Purchase Nikon's 70-300 mm lens?

egosbar

its a good lens , i shoot mine at 300 and its fine imo , this one at 300mm handheld iso 1600 f5.6 1/3200
could of dropped the iso by a couple of stops easy enough but i was testing the noise at different levels

https://www.flickr.com/photos/markegan/31038301730/in/datetaken-public/

NSXTypeR

I'm trying to figure out the 70-300 now with some cardinals and blue jays.



I can see why people say it's soft at 300 wide open. I'm also trying to learn the AF system of the D7000 too.

dissent

Gonna be tough to get nicely close to smaller birdies, even at 300. Try some bigger subjects too. Local zoo, perhaps?

NSXTypeR

dissent said:

Gonna be tough to get nicely close to smaller birdies, even at 300. Try some bigger subjects too. Local zoo, perhaps?

It definitely is tough, I have a newfound appreciation for people who get great shots with tiny birds, especially with long primes. The field of view is narrow enough at 450mm equivalent on DX that occasionally I get "lost", even with larger birds like seagulls that are around my house. I guess that's what happens though when you don't have a large field to track and anticipate a target. I'm taking photos in my backyard mostly.

I can only imagine a 400mm prime or a 600mm prime on DX, you really need to anticipate far in advance a subject. Small birds are especially hard when they're so skittish.

Ironheart

Shot wide open on a 70-300 @300. Make sure to click on the photo and check out the feather detail. Anyone who says this lens is "soft" wide open, just send 'em to me to get schooled on the art of sharpness

NSXTypeR

Well I certainly have a long way to go before I'm proficient with my lens!

I'm glad you're getting good results out of your copy.

egosbar

NSXTypeR said:

dissent said:

Gonna be tough to get nicely close to smaller birdies, even at 300. Try some bigger subjects too. Local zoo, perhaps?

It definitely is tough, I have a newfound appreciation for people who get great shots with tiny birds, especially with long primes. The field of view is narrow enough at 450mm equivalent on DX that occasionally I get "lost", even with larger birds like seagulls that are around my house. I guess that's what happens though when you don't have a large field to track and anticipate a target. I'm taking photos in my backyard mostly.

I can only imagine a 400mm prime or a 600mm prime on DX, you really need to anticipate far in advance a subject. Small birds are especially hard when they're so skittish.

try looking just over the top of your camera just above the flash if you have one , look at the bird along the lens and put your eye back , you should be very close fo the subject in the frame if not right on it ( practice it and you will see) , bit like finding a target through a scope quickly if your shooting

NSXTypeR

That's good advice, although that helps with aligning targets in the "x" axis, you still need to fudge around with the "y" axis.

Definitely helps a lot though, thanks for the suggestion!

Ironheart

A couple of thoughts about achieving sharpness. The photo above was taken while seated, and resting my elbows on my knees. This, coupled with the shutter speed of 1/5000th, a bright sunny day, and ISO 1000 let me go wide open f/5.6. Given I was trying to freeze the wings of the hummingbird, I didn't want to slow down the shutter, but a less "active" bird could probably be at 1/2000 which would let you drop the ISO to 400 or so, or take a click or two smaller on the aperture, both of which will increase apparent sharpness.

So the two lessons here are 1) fast shutter 2) mostly stable shooting platform

Another way to achieve 2) is with a monopod, tripods being no bueno with small birds.

NSXTypeR

I was aware of keeping my shutter speeds high, but maybe I wasn't keeping them high enough. I kept them around 1/400th, but maybe that's even the below the bare minimum threshold. Definitely food for thought.

If I add a monopod, it'll add to my laziness and I know for sure I won't carry it all. I will try to keep it at 1/500th or high.

This is exactly why the new DX 70-300 does not appeal to me at all, the far end is f6.3. The D7000 is not the greatest at high ISO.

Ironheart

I should mention that at anything over 1/500th you should turn off VR. The old "1 over focal length" rule needs to be adjusted for equiv. focal length. A 300mm lens would require 1/450 to have no handshake motion blur (without VR) on a DX body.

NSXTypeR

I sort of remember hearing that from Thom Hogan, but I couldn't remember the shutter speed.

Thanks for letting me know.

Yes, this is definitely a higher shutter speed than I'm normally used to, but that goes with long lenses.

DaveyJ

To summarize......of all of the 70-300 Nikkors I own....never sold one! The70-300mm FX 5.6 at 300mm is the best, the fastest....the new 70-300mmAF-P,DX VR is the lightest, focuses the closest. It is an extremely effective focal zoom range to add to great lens like the 16-80. I also must say I regard the best of all the 70-300s I own...the FX VR to be about the upper weight I am willing to accept. The really popular and affordable 200-500 lens at about $1,400 is the very upper limit I would now pay for a lens like that. If that lens was revamped as a DX lens like the AF-P 70-300 with NO non VR version (which was a SAD cheater lens developed only for price point, and has resulted in far more confusion that allowable.....and I believe hurt Nikon more than it helped) the resultant stepper motor AF-P 200-500 DX VR could be one of Nikon best seller lens......will they do it? My guess is a decided NO! I think the 70-300 Nikkors are a almost necessary lens in a field photographers pack. I do not look for more help or offers from Nikon there....now on to other zoom teles we would like to buy!

egosbar

a 16-80 dx that doesnt cost an arm an a leg for a dx lens , should be priced around 600 dollars and id buy one

non vr 200-500 dx would be awesome

NSXTypeR

I think I'm just barely out of focus here. It's frustrating but so much fun.



As long as you don't pixel peep, it's an enjoyable photo in my opinion.

DaveyJ

I'd like to hear from Photobug about having a 200-500 Nikkor in Yelllowstone Park and Grand Teton this coming September. He said he left his 200-500 in the car a lot. Since bugling Elk and Bison are one of my primary photo objectives I think having looked at UTube videos on Lamar Valley, Hayden Valley, etc. the 200-500 is almost required. I intend the 70-300 FX 5.6 VR being my primary tele, but the 200-500 which is a tight fit in my Low Pro backpack that I use as a plane carry on .....is a pretty tight fit? The other lens are going to be a Sigma 10-20 DX, Nikon 16-80, Nikon AF-P DX VR. Probably right now planning on just a D7200, and my trusty D3200 which I am ripped as the new lightweight DX 70-300 cannot be used oni it. Not sure a D3400 is justified just to run one lens, especially that one. For close up teles though that lens is pretty good. It sure is a bright light lens though.....

Photobug

DaveyJ....The 200-500 Nikkor was on my D7100 during the shooting of fountains and geysers and scenic pictures. But when traveling between sites or on the road to West Yellowstone, the 200-500 was used 90% of the time. The rest was covered by a 70-200 on my D750. Sometimes those Bison are smack on the road or next to the road and you need a much shorter lens than the 200-500mm. More than once I had the 70-200 on the D750 and the 200-500 on the D7100 and I am scrambling to put a 24-70 on the D7100 because the Elk or Bison was on or next to the road. You got to be ready for everything.

For any type of wildlife, I was using the 200-500 for the majority of the pictures.

We did see some wildlife in Hayden Valley and did not take the road east to see Lamar Valley. (hope I did not mix those two areas). 8 years ago we spent half a day in Lamar Valley and were disappointed in the amount of wildlife. You need to be there early instead of late morning and noon.

I didn't mean to mis inform you and would take that 200-500 if we were going back. From my perspective it's a must lens for this trip.

In the Grand Tetons, we stayed at the Jackson Lake Lodge. Where ever you stay, you need to be on the road at least one morning by 6 am and check out the Elk that walks from the south to the north of the lodge. And that calls for a LONG LONG lens. The 200-500 x 1.5 will get you close then in post you can enlarge.

I highly recommend you drive the road to Antelope Flats and the gravel road to the Mormon Barn in the morning. You will find small herds of bison and deer if you are lucky. Must shots at Mormon Barn and Moulton Barn. My disappointment is that I did not get up before sunrise to get to the barns for sun rise with the Grand Teton mountains in the background.

Recommend Chapel of the Sacred Heart. Good for a couple of pictures but the best shot is from inside of the stain glass windows. I pushed my ISO up rather than use a tripod. I got the sun illuminating the stained glass window...just beautiful!

Did I mention before that there are few and far between places to eat within both National Parks. We always hit the General Stores and purchased the premade sandwiches and put them in a Styrofoam cooler.

BEWARE of the safe distance for all wildlife. Be safe and always have an escape route. Some of the oriental visitors were STUPID on how close they got to Bison.

Photobug

I found our trip right up. Must stops are the Blacktail Ponds Overlook. We saw deer in the river multiple times.

A must see trip for wildlife is the Gros Ventre Junction and picking up the Antelope Flats road. We saw Bison, Pronghorn deer, and Moose. Of course, this is close to the barns, so go back. We made 3 trips to both barns, lighting is different between early morning, mid morning, noon and afternoon.

The Moose - Wilson Road is a little difficult to find, you need a good map. More Moose in the river and along the road. You want to drive south on this road, not north. Found a Moose 10 ft off the road and I used the 24-70mm lens.

I could go on and on, but that is a highlight. I have actually been thinking of starting a forum on here on Grand Tetons and then another no Yellowstone on how to photograph both National Parks.

I can't understate how important early reservations are needed and planning your trip.
Key items are memory cards, back up of memory cards, and shoes...good walking shoes.

Once my taxes are done I may just come back and start two forms, one for each NP. We have so many tips for seeing both parks and how to photograph them.

DaveyJ

Thank you Photobug! This information is invaluable! I am traveling with a senior travel agent who,has already booked much of our trip,and she had made the trip on her own several times. Now I am loading a Low Back Pack for a carry on. Virtually all,camera gear going in the plane cabin with me, other gear on my checked baggage. Hope I get my checked baggage as camera gear will, be most of,the stuff directly with me. Need to figure out how to download photos out there during the trip to see what have. As a farmer...the T.A. Morton barn is an objective...also Bison and Elk. Since I have tons of Brown Bear photos,they are not on my wish list,and years ago I was in the Mountain Lion and Grey Wolf research business so they are not on my photos needed list......again many thanks to Photobug!

Photobug

I have a Lowepro lens case and I put it in my checked luggage, otherwise everything went in my rolling case as carry one luggage. Even had the wife carry one lens in her carry on luggage.

It's good that your not looking for bear, they are hard to find. We had one walk thru the Jackson Lake Lodge area and a few nights lady a fox did the same thing. Missed the fox but got the bear picture.

We were on day 9 of our 12 day vacation and I was getting irritated that we had not seen any moose. Moose Bridge had nothing vs 8 years ago we always had multiple Moose at the Bridge. I wrote earlier on where to find them. Made our trip with those shots.

Traveling with a travel agent is nice, you can draw on their experience and they understand the difference in dining experience inside both parks and why reservations for dinner are mandatory if you want a fine dining experience or a better meal. Your welcome on the tips.

DaveyJ

Almost all of our reservations made. Still don't own my longest lens I hope to take. I will be using just my D7200s and a D3200. Probably will put the 70-300 VR 5.6 on the 3200, and use the 10-20 Sigma, 16-80 which I think I will use a lot, and then the longest lens on many of the wildlife shots. I hope to find the 11 acre Blacktail Pond for a I hope quick fishing trip, and for the Blacktail Deer overlook Photobug mentions, I also think I will ,try a day almost at Lamar River, Soda Butte Creek, Slough Creek just to catch some trout which I have done in many areas of the USA as I still.am in the fishery science business. My son and grandson are going to start a adventure fishing film company as they have been selling a lot of films to Nature Conservancy, I love various states ad campaigns, etc. theynthough are rarely using stills....everything from aerial to underwater, the fish in Yellowstone and Teton on pretty small by our standards but it is a beautiful area of the planet! When I hike back in to fish I will use the D7200, 16-80, and take a 70-300 AF-P DX VR in case I need longer! I will take a tripod along with waders, trout net, and cameras in a Tamrac Velocity 7X case which I use on an almost daily basis, almost always with the 16-80 but back at those places, think I will want a longer but light lens too. Basically I think the ONLY use for the 70-300 DX lens is travel light....needs too much light compared to,the faster 70-300 VR 5.6. For the fishing I will be alone. My travel agent doesn't care for hikes.

BabaGanoush

DP Review has posted a gallery of pictures that were taken with the AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 VR. In the shots taken at 300mm, detail is lacking. Seeing that, I decided to compare my 70-300mm FX VR Nikkor to my 80-400mm VR II on my D7200. At FL = 200mm, the two are pretty much equally sharp, but by FL = 300mm, the 80-400mm has the clear advantage over the 70-300mm, which has gone about as soft as the AF-P appears to be. In a subsequent test, I found my newly purchased PL100-400mm lens on my Panasonic GX8 is every bit as sharp as the 80-400mm on my D7200 in the range of equivalent focal lengths where they overlap.

NSXTypeR

I took these shots this morning. I've never had to stop down so much with my other lenses so I guess in that sense I've been spoiled. But I like the results I got from this lens and I'm enjoying this lens a lot more.

CEBlueclouds

You don't have to stop down so much always with the 70-300 fx version.....this was shot at f/5.6

CEBlueclouds

This also..