Contemplating a new (used) lens. Advice please (Page 4): Focus is slower and less accurate - lots of hunting. Image quality drops from outstanding to ok. Which might be fine, though I...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Leo_B wrote:

What about going to a 2.0TC with the current lens? And I don't shoot any of this or know about it, just asking out of earnest curiosity and hope of being helpful.

Focus is slower and less accurate - lots of hunting. Image quality drops from outstanding to ok. Which might be fine, though I wouldn't do a 2X converter on anything other than a 200mm F2, 300mm F2.8 or a 400mm F2.8 - which are without a doubt, Nikon's sharpest lenses.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Gene51 wrote:

Focus is slower and less accurate - lots of hunting. Image quality drops from outstanding to ok. Which might be fine, though I wouldn't do a 2X converter on anything other than a 200mm F2, 300mm F2.8 or a 400mm F2.8 - which are without a doubt, Nikon's sharpest lenses.

You don't like the 180 F2.8?

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

JohnR wrote:

Your Math is incorrect. A 300mm on DX format D7000 is equivalent to 450mm on a FX format camera. IMO a 500mm lens is the way to go as it gives you the equivalent field of view of a 750mm 35mm format camera

His math is incorrect but he was talking about using it with a 1.4 teleconverter, so it’s 630mm equivalent. I agree with the poster that mentioned using the 2.8 teleconverter with his existing lens. It’ll get him to 600mm at 5.6. There’s no way he finds a decent 500mm in his budget.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Overthehill1 wrote:

First, I'd like to thank all the hoggers who replied to my question. Lots of good information here and tips to guide my eventual decision. Second, I should apologize for not specifying a budget. It would be in the $300-500 range, which would eliminate many of the longer and most up-to-date options. I am encouraged by those not as mathematically challenged as I am that a 300mm lens with 1.4x converter and crop sensor will give me about 600mm to work with. Thanks again to all.

There are a couple of 400 f/5.6 lenses that won’t compromise your image quality and should fall within your budget - Nikkor ED Ai or AiS, and Tokina AT-X AF. I have the latter lens, bought new when it first came out, and have used the Nikkor: little difference in image quality between the two. Check Ebay, B&H, KEH.

Canisdirus

SuperflyTNT wrote:

His math is incorrect but he was talking about using it with a 1.4 teleconverter, so it’s 630mm equivalent. I agree with the poster that mentioned using the 2.8 teleconverter with his existing lens. It’ll get him to 600mm at 5.6. There’s no way he finds a decent 500mm in his budget.

Nope, not really. If he uses a 300mm f/4 lens with a 1.4x tele ... he'll end up with an f/stop of 8.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

RWR wrote:

There are a couple of 400 f/5.6 lenses that won’t compromise your image quality and should fall within your budget - Nikkor ED Ai or AiS, and Tokina AT-X AF. I have the latter lens, bought new when it first came out, and have used the Nikkor: little difference in image quality between the two. Check Ebay, B&H, KEH.

I have that 400mm F5.6 Nikkor ED AiS. You really need to be on a tripod for that lens....

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Canisdirus wrote:

Nope, not really. If he uses a 300mm f/4 lens with a 1.4x tele ... he'll end up with an f/stop of 8.

f5.6 in my book ...

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

imagemeister wrote:

f5.6 in my book ...

F5.6 all day long. Teleconverter and FOV multiplies, not fstops. A 2.0 tele gets to f8, right?

bentvalve

This buck was taken with a 200-500 Nikon hand held in a heavy timber at dusk. Auto ISO 3200 f6.3 at 500mm. Looks sharp to me extended.

Bent

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Screamin Scott wrote:

I have that 400mm F5.6 Nikkor ED AiS. You really need to be on a tripod for that lens....

Yep. I don’t hand hold the Tokina either.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

imagemeister wrote:

Yes, IMO, 400mm is a better place to be .....but you MUST have AF ! Look at the Tamron 100-400 with the collar and dock.
.

ditto. I had a 300 mm and it just didn't give me enough over others in my bag. Go bigger.

augieg27 Loc: Central California

quixdraw wrote:

Absolute bargain lens - AF Nikkor 75-300 4.5 - 5.6 - an older FX lens. From Bugs to birds, fantastic on my D 7200 rendering a functional 450 top end. Can be had for as little as $75 online. I like it so well I bought an extra - can't tell the difference between the two performance wise. Check Roberts Used Photo Pro or other well thought of dealers.

Would that lens work with D5500?
Thank you.

Canisdirus

mikeroetex wrote:

F5.6 all day long. Teleconverter and FOV multiplies, not fstops. A 2.0 tele gets to f8, right?

I didn't think I had to break it down to it's simplest form here.
yes, the same amount of light enters.... but DOF and compression are at f/8 with his camera and tele attached.
Whereas the FF can get the DOF of f/4 ... with the same amount of light.
With tele attached to FF ... f/6.1 and so on and so on.

Petapixel has a link to a sensor calculator ... it's accurate.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Canisdirus wrote:

I didn't think I had to break it down to it's simplest form here.
yes, the same amount of light enters.... but DOF and compression are at f/8 with his camera and tele attached.
Whereas the FF can get the DOF of f/4 ... with the same amount of light.
With tele attached to FF ... f/6.1 and so on and so on.

Petapixel has a link to a sensor calculator ... it's accurate.

Based on Nikon’s literature the 1.4 is able to provide 40% more focal length with only a 1 stop difference, hence 4 becomes 5.6.

Canisdirus

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Based on Nikon’s literature the 1.4 is able to provide 40% more focal length with only a 1 stop difference, hence 4 becomes 5.6.

You are forgetting that you are already at f6.1 as soon as you attach the lens.