Super tele with tc-20eIII comparison request.

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Super tele with tc-20eIII comparison request.

(6 posts) (4 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

hello

after shooting a soccer match in the weekend and seeing a pro with two bodies and a 400 or 500 lens on a monopod, i have decided i really need a super tele when i start pro. for sports.

I am looking at either the 500 4 or the 300 2.8.

The 300 2.8 looks like a better option as I have a tc-20eiii already, but what will the IQ be like?

the 300 will also be handy indoors where the 500 wont, the 300 is 2.8 and hand holdable, even with the tele on.

is there a noticeable difference between the D, DII, VR and VRII in terms of IQ. there is a big difference in price as i can get the first 3 used.

comments and pics appreciated.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

I dont shoot sports but if idid I would be looking at the 300 2.8 VR on my dx and the 500 for FX..
However if you are looking at good value for money set ups consider the 120-300 Sigma F2.8. and use it on DX.

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

I've played with this setup gareth (300/2.8vrII + TC20III) and I'm more than happy with the results, it's more than handholdable - was able to get sharp results up to 1/30 (low keepers rate, 1/100 - very high keepres)

as for IQ difference there's none between all the VR versions, as for the previous ones, it's a slight one (especially when shooting against sun - N coating makes a difference), as for VR there's a visible (IMHO) difference between VR 1 and VR 2 (I would say 1-2 stops depending on situations)

another advantage of this setup is the size (You will never have any problems to take it on board, while You need to be very outspoken to convince airport officers to let You take the 500/4 or even more to take 400/2.8)

Posted 2 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

I'd also say go with the 300 2.8. It is more hand-holdable especially the newer VR versions. I have the nice fat original AF-S version and I do hand-hold it. I've seen small women hand-holding the newer ones before and being able to swing around quickly trying to catch birds in flight.

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

yes, ive pretty much convinced myself. i'm shooting on FX, but it would be nice to have the 300 on a dx and the 70-200 on an fx. then i think i would be happy.

i have even convinced my wife.

but she is not very convinced i really need the upcoming 35 1.4G....

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

some may find this interesting when deciding which 300 to get.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Farttruckseki.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F11%2Fblog-post.html&sl=ja&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

Super tele with tc-20eIII comparison request.

Reply