Zoom or Prime
Apr 20, 2020 11:17:00 #
Gjb1706
Loc: Central Florida
I would like to get some opinions about lens preferences. I have a Nikon D750 and am currently looking at purchasing one of two telephoto lenses, either the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 or the Nikon 300mm F/4E PF prime lens. I intend to use the lens for wildlife photography and occasional moon photography. I have a Nikon TC-14E II Teleconverter that I can couple with either lens. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Apr 20, 2020 11:19:50 #
Gjb1706 wrote:
I would like to get some opinions about lens preferences. I have a Nikon D750 and am currently looking at purchasing one of two telephoto lenses, either the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 or the Nikon 300mm F/4E PF prime lens. I intend to use the lens for wildlife photography and occasional moon photography. I have a Nikon TC-14E II Teleconverter that I can couple with either lens. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Go with the 200-500. I have it and my copy is sharp through the entire range. You will also like the extended range with the 200-500 for wildlife.
Welcome to the forum.
Apr 20, 2020 11:25:27 #
Gjb1706 wrote:
I would like to get some opinions about lens preferences. I have a Nikon D750 and am currently looking at purchasing one of two telephoto lenses, either the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 or the Nikon 300mm F/4E PF prime lens. I intend to use the lens for wildlife photography and occasional moon photography. I have a Nikon TC-14E II Teleconverter that I can couple with either lens. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
The longer reach of the 500mm on full frame and the zoom versatility makes it WIN. THO, it would be NICE to have both!
OTOH, if you are serious and doing birds and weight/size might be an issue, then the 500 5.6 PF would be a preference.
.
Apr 20, 2020 11:30:08 #
I have been using a 200-500 since around 2015. I find it sharp most of the way through, but a touch soft between about 450 and 500. It's not too heavy and performs well for me. The price is reasonable and the VR is excellent, allowing hand-held shots down as slow as 1/10 second at 500mm.
In general I prefer zooms because of the flexibility.
In general I prefer zooms because of the flexibility.
Apr 20, 2020 11:30:14 #
I have an 18-200 zoom that does well and really like the ability co compose in-camera.
It lives on my camera 99.8% of the time.
Fixed focal lengths are more restrictive. For my film camera, I had a 28, 35, 50, 135, 200, and a 2x teleconverter. So much nicer using the zoom.
But, that's my desire/decision.
It lives on my camera 99.8% of the time.
Fixed focal lengths are more restrictive. For my film camera, I had a 28, 35, 50, 135, 200, and a 2x teleconverter. So much nicer using the zoom.
But, that's my desire/decision.
Apr 20, 2020 11:39:04 #
sandiegosteve
Loc: San Diego, CA
200-500 can be great. The 300 is super sharp. So, you aren't looking at a really bad choice.
My experiences show the primes handle the 1.4 TC better.
Other thoughts on the prime include that it weights less, lets in twice the light and may AF faster. I know a lot of people who are still using the 200-500 and say the AF is a touch slower. You may not notice.
For the zoom, well, you get a great range. Primes are awesome, but you are limited to a focal length.
I personally tend to bump into light limitations, so I go with the primes for the wider apertures.
My experiences show the primes handle the 1.4 TC better.
Other thoughts on the prime include that it weights less, lets in twice the light and may AF faster. I know a lot of people who are still using the 200-500 and say the AF is a touch slower. You may not notice.
For the zoom, well, you get a great range. Primes are awesome, but you are limited to a focal length.
I personally tend to bump into light limitations, so I go with the primes for the wider apertures.
Apr 20, 2020 11:39:48 #
Longshadow wrote:
I have an 18-200 zoom that does well and really like the ability co compose in-camera.
It lives on my camera 99.8% of the time.
Fixed focal lengths are more restrictive. For my film camera, I had a 28, 35, 50, 135, 200, and a 2x teleconverter. So much nicer using the zoom.
But, that's my desire/decision.
It lives on my camera 99.8% of the time.
Fixed focal lengths are more restrictive. For my film camera, I had a 28, 35, 50, 135, 200, and a 2x teleconverter. So much nicer using the zoom.
But, that's my desire/decision.
And how this relates to the subject is not apparent.
Apr 20, 2020 11:42:49 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
And how this relates to the subject is not apparent.
My deepest apologies!
I erroneously thought that he was trying to choose between a zoom and a fixed lens.
Apr 20, 2020 12:22:18 #
Gjb1706 wrote:
I would like to get some opinions about lens preferences. I have a Nikon D750 and am currently looking at purchasing one of two telephoto lenses, either the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 or the Nikon 300mm F/4E PF prime lens. I intend to use the lens for wildlife photography and occasional moon photography. I have a Nikon TC-14E II Teleconverter that I can couple with either lens. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
I use the 300mm you mentioned with the TC that you mentioned on my Df. I am happy with the results.
The 300mm & TC combo give you 420mm, just 80mm less than the 200-500mm.
The 300mm & TC combo is smaller and lighter than the 200-500mm making it easier to carry and hand hold.
The 300mm & TC combo is less expensive than the 200-500mm.
I have used both and prefer the 300mm & TC combo.
I am not denigrating the 200-500mm, it is a great lens. I just think the 300mm & TC combo is the better choice.
An apology;
My TC is TC-14EIII.
Apr 20, 2020 12:28:19 #
Gjb1706 wrote:
I would like to get some opinions about lens preferences. I have a Nikon D750 and am currently looking at purchasing one of two telephoto lenses, either the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 or the Nikon 300mm F/4E PF prime lens. I intend to use the lens for wildlife photography and occasional moon photography. I have a Nikon TC-14E II Teleconverter that I can couple with either lens. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Hi. I have the 200-500 and have rented and used the 300PF. I did not see a lot of difference in sharpness between the two lens. I did see a lot of difference in ease of handling, with the 300PF being very light and easier to handle than the 200-500. However, I did not like the 300PF enough to buy it yet (assuming I could find one!). I'm still using the 200-500 for wildlife. The big difference for me was that I felt that I had lost control of the ability to zoom in and out with the fixed lens (which I had of course) and I did not like that. I generally take the "fill the frame" approach and that was not possible with the 300 at times. Rent both lenses and shoot with them and see which one you like best.
Apr 20, 2020 12:33:48 #
Apr 20, 2020 12:35:26 #
Apr 20, 2020 12:38:02 #
Gjb1706 wrote:
Thank you for your impressions. 😎
If you click on "Quote Reply" when responding, we will know who you are responding to.
Apr 20, 2020 15:27:36 #
Longshadow wrote:
My deepest apologies!
I erroneously thought that he was trying to choose between a zoom and a fixed lens.
I erroneously thought that he was trying to choose between a zoom and a fixed lens.
A zoom lens nothing like the one they were asking about.
Apr 20, 2020 15:29:41 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
A zoom lens nothing like the one they were asking about.
A 200-500mm is not a zoom?
Wow, I learn something new every day.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.