oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

I am interested in wildlife photography, but don't want to spend $10,000+ for a 500mm f4. I have Nikon equipment, and am considering a 300mm f2.8. That will give me up to 630mm equivalency with my D500 and a 1.4 teleconverter. What kind of image quality should I expect with such gear? I have been doing photography off and on for 50 years and am a nonprofessional. I do understand the fundamentals of photography.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

You will love it. Even without the TC, you get a 20MP image with the FOV of a 450mm. That alone is pretty good. My experience with the 1.4 TC on a 70-200 is very positive. Sure, technically there is some image degradation, but the practical thing is whether or not one can see it. I have a good friend who is a VERY accomplished and awarded wildlife guy and he has two D500s and thinks it is the best wildlife camera around—especially for the price. Maybe regardless of the price. Were I a wildlife guy, I would do exactly what you are considering.

btbg

I agree with CaptainC. There are other options, but they are either going to cost more or sacrifice a couple of F stops. The 300 2.8 is a great lens and pairs well with a 1.4 converter.

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

It'll do the job :)

I'd consider a 1.7X TC as well. I'm often adding 1.4TC to my FX cameras with my 600mm F4.

TheStarvingArtist

I have a 1.4 and a 2x teleconverter that I use with my Canon 70-200 2.8. The 1.4 converter gives nice results, however the 2x seems a little soft. both converters are good, depending on whether you want a sharper or softer image.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

The critical issues with the first use of a long lens is focus and camera shake. Use a tripod and watch where you focus.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

300/ f/2.8

Within the context of this section, I am reluctant to make reviews or judgment on various brands and models of lenses unless I have had actual experience with any give lens in practical professional usage. Heaven knows there is enough of all this gear talk in the photo press, online and right here on the Hog. I do, however feel that some general advice is in order to assist the OP in making a choice

The 300mm f/2.8 configuration in a prime telephoto is a good general purpose telephoto type for a wide variety of usages- sports, nature, press and photojournalism, wedding photography, street photography and many otter applications. It is one of the telephoto types that is popular among photojournalists because, with proper support techniques, it is comparatively portable and hand-holdable than some of the longer focal lengths it this class and still offers a good deal of magnification.

I have owned and had experience with this focal length and speed in glass made by Nikon, Canon, Minolta and Tamron. Theses are all high end lenses, certainly not cheap and I really can't say anything negative about any of them. All good -for all intents and purposes- in terms of resolution, contrast, performance, mechanical integrity and durability.

Frankly, in press, wedding and sport coverage, where I mostly used theses lenses, the final images, usually prints, rarely exceeded 11X14 and the sharpness and resolution on all of the were more than sufficient. With the Canon version, the one I use presently, a shot I made was used for a billboard adverting a figure skating event and the lens preformed with flying colors. It also works exceptionally well in projected screen images and those illuminated menu boards you see in fast-food outlets and sports bars.

The best professional advice I can give you has more to with technique than brand Whichever lens you decide upon it is important to be aware of the potential for camera movement, camera shake, vibration issues and the resulting blur and losing critical focus that is common in the use of long and physically heavy lenses. Sometimes, even stabilization features will not compensate for extreme shake or movement with this big glass. The center of gravity of the entire camera/lens combination changes and that could make the entire hand-held rig very unwieldy. You may want to employ, when practical, a tripod, a mono-pod, a grip, or even a shoulder harness or gun-stock rig. This depends on you physical size, strength, and preferences. Many photographers can hand hod this equipment with no additional accessories in that the have learned to hand hold the unit in such a manner that they can steady the camera and buffer any vibration. Oh- don't bring a gun-stock rig to a public event!

A rule of thumb: regarding shutter speed: Set a shutter speed “equivalent” or exceeding the focal length designation. In other words, for theses lenses, 1/300sec. or faster. Again, some photographers have developed their own methods of hand-holding and can get away with somewhat slower speeds. Of course, this goes to the raison d' etre for the fast speed of theses lenses- you need the wide aperture to enable faster shutter speed usage in lower light. If you do sports and action shooting- practice you panning technique.

$$$- OK theses lenses are expensive so consider this: This group of 2./8 lenses gained popularity during the film era. Photographers wanted to be able to work in low light, use faster shutter speed without using extremely fast film and push processing which resulted in grainy images and oftentimes with undesirable color shifts. Nowadays, especially if you have a full-frame camera, you can operate at ISO settings of 3200 or thereabout without terribly objectionable noise. Automatic or custom white balances make shooting color in strange lighting, such as sodium vapor lamps used in arenas etc, non-problematic. So you may consider a good f/3.5 in this focal length- they are less expensive, smaller and lighter in weight.

One more thing- You will enjoy the world of long lenses- you can, besides bringing stuff in closer, you can do some awesome selective focus- knock backgrounds crazy out of focus at full aperture- have fun in “bokeh” land and get cool perspectives. Long glass tends to compress perspective- sometimes elements in the background seem closer to the subject that in actuality- the opposite effect of using wide angle lenses.

I hope this helps.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

In terms of what happens with a teleconverter: you can (from my experience with TCs and long lenses) expect a slight amount of haloing and color fringing at sharp contrast transitions, and some small loss of sharpness, but not something that is going to be obvious without direct comparison with an image shot without a teleconverter. The longer the TC the more sharpness you will lose. Sticking to a 1.4x is your best bet. AF should work fine with an f2.8 lens.