibility of vibration when compared to using the body to mount the camera.
Focal length doesn't come into it.

You are exactly right.

With tripod mounted on the camera body I could not get solid enough to focus fine tune because of vibration. A lens mounted tripod ring (the Vello at $ 49.00 works fine) solved it.

The 300/4 and 70-200/4 use the same ring.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/984497-REG/vello_tc_n1_tripod_collar_for.html

Photobug

@spraynpray - theoretically I agree with you. I actually allocated money last year to buy one but did not do it. When it warms up I am headed to the local zoo with a tripod and that will go along way toward making that decision. I use to be concerned about the weight of the lens when mounting my camera on a tripod and the increased torque/stress on the camera lens mount but when I realized the weight is less than my 24-70 2.8 I stopped worrying about it.

You stated the point well about the possibility of vibration from mounting the camera to the tripod instead of a collar. Still thinking about it.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I dont need the collar with both The 300/4 and 70-200/4 but I may get at least one. Sometimes that steady shoot in certain situations will come in handy. The 300mm is not hard to use but sometimes my breathing or something makes me move and harder to compose or focus.

haroldp

@photobug

This vibration is not a possibility, it is certainty. Even with flash I could not get clean charts with the 300/4 on a tripod with body mount . Hand holding was better. Since I will hardly ever use this lens on a tripod, I will not invest in the RRS ring, but the $ 49 Vello does fine (with an arca compatible plate for $ 14 more).

Photobug

Thanks haroldp.

mikealruskov

I went to the used camera gear section at my local camera shop to look at teleconverters for use with my Nikon 300mm f/4E PF. I compared a $80 Kenko TelePlus 1.4X against a $200 Nikon TC-17E II.

Images: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelallanfoley/albums/72157663715449356

All of these shots are handheld with VR using the 300 PF and a Nikon D7000. These shots have a bit of noise since the lighting was dim in the camera shop and it was overcast outside, but I think they're clean enough to get some basic impressions and comparisons.

Even with the older AF in my D7000 both the 1.4X and 1.7X teleconverters were quick and easy to focus in the relatively dim light of the camera store. Metering was also just fine.

The $80 used Kenko Teleplus 1.4X is remarkably sharp, honestly I was a little shocked. There was a little rotational play with the fit between my 300PF and D7000, but it felt relatively solid. Focus was very quick to acquire, but about one in every 4 attempts to focus for some bizarre reason the screw drive on my D7000 engaged with the Kenko's screw drive and threw the focus out for a second or two. Neither I or the guy behind the counter had any clue why it was happening since the lens connected to the teleconverter was an AF-S, not a D-type. Aside from the odd issue with the screw drive I am blown away by this little $80 teleconverter. I am so tempted to go for this despite the AF quirks.

The used Nikon TC-17E II focused marginally slower than the Kenko 1.4X, but it seemed to nail focus every time I pointed it at something. Again, I'm amazed my D7000 can focus this well in dim light at f/6.7, not bad for a 5+ year old crop sensor AF system. I feel like in daylight this would be perfectly suitable setup for sports and wildlife. The images are quite sharp with my 16MP sensor, although with lower ISO I'm not sure how much they would improve. For $200 I feel like I should go for the Nikon TC-17E II since it gives me a little more reach and I didn't have the weird AF issues like the Kenko... but at $80 I almost want to throw it into my bag as well.

Overall the 300 f/4E PF feels like it's designed to be used with teleconverters considering how incredibly short and lightweight it is. With the TC-17E II attached the overall length and weight is less than a 70-200 2.8 which is astonishing considering it ends up being an FX equivalent 750mm f/6.3 lens with VR.

Nik0n2011

hey Mikeal, thanks for your post. I was tempted to get a 1.7e II
but i have had 2 'but''s'' :


1) is it sharp enough (AF speed i don't mind), sharpness bothers me
2) that's a pretty old TC, be sure, the day (IF) i get it, Nikon introduces a shining new III version, and as the 300f4 came, the D500 came, i think there are a few things left to imminently come/arrive (200f4 macro, 135-sigma also-, TC 1.7e III - people claim the 2.0 III is great if looking at the 2.0 II, some people say, the 2.0 is even better (general talk, not 300f4) than the 1.7

Nik0n2011

considering latest nikon focus has been a lot on 'reach' refresh
D500, 300f4e, TC 1.4e III, 200-500 5.6

V4 or some mirrorless thingie any time

i really think the 1.7e III is behind the corner

mikealruskov

i really think the 1.7e III is behind the corner

I agree waiting for the TC-17E III is smart if you're buying new. The reason I'm so tempted to buy a used TC-17E II is the price (around $200 used!) Ideally I want to find a used TC-14E III, but there weren't any used copies at my local camera shop.

heartyfisher

I have both the KenkoTC14 and the nikonTC17 .. I finally got the NikonTC17 cos I found a good deal on a secondhand one. and I heard that Nikon will not be making a TCIIIe version anytime soon... There is only one TC17e there was not a I version, and there probably wont be a III version.

The Kenko is compatible will almost all Nikon lenses while all the Nikon TCs are only compatible with most of the tele nikkors. You will need to check to confirm compatibility before you try mounting Nikkors on the TC17/14/20. for example the Kenko can be used on the older 80-400 VR while the Nikon TCs can't. There are many others so you need to check.

On my 70-200F4 and D7200 the TC17 seems faster and more sure than the Kenko Tc14.. but overall I have had many years of fine service from the KenkoTC14.

Photobug

My experience with the Nikon TC17II and TC14III on the 300/4 has been excellent. No issues. Just waiting for it to get warmer so I can go to the zoo and shoot more with this fine lens.

heartyfisher

My experience with the Nikon TC17II and TC14III on the 300/4 has been excellent. No issues. Just waiting for it to get warmer so I can go to the zoo and shoot more with this fine lens.

Here in Oz I am waiting for it to get cooler :-) before i go to the zoo again. Our zoo is built on a very steep hill side. Summer is too hot to tramp up and down the whole day.

Shoul be fun with my new old TC17 + 70-200f4. here birdy birdy .... and I have a date with the batcave too :-) May finally pickup a 50 1.4 (1.8 more likely) before hand...
the last time I was in the batcave was not very successful :-)

IronHeadSlim

I have been more people/landscape oriented but we have a growing population of bald eagles in South Jersey so: My goal is D500, 70-200mm f/4, 300mm f/4e, TC14III. Clearly Nikon produced the 300mm f/4e knowing the D500 was coming.

haroldp

The 300mm f/4e works very well with the tc-14eIII. Also with the tc-20eIII.

A great lightweight birding config.

A short way from NJ, Eagles are readily found around conowingo dam in MD.

... H