Has anyone purchased the gray market 300mm f4?

I traded in my 18-300mm (DX) lens when I upgraded from a D5100 to an FX body.. And Adorama insisted I give serious thought to purchasing the gray market version with 3 year Mack warranty. I ended up taking their advice but am still within the 30 day return window.

I am not worried about resale value.. As I plan to keep this lens around for a long time. Are there any other downfalls I'm missing?

I'd be grateful for some input..

You have a lovely camera that is almost brand new! I sold mine to get a D800 and whilst I love the D800, I miss the D700 that was by far the best (digital) camera I ever owned. I wish I could have kept it but.........

msmoto.

I too have had very good results with the 70-200mm f2.8 and the TC17. I am looking forward to using this with a TC2.0 III someday which should be even better. This is such a good lens! When I bought it, it nearly crippled me financially but it was worth every penny really and is my favourite portrait lens. To my surprise, it is also very good for product shots in studio and location as well and I often use it in preference to anything else.

@ DJBee49

Good point about the TC-20EIII with the 300mm f/4 being good. If one searches on the forum you will find a comparison I did with the 70-200mm f/2.8VRII with the TC-20EIII and when stopped down a stop it is excellent even when compared with the 400mm f/2.8VRII. Actually, the first generation of the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR (Ser No 201XXX) is an excellent performer when I use it and compares favorably with the 400mm f/2.8 and the combination of 70-200 plus TC above. The primary issue with the 80-400mm is the focus speed.

@ msmoto Nikon will sometimes say a combination will not work when it actually does function under some good conditions. They like to error on the conservative side so no one can get into a hassle about promising something which is not true.

I am sure that this is true and makes the dissemination by users of the real day to day possibilities, without 'corporate responsibility' getting in the way, very important.

On a related note, the reason this is all important to me, and I suspect others, is that I can neither afford nor justify the purchase of a 300mm f2.8, or more pertinently, a 600mm f4- however much I would like one....or both! Therefore, the performance of the 300mm f4 and TCs of various strengths is of great interest. This is in fact why I got the D800, not for the 36 megapixels or the video (I don't shoot video and my D700 had ample sensor resolution for me) but for the ability of the sensor to accept good AF performance at maximum apertures of f8. Thus, when I can afford one, I will get the TC 2.0 III and have a usable 600mm lens set up. The D800 and TC2.0 III is a CHEAPER option-by about half- than purchasing a 300mm f2.8 and TC2.0 III. I know it still is not going to be quite as good as the f2.8 option but I am not in a position to choose this anyway. Perhaps I would if I was able to justify it from professional earnings but wildlife photography is a hobby, not my professional photographic sphere. Maybe one day!

@ DJBee49...excellent point about the physical limits and potential for rear element/TC element colliding. Once this happens I suspect it could destroy both lens and TC. Playing with the lenses and focus points is probably the best solution to figuring all this out.

Nikon will sometimes say a combination will not work when it actually does function under some good conditions. They like to error on the conservative side so no one can get into a hassle about promising something which is not true.

Friends,welcome to our website, you can get cheap mbt<a/> shoes here.
Also you can see kinds of mbt shoes <a/>.I believe you can get good
mbt shoes on our website.

Huh?

True and the clarity is welcome. I have not been able to find this information anywhere in Nikon's published material, hence the thread! The list of TCs that Nikon says do and do not work with various lenses is simply not accurate with relation to the D700 (and I presume other bodies) and is certainly inaccurate with regard to the D800. I am, of course, not referring here to those lenses whose rear elements physically collide with the TCs. That is a separate matter.

The only slight anomaly is that the camera WILL set to AFC 51 points! This is of no real importance to me but makes me slightly puzzled as to why Auto and 3D are programmed out but the straight-forward 51 points remains possible to set on camera! I also suspect that the set up probably would work in these settings in good light- were it possible to set them- but would not be sufficiently reliable for Nikon to 'allow' them to be set as an 'approved' option. I have no proof of this and will never be able to find out- even if I wanted to! I might, though, do some further experiments to see how well the 51 point setting on its own actually works at f6.7; just out of interest. I don't think that I have ever used this setting with the 300mm + TC17, only using the central cluster settings (up to 21 points) before on both D700 and D800 bodies.

TaoTeJared said:
aquarian_light - you have much to learn young grasshopper, but your base of knowledge is growing.

It is rare that you can have a flash set-up like you stated - very rare.

Suggestion was theoretical :P

aquarian_light - you have much to learn young grasshopper, but your base of knowledge is growing.

It is rare that you can have a flash set-up like you stated - very rare.

safyre said:
Topic is getting a little out of hand.

Simple answer: Fast Telephoto lens (70-200mm f2.8) is THE standard for Basketball Games on all levels, NBA, College, etc. When I photographed sports in college, this was the #1 lens followed by a 200mm f/2 or 24-70mm 2.8 on a second body.

You need fast lenses because you need atleast 1/500th shutter speed to freeze action. Since these are indoors with low light, having a larger aperture is essential so you can keep you shutter speeds high while maintaining lower ISO (less noise).

Regarding price:
If you can't afford the newer 70-200mm 2.8 VR2, here's some less expensive alternatives that are good for indoor sports (with the going rate for used):
70-200mm 2.8 VR1 ($1300)
80-200mm 2.8 AF-D ($800)
85mm mm f/1.8 AF-D ($350)

I would not recommend any slower lenses for indoor sports unless you want super grainy photos (by using very high ISO to compensate for the lower aperture). Even with 2.8, I still had to go up to 3200-6400 ISO to get the right balance of shutter speed and exposure.

+1 on getting way off the mark.

I often wondered what good a 200mm f/2 until I shot a basketball game. If that is what you did for a living, that would be a great tool to have in the bag.

Has anyone used the new 85mm f1.8g for Basket ball or other sports and can speak to the AF performance (lock and tracking) on any body?
How about the Sigma 85mm 1.4?

I used the 85mm D version and it did well but was never as good as my 70-200.

I'm trying to line out my purchases/upgrades/budget for next year any experience towards using those with indoor sports would be welcome.

starralazn said:
i think this thread should be closed, it seems that people will just continue arguing about things that don't really matter.

and yes, you cant see the effect of diffraction on a camera from the 1930s because there is not a noticeable enough difference from f/8 to f/64. this was due to the fact that lenses were incapable of resolving enough detail show a difference. which shows in the end that there is no point discussing lens technology of the first half of the last century.

point trying to be made is that the topic of lens sharpness is not one worth discussing with modern lenses based on the fact that it's never mattered even to the man who produced arguably some of the sharpest images ever made. And that if he could coax absolute sharpness onto 8x10 film in the 30's we certainly can on 35mm or crop sensors today without much trouble. So the comparison of the 28-300 and the 70-300 in the area of sharpness is moot. Variables such as camera AF, aperture, photographer technique, and a host of many other things affect sharpness far greater than what your glass does. Both of them will produce beyond reasonable sharpness when in perfect conditions. and both of them will produce beyond un-usable images with sloppy technique.
Neither of them is going to have an wide enough fstop to really be top notch for indoor sports, but the 28-300 is a newer lens, with slightly improved AF, and a wider zoom range that make it well worth the extra cost. That and it's asphericals and ED will help reduce glare and CA.
My suggestion to OP is to have a flash set up with possibly three devises. One at either hoop pointed away to bounce of the walls and one ontop of your camera. Get some pocket wizards and set the flashes at either end to separate channels, switch your channels back and forth between what ever channel you have them set to as the action moves back and forth, and use a bounce card on the top of your camera. That set up will provide you ample light and still cost much much less than any 2.8 zoom. I would wait at either hoop for the action to come to me for a while, then spend some time at mid court at the long end of the zoom getting a different perspective, then to the opposite hoop, basically making a circle around the court, switching pocket wizard channels as needed or turning it off completely and using solely the on camera flash depending on the situation and light needed.

i think this thread should be closed, it seems that people will just continue arguing about things that don't really matter.

and yes, you cant see the effect of diffraction on a camera from the 1930s because there is not a noticeable enough difference from f/8 to f/64. this was due to the fact that lenses were incapable of resolving enough detail show a difference. which shows in the end that there is no point discussing lens technology of the first half of the last century.

SquamishPhoto said:
Derp. He was part of the Group f/64 and when shooting at such outrageously small apertures their whole goal was to bring as much of the scene into focus. Doing that while maintaining "EXTREME sharpness", as you put it, was hardly a priority and was generally an after thought since diffraction would have already had very clear effects at that point.

Derp indeed Mr.Squamish... 8x10 cameras are significantly different than 35mm and at f64 an 8x10 camera certainly performs much much differently than a 35mm
from the group f/64 manifesto
"The name of this Group is derived from a diaphragm number of the photographic lens. It signifies to a large extent the qualities of clearness and definition of the photographic image which is an important element in the work of members of this Group."
Clearness and definition sir... go look at Ansel Adams images and come back to me when you see any diffraction softness.

Oi .. Derp? I actually find aquarian_light's points of views refreshing and interesting.. makes me challenge my knowledge framework. Just bec I think he is wrong on some points doesn't mean I disagree with everypoint he makes. And I would also like to question your assertion that generically F64 causes a lot of diffraction, but I am happy to let it go.. (for now) as its an irrelevant point to the discussion at hand.. ;-)

Hello,
Thanks for all your suggestions. I now have done a shutter count on my recently
bought S/H D700 and it comes out to 464! I paid A$1450 plus spare battery.
Cheers, Pino.

aquarian_light said:
Because Ansel Adams used an 8x10 camera that had 100s of times the resolution of even todays best of the best digitals. Even a hasselblad 100MP digial MF has nuthin on 8x10 film. And as such his lenses required EXTREME sharpness to get the results he did, and yet he still didn't even consider lens sharpness and a point of comparison. His print's have been blown up to murals... so I very heavily beg to differ.

Derp. He was part of the Group f/64 and when shooting at such outrageously small apertures their whole goal was to bring as much of the scene into focus. Doing that while maintaining "EXTREME sharpness", as you put it, was hardly a priority and was generally an after thought since diffraction would have already had very clear effects at that point.

Makes sense...good to know.

adamz said:
msmoto - I would love to see the 80-400vr replacement, but though I'm half Your age I may not live to that particular moment :)

Ha...I don't have the patience to wait around for the next best thing. Maybe change my mind if they do actually ever update any of these long awaited lens updates, but so far I have only seen new lenses and no updates really.

Hi all,

Shooters that have the time to adjust images and aren't constrained by other considerations generally shoot Raw, unless they are ignorant of the advantages of Raw or don't know how to process or use image editors.

Some photographers don't want to bother with the time-consuming process of learning and using the software, but that likely one of the items on the list that makes what makes the distinction between a casual shooter and professional photographer. There are many others, experience is one - the time behind a camera on assignment measured in years and decades add up for something, as does working with colleagues in the media and collaborating in good faith and sharing ideas and techniques freely so that others can learn on equal footing.

@ aquarian_light: Some of the photographers on this forum knew Ansel, I am one of them. You are sort of using one thing, sharpness, to answer to distortion, which isn't the same thing. Ansel wouldn't let you get away with that. Apples need to be kept with apples and oranges with oranges.

He also used a Polaroid and a 35mm. I'm sure if he were around he'd have a digital camera and be a Photoshop wiz.

There are murals of digital works, too. ;-)

My best,

Mike

PB PM said:
I get the Ansel Adams quote, but honestly, how can a quote from the 1930's, when images were commonly printed smaller 4x6, be compared to a lenses abilities in the modern world?

Because Ansel Adams used an 8x10 camera that had 100s of times the resolution of even todays best of the best digitals. Even a hasselblad 100MP digial MF has nuthin on 8x10 film. And as such his lenses required EXTREME sharpness to get the results he did, and yet he still didn't even consider lens sharpness and a point of comparison. His print's have been blown up to murals... so I very heavily beg to differ.

msmoto - I would love to see the 80-400vr replacement, but though I'm half Your age I may not live to that particular moment :)

I was initially going to close it down as the forum goes crazy when KR is mentioned, but I decided to keep it open with only one condition. no more KR in this thread.

as for Ansel Adams, PB PM has a good point. You can't compare 1930 print sizes with current one. moreover, more expensive glass is not only about sharpness, for me it's mostly about subject isolation.

+1 safyre, I'll only add that if You want/need 200mm and can live with 5.6 You can get 70-300vr, up to 200mm it's an excellent lens, only after that it starts to show it weaknesses.