Sharpest 300mm tele for Nikon
May 23, 2016 17:33:47 #
May 23, 2016 20:36:45 #
Royce Moss wrote:
Ok now now guy don't get in a piss fight. I pretty much have decided to go with a older 300mm f4 prime instead of a zoom. Have read alot of good things about it and a used one is in my budget.Now I want to find the best teleconverter to add at a decent price. Any advice on teleconverters?? Thanks
For what it's worth, I bought an old non-AI 200mm Nikkor lens that is very sharp. This lens is from the early '70's I think, and cost me about $75 including shipping from eBay. I love this lens! I can only imagine that a 300mm Nikkor like that would be great.
BTW, my camera is a D5500 and won't take an AI lens - has to be non-AI, but that might not be a consideration for your model of camera.
May 23, 2016 20:42:04 #
Royce Moss wrote:
Ok now now guy don't get in a piss fight. I pretty much have decided to go with a older 300mm f4 prime instead of a zoom. Have read alot of good things about it and a used one is in my budget.Now I want to find the best teleconverter to add at a decent price. Any advice on teleconverters?? Thanks
Look at the Tokina PRO300. I have this and it is very sharp. Tokina makes two versions of the 1.4. The better one has one more element and is the one to buy. I have used it coupled with my 70-200 2.8 and it works so well that I can't see any degrading of the image when it is added. I'm sure if blown up to 30x40 one might see a difference but 11x14 and 16x20 look great.
May 24, 2016 09:19:05 #
wingclui44
Loc: CT USA
Royce Moss wrote:
Ok now now guy don't get in a piss fight. I pretty much have decided to go with a older 300mm f4 prime instead of a zoom. Have read alot of good things about it and a used one is in my budget.Now I want to find the best teleconverter to add at a decent price. Any advice on teleconverters?? Thanks
I don't know which older 300mm f4 you decided, (300mm f4 D AF-s IF ED or 300mm AF ED IF), The first one still sold new in present market, the second one will be found in used market. I prefer the first one because it has a focus motor that fit your Nikon. The second one doesn't have a built in motor, so it won't AF on some Nikon body like D3xxx, D5xxx,D40, D60..
I have the first one plus a Kenko Tele plus Pro 300 DGX 1.4x AF tele converter, they are perfect fit together. I got great images from that. You may consider this compo. I bought them new around $1549, you mat find this used 300mm D AF-s around $1000. Good luck
May 24, 2016 11:47:43 #
I'm not so concerned about auto focus so which ever one I can find in my price range I'll probably get. Thanks for the info.That Kenko teleconverter is alot cheaper that the Nikon so that's a plus
May 24, 2016 12:07:07 #
Royce Moss wrote:
I'm not so concerned about auto focus so which ever one I can find in my price range I'll probably get. Thanks for the info.That Kenko teleconverter is alot cheaper that the Nikon so that's a plus
Keh has used Nikon 300/F4 lenses from $ 468 for the older, not built-in motor to $619 for the AF-S version. You might want to check them out, or even call them with an offer! I owned one of those two, sorry can't recall which one, and found it a decent, but not GREAT lens. I would NOT hesitate in recommending either depending upon how much you wish to spend. Best of luck!
May 24, 2016 12:20:09 #
Cool thanks for info. Would you consider the 300 sharper than 70-300 at the longer end?
May 24, 2016 12:55:04 #
Royce Moss wrote:
Cool thanks for info. Would you consider the 300 sharper than 70-300 at the longer end?
My "GUESS" would be yes, but I have never owned, nor used, a 70-300!
May 24, 2016 15:03:34 #
wingclui44
Loc: CT USA
Royce Moss wrote:
I'm not so concerned about auto focus so which ever one I can find in my price range I'll probably get. Thanks for the info.That Kenko teleconverter is alot cheaper that the Nikon so that's a plus
Check this out from Ken Rockwell about this AF-s D version.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/300f4afs.htm
May 24, 2016 15:40:01 #
whitewolfowner wrote:
cjc2, sorry, you are the one that does not know what you are talking about. Like I said, it's all in the math and optical engineering. Go look up the formulas!
Now you've got me wondering also. I have several lenses with all the same filter size (and you can read that as front element size also), but some of them have different size maximum apertures. I've never heard that the filter size has anything to do with the aperture size, but it has more to do with the quality and type of lens.
You say you know what the formulas are and it's all in the math, but can you point me to where that's proven? I would be very interested in that way of measuring the lens quality.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.