@ Gareth Looks pretty crisp to me, even under the magnification. I suppose, the criteria for evaluation must, for me, include the entire package. Sometimes I find an image perfectly acceptable which is not absolutely "Eyelash" sharp, because the venue was such that the photograph was either captured as is, or not at all.

can you see that this is not sharp msmoto?

http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/img/sample01/img_04_l.jpg

I mostly photograph birds and wildlife. Over time I have collected the 200-400 and the 500 nikkors. I am happy with these and find them both of superb quality. The 200-400 is better for large animals and the 500 for birds. The 600 is probably better still but awfully heavy.

Tele-converters can help but definitely lower quality. I do use them but try not to as the sharpness does suffer.

OMG! I just shot a few with my new(used) 400 2.8 AFs Mk2 WOW!

Now back to work, hope to play more in a few hours...

framer

I would get a D800, MD-D12, 200-400 f/4 and a 1.4x converter. If I need the reach, I can use either DX crop mode or FF with the 1.4x. With 36mp I am sure you can crop as well.

msmoto said:
@ crizman

Having purchased the 400mm f/2.8, I really think the advantage of the 300 is one can actually hand hold it. Even with a TC-14EII, I think it is possible to hand hold. I do not think the 400 is hand holdable unless one is a young person with fairly strong arms. The only disadvantage to the 300 is its maximum reach of 600 with the TC-20EII vs.
However, the 200-400mm f/4 might be even better for wildlife as it will allow at least a 1.4 up to 560mm and on some bodies, possibly the D600, a TC-20EIII for 800mm reach. Thus the versatility of 200-800.

And, I would love to go to the wild areas and photograph the animals....

Having just bought a used AFS mk2, I'd like to comment on total cost to aquire this great lens. Lens+shipping+sales tax+new kitchen floor=more then a new 400 AFS VR would have cost. Tip: buy new so there no money left for a new kitchen floor. :)

framer

@ crizman

Having purchased the 400mm f/2.8, I really think the advantage of the 300 is one can actually hand hold it. Even with a TC-14EII, I think it is possible to hand hold. I do not think the 400 is hand holdable unless one is a young person with fairly strong arms. The only disadvantage to the 300 is its maximum reach of 600 with the TC-20EII vs. 800mm.

However, the 200-400mm f/4 might be even better for wildlife as it will allow at least a 1.4 up to 560mm and on some bodies, possibly the D600, a TC-20EIII for 800mm reach. Thus the versatility of 200-800.

And, I would love to go to the wild areas and photograph the animals....

msmoto said:
@ golf007sd.... yup, the only thing is, I do not think it has ever been used to bring photos to the public's eye. But, if one has enough money to purchase a lens for a couple mill... hope it makes them happy :-)

That may be true msmoto, but you have seen photo's from muli-million dollar if not billion dollar lenses that many of us will never see in person much less operate. Hint: NASA.

I have a D200 hoping to move up to a D600.I think I would probably get the 300 f2.8 & a 2x to go with it.(Unless of course this is a fantasy) I have always wanted to go to Australia & spend time on a photo safari of kangaroos.

@ golf007sd.... yup, the only thing is, I do not think it has ever been used to bring photos to the public's eye. But, if one has enough money to purchase a lens for a couple mill... hope it makes them happy :-)

@msmoto: Price for those that have the capital to buy whatever he/she want is all good by me. The manufactures make goodies for those consumers that can afford that particular widget. The cost of that good is only relative to the one buying it. I have seen people spend million on paintings, $5-$7K on a bottle of wine and hundreds of thousands on jewelry. If you can afford it, then by all means get it and share it with those around you.

Cheers.

For 2mill does it AF?

framer

OK< Framer, now that you have gotten that over with, back to the fun....

Information has it that Leica built a one-off APO-Telyt-R 1:5.6/1600mm lens and it cost $2,064,500.

The body of the lens is 1.2-meters long (about 4 feet), and it is 42cm (about 17 inches) wide at the end. It tips the scales at least 60kg, or 132lbs. It goes without saying that this thing requires a very sturdy tripod to be usable.

It was delivered to one of the oil folks in the land of milk and honey, ha, ha, ha....and no photos from it have ever been made public.

Told the wife. She just knows me. Said, she expected me to get that lens sooner or later. Nothing like being transparent.

framer

Not needed I always have a plan.

I'm thinking a new Red Mustang convertible, she needs a new car anyway.

I'll get to drive it one day per month :)

framer

framer said:
The real question is when to tell the wife?

framer

Should you need a place to hide...the lens that is...I have space available :P

NSXType-R said:
How much was the damage to the wallet? :D

Congrats though, and enjoy your purchase!

The real question is when to tell the wife?

framer

Wow msmoto--knee on the pavement and everything. Stunning shot.

framer said:
bought

framer

How much was the damage to the wallet? :D

Congrats though, and enjoy your purchase!

Brillant shot msmoto

@ sevencrossing see this link of the 400 plus TC-20EIII

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7332495522/sizes/o/in/set-72157629918001642/
And this is a fast moving bike... hard to see many imperfections here.

Newfie said:
I have the 300 2.8 and the 400 2.8 and never use a TC. I have tried both with the TC-14 and the TC-17. Only a slight decrease in IQ but I find performance suffers. When you are buying $5K and $9K lenses I expect zero compromise.

A TC will magnify any imperfections in the prime lens and even with Nikon's top lenses, imperfections will exist

TCs will also add imperfections that exist in the converter

They have an advantage, if you are shooting video, or were resolution is being limited by the sensor, but with something like a D800 you may be better of just cropping or just spent another $9k and buy a longer lens. Photography is after all a very expensive occupation

If anyone is interested, the 300mm f/2.8 was available at B & H this morning. About 3:20 AM EDT. Will see how long this lasts.

I would buy a D800, rent a 200-400mm f/4, and use the money I would have spent on the lens to go somewhere nicer than New Jersey to take advantage of the 200-400 and my existing glass. No use having superb supertelephoto lenses to use when the air quality is the limiting factor even with shorter lenses... :P

tc said:
A related question on AF with extenders. Say I get a TC20 with 300/f4. With effective f8, is the AF on camera purposely disabled even on a bright day since it's past f5.6? I know extenders gives much less light which will affect AF. I just want to know whether it's a hard set limit on the camera by Nikon to force people buy faster lens if using extenders.

A while ago I experimented with using my 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 with a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter on my D7000. Definitely not an excellent combination, but it actually autofocused when given enough contrast on my D7000. And hey, equivalent 630mm at f/8 with VR is by no means a bad deal for about $300...