where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
@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.
@ 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 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.
@ 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....
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
Maybe we can plan a trip together ;) & share some lenses!msmoto said:
@ crizmanHaving 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....
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.
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 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.
can you see that this is not sharp msmoto?
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/img/sample01/img_04_l.jpg
@ 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.
You must log in to post.
