Nikon New AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR

Photobug

Don't worry, @Photobug: http://www.nikonusa.com/en_INC/IMG/Assets/Common-Assets/Images/Teleconverter-Compatibility/EN_Comp_chart.html
And btw. I was looking for TC17E III (not II). There is a TC17E II.
In bright sunshine, D810 can focus through an ND 3.0 filter, which is 10 f-stops less than f/2.8 (close to f/90). For only 40% more FL I can crop as well - and since it's a prime, I'll have to. But I don't want to burn another half grand just for 40% more range.
I think the missing recommendation was more based on a while ago, there were not much cameras able to focus at f/8, like Nikon says: "† Autofocus is available only with cameras that offer f/8 support. " I do not intend to use

I am not worried at all. Sorry did not state my original post clearly. I know the compatibility of the TC's on the 300mm F4 lens; did my research several months ago. I should have gone on and referenced that Nasim Mansurov at telephotography.com DOES not recommend the 1.7 TC on the 300mm F4 in dim light. Forgot when that lens was reviewed but he isn't the only one not recommending that combination. He does recommend the TC-1.4 on the 300mm.

If you have not read the reviews on the TC-14E III vx the TC-14E II you should. It was written in December 2014. It's well done and the testing was done with the 400mm F2.8E, 70-200 F2.8G, 300 F4D, and the 200-400mm F4G.

I was just encouraging you to check out the TC 1.4 instead of the Tc 1.7.

Photobug

I have been doing some research on TCs as well .. and for TC14 there was v1, v2 and now v3. For TC17 there has only ever been V2 so I would also be considering TC14 III over TC17 II.

But you are right its quite expensive .. IQ wise you probably wont notice any degradation on the TC14 III. I would think you would see some degradation on the TC17 II .. but the 300mm is very sharp and it may not be noticeable. .....

Totally agree with you on degradation on the TC-14 III being better than the TC-17 II. You do bring up a good question if the 300mm is very sharp, the degradation with the TC17 may not be noticeable. We are going to have to wait and see on that one. I still expect the TC-14 will produce a sharper image than the TC-17. How much difference, that is the question.

If the DxO results, Popular Photography results, and Nasim Mansurov reviews are positive on the new 300mm PF; I am going to buy it. Otherwise, I am going with the existing 300mm F4. I am also planning to get the TC-1.4. Will probably wind up doing testing to see how much difference between the TC 14 & TC17. I do know that the TC17 on my 70-200 is really good.

funtagraph

How would you compare with or without TC? With TC = full MP but maybe increased optical flaws. Cropping = only the optical flaws the lens brings with, but diminished resolution -what makes the better picture? As soon as the weather is nice I'll answer my own question.

TC14E III vs. TC17E II, which one's better? What a silly question of me because of incomparable results. Maybe you didn't get the point - that lens I bought as substitute for the unavailable Sigma 150-600/5-6.3 S . I realize the higher Nikon costs due to brand, to faster aperture @300 mm (but if I want 600mm I have to use TC20E III which makes it only 600/8) and - here's the big thing to me - a superlightweight. TC14E III is useless to my purpose - which is not birds in flight.

Another bit, @Photbug: The review you're quoting simply has nothing to say about 300/4E PF ED because at that time it was only available for few persons. Could you just provide a link to what Mr. Mansurov is reviewing? I could not find it in the lens department. Or were you just referring to the "sample pictures" post: https://photographylife.com/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr-image-samples That's hardly a review. Anyway, if there was a TC17E III I would have got that one, but 14 is too small and 20 too big, so no TC xxx III for me. I probably will survive.

heartyfisher

As a substitute for the 150-600 the 300 x 1.7 = 510 seems a feasible compromise. You are right though "but 14 is too small and 20 too big". I am also finding it to be the case.

I have had a old nikon TC20 (not the new "e" version) in the AIS days and that was disappointing. so I am hesitant to go TC20e now but that's probably just my prejudice. I heard rumours that the TC17II may be discontinued :-( .. with no TC17IIIe

I have an old Kenko TC1.4 its cheap and useful (I think its still current version) and the degradation is not hugely significant at 1.4x anyway so I am quite happy with it on my sharp lenses. Its also designed to be compatible with almost all nikon lenses! so you can even use it on some lenses that would crash into the nikon TC. (I bought it for that reason bec i was planing to get the old 80-400 which was incompatible with nikon's own TC.) Its fun using it with my 18-140 DX on my D610 :-). Note the DX vignette mostly disappears when used with the TC on FX.

funtagraph

After one night of sleep I keep on asking myself "where exactly is my added value with that lens combination?"

It costs about 33% more than the unavailable Sigma Sports, has much less range, is less convenient to use beside it's weight. Is made in China, of course lots of plastic (expectable, otherwise the lightweight would be impossible to do), comes without collar. Doesn't need one, the lens being lighter than the camera. Doesn't need focus adjustment, too, which is nice to see. This weekend I'll know more. I'm sure it will not disappoint regarding sharpness, contrast and optical features. But I admit, I bought it in a moment of impatience and having both lenses available I might have decided differently.

Vipmediastar_JZ

According to the video below. The F4 lens collects lights as if it was 2.8?

funtagraph

Sorry, it's only wishful thinking. Probably the lighting of the hall was changed. Just checked twice: Although I don't have a 300/2.8 to compare, I just

put the TC17 behind the 70-200/4,
set the zoom ring to 176 (=300 mm),
used f/8 (the camera shows the proper aperture)
placed the camera on tripod,
pointing on the same spot,
defocussed to ∞ and
used centered exposure metering:

The exactly same shutter speed for both setups. So no f/2.8 lens named as f/4

Photobug

@funtagraph - Here are the links you requested:
Nikon 70-200mm F2.8G VR II Lens
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8g-vr-ii

Nikon 300mm F4D ((NOT the new 300mm F4E PF VR))
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4d

Nikon TC 20E III
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-tc-20e-iii

Nikon TC-14E III vs TC-14E II Performance Comparison
https://photographylife.com/nikon-tc-14e-iii-vs-tc-14e-ii-performance-comparison

Be sure to skim over the comment section since Nasim will often reply to questions and other individuals will support Nasim's findings.

Although the TC comparison test was done on the current/old 300 F4D lens my assumption is that the results with the new 300mm PF E VR will be similar for the TC 14E II and III.

The reason I included the review of the 70-200mm lens is that is where Nasim tests the TC14 and TC17 and I believe TC20 with this lens. Read the entire review and you will find that the TC17 works great on this lens in low light and bright light. Highly recommended.

I did all my research in November to buy the 300mm F4D and that is where I found Nasim's recommendation to buy the TC14 instead of TC17 (which I own). Several times he mentions the TC14 over the TC17 since it performs better in low light; AF focusing and BIF tracking are better. So I was going to wait until March to buy the 300 F4 and the TC14. Then along comes the rumor about the 300mm F4 PF E VR and I am now waiting for the testing results before deciding which to buy.

I am just trying to be helpful. When I saw you were interested in the TC17 I wanted to make you aware of Nasim's testing results on the TC17.

Again, I was referencing the older 300mm F4D lens...as you pointed out the new lens was not available for testing. I did not say the new 300mm lens. What I did say was if the DxO and Nasim's reviews were good I was buying the new version of the lens based upon the testing results.

If this message comes across as defensive, sorry about that. I am just trying to provide help and guidance based upon extensive research on the TC's and 300mm F4D lens.

My hunch is that the comments on the TC17 and TC14 on the old 300mm F4D will apply to the new 300mm F4 PF E VR lens. THAT IS WHERE I AM COMING FROM. Your the ones that has to assess the info gathered here and from other sites like DxO and photographiclife.com.

I understand where you are coming from that the TC14 is short and TC20 is long...that is why they make TC17. There are pros and cons for each one of these and you must make the decision as to which one is best for your application. Comprises decisions are often made to meet your expectations/requirements and I believe you will make a decision for the type of photography you shoot. Good luck.

funtagraph

I appreciate your help, @Photobug, but I tend not to conclude too much out of similar but not the same item's test results. Also, I just bought lens and TC before you came up with your recommendations and although it's not that much more FL between 1.4× and 1.7× I will not purchase the "little" TC.

Now, you gave so much sources and links from "other people's finding" but own the TC 17 - I'd have been more interested in your opinion than Nasim's Anyway, instead of reading "after-purchase-confirmation" stuff, I rather spend that time by getting an own opinion. Purchase process is finished

So far, I found the lens performing not as well as 70-200 in lowlight but that might be lack of experience and also a too quickly made conclusion, I've still to grow to it.

The link to the also quick comparison from lensrentals - Roger could only test one copy and that apparently was decenterred - might be an information for you as well as you're interested in this lens. I'm not running to Nikon to see if my copy could be decenterred as well, but here comes a prejudice getting fed and that's "Made in China". Of course, I don't know if the manufacturing is up to Japanese standards but for sure, the salaries are not. I'm just wondering how much the lens would cost if it were "Made in Japan" as the TC is. Again, I'm not suspecting quality issues. Yet.

funtagraph

Something strange going on, never saw that before. This morning I aimed the lens and the D810 behind to a building maybe half a mile away from my window. The whole thing was set on a Gitzo Systematic tripod series 4. So far I thought this is a stable thing. When checking sharpness in enlarged LiveView, it went form sharp to blurred constantly. I switched off VR, I switched to manual focus - behavior remained the same, and what also happened was the picture moving vertically and horizontally.

Strange, never saw that before. My impression was, I saw a sharper picture in LiveView than I got when shooting at 1/3 s with mirror up and 3 second shutter delay. So I suspect some movement. But wherefrom? I will try the same setup with other heads this evening but right now, I'm puzzled. I tried the same with 70-200/4 with TC and it was exactly the same - with and without collar. Why is the screendisplay moving?

Msmoto

Were you shooting through a window...glass?

funtagraph

No, the window was open. There were some twigs between me and the building, but the place I put the focus rectangle on was free of twigs or other obstacles.

Okay, warm air floating out could have been a problem I haven't seen. Shall try this again out of my comfy office/living room.

haroldp

Are you on a ball or gimbal head. Gimbals lock down tighter
Nikons collars are awful, The RRS long lens support or something like it is needed for long tele exposures.

... H

funtagraph

Arca d4 geared head. But no matter which head, i don't have an explanation for the pulsing sharpness.

Nikon collars are in general better than the lens tube to attach them - plastic is a soft thing, if not enforced properly. But at 800 grams, the lens is lighter than a couple of other lenses I also use without collar. And not much longer than a 14-24.

heartyfisher

Sometimes shakes can come from the ground .. eg on a bridge. or trucks passing by.. or in a tall building.

funtagraph

I live in second floor of a concrete building. I was thinking the same, @heartyfisher, especially because both lenses behaved the same way. But the more I think about - I'll make another attempt outside. We currently have something like -2°C and wind chill of -11°C (28°F / 13°F), so it could have been the warm air out of my room.

funtagraph

problemo solved, it was a "careless photog issue" must have been the warm air. Looking forward to tomorrow. Btw. the TC17E II behind the 70-200/4 was just as good as the 300/4, at least tonight. Will look more into it, also tomorrow.

Photobug

Now, you gave so much sources and links from "other people's finding" but own the TC 17 - I'd have been more interested in your opinion than Nasim's Anyway, instead of reading "after-purchase-confirmation" stuff, I rather spend that time by getting an own opinion. Purchase process is finished

So far, I found the lens performing not as well as 70-200 in lowlight but that might be lack of experience and also a too quickly made conclusion, I've still to grow to it.

I have been very pleased with the IQ of the TC17 on the 70-200 F2.8 on the D7100. Take a look at all the Bald Eagle picture on PAD and my Flickr account, all but 4 are with the above combination. A couple of them are cropped. There are 2 pictures taken with the D750 +24-70 that were cropped. The interior shots were high ISO, most at 2500. The outside images are at ISO 400. Edge and center sharpness is really good.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/20211066@N06/with/16127261098/
Regarding your 2nd paragraph. Practice will help. Most issues are normally the subject moving, incorrect AF point, and movement by the photographer during exposure. Pay attention to your shutter speeds and practice a lot.

manhattanboy

Just got my new 300 today in the mail. Haven't shot with it yet, but for those wondering it is about the same size as the 70-300 and actually feels lighter that that lens. Hoping the Mrs allows some shooting time this weekend.

heartyfisher

problemo solved, it was a "careless photog issue" must have been the warm air. Looking forward to tomorrow. Btw. the TC17E II behind the 70-200/4 was just as good as the 300/4, at least tonight. Will look more into it, also tomorrow.

Would be interested to hear more about the 70-200 F4 and TC17.. I have been thinking that combination would be nice.. I have the 70-200 F4 and have been itching to get the TC17 but the reviews of the TC have been mixed.

autofocus

Anybody that doesn't want their old 2.8 Tele's because of weight just send them to me. I'll gladly carry it for the performance.

funtagraph

Anybody an idea why Nikon can't do such a clever thing as this Arca-socket?



Source: http://sigma-rumors.com/2015/02/development-announcement-three-accessories/

I'm just posting in this thread because a) I couldn't find a Sigma 150-600 Sports thread (although it would be nice to compare to the 300/4 PF) and b) I mentioned the lens here several times.

Photobug

NIkon's collar/foot on several lens are not ideal. Photographers have complained of vibration with the factory collar. This is especially noticeable on the Nikon 300mm F4D lens. The solution is the RRS replacement collar foot which has the Arca grooves. They are rock stable and there is not vibration.

It's too bad the Nikon engineers didn't pay closer attention to the design of the collar/foot.

funtagraph

Sorry, @Photobug, imho the collar is not the weak part, at least not at 70-200/4 or 300/4 PF which both use the same collar. It's attached to a plastic tube of the lens which appears to be a bit too flexible.

However, there are lots of opinions. A tripod vendor told me frankly "all collars suck" and showed that on a 300/4 old type.

My own experiments showed me, it's better to leave the collar away as those lenses already are lightweight and no bigger stress to the mount than the full FF body with grip attached to the lens while the collar is attached.

To me there's no point to burn even more money for a stiff collar while the lens itself remains flexible.

Photobug

Sorry, @Photobug, imho the collar is not the weak part, at least not at 70-200/4 or 300/4 PF which both use the same collar. It's attached to a plastic tube of the lens which appears to be a bit too flexible.

However, there are lots of opinions. A tripod vendor told me frankly "all collars suck" and showed that on a 300/4 old type.

My own experiments showed me, it's better to leave the collar away as those lenses already are lightweight and no bigger stress to the mount than the full FF body with grip attached to the lens while the collar is attached.

To me there's no point to burn even more money for a stiff collar while the lens itself remains flexible.

I did NOT say all zoom lens. You need to do some more research. There are lots of complains here on NRF about lens collars not holding the lens stable. The 300mm F4D lens is one of them, I was going to buy this lens plus a RRS collar to address the issue when the rumor came out about the new 300mm F4 PF lens. So I waited. I don't remember if the other issue was the 80-400mm lens or another.

Go back to page 1 in this forum or do a search on NRF for lens collars. You will be surprised with the comments on Nikon lens collars. I believe there are only two that are inadequate.

An example of a good Nikon foot is the one the 70-200 F2.8. It's good even with the high center of balance. I bought a RRS replacement foot because the lower center of balance and it has the built in Arca groves. Otherwise, if you want to use the 70-200mm F2.8 lens on a tripod you got to buy a lens plate since the stanard Nikon foot does not have the Arca grooves.

Lens vibration affects image quality; that is why owners of the 300mm F4"D" lens and which ever lens the other one was....people replace or don't buy the Nikon collar.