I bought the older Af-S 300 f2.8 for just $500. And I got the 1.7x teleconverter for $120 which takes this to a 510 f4.8 lens. Of course this will not focus as fast as any of your lenses, but I probably spent 1/5th of what you spent. Shooting birds I want a fast shutter speed, so the VR doesn't really matter to me, I want to shoot faster than 1/1000s anyway. The only extra cost is of a mono pod, which is very cheap. The thing is, when I go into a dark forest I can take off the TC and shoot with f2.8, can't do that with the 200-500. BTW loved the photos you took ! I did end up getting the old 201 TC but that's just for the moon and planets, unless I get used to manual focusing.
Use your 300mm F2.8 in lowlight with a DSLR like D850, you will see, that the AF is really fast. The AF of the Z-Models are slower, this happens on the contrast Focus.
Yeah, I know it’s way faster on a DSLR, though I imagine the trends between lenses / converters are all still similar. This was very much a review on the z-camera which indeed has a rather different AF system...
yes, good point, as the ftz adaptor has some light loss due to its distance from the sensor, so this extra light loss from a converter as well could mean that there is a lot less light for the contrast detection AF system to work with, so it is quite reasonable for a DSLR to work better with a native F mount lens, than an adapted Z camera to an F mount lens, should try this video again with the Z native telephoto lenses, when they get released.
andy van I don't see how the FTZ adapter causes light loss? All the FTZ adapter does is make up the flange distance between the Z system so it's the same as DSLR
Thank Geoff for a very good video on these lens, I have the 300mm f2.8 VR11 and 1.4 TC and I was thinking of buying 2 TC, but after seeing your video I have changed my mind. God bless you!
Thanks for the comparison! It's like you read my mind (3 years before I needed it), this was the exact comparison I was looking for, and with the Z7! Surprised that they were so close in low light focusing (without TCs). Surprisingly close, but of course the 200-500 is no 2.8.
Thanks, glad it was useful to you! To be fair, back at that level of Z7 firmware, they were both similar in low light AF, but neither was really that great. Later firmware improved things and I would imagine in the same test today the 300mm might be a little faster!
@@GeoffCooper Ah, good point actually, didn't take that into account :) They both have their uses of course, wouldn't mind shooting a 300mm 2.8 as well!
I’m just in the market for a 300mm f2.8 for my bird photography. I normally work in a hide and I’m an amateur photographer. Thank you for this video. It’s made my mind up now. Getting to 300mm f2.8 to go with my Nikon D7000
Great stuff - glad the video was helpful! Hope you get lots of good images with your new lens. I no longer have my 300mm f/2.8 but it is honestly on of the few lenses that I have missed after selling it!
This is exactly the comparison that I was looking for! Thanks for the video! I will mainly be shooting from a blind, and staging areas on my property more than hiking around, so the 300 2.8 is the winner for me. I have been on the fence about the 200-500, 300 f4 pf and the 300 2.8. Thanks!
I agree about the 2.8...it’s hard to beat it but don’t forget about the 300mm AF-S F4-for the price it’s a helluva lens. That being said I too am going to get the 2.8 but I’m going with the AFS (non-VR) version.
@@alexblaze8878 Yea, I have the 300mm f4 AF-S and optically it´s night and day compared to the 200-500mm. I didn´t think there would be such a big difference, especially when the zoom is very good at 300mm...but there is!
auto focus is pretty important I reckon. My choice for this trip would be the 200 - 500 despite it's other misgivings - it's quick and dustless, more-or-less.
The 200-500mm is a belter of a lens! I'm now using the 500mm PF most of the time with the 300mm f/2.8 when the light is low, but there have definitely been times I've missed the ability to zoom!
@@GeoffCooper I have the 200-500 and I am very happy with it,soon going to purchase a used 300 2.8. I have had the 500pf but returned it as VR and AF could not give me consistency in the images,I was both surprised and disappointed.
@@davidrobson957 that's really unfortunate about the 500mm PF - I can only think you must have had a bad copy if AF and VR were playing up (I assume after all the various calibrations you could have tried, depending on the camera body in use).. Hope the 300mm works better for you!
The issue witht the 200-500 is the zoom, it reduces the overall weather proofing where as tbe 300 as the prime has superior sealing but there's a significant weight difference
Yes, and this is one of the reasons that I now try to avoid longer zoom lenses that have an extending barrel like that. I never had an issue with that lens in the wet (if it was really wet I used a cover on it) but have had with shorter focal length zooms...
I own the 300 f2.8 vr2 with all 3 TC's and have been using it for 6 yrs. then bought the 200-500 f5.6 using them on D4s, D810 and D840. I have tested focus speed and accuracy in all conditions and I would go with the 300 + 2.0 every time over the 200-500. I use the 200-500 only for its zoom flexibility when shooting big animals like African big 5 and others. The IQ of the 200-500 is very good and very close to the 300+2.0. I use my 300 with 2.0 on my D850 and the 200-500 on my D4s.
Hi Jakes, that's interesting that you find the AF of the 300 + 2x TC surpasses the 200-500.. I guess the difference is that you're using DSLR bodies with their more mature AF systems vs. the newer Z cameras, which still have a way to go (though it has been much improved by firmware updates)...
Dear Jakes, I have the 200-500 and I'm thinking of also getting the 300 f2.8 vr ii. Since you have such an experience with both of them can you please tell me that when you say "very close" you mean that the IQ of the 300+2.0 is a little higher than that of 200-500? and the af speed? is the same, slower of faster? Thank you so much for your answer. My camera is the D850.
@@syrosbirding The IQ of the 300 with 2.0 is fantastic, The 2.0iii was designed for the 300 f2.8 vrii and launched at the same time. In my view better than the 200-500. Focus speed with the 2.0iii is faster than the 200-500. The thing with the 200-500 is that it might be slow to lock on but holds focus very well. I love the 300 as it is compact and fantastic lens. If you after reach as many modern photographers think 800mm is a must then buy a 600 or 500 prime and add a 2.0. If image quality is the ultimate then the 300 is a crazy good lens.
@@jakesdewet3567 Thank you so much for the detailed information. Today I was looking a video of yours about mountain camping and photographing hares with your Nikon 300 + 1.4tc. I really enjoyed it and appreciate your contribution!
Thank you for this detailed review. It is very useful, indeed! I´d say many wildlife photographers have pondered these two options. I certainly have. And I´m quite surprised with the results and also to see how good the 200-500mm is. I actually bought a Nikon d500 just to be able to use this lens (I shoot with Fujifilm and Canon) as after extensive research and years of trying out other options I figured it simply is the best option for budget wildlife. And certainly the best long zoom out there- well, for the price, anyway..:) A new Canon R5 + 100-500mm might be better but the price difference is quite astronomical.
Excellent video. I have sold both of the lenses you tested and now carry both the 500mm PF and 300mm PF with a 1.4 TC in my pocket. No 2.0 TC allowed and f/4 for maximum aperture rather than 2.8 but far less weight in the bag, excellent AF speed, outstanding sharpness and much more flexibility in movement. I also find that with rare exceptions the TC stays in my bag where it really belongs. The D850 provides some additional cropping flexibility if needed back at the ranch. The D500 comes along for the ride for fast moving action and lower light needs and the cropped sensor can provide a tough of extra reach. I did substitute my Z7 a few times but the AF system for the demands of wildlife is a disappointment.
Thanks :) I now also have the 500mm f/5.6 PF and it's an absolute joy to use. However, I have still got the 300mm f/2.8, and in low light situations those two extra stops are very useful... I'm a lot happier with the AF of the Z7 since the v3 firmware, but there is still plenty of room for improvement and I hope they continue to provide updates to make it better!
Very informative video... thank you. I have both the 200-500 and 500/f4 VRII and am very satisfied with them. Often also combined with TC's for reasons as outlined in your video. Always attempting to strike an acceptable balance between quality and focal length. The quest continues...
Thanks for commenting 😀 I agree the main thing is to get a balance and especially with the 200-500mm the convenience of not having to change lenses to get a shot is really compelling.
Thanks for the video on the nikon 500mm f5.6. Your review video was very informative. I will suck it up and get it...I would love the f4 version but 10K is really hard to break the bank for a beginner.
Thanks for this. I’ve got a 200-500 and am looking at getting the 300 2.8 so this is interesting to me. I had read before that you’re not supposed to use VR when the camera is mounted on a tripod, esp when using a remote. That is certainly the case for a lot of VR lenses. With the 300mm as you say it’s got the edge for focus speed and geared towards action where you can acquire and track focus, and with the VR you’d probably not be using it on a tripod. I’ve never used the 200-500 on a tripod. The VR is excellent in that for static or slow subjects handheld. But it struggles to track focus on fast moving things. That, and the bokeh is why I want the 300. It’s swings and roundabouts really as the 200-500 has a massively versatile zoom range and is much cheaper, but less quality. So the best solution is to do what you are doing and get both. The other consideration is what body you are using and what type of wildlife/sport you are shooting. A cropped sensor like the D500 is going to give you an effective field of view of 450mm at 2.8 on the 300mm and with the tc14 as well you’ll get field of view of 630mm at f4. On full frame you’ll not get the range but you’ll get the quality and the light. Again swings and roundabouts. Personally for me and looking at wildlife I think getting effective field of view of 450mm at f2.8 and 630mm at f4 both shooting at 10fps and 20mp, that sounds like a very good combo. Of course with a D850 you get the best of both worlds but I’d be using the D500 for the most part. You’ve done a good comparison there though and it’s useful knowing that the actual quality and focus speed in the 300 is significantly better than the 200-500. I’d be very disappointed and consider it a backwards step if I went to a shorted, fixed lens and didn’t not get a significant boost in quality.
Thanks for commenting, I'm glad you found the comparison useful. When I was trying to decide whether to go for it or not I looked for this information and didn't see it in the format I wanted to see so I thought I should make the video! Regarding VR when on the tripod, I wanted to test it out that way because in real use that's how I usually have it... I know it's not 'right' but my reasoning is that I want to be able to leave VR on as much as possible so that I don't have to think about it when switching quickly between stills and video. For video I find that using VR on, with the tripod head loose works best. I do turn it off when I'm specifically taking stills, but I wanted the test to reflect my normal usage. A few months on, I'm still very happy with the 300mm f/2.8 - it was great on my bear watching trip in July when the sharpness at f/2.8 were especially useful! I have now also got the 500mm f/5.6 and find that between them, I have a very strong combination for wildlife. If / when Nikon make a 600mm f/5.6 I might trade up the 500mm, but the 300mm is a keeper. I've not regretted selling the 200-500mm!
Yes, you are correct. In astrophotography, you always turn off (if you remember) the VR as it will produce nasty results in astrophotography. I think it is less important when shooting wildlife, as the exposure time is so short.
Great video ! Nikkor TC17E II ??? what will thay do on the 300mm ? Maybe a D500 instead of the z7 -> 45,7 on DX is also almost 20Mp... and the AF system is far more powerful , the old AFI400mm f2,8D IFED is extreemly fast on a D4, D3s,D500, slow on the D300s, D600, D750...z6, it cold be the combination, maybe the 300 f2,8 + TC17E II (f4,8 instead of f5,6, that helps often in gaining AF speed) could blow away the 200-500 in terms of speed? The old Sigma 150-500 is very slow on the D7100, much faster on the less "intelligent" D80...what the lens needs, the stupid camera does provide without unnasacary calculations. D500 + 200-500 could be much faster then the 300 + 1,4 on the z7..., cropping to the same magnification the z7 could even loose in fine details, maybe, maybe not ? it has to be tested.
Thanks! I don't have a 1.7x to test, but apparently it turns the lens into a 510mm f/4.8 which is still very good optically, with only a ~30% reduction in AF speed... so I guess it's fair to say that the 1.7x is not quite as quick as the 1.4x converter, but it's certain to be better than the 2x.
I have both as well, but I went with the TC17E II for the 300 f2.8. It shows to be 510mm @ f4.5. It's definitely faster at auto focusing than the 200-500 and obviously a bit brighter in the screen (I'm on the D500). I met someone who has the 500 f5.6 and it is indeed light. I'm not sure how it'll hold up over time, but she told me it is as sharp as everyone says. I'm sure that'll be my next purchase given I can't justify the 600 f4. BTW Geoff I found you on the wolf videos. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing!
@@OhSoCheesy that's interesting about the reported aperture. I don't have a TC17e II, though I'm keeping my eye on the second hand markets for a good deal ;) I now have the 500mm PF and it's spectacular - I sold the 200-500mm without a moment's hesitation (also because the 500 PF was damn expensive). I was very happy with the combination of that and the 300 f/2.8 in the hides watching the bears and wolves. Glad you enjoyed the videos :)
Thanks Kevin :) Have a look at my teleconverters video from about a year ago - I compare the 300 2.8 and 500 PF with the different teleconverters in that…
Love that 300mm nikkor And the slip-in filters on the 300 is worth noting... 2 Bodies work great A D850 and a D500 instead of the teleconverter... I often leave the 200-400mm at home and take the 200-500mm just because of the weight.
Yeah, it’s a fantastic lens :) Yeah, the 200-400 is a heavy beast - I did consider that as an option but decided it wouldn’t be portable enough for my needs..
I use a nikkor 300mm f2.8 and it’s a great lens but I bird a lot and it’s just not long enough for some birds. I use a 2x converter but find myself running f8 to get it sharp. So I need good light and it’s seems to perform better on my D4s than my D500.
That's interesting to hear - I agree it is certainly sharper at f/8 than f/5.6, but still pretty good at close range, where I've mainly used it.. The only times I've used it at distance and had some unsharp images, I was never sure it wasn't more because of atmospheric effects - I didn't test different apertures to check, but maybe that's something to try...
I actually came to mirrorless from the D500, so my choice of Z7 vs Z6 was at least partly becuase the Z7 has the similar resolution in DX mode... What I find is that for stills shooting I mostly still use FX mode and crop as needed, but in video mode I use the crop modes often!
Thanks 😀 I actually do now have the 1.7x TC and am planning to make a comparison between the 300mm 2.8 + 1.7x and the 500 PF later this spring, so watch this space...
Geoff i shoot exclusively with a crop sensor and i want to start shooting some wildlife. Smaller mamals like fox, deer, seal. No birding. Would you recommend the 200-500mm or the 300mm just based on the required reach.
Hey A G, I reckon with smaller mammals you're going to want all the reach you can get, even with the crop sensor, but you're also going to want to be versatile, so probably I'd recommend the zoom :)
Hi. Congratulations on your youtube channel. I'm looking for a telephoto lens for the Nikon Z6. The two lenses that are affordable to me are 200-500 f5.6 or 300 f4 (old used) AF-S IF-ED which doesn't have a VR + converter. Which would you recommend? I guess you don't know the 300 F4 lens? I really like photographing birds a lot - in the garden, and sometimes sports (indoor volleyball and outdoor beach volleyball / fast action) so 300 is often a better choice and a lighter, more usable size (f4 bit better). But as I see the 200-500 and a lot of people use it, I think it works fine with the ZTF adapter. Have you got tipped? What could be a good solution? Maybe the Sigma or Tamron 150-600? But I think their FTZ adapter is much weaker than Nikon.
Thanks very much 😊 Probably the 200-500mm would be more versatile than the old model 300mm f/4. The stop of difference shouldn't matter too much with the Z6 and the VR will come in handy for the indoor sports. I used the 200-500mm with the FTZ adapter on the Z7 for a while and it worked very well. If you want the extra reach of the 150-600mm then the Tamron G2 lens is apparently pretty good (I've never used one but I hear it's better than the Sigma C version and cheaper / lighter than the S version). They should all work absolutely fine on the Nikon FTZ adapter.
@@GeoffCooper RLY THX. Super answer thank you. Z6 + Z lenses are always good together (though a bit expensive) but unfortunately the FTZ adpater does not work well with all compatible lenses. The 300 F4 AF-S IF-ED descriptions are very good - and the focus is great - very sharp (no VR) which the Z6 might compensate for but with the adapter it runs quite a risk. Although I did find some descriptions that use Z6 but these are just comments which is always questionable. Thank you - I'm staying with the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 lens, so there's action on it right now.
You can get one in good condition for around £2.5k and mint for £3-3.5k - actually it looks like they're on average more expensive second hand now than they were in early 2019 when I picked mine up (or else I was even luckier than I thought with the price!)
@@GeoffCooper You said at the time that the 200-500mm was a good lens. Is this still true in 2021 or can you advise on a lens as a reasonably new wildlife photographer that has even better qualities of a similar price tag. Cheers
@@julianwilliams4750 Yes, it's still absolutely true now in 2021 - the Nikon 200-500mm is a great lens! The Tamron 150-600mm G2 is also very good and has a little more reach but is slower at the long end...
Thanks you so much. I'm considering a Nikkor AF-S 300mm F4 PF EF VR with the TC-20E III. I already have the 200 500 but the difference between the two is more than 1200g which can also make a big difference when hiking or trekking for example. Don't you think?
Hi Claudius 😀 It’s really going to depend on the camera you’re using and the situation. While I’m happy to recommend the 300 f/2.8 with the 2x teleconverter, the 300 f/4 would become a 600 f/8 lens and that light give you autofocus issues with some cameras, as well as being pretty slow.. in this case, even for the weight difference you might be happier in the end with the 200-500... I guess you should try and test that combination with your camera - perhaps your local camera shop could let you try them...
Hey Geoff, I am having a hard time to decide which option to go with. 500mm F4 or 300mm F2.8 + 1.4TC mark 3 I mostly after foxes, deer and such, sometimes birding too. Currently I use a D500. Thanks for your advice!
Hi Balint, I have to admit this is a difficult question... Both are awesome and both are heavy, so it's not an obvious choice, but if it's between those two lenses, then I think the 500 f/4, because the reach will be really useful and it's only a stop slower. If you need even more reach, you can still use the TC with that as well... If you can find a used one (or a winning lottery ticket), a 400 f/2.8 would be a good middle ground as it's that bit longer than the 300 but also still has the f/2.8 and therefore will give a 560mm f/4 with the TC... Good luck with whichever one you choose :)
@@GeoffCooper Thanks a lot for your reply. I appreciate your time. I was looking for 2nd hand 300mm F2.8 mint versions, which can be found on ebay for 3000-3500 euros. Meanwhile the 500mm FL used is almost 9 grand which is a huge difference. Weight-wise as far as I know they are almost identical but the 300mm I guess (due to the shorter size) is maybe more handholdable. Currently I have a 300mm F4 PF which I like a lot, therefore I am trying to convince myself to keep it and shoot for the 500mm even though it is much more expensive. Yeah 400mm F2.8 is almost 10k used :(
Yeah, it’s an expensive game, There is at least one used 500mm f/4 FL on mpb.com for under 6.5K EUR, but that’s still a lot... I reckon you could probably get the previous 500 f/4 VR in reasonable condition for around the same as a mint 300 f/2.8, but then that’s a bit heavier... I’d definitely keep the 300 PF though as it’s so light and easy to carry around!
Just seen this vlog Geoff. I own both these lenses and totally agree with your findings. Loved the content . Was thinking of doing something similar on our channel.Just subscribed😀
Between the 200-500mm and the 500mm PF I chose the PF prime and it was a massive step up in quality - the PF is sharper, focusses a lot faster and is smaller / lighter for easy hand holding. I ended up keeping the 300mm f/2.8 as well for quite a while - later I sold it to get a 400mm f/2.8G VR but actually that was a mistake becuase it was too heavy and I missed the 300mm..!
@@ukasz7073right, that’s a tougher choice and personally I couldn’t decide and kept both for a fair while. The 500mm PF was the one I used 95% of the time though so if I had to choose one, that would be it…
That depends on the quality of the TC. When you crop of course you reduce the number of pixels you have to work with, so unless the TC is really bad, then cropping will give you less image to work with assuming everything else is fixed... With mirrorless cameras, because the AF is on the sensor, a decent lens and TC combination will always have the technical edge over cropping. In the real world of course, cropping doesn't involve swapping on the TC and keeps the same aperture, so may have some advantage practically.
@@GeoffCooper OK, thanks for the answer, there are many developers who do similar tests and show that it performs better clipping than using Tc. That's why I'm already confused which is better. Probably the best way will be to buy TC and see for myself in the plenary. I also understand that the quality is affected by many factors, such as the type of camera and lens you mention, and it is impossible to say unequivocally what wins.
@@ukasz7073 Yes, the best way is always to test for yourself :) It really depends on the camera, lens and tc quality.. For DSLRs there was the issue that the AF was on a separate little sensor so there could be some mismatch with the image sensor - this was then magnified by the TC which made inaccurate focus with the TC more common. Also, if you are not going to look too closely then the cropped image may be fine - you lose pixels but you retain all the contrast etc. Personally, I have always found that the image with the TC is better under testing conditions, but in real use, there is less of a difference and taking the TC off and on is a faff. I now have a lens with a built-in TC and that is absolutely fantastic!
I didn't have a 1.7x then - later on I did and made a comprison of the 300mm f/2.8 and 1.7x TC with the 500mm f/5.6 PF: th-cam.com/video/5jNJ5pjy9Nc/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for the nice video... and it was really cool just how much emphases you shared about the low light situations... so that helped me get solid on my choice: the 300 F2.8 it will be! )))
Yeah, me too, and I think part of it is that I'm using the mirrorless camera where the AF is on-sensor. I've actually been doing some more testing with the 2x converter recently (and 1.7x for comparison), and they really do pretty well as long as there's enough light and as long as the subject is actually close enough... I see a lot of people try to extend the reach to the point that the image is much due to atmospheric effects...
I don’t have any experience with the Sony setup I’m afraid, though I’ve heard they’re also very good. Good luck deciding and I hope you get awesome photos with whatever system you choose!
Yeah, besically you can use pretty much anything form the wide range of Nikon F-mount lenses that are available. The biggest, as someone already mentioned, is their 800mm f/5.6, but there are various zooms that will increase your reach without costing stupid money: the Nikon 200-500mm for example is a very capable long lens..
Glad you liked it! Yeah, I reckon my lens testing has come on a bit since then..! However, from memory, the rendering of the 300mm f/2.8 was definitely better, even with the teleconverters..
Hi Geoff, any experience with the 52mm drop in filter? do you unscrew the clear filter, or stack the 52mm ND filter on top? I bought a Hoya ND and screwed it onto the clear filter thread, and it’s too thick to close. And I can’t seem to unscrew the clear filter off, to simply have the ND filter on. Which one is the problem - clear filter needs to come off (if so, how? it’s stuck), or Hoya HMC NDX4 is too thick? [i want to use the lens for video and drop the shutter speed down a bit] Your thoughts?
Hi Dave, I've not really used filters on mine, but I tired just now and it did come free (with some force and the help of a rubber pad)... I believe a filter of some sort is neccessary for the optical formula of the lens, but you have to remove the neutral colour filter that's provided in order to use another one... Also, I've read that only slim filters will fit even then, but hopefully the Hoya one you have isn't much thicker than the NC one. I think you just need to be persistent and get the 52mm NC filter off of the holder. If it's being really stubborn I reckon the way to go would be to use a pin tool (or wide tweezers) to remove the retaining ring and the filter glass, then you can use more force to remove the threaded ring. Either that, or get it done professionally or even look at getting a spare drop-in holder. Good luck with it!
Hi Geoff, thanks for taking the time to reply and trying it out. I'll give it another go with a rubber pad! The Hoya 52mm will definitely fit if the clear filter is out of the way. It almost fits stacked, which is why I was questioning how the filter holder is supposed to work. Thanks again, warmest, Dave
I will keep the both. 200-500 is almost not usable with low light, I had to shoot foxes puppies playing in the last sunset with very high ISO, and the image quality is not very good. WIth 300 2.8, even plus TC14, the image will be much better. When shooting in the woods, early morning, dusk or very cloudy weather, the 2.8 or 4 aperture becomes critical to get good image. Of course if you can afford both.
Yeah, I completely agree - the 200-500 was a great 'everyday carry' wildlife lens for me because of the versatility (now replaced by the 500mm PF), but in low light the extra stops of the 300mm f/2.8 are really worth having!
I’ve not tried the 300PF but I’ve only heard good things about the image quality. When I got the 300mm f/2.8 I was quite specifically after a really fast lens for working in low light, and that extra stop of light is why I’m keeping it for now... There’s a shop event in a few weeks and I might get to try out 300PF there, so I’ll have to see if getting some hands on time with it changes my mind!
Geoff Cooper ok thanks. I know it’s very sharp but have been led to believe it’s very lacking in dimensionality maybe because of the element number. My understanding is it renders like a poor zoom yet with great sharpness. My old F4 screw drive one has great dimensionality and decent sharpness but bad CA and not quick to focus.
@@aussie8114 I have the 300mm F/4 PF. I think it takes stunning images that are razor sharp, but I concur with your assessment for the most part. Images can tend to look a bit flat or dead for some reason. However, I think it still has a niche purpose in the tool box as a fast action secondary cam. When I am shooting from a tripod with my 600mm Manual focus lens, I am often shooting closeups of perched birds. The 300 PF will be attached to my second camera hanging around my neck. If I see a larger bird fly by like a heron, egret, kite, etc, the 300 PF is so light that I can easiliy grab it, lock focus and rapid fire for some superbly sharp BIF images. Outside the 500PF I am not sure if there are many other lenses like this, however theres also the more narrow view of 500mm to consider. I personally think that 300 is perfect for birds in flight. i hope this helps a bit.
John Yentes Thanks. I understand fully your point. Even with a possible lack of dimensionality it serves a purpose with its sharpness and usability. My old 300 f4 and 180 f2.8 both have lovely dimensionality possibly helped by low element count, though it almost seems like bad CA goes along with good dimensionality. The sharpness of these 2 lenses is very nice at medium to longer distances but not so impressive at closer distances for some reason. I would snap up the new 300 if it appeared to have better pop but as it is I might somehow need to test it first to compare it with my desires. The new 500 is too costly in my country at $6,000 as an amateur.
...hi...! ...i am going to make the same decision...but i think the af speed would be much better (300mm + 2x)...with my d850 or my d500... ...good wishes from germany... ...chris
Thanks! Yeah, I think the speed drop in AF is less apparent with the DSLRs using the 2x converter than on these first mirrorless cameras from Nikon. I was also very happy to have the 300mm because the f/2.8 allowed me to keep shooting in much lower light when we were watching bears!
...i use the old 300mm f2,8 afd in the moment...(+300 f4+200-500 f5,6)...but this new 300mm with the converters would be my dream:)... ...i can understand that you use the z cameras because of the video ability... ...i only try to catch moments... ...but i like your youtube vids very much...and your photos too;)
If I remember correctly the AF-D 300mm f/2.8 is a stunning lens but is a little slower for AF than the more modern AF-S versions. There’s been rumours of a new 300mm f/2.8 FL lens sometime in the future so when that happens, I guess the second hand market for previous AF-S versions will be good... Since, as you note, I’m using a Z camera, I can’t use any AF-D lenses except in manual mode. One of a few disadvantages compared to DSLRs, but the ability to shoot good video straight through the viewfinder and just switch to taking still photos with one button press is very very nice and the reason I changed to this camera!
@@GeoffCooper I now have a Z8 with the 1.4x TC + FTZ. I'm loving the combo. But I've also got the 500mm. I think if I desperately need the extra 80mm reach, I could go for the 200-500, but there's not a huge difference between 420mm and 500mm, and I think I'd prefer the IQ of the 300 2.8 @ 420, rather than the 200-500mm @ 500mm. The other advantage at 420 is that you get it at f/4, rather than 500 at 5.6, which is twice the light with only 80mm penalty. The versatility of the zoom is nice but for all intents and purposes, if you don't need that, 300 with 1.4x TC is a no brainer I think :)
@@sinetwo that's a fair way to look at it.. Of course as of today there is also the new Z 180-600mm, but again that suffers from being fairly slow in terms of aperture. Of the different lenses I've had and then sold, the 300mm f/2.8 is probably the one I've missed the most - it seems like every hide I've visited is 'set up' for 300mm and of course f/2.8 is always nice to have!
@@GeoffCooper Totally agree - I think I'd rather go for the 400 4.5 to complement the 300 if needed, but with the TC, the 400 4.5 is basically the same as the 300 2.8 + 1.4x TC, so really I feel like 300 + 1.4x TC gives a surprising amount of versatility and light. But yes, the 180-600 seems like a good lens, but it's incredibly slow. The old me would not say that, but the shots I get with the 2.8 is not even comparable to those I get with 200-500. And now I'm shooting a lot more back lit and challenging lighting photography, so I miss the extra gazillion stop lights with the 2.8 compared to 5.6 :)
@@sinetwo Yeah, having shot the 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8 for a while I really understand why these are the best when you can justify the size, weight and cost... I feel the 400mm f/4.5 is a good compromise and I don't feel like I even want the 180-600mm for a review. That was basically sealed the moment Ricci said in his review that the image quality of the 400mm f/4.5 + 1.4xTC was comparable or better than that of the 180-600mm...
Great video but why not post comparisons side by side so we can actually compare the images as opposed to trying to remember what the frame before looked like?
Thanks Zeppy, I totally agree and will definitely do side-by-side comparisons in the next video I do with equipment comparisons... I simply didn’t think it through when I made this!!
Hi Geoff, love your videos. Here's a question for you. In the summer I bought the 500 PF and love it, especially for taking on a riverside stroll. But with the poor light later in the year I decided I needed something faster. I found an old 200 f2 at an absolute bargain price (not what I was looking for but just too tempting!) but, of course, I'm losing a lot of reach. I tried it with a 2x TC which gave a lovely bokeh but I couldn't get it sharp (probably because I'm too old and feeble!). I'll keep it for other subjects but now I'm wondering if this 300 f2.8 with a 2x TC will be too big and slow for things like kingfishers, Red Kites in flight and small birds like Stonechats and tits. Does it have a focus limiter, if so did you try it and did it make a significant difference? Or... would a 200-400 f4 with a 1.4x TC be a better solution? But then we're back up to f5.6 so that's not logical. So, then, a 400 f2.8 sounds scrumptious but too heavy. Oh, the brain ache!
Thanks :) Hope there will be more of them in the coming months! I think a lot depends on the body you're using - on a high-end DSLR you can probably get reasonable AF with the 2x TC on say the 300mm f/2.8 as long as there's reasonable light, but with that combination I'd definitely suggest checking the AF calibration is spot-on... On a Z camera, other than the brand new Z9 apparently, the 2x TC is going to make things quite slow, though it'll work in lower light. I've not really tried focus limiters, and in my shooting, focus loss tends to be to the distant background and back to subject, so I'm not sure how much difference cutting off the closer distances would make.. It's a tough problem for sure and the answer of course is there's no such thing as an everything lens! I think the 500mm PF is probably better than any of the 'big' glass for fast moving subjects because handholding is just always going to be more versatile and probably quicker than moving a gimbal... then it's a light / ISO / shutter tradeoff... I would say that the 200-400mm f/4 is a big heavy lens, bigger than the 300mm for sure. My take on it was that if I'm going to have a big heavy lens, it may as well be an absolute beast and that's the justification for having the 400mm f/2.8G VR as well as the 500mm PF... If I had to only keep one it would be the 500 though!
@@GeoffCooper thanks for replying. A Z9 is on order (since launch day) but until it arrives I'm using a D850. Someone suggested using a flash with the 500 PF when the light is a problem so I'll look into that. I ought to learn more about using flash anyway. I'll also try the 300 PF with an aggressive crop! Thanks for your thoughts, much appreciated.
@@WIDGI interestig idea re. the flash - I guess the subject would need to be pretty close or you could use a 'better beamer' or equivalent flash lens... I think it would be a neat symmetry using a fresnel flash collimator (which is what the type I've encountered basically are) along with the fresnel element lens :) Hope your Z9 arrives soon - I too ordered on day 1 (within about 30mins of the announcement) but have yet to hear any news on my weekly call to pester the camera store about it!
@@GeoffCooper hi Geoff. I ended up buying a used 500mm f4 and the difference between that and the 500PF is just astonishing! Being impatient I put the lens on the D850, opened my back door and took a shot of a pigeon in a tree 50 metres away. It's not going to win any awards but with a bit of work in post it would be OK. I would try with the PF to compare but I don't want to take this lens off. Ever! Such fun! Thanks again for your help.
@@WIDGI Great stuff - enjoy! The image quality with the big primes really is something else and while the 500 PF is good, they are better... they're also just a lot less convenient to carry around!
It’s all about budgeting, if you’ve got the money to invest then buy the best however the 200-500 is perfect for someone just getting started into wildlife photography or just wants an all round easy lens to work with. Great work though you’ve definitely compared the two brilliantly
Thanks - glad you liked the comparison :) I totally agree, the 200-500 is a great lens and versatile too - I could easily go out for a day with only the 200-500, but with the 300 I'd always want teleconverters and probably a smaller lighter lens for just pottering about with...
Wow - you did a great job with the video edit and the background music there :) I use a Sigma 160-600 C on a D7500, its a great combo but I wonder sometimes if the Nikkor 200-500 would be sharper at 500 5.6. Definetly hoping for that 500PF at some day though! :P
Thanks Dirk 😀 The 200-500 might well be a little sharper than the Sigma 150-600 C but on the other hand that extra 100mm reach is worth having. The 500 PF is in a different league - as it really should be for the price difference!! I feel if I was going for a zoom in that range right now I'd probably test the Tamron 150-600 G2 lens...
@@GeoffCooper heard varying infos about the Tamron G2, some are really happy, some prefer the Sigma C. But from what I've read the Sigma is definetly sharper on the longer end, that's why I went for that one. You should wait and get the Nikkor 200-600 Z lens when it will be out.. in like a year or so?! :-D
I have heard it’s more the Adapter to fit a DSLR lenses onto mirrorless cameras, that affects the autofocus speed across some of the lenses. Have you tested both lenses on a standard DSLR? I am really torn between 300mm and the 500mm PF
I think it's more than anything the fact that the f-mount lenses are designed to work with the phase-detect AF of DSLRs and this is basically faster, while the mirrorless cameras use contast-detect on the sensor... I believe (guess) that the reason the native lenses work faster on the mirrorless bodies is that they are /really/ fast at focussing and are optimised for the mirrorless way of doing it.. Back to your question though, I have not tried the lenses on a DSLR as I don't have one, but I have read that both are pretty fast, with the 300 being faster.
Hi Geoff. First of all, you managed to pull of a very nice informative video. I do have some comments on your results with the 300mm + TC20III. You got some very nice results with this combination. However, the user experiences with this combination are somewhat mixed. I tested this combination as well. It seems that up to about 10m the resolution and contrast is very good at f5.4. This is basicly what you tested in this video. However, at longer distances this combination behaves differently. Some resolution and contrast is lost if the focus is further than roughly 10m. You can stop down to f11 for improvement in mostly contrast and some resolution. From approx. 20m and further focus it does not matter if you stop down. The contrast takes a hit and the images are too soft (lowest resolution i have seen in my life). I tested this on a dx body. In my opinion it useful for birding from blinds under good lighting conditions and not so much for other things.
Thanks A G, that's a really interesting observation about the contrast drop-off beyond 20m... I have had some acceptable results with the 2x and the 300mm at longer ranges, but they were never spectacular images. I have to admit I assumed it was atmospheric effects rather than the lens and converter not being sharp, but I will definitely have to look into it more.
Great video, only reason I was going to downvote it was the fact that 200-500mm is NOT weather sealed. That's an important mistake to make, it could literally cost someone $1200, when they decide to buy one and or use the one they already have and take into rain or whatever bad weather situation and learn the hard way that it's not weather sealed, so you have to be more careful. Some beginners watch people like you and they trust whatever you say and that can lead to them damaging gear, because they hear you say one thing, but reality is another thing if you know what I mean! I know it was just an innocent mistake, but it could be a costly mistake for someone who listens and got their 200-500mm lens all wet in a downpour of rain, thinking the lens is weather resistant when its actually not. Although it's a sharp lens, I would never buy or use the 200-500mm lens, it's focus motor is juts too slow for sports and birds in fight, etc. Plus it's a consumer grade lens with poor weather sealing, poor build quality and a plastic extending barrel that takes multiple turns to get from 200mm to 500mm. For not much more money than a new Nikon 200-500mm lens, I'd highly recommend people save up and buy a used Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR lens or used 300mm f/2.8G VR! For about $500m more you'll get a much faster, professional build quality weather sealed lens!
That's very interesting information Patrick, I genuinely believed the lens to be weather sealed - not to the standard of the big pro lenses, and of course the extending barrel zoom makes that difficult, but still fine in a shower etc. Obviously it's not waterproof, but it has all the external signs of being a weather sealed lens: a gasket at the mount, a rubber seal at the front element, and, I have read, o-rings in the zoom mechanism, so I'm surprised when you say it is not. Also, I've had that lens in some shocking weather and there have never been any issues - I am always careful to dry everything off afterwards of course - and it certainly is better sealed than the old AF-D 80-400mm lens that I had before it.. Anyway, I agree that the 200-400mm f/4 or 300mm f/2.8 would have even higher build quality, but the weight of those would make it much less convenient to carry / hand-hold, so the 200-500mm is still one to recommend.
I have both Lenses and use them on D4s, D850 and Z6. Real life situation with the TC 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 all the latest versions. The 300 f2.8 with all 3 TC's on all three bodies is not only faster but focus accuracy is also substantially better. I have used the 300 f2.8 for almost 12 yrs in different models. I like the 200-500 for its versatility and shoot them side by side. In Africa we mostly shoot from an SUV for obvious reasons. In those conditions I never change lenses or TC's due to dust. The 300 vr system is old compared to the 200-500.
Thanks for your comment and insights. While I had had the 200-500mm for years, the 300 was pretty new to me when I made this.. I totally agree that in the situation where there is dust preventing lens changes (here in Scotland the cause is more often heavy rain), the only way to go is the zoom, or indeed two bodies side by side..
Very interesting comparison, Geoff. On a side note, I see that you’re using the Z7. I don’t know whether you’ve got both, but I would’ve thought the Z6 would’ve been the better fit for a wildlife photographer based on its low light performance. I’d love to hear your reasons for using the Z7.
Thanks. I had two main reasons for getting the Z7 over the Z6: Firstly I hadn't had a full frame body before so I was worried about losing reach, so wanted to have something that would still have plenty of resolution in DX mode. The second reason is one of availability, I managed to get the Z7 kit second hand from someone who had got it at release, tested for a while, and decided against it. I've not had a chance to try out a Z6 but so far my experience with the Z7 in low light had been pretty good.
Interesting points, Geoff. I agree about losing reach with full frame. Not a problem for landscape shooters really, but wildlife is a different matter. I haven't got any full frame kit, so thanks for explaining your thoughts about it.
Geoff Cooper definitely a major selling point for high MP full frame is that you have basically 2 focal lengths for each lens. With a Z7 you have about 20mp dx... for that exact reason I have been wanting to get a D850 and sell my D500.
Yes, that’s exactly how I use it, especially for video! Additionally, the advantage of the Z7 EVF is that the field of view adapts to the crop mode rather than greying out the edges as on the DSLRs
Sorry have to disagree with you. Even the 300 f2.8 with TC 2.0iii is not only sharper but the focus speed is faster and more accurate then the 200-500. I have used both extensively over that past 4 yrs side by side in all conditions. On the Z Bodies the TC's have a negative effect on focus speed but on DSLR bodies there is no comparison. These two lenses fall into different budgets and both are very good lenses. I don't mind using any of the two in any condition. The 500 f5.6 pf again on the Z bodies is disappointing ito low light focus. I have just sold my 500f5.6 as on the Z bodies the focus is no different from the 200-500 and sharpness wise the difference does not justify the money difference. Again, these lenses are designed for F mount and on F mount bodies they are all very good. If I was going to change over 100% to the Z bodies I will wait to see what the 200-600 S lens would be like beforeibuy the 500pf. In my view the 200-500 and 500 pf perform at same level on the Z bodies and the 500 f5.6 price difference does not justify the spend. The f2.8 and f4 primes however is a different story due to the incredible fast focus and sharpness.
Well, I hope I was careful to say that everyone's mileage may vary and there can be a tremendous difference from one copy of a lens to another. I completely agree that both are great lenses, but I just consistently found it harder to lock focus with the 300 + TC in my tests. It wasn't a big difference though and I could believe that my kit might act differently enough to yours to see a different trend.. Can't agree re the 500 PF vs 200-500 on the Z7 though - perhaps my 200-500 was a bit tired and battered by the end, but it was a night and day difference in image quality when I changed over! Also, while the low light AF isn't as good as the 300 2.8, the draw of the 500 PF for me was always the weight and size, so I can see myself keeping it for a while. The 200-600 does look very interesting but I don't think we're likely to see it in the shops for quite a long time...
The teleconverters are in theory a great idea, but in reality they really degrade the quality... unless you're not that picky. I would rather have the 500 PF than the 300 f/2.8 with a TC.
Yeah, I agree the 500PF blows the 300 with teleconverters away most of the time, but the reason for these kind of tests is to know how close the quality might be if you don't have access to the top-of-the-line equivalent... Having said that, I have found that the TCs do seem to work better on the mirrorless system compared to my previous DSLRs, I guess because there is less likely to be any autofocus calibration issue when the AF is done on the sensor.. Regarding being not that picky... I am fairly picky, but I'd rather capture the moment at a slightly lower quality compared to not having the shot at all!
Interesting video Geoff, would be worth trying the same with the D5oo if you still have it. The 500 PF looks great but its impossible to find one at the moment! then there is the price!
Thanks! That would be interesting but sadly I don't have the D500 anymore. The 500 PF has a wait time of around 5 months in the UK (I have in fact just received one) and yes, to even consider getting it a fair amount of my other kit found its way onto eBay!
...yes...the af speed is nothing for action...but the biggest disadvantage is that the converters only work manually... ...so i think i must invest a little bit more...in one of the newer versions...(my wife will kill me)... ...but i think ist a future proof investment...(more proof than new cameras)...gw
...but i find a information in the net about nikons new patends: ...400mm and 600mm pf 5,6... ...i find this before the 500pf came out...so iam sure they will produce a 600mm pf (this would be fantastic)...
@@chriswildlife8826 Yeah, glass holds value way better than camera bodies... A 600mm PF at f/5.6 would be very interesting but also so would a 400mm, especially if it was at f/4 to directly compete with the Canon 400mm DO lens!
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
I bought the older Af-S 300 f2.8 for just $500. And I got the 1.7x teleconverter for $120 which takes this to a 510 f4.8 lens. Of course this will not focus as fast as any of your lenses, but I probably spent 1/5th of what you spent. Shooting birds I want a fast shutter speed, so the VR doesn't really matter to me, I want to shoot faster than 1/1000s anyway. The only extra cost is of a mono pod, which is very cheap. The thing is, when I go into a dark forest I can take off the TC and shoot with f2.8, can't do that with the 200-500. BTW loved the photos you took ! I did end up getting the old 201 TC but that's just for the moon and planets, unless I get used to manual focusing.
What exactly is the 300mm f 2.8 model? Have you had a 200-500 before and have a comparison?
Use your 300mm F2.8 in lowlight with a DSLR like D850, you will see, that the AF is really fast. The AF of the Z-Models are slower, this happens on the contrast Focus.
Yeah, I know it’s way faster on a DSLR, though I imagine the trends between lenses / converters are all still similar. This was very much a review on the z-camera which indeed has a rather different AF system...
yes, good point, as the ftz adaptor has some light loss due to its distance from the sensor, so this extra light loss from a converter as well could mean that there is a lot less light for the contrast detection AF system to work with, so it is quite reasonable for a DSLR to work better with a native F mount lens, than an adapted Z camera to an F mount lens, should try this video again with the Z native telephoto lenses, when they get released.
andy van I don't see how the FTZ adapter causes light loss? All the FTZ adapter does is make up the flange distance between the Z system so it's the same as DSLR
I have the Tokina 300mm f/2.8 sharp as hell but heavy as hell, great video Geoff.
Good stuff - I've never seen one first hand but have heard it is a very good lens!
I think you need to arrange the photos side by side with settings marked next to them in order to let viewers compare them easily.
Thanks for the tip - I totally agree and will try to do that next time I make a comparison video!
Thank Geoff for a very good video on these lens, I have the 300mm f2.8 VR11 and 1.4 TC and I was thinking of buying 2 TC, but after seeing your video I have changed my mind. God bless you!
I am doing sports photography and want a 300 2.8 with a 1.4 tc is it worth it?
Thanks for the comparison! It's like you read my mind (3 years before I needed it), this was the exact comparison I was looking for, and with the Z7! Surprised that they were so close in low light focusing (without TCs). Surprisingly close, but of course the 200-500 is no 2.8.
Thanks, glad it was useful to you! To be fair, back at that level of Z7 firmware, they were both similar in low light AF, but neither was really that great. Later firmware improved things and I would imagine in the same test today the 300mm might be a little faster!
@@GeoffCooper Ah, good point actually, didn't take that into account :) They both have their uses of course, wouldn't mind shooting a 300mm 2.8 as well!
I’m just in the market for a 300mm f2.8 for my bird photography. I normally work in a hide and I’m an amateur photographer. Thank you for this video. It’s made my mind up now. Getting to 300mm f2.8 to go with my Nikon D7000
Great stuff - glad the video was helpful! Hope you get lots of good images with your new lens. I no longer have my 300mm f/2.8 but it is honestly on of the few lenses that I have missed after selling it!
Hi Geoff, thank you for your review!
Have a good one
This is exactly the comparison that I was looking for! Thanks for the video! I will mainly be shooting from a blind, and staging areas on my property more than hiking around, so the 300 2.8 is the winner for me. I have been on the fence about the 200-500, 300 f4 pf and the 300 2.8. Thanks!
Thanks, and welcome to the channel :) Glad this comparison was helpful and have fun with your 300mm f/2.8!
I agree about the 2.8...it’s hard to beat it but don’t forget about the 300mm AF-S F4-for the price it’s a helluva lens. That being said I too am going to get the 2.8 but I’m going with the AFS (non-VR) version.
@@alexblaze8878 Yea, I have the 300mm f4 AF-S and optically it´s night and day compared to the 200-500mm. I didn´t think there would be such a big difference, especially when the zoom is very good at 300mm...but there is!
auto focus is pretty important I reckon. My choice for this trip would be the 200 - 500 despite it's other misgivings - it's quick and dustless, more-or-less.
The 200-500mm is a belter of a lens! I'm now using the 500mm PF most of the time with the 300mm f/2.8 when the light is low, but there have definitely been times I've missed the ability to zoom!
@@GeoffCooper I have the 200-500 and I am very happy with it,soon going to purchase a used 300 2.8. I have had the 500pf but returned it as VR and AF could not give me consistency in the images,I was both surprised and disappointed.
@@davidrobson957 that's really unfortunate about the 500mm PF - I can only think you must have had a bad copy if AF and VR were playing up (I assume after all the various calibrations you could have tried, depending on the camera body in use).. Hope the 300mm works better for you!
The issue witht the 200-500 is the zoom, it reduces the overall weather proofing where as tbe 300 as the prime has superior sealing but there's a significant weight difference
Yes, and this is one of the reasons that I now try to avoid longer zoom lenses that have an extending barrel like that. I never had an issue with that lens in the wet (if it was really wet I used a cover on it) but have had with shorter focal length zooms...
I own the 300 f2.8 vr2 with all 3 TC's and have been using it for 6 yrs. then bought the 200-500 f5.6 using them on D4s, D810 and D840. I have tested focus speed and accuracy in all conditions and I would go with the 300 + 2.0 every time over the 200-500. I use the 200-500 only for its zoom flexibility when shooting big animals like African big 5 and others. The IQ of the 200-500 is very good and very close to the 300+2.0. I use my 300 with 2.0 on my D850 and the 200-500 on my D4s.
Hi Jakes, that's interesting that you find the AF of the 300 + 2x TC surpasses the 200-500.. I guess the difference is that you're using DSLR bodies with their more mature AF systems vs. the newer Z cameras, which still have a way to go (though it has been much improved by firmware updates)...
Dear Jakes, I have the 200-500 and I'm thinking of also getting the 300 f2.8 vr ii. Since you have such an experience with both of them can you please tell me that when you say "very close" you mean that the IQ of the 300+2.0 is a little higher than that of 200-500? and the af speed? is the same, slower of faster? Thank you so much for your answer. My camera is the D850.
@@syrosbirding The IQ of the 300 with 2.0 is fantastic, The 2.0iii was designed for the 300 f2.8 vrii and launched at the same time. In my view better than the 200-500. Focus speed with the 2.0iii is faster than the 200-500. The thing with the 200-500 is that it might be slow to lock on but holds focus very well. I love the 300 as it is compact and fantastic lens. If you after reach as many modern photographers think 800mm is a must then buy a 600 or 500 prime and add a 2.0. If image quality is the ultimate then the 300 is a crazy good lens.
@@jakesdewet3567 Thank you so much for the detailed information. Today I was looking a video of yours about mountain camping and photographing hares with your Nikon 300 + 1.4tc. I really enjoyed it and appreciate your contribution!
Thank you for this detailed review. It is very useful, indeed! I´d say many wildlife photographers have pondered these two options. I certainly have. And I´m quite surprised with the results and also to see how good the 200-500mm is. I actually bought a Nikon d500 just to be able to use this lens (I shoot with Fujifilm and Canon) as after extensive research and years of trying out other options I figured it simply is the best option for budget wildlife. And certainly the best long zoom out there- well, for the price, anyway..:) A new Canon R5 + 100-500mm might be better but the price difference is quite astronomical.
Thanks very much Petr, glad you found it useful :) I agree the 200-500mm and D500 is a great combination, especially for the price!
Excellent video. I have sold both of the lenses you tested and now carry both the 500mm PF and 300mm PF with a 1.4 TC in my pocket. No 2.0 TC allowed and f/4 for maximum aperture rather than 2.8 but far less weight in the bag, excellent AF speed, outstanding sharpness and much more flexibility in movement. I also find that with rare exceptions the TC stays in my bag where it really belongs. The D850 provides some additional cropping flexibility if needed back at the ranch. The D500 comes along for the ride for fast moving action and lower light needs and the cropped sensor can provide a tough of extra reach. I did substitute my Z7 a few times but the AF system for the demands of wildlife is a disappointment.
Thanks :) I now also have the 500mm f/5.6 PF and it's an absolute joy to use. However, I have still got the 300mm f/2.8, and in low light situations those two extra stops are very useful... I'm a lot happier with the AF of the Z7 since the v3 firmware, but there is still plenty of room for improvement and I hope they continue to provide updates to make it better!
Very informative video... thank you. I have both the 200-500 and 500/f4 VRII and am very satisfied with them. Often also combined with TC's for reasons as outlined in your video. Always attempting to strike an acceptable balance between quality and focal length. The quest continues...
Thanks for commenting 😀 I agree the main thing is to get a balance and especially with the 200-500mm the convenience of not having to change lenses to get a shot is really compelling.
Thanks for the video on the nikon 500mm f5.6. Your review video was very informative. I will suck it up and get it...I would love the f4 version but 10K is really hard to break the bank for a beginner.
Thanks for this. I’ve got a 200-500 and am looking at getting the 300 2.8 so this is interesting to me. I had read before that you’re not supposed to use VR when the camera is mounted on a tripod, esp when using a remote. That is certainly the case for a lot of VR lenses. With the 300mm as you say it’s got the edge for focus speed and geared towards action where you can acquire and track focus, and with the VR you’d probably not be using it on a tripod. I’ve never used the 200-500 on a tripod. The VR is excellent in that for static or slow subjects handheld. But it struggles to track focus on fast moving things. That, and the bokeh is why I want the 300. It’s swings and roundabouts really as the 200-500 has a massively versatile zoom range and is much cheaper, but less quality. So the best solution is to do what you are doing and get both.
The other consideration is what body you are using and what type of wildlife/sport you are shooting. A cropped sensor like the D500 is going to give you an effective field of view of 450mm at 2.8 on the 300mm and with the tc14 as well you’ll get field of view of 630mm at f4. On full frame you’ll not get the range but you’ll get the quality and the light. Again swings and roundabouts. Personally for me and looking at wildlife I think getting effective field of view of 450mm at f2.8 and 630mm at f4 both shooting at 10fps and 20mp, that sounds like a very good combo. Of course with a D850 you get the best of both worlds but I’d be using the D500 for the most part. You’ve done a good comparison there though and it’s useful knowing that the actual quality and focus speed in the 300 is significantly better than the 200-500. I’d be very disappointed and consider it a backwards step if I went to a shorted, fixed lens and didn’t not get a significant boost in quality.
Thanks for commenting, I'm glad you found the comparison useful. When I was trying to decide whether to go for it or not I looked for this information and didn't see it in the format I wanted to see so I thought I should make the video!
Regarding VR when on the tripod, I wanted to test it out that way because in real use that's how I usually have it... I know it's not 'right' but my reasoning is that I want to be able to leave VR on as much as possible so that I don't have to think about it when switching quickly between stills and video. For video I find that using VR on, with the tripod head loose works best. I do turn it off when I'm specifically taking stills, but I wanted the test to reflect my normal usage.
A few months on, I'm still very happy with the 300mm f/2.8 - it was great on my bear watching trip in July when the sharpness at f/2.8 were especially useful! I have now also got the 500mm f/5.6 and find that between them, I have a very strong combination for wildlife. If / when Nikon make a 600mm f/5.6 I might trade up the 500mm, but the 300mm is a keeper. I've not regretted selling the 200-500mm!
Yes, you are correct. In astrophotography, you always turn off (if you remember) the VR as it will produce nasty results in astrophotography. I think it is less important when shooting wildlife, as the exposure time is so short.
Great video ! Nikkor TC17E II ??? what will thay do on the 300mm ?
Maybe a D500 instead of the z7 -> 45,7 on DX is also almost 20Mp... and the AF system is far more powerful , the old AFI400mm f2,8D IFED is extreemly fast on a D4, D3s,D500, slow on the D300s, D600, D750...z6, it cold be the combination, maybe the 300 f2,8 + TC17E II (f4,8 instead of f5,6, that helps often in gaining AF speed) could blow away the 200-500 in terms of speed?
The old Sigma 150-500 is very slow on the D7100, much faster on the less "intelligent" D80...what the lens needs, the stupid camera does provide without unnasacary calculations.
D500 + 200-500 could be much faster then the 300 + 1,4 on the z7..., cropping to the same magnification the z7 could even loose in fine details, maybe, maybe not ? it has to be tested.
Thanks! I don't have a 1.7x to test, but apparently it turns the lens into a 510mm f/4.8 which is still very good optically, with only a ~30% reduction in AF speed... so I guess it's fair to say that the 1.7x is not quite as quick as the 1.4x converter, but it's certain to be better than the 2x.
I have both as well, but I went with the TC17E II for the 300 f2.8. It shows to be 510mm @ f4.5. It's definitely faster at auto focusing than the 200-500 and obviously a bit brighter in the screen (I'm on the D500). I met someone who has the 500 f5.6 and it is indeed light. I'm not sure how it'll hold up over time, but she told me it is as sharp as everyone says. I'm sure that'll be my next purchase given I can't justify the 600 f4.
BTW Geoff I found you on the wolf videos. Great stuff. Thanks for sharing!
@@OhSoCheesy that's interesting about the reported aperture. I don't have a TC17e II, though I'm keeping my eye on the second hand markets for a good deal ;)
I now have the 500mm PF and it's spectacular - I sold the 200-500mm without a moment's hesitation (also because the 500 PF was damn expensive). I was very happy with the combination of that and the 300 f/2.8 in the hides watching the bears and wolves.
Glad you enjoyed the videos :)
I like the way you test & compare lenses with and without teleconverters. You may wish to include the Nikon 500mm PF lense in your future tests.
Thanks Kevin :) Have a look at my teleconverters video from about a year ago - I compare the 300 2.8 and 500 PF with the different teleconverters in that…
Love that 300mm nikkor
And the slip-in filters on the 300 is worth noting...
2 Bodies work great A D850 and a D500 instead of the teleconverter...
I often leave the 200-400mm at home and take the 200-500mm just because of the weight.
Yeah, it’s a fantastic lens :) Yeah, the 200-400 is a heavy beast - I did consider that as an option but decided it wouldn’t be portable enough for my needs..
I use a nikkor 300mm f2.8 and it’s a great lens but I bird a lot and it’s just not long enough for some birds. I use a 2x converter but find myself running f8 to get it sharp. So I need good light and it’s seems to perform better on my D4s than my D500.
That's interesting to hear - I agree it is certainly sharper at f/8 than f/5.6, but still pretty good at close range, where I've mainly used it.. The only times I've used it at distance and had some unsharp images, I was never sure it wasn't more because of atmospheric effects - I didn't test different apertures to check, but maybe that's something to try...
I would like to see you compare both the 200-500 and the 300 to Nikon’s 200-400 f4.
That would be an interesting comparison, and I'm sure would do it if I ever had the opportunity to have all three at the same time...
Have you ever used crop mode on your z7? I know you’ll lose pixels but it would still produce around 20mp on the z7!
I actually came to mirrorless from the D500, so my choice of Z7 vs Z6 was at least partly becuase the Z7 has the similar resolution in DX mode... What I find is that for stills shooting I mostly still use FX mode and crop as needed, but in video mode I use the crop modes often!
really amazing this lenses, and absolutely so great test
Thanks very much :) It really is! Of all the lenses I've owned and then sold, the 300mm f/2.8 is one that I have missed more often!
A superb comparison.. for 500mm reach who is the winner among 200-500, 500 pf and the 300mm f2.8 +1.7tc ? Your thoughts plz
Thanks 😀 I actually do now have the 1.7x TC and am planning to make a comparison between the 300mm 2.8 + 1.7x and the 500 PF later this spring, so watch this space...
Geoff Cooper Just purchased VR gen1 of the 300mm lens, looking forward to see your video about how it performs with 1.7x converter.
Geoff i shoot exclusively with a crop sensor and i want to start shooting some wildlife. Smaller mamals like fox, deer, seal. No birding. Would you recommend the 200-500mm or the 300mm just based on the required reach.
Hey A G, I reckon with smaller mammals you're going to want all the reach you can get, even with the crop sensor, but you're also going to want to be versatile, so probably I'd recommend the zoom :)
@@GeoffCooper thanks a lot for the advice man. Appreciate it
So last to test is the tc17 :)
I have a video from December last year where I also tested that :)
@@GeoffCooper oh oh I fly to it. Thx :)
Have you tried this lens with the Nikon TC-17E Teleconverter? It gives a 510mm reach.
Yes I have - take a look at this video: th-cam.com/video/5jNJ5pjy9Nc/w-d-xo.html
I have since sold both the 300mm and the 1.7x TC
Hi.
Congratulations on your youtube channel. I'm looking for a telephoto lens for the Nikon Z6. The two lenses that are affordable to me are 200-500 f5.6 or 300 f4 (old used) AF-S IF-ED which doesn't have a VR + converter. Which would you recommend? I guess you don't know the 300 F4 lens? I really like photographing birds a lot - in the garden, and sometimes sports (indoor volleyball and outdoor beach volleyball / fast action) so 300 is often a better choice and a lighter, more usable size (f4 bit better). But as I see the 200-500 and a lot of people use it, I think it works fine with the ZTF adapter. Have you got tipped? What could be a good solution? Maybe the Sigma or Tamron 150-600? But I think their FTZ adapter is much weaker than Nikon.
Thanks very much 😊 Probably the 200-500mm would be more versatile than the old model 300mm f/4. The stop of difference shouldn't matter too much with the Z6 and the VR will come in handy for the indoor sports. I used the 200-500mm with the FTZ adapter on the Z7 for a while and it worked very well. If you want the extra reach of the 150-600mm then the Tamron G2 lens is apparently pretty good (I've never used one but I hear it's better than the Sigma C version and cheaper / lighter than the S version). They should all work absolutely fine on the Nikon FTZ adapter.
@@GeoffCooper RLY THX. Super answer thank you. Z6 + Z lenses are always good together (though a bit expensive) but unfortunately the FTZ adpater does not work well with all compatible lenses. The 300 F4 AF-S IF-ED descriptions are very good - and the focus is great - very sharp (no VR) which the Z6 might compensate for but with the adapter it runs quite a risk. Although I did find some descriptions that use Z6 but these are just comments which is always questionable. Thank you - I'm staying with the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 lens, so there's action on it right now.
Hey Geoff, what's the going rate for the 300mm in the UK secondhand. Cheers
You can get one in good condition for around £2.5k and mint for £3-3.5k - actually it looks like they're on average more expensive second hand now than they were in early 2019 when I picked mine up (or else I was even luckier than I thought with the price!)
@@GeoffCooper You said at the time that the 200-500mm was a good lens. Is this still true in 2021 or can you advise on a lens as a reasonably new wildlife photographer that has even better qualities of a similar price tag. Cheers
@@julianwilliams4750 Yes, it's still absolutely true now in 2021 - the Nikon 200-500mm is a great lens! The Tamron 150-600mm G2 is also very good and has a little more reach but is slower at the long end...
Thanks you so much. I'm considering a Nikkor AF-S 300mm F4 PF EF VR with the TC-20E III. I already have the 200 500 but the difference between the two is more than 1200g which can also make a big difference when hiking or trekking for example. Don't you think?
Hi Claudius 😀 It’s really going to depend on the camera you’re using and the situation. While I’m happy to recommend the 300 f/2.8 with the 2x teleconverter, the 300 f/4 would become a 600 f/8 lens and that light give you autofocus issues with some cameras, as well as being pretty slow.. in this case, even for the weight difference you might be happier in the end with the 200-500... I guess you should try and test that combination with your camera - perhaps your local camera shop could let you try them...
@@GeoffCooper my camera is the (old?) D750. Anyhow I wanted that optic and will use it as a 300... But I will respond as soon as I will try it
@@cubitusclaudius cool - please do comment back when you've tested it, I'd be interested to hear how it performs!
Hey Geoff,
I am having a hard time to decide which option to go with. 500mm F4 or 300mm F2.8 + 1.4TC mark 3
I mostly after foxes, deer and such, sometimes birding too. Currently I use a D500.
Thanks for your advice!
Hi Balint, I have to admit this is a difficult question... Both are awesome and both are heavy, so it's not an obvious choice, but if it's between those two lenses, then I think the 500 f/4, because the reach will be really useful and it's only a stop slower. If you need even more reach, you can still use the TC with that as well... If you can find a used one (or a winning lottery ticket), a 400 f/2.8 would be a good middle ground as it's that bit longer than the 300 but also still has the f/2.8 and therefore will give a 560mm f/4 with the TC... Good luck with whichever one you choose :)
@@GeoffCooper Thanks a lot for your reply. I appreciate your time.
I was looking for 2nd hand 300mm F2.8 mint versions, which can be found on ebay for 3000-3500 euros. Meanwhile the 500mm FL used is almost 9 grand which is a huge difference. Weight-wise as far as I know they are almost identical but the 300mm I guess (due to the shorter size) is maybe more handholdable. Currently I have a 300mm F4 PF which I like a lot, therefore I am trying to convince myself to keep it and shoot for the 500mm even though it is much more expensive.
Yeah 400mm F2.8 is almost 10k used :(
Yeah, it’s an expensive game, There is at least one used 500mm f/4 FL on mpb.com for under 6.5K EUR, but that’s still a lot... I reckon you could probably get the previous 500 f/4 VR in reasonable condition for around the same as a mint 300 f/2.8, but then that’s a bit heavier... I’d definitely keep the 300 PF though as it’s so light and easy to carry around!
Just seen this vlog Geoff. I own both these lenses and totally agree with your findings. Loved the content . Was thinking of doing something similar on our channel.Just subscribed😀
Hey Rich and Gem - thanks very much and welcome to the channel 😀
What about 300 +tc1.4 vs 200-500? Which is better? Thank you!
I think the 300 + 1.4x is charper than the 200-500mm at 420mm.
Would you choose Nikon 200-500mm + TC or 500mm PF. I know Pf probably is sharper but again we don't have 300mm and bright aperture 2.8. Tough choice.
Between the 200-500mm and the 500mm PF I chose the PF prime and it was a massive step up in quality - the PF is sharper, focusses a lot faster and is smaller / lighter for easy hand holding. I ended up keeping the 300mm f/2.8 as well for quite a while - later I sold it to get a 400mm f/2.8G VR but actually that was a mistake becuase it was too heavy and I missed the 300mm..!
@@GeoffCooper Sorry for the mistake of course I meant Nikon 300mm VR2 f/2.8 + TC vs 500mmPf for Nikon 850 camera.
@@ukasz7073right, that’s a tougher choice and personally I couldn’t decide and kept both for a fair while. The 500mm PF was the one I used 95% of the time though so if I had to choose one, that would be it…
Also, holy crap I had a lot less grey in my beard when I made that video 😂
@@GeoffCooper Actually when testing Nikon 600mm 6.3 beard all gray :D 5 years have done their job.
Wouldn't you get the same results at 300mm if you just cropped instead of putting on a tc?
That depends on the quality of the TC. When you crop of course you reduce the number of pixels you have to work with, so unless the TC is really bad, then cropping will give you less image to work with assuming everything else is fixed... With mirrorless cameras, because the AF is on the sensor, a decent lens and TC combination will always have the technical edge over cropping. In the real world of course, cropping doesn't involve swapping on the TC and keeps the same aperture, so may have some advantage practically.
@@GeoffCooper OK, thanks for the answer, there are many developers who do similar tests and show that it performs better clipping than using Tc. That's why I'm already confused which is better. Probably the best way will be to buy TC and see for myself in the plenary. I also understand that the quality is affected by many factors, such as the type of camera and lens you mention, and it is impossible to say unequivocally what wins.
@@ukasz7073 Yes, the best way is always to test for yourself :) It really depends on the camera, lens and tc quality.. For DSLRs there was the issue that the AF was on a separate little sensor so there could be some mismatch with the image sensor - this was then magnified by the TC which made inaccurate focus with the TC more common. Also, if you are not going to look too closely then the cropped image may be fine - you lose pixels but you retain all the contrast etc. Personally, I have always found that the image with the TC is better under testing conditions, but in real use, there is less of a difference and taking the TC off and on is a faff. I now have a lens with a built-in TC and that is absolutely fantastic!
Excellent Review Thanks For Posting.
What about the 1.7 teleconverter?
I didn't have a 1.7x then - later on I did and made a comprison of the 300mm f/2.8 and 1.7x TC with the 500mm f/5.6 PF: th-cam.com/video/5jNJ5pjy9Nc/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for the nice video... and it was really cool just how much emphases you shared about the low light situations... so that helped me get solid on my choice: the 300 F2.8 it will be! )))
Glad it was helpful! Enjoy your new lens 😀
Surprised the lens did so well with the 2.0 tc. I read it's the weakest of the nikon tcs.
Yeah, me too, and I think part of it is that I'm using the mirrorless camera where the AF is on-sensor. I've actually been doing some more testing with the 2x converter recently (and 1.7x for comparison), and they really do pretty well as long as there's enough light and as long as the subject is actually close enough... I see a lot of people try to extend the reach to the point that the image is much due to atmospheric effects...
I badly want to know how this setup compare to the Sony a7 iv and similar 3 Sony lenses. I have to make this decision in about a week
I don’t have any experience with the Sony setup I’m afraid, though I’ve heard they’re also very good. Good luck deciding and I hope you get awesome photos with whatever system you choose!
Hi. So I have a Nikon 3500. The largest lens I have is 70-300mm. Do they make a bigger or a compatible lens for this model?
yes the 800 5.6, if you got 20K to spend
Yeah, besically you can use pretty much anything form the wide range of Nikon F-mount lenses that are available. The biggest, as someone already mentioned, is their 800mm f/5.6, but there are various zooms that will increase your reach without costing stupid money: the Nikon 200-500mm for example is a very capable long lens..
@@GeoffCooper thank you!!
thanks for the comparison
A comparison of bokeh would have been great too
Glad you liked it! Yeah, I reckon my lens testing has come on a bit since then..! However, from memory, the rendering of the 300mm f/2.8 was definitely better, even with the teleconverters..
What is the color version of the Lens Coat that you have on your 300/2.8 ? Is that Real Tree Max 4 HD?
Yes, I'm pretty sure it was Realtree Max 4, though it is not an 'original' Lens Coat product, but a similar one from an online supplier here..
Is the old 300mm as sharp as the newer ones?
I believe all the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 lenses are very sharp indeed, though this is the only one of them I've ever owned!
Hi Geoff, any experience with the 52mm drop in filter? do you unscrew the clear filter, or stack the 52mm ND filter on top? I bought a Hoya ND and screwed it onto the clear filter thread, and it’s too thick to close. And I can’t seem to unscrew the clear filter off, to simply have the ND filter on. Which one is the problem - clear filter needs to come off (if so, how? it’s stuck), or Hoya HMC NDX4 is too thick? [i want to use the lens for video and drop the shutter speed down a bit] Your thoughts?
Hi Dave, I've not really used filters on mine, but I tired just now and it did come free (with some force and the help of a rubber pad)... I believe a filter of some sort is neccessary for the optical formula of the lens, but you have to remove the neutral colour filter that's provided in order to use another one... Also, I've read that only slim filters will fit even then, but hopefully the Hoya one you have isn't much thicker than the NC one.
I think you just need to be persistent and get the 52mm NC filter off of the holder. If it's being really stubborn I reckon the way to go would be to use a pin tool (or wide tweezers) to remove the retaining ring and the filter glass, then you can use more force to remove the threaded ring. Either that, or get it done professionally or even look at getting a spare drop-in holder. Good luck with it!
Hi Geoff, thanks for taking the time to reply and trying it out. I'll give it another go with a rubber pad! The Hoya 52mm will definitely fit if the clear filter is out of the way. It almost fits stacked, which is why I was questioning how the filter holder is supposed to work. Thanks again, warmest, Dave
update: I managed to unscrew the Nikon clear filter and the Hoya went on like a dream!
That’s awesome - glad you got it sorted!
I will keep the both. 200-500 is almost not usable with low light, I had to shoot foxes puppies playing in the last sunset with very high ISO, and the image quality is not very good. WIth 300 2.8, even plus TC14, the image will be much better. When shooting in the woods, early morning, dusk or very cloudy weather, the 2.8 or 4 aperture becomes critical to get good image. Of course if you can afford both.
Yeah, I completely agree - the 200-500 was a great 'everyday carry' wildlife lens for me because of the versatility (now replaced by the 500mm PF), but in low light the extra stops of the 300mm f/2.8 are really worth having!
Good information so thank you 🤘
Have you ever tried the 300 f4 pf lens? Or passed it by. I was tempted to try one but wonder if it’s too lacking in dimensionality (pop).
I’ve not tried the 300PF but I’ve only heard good things about the image quality. When I got the 300mm f/2.8 I was quite specifically after a really fast lens for working in low light, and that extra stop of light is why I’m keeping it for now... There’s a shop event in a few weeks and I might get to try out 300PF there, so I’ll have to see if getting some hands on time with it changes my mind!
Geoff Cooper ok thanks. I know it’s very sharp but have been led to believe it’s very lacking in dimensionality maybe because of the element number. My understanding is it renders like a poor zoom yet with great sharpness. My old F4 screw drive one has great dimensionality and decent sharpness but bad CA and not quick to focus.
Interesting - that certainly gives me something to look out for if / when I get to play with one!
@@aussie8114 I have the 300mm F/4 PF. I think it takes stunning images that are razor sharp, but I concur with your assessment for the most part. Images can tend to look a bit flat or dead for some reason. However, I think it still has a niche purpose in the tool box as a fast action secondary cam. When I am shooting from a tripod with my 600mm Manual focus lens, I am often shooting closeups of perched birds. The 300 PF will be attached to my second camera hanging around my neck. If I see a larger bird fly by like a heron, egret, kite, etc, the 300 PF is so light that I can easiliy grab it, lock focus and rapid fire for some superbly sharp BIF images. Outside the 500PF I am not sure if there are many other lenses like this, however theres also the more narrow view of 500mm to consider. I personally think that 300 is perfect for birds in flight. i hope this helps a bit.
John Yentes Thanks. I understand fully your point. Even with a possible lack of dimensionality it serves a purpose with its sharpness and usability. My old 300 f4 and 180 f2.8 both have lovely dimensionality possibly helped by low element count, though it almost seems like bad CA goes along with good dimensionality. The sharpness of these 2 lenses is very nice at medium to longer distances but not so impressive at closer distances for some reason. I would snap up the new 300 if it appeared to have better pop but as it is I might somehow need to test it first to compare it with my desires. The new 500 is too costly in my country at $6,000 as an amateur.
...hi...!
...i am going to make the same decision...but i think the af speed would be much better (300mm + 2x)...with my d850 or my d500...
...good wishes from germany...
...chris
Thanks! Yeah, I think the speed drop in AF is less apparent with the DSLRs using the 2x converter than on these first mirrorless cameras from Nikon. I was also very happy to have the 300mm because the f/2.8 allowed me to keep shooting in much lower light when we were watching bears!
...i use the old 300mm f2,8 afd in the moment...(+300 f4+200-500 f5,6)...but this new 300mm with the converters would be my dream:)...
...i can understand that you use the z cameras because of the video ability...
...i only try to catch moments...
...but i like your youtube vids very much...and your photos too;)
If I remember correctly the AF-D 300mm f/2.8 is a stunning lens but is a little slower for AF than the more modern AF-S versions. There’s been rumours of a new 300mm f/2.8 FL lens sometime in the future so when that happens, I guess the second hand market for previous AF-S versions will be good...
Since, as you note, I’m using a Z camera, I can’t use any AF-D lenses except in manual mode. One of a few disadvantages compared to DSLRs, but the ability to shoot good video straight through the viewfinder and just switch to taking still photos with one button press is very very nice and the reason I changed to this camera!
@@GeoffCooper bingo!
Wow the TC really kills the AF on the 300!
Yeah, it TCs really made a big difference on that setup, especially the 2x!
@@GeoffCooper I now have a Z8 with the 1.4x TC + FTZ. I'm loving the combo. But I've also got the 500mm. I think if I desperately need the extra 80mm reach, I could go for the 200-500, but there's not a huge difference between 420mm and 500mm, and I think I'd prefer the IQ of the 300 2.8 @ 420, rather than the 200-500mm @ 500mm. The other advantage at 420 is that you get it at f/4, rather than 500 at 5.6, which is twice the light with only 80mm penalty.
The versatility of the zoom is nice but for all intents and purposes, if you don't need that, 300 with 1.4x TC is a no brainer I think :)
@@sinetwo that's a fair way to look at it.. Of course as of today there is also the new Z 180-600mm, but again that suffers from being fairly slow in terms of aperture. Of the different lenses I've had and then sold, the 300mm f/2.8 is probably the one I've missed the most - it seems like every hide I've visited is 'set up' for 300mm and of course f/2.8 is always nice to have!
@@GeoffCooper Totally agree - I think I'd rather go for the 400 4.5 to complement the 300 if needed, but with the TC, the 400 4.5 is basically the same as the 300 2.8 + 1.4x TC, so really I feel like 300 + 1.4x TC gives a surprising amount of versatility and light. But yes, the 180-600 seems like a good lens, but it's incredibly slow. The old me would not say that, but the shots I get with the 2.8 is not even comparable to those I get with 200-500. And now I'm shooting a lot more back lit and challenging lighting photography, so I miss the extra gazillion stop lights with the 2.8 compared to 5.6 :)
@@sinetwo Yeah, having shot the 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8 for a while I really understand why these are the best when you can justify the size, weight and cost... I feel the 400mm f/4.5 is a good compromise and I don't feel like I even want the 180-600mm for a review. That was basically sealed the moment Ricci said in his review that the image quality of the 400mm f/4.5 + 1.4xTC was comparable or better than that of the 180-600mm...
Great video but why not post comparisons side by side so we can actually compare the images as opposed to trying to remember what the frame before looked like?
Thanks Zeppy, I totally agree and will definitely do side-by-side comparisons in the next video I do with equipment comparisons... I simply didn’t think it through when I made this!!
@@GeoffCooper No worries mate and looking forward to your next video :-)
Hi Geoff, love your videos. Here's a question for you. In the summer I bought the 500 PF and love it, especially for taking on a riverside stroll. But with the poor light later in the year I decided I needed something faster. I found an old 200 f2 at an absolute bargain price (not what I was looking for but just too tempting!) but, of course, I'm losing a lot of reach. I tried it with a 2x TC which gave a lovely bokeh but I couldn't get it sharp (probably because I'm too old and feeble!). I'll keep it for other subjects but now I'm wondering if this 300 f2.8 with a 2x TC will be too big and slow for things like kingfishers, Red Kites in flight and small birds like Stonechats and tits. Does it have a focus limiter, if so did you try it and did it make a significant difference?
Or... would a 200-400 f4 with a 1.4x TC be a better solution? But then we're back up to f5.6 so that's not logical. So, then, a 400 f2.8 sounds scrumptious but too heavy. Oh, the brain ache!
Thanks :) Hope there will be more of them in the coming months! I think a lot depends on the body you're using - on a high-end DSLR you can probably get reasonable AF with the 2x TC on say the 300mm f/2.8 as long as there's reasonable light, but with that combination I'd definitely suggest checking the AF calibration is spot-on... On a Z camera, other than the brand new Z9 apparently, the 2x TC is going to make things quite slow, though it'll work in lower light.
I've not really tried focus limiters, and in my shooting, focus loss tends to be to the distant background and back to subject, so I'm not sure how much difference cutting off the closer distances would make..
It's a tough problem for sure and the answer of course is there's no such thing as an everything lens! I think the 500mm PF is probably better than any of the 'big' glass for fast moving subjects because handholding is just always going to be more versatile and probably quicker than moving a gimbal... then it's a light / ISO / shutter tradeoff...
I would say that the 200-400mm f/4 is a big heavy lens, bigger than the 300mm for sure. My take on it was that if I'm going to have a big heavy lens, it may as well be an absolute beast and that's the justification for having the 400mm f/2.8G VR as well as the 500mm PF... If I had to only keep one it would be the 500 though!
@@GeoffCooper thanks for replying. A Z9 is on order (since launch day) but until it arrives I'm using a D850. Someone suggested using a flash with the 500 PF when the light is a problem so I'll look into that. I ought to learn more about using flash anyway. I'll also try the 300 PF with an aggressive crop!
Thanks for your thoughts, much appreciated.
@@WIDGI interestig idea re. the flash - I guess the subject would need to be pretty close or you could use a 'better beamer' or equivalent flash lens... I think it would be a neat symmetry using a fresnel flash collimator (which is what the type I've encountered basically are) along with the fresnel element lens :)
Hope your Z9 arrives soon - I too ordered on day 1 (within about 30mins of the announcement) but have yet to hear any news on my weekly call to pester the camera store about it!
@@GeoffCooper hi Geoff. I ended up buying a used 500mm f4 and the difference between that and the 500PF is just astonishing! Being impatient I put the lens on the D850, opened my back door and took a shot of a pigeon in a tree 50 metres away. It's not going to win any awards but with a bit of work in post it would be OK. I would try with the PF to compare but I don't want to take this lens off. Ever! Such fun! Thanks again for your help.
@@WIDGI Great stuff - enjoy! The image quality with the big primes really is something else and while the 500 PF is good, they are better... they're also just a lot less convenient to carry around!
why not put the photos side by side?! so that we can see the differences clearly.
Indeed why not - that's exactly what I have done in later videos and should have done in this one!
It’s all about budgeting, if you’ve got the money to invest then buy the best however the 200-500 is perfect for someone just getting started into wildlife photography or just wants an all round easy lens to work with. Great work though you’ve definitely compared the two brilliantly
Thanks - glad you liked the comparison :) I totally agree, the 200-500 is a great lens and versatile too - I could easily go out for a day with only the 200-500, but with the 300 I'd always want teleconverters and probably a smaller lighter lens for just pottering about with...
Wow - you did a great job with the video edit and the background music there :) I use a Sigma 160-600 C on a D7500, its a great combo but I wonder sometimes if the Nikkor 200-500 would be sharper at 500 5.6. Definetly hoping for that 500PF at some day though! :P
Thanks Dirk 😀 The 200-500 might well be a little sharper than the Sigma 150-600 C but on the other hand that extra 100mm reach is worth having. The 500 PF is in a different league - as it really should be for the price difference!!
I feel if I was going for a zoom in that range right now I'd probably test the Tamron 150-600 G2 lens...
@@GeoffCooper heard varying infos about the Tamron G2, some are really happy, some prefer the Sigma C. But from what I've read the Sigma is definetly sharper on the longer end, that's why I went for that one. You should wait and get the Nikkor 200-600 Z lens when it will be out.. in like a year or so?! :-D
@@DirkDien yeah, I've heard mixed reviews too.. Well, yes there is that... and it's why I said if I was getting one now... ;)
I have the 200-500 zoom and love it. However I also have the 400/2.8 and it is amazing. I use the 400 with TC’s and works great.
Awesome - I’ve heard the 400mm f/2.8 is in another league all together! Can’t justify owning one but would love to test one out some time!!
Geoff Cooper yes they are expensive, I bought mine used and saved a bunch. Only down side is the weight, but amazing images made with it.
I have heard it’s more the Adapter to fit a DSLR lenses onto mirrorless cameras, that affects the autofocus speed across some of the lenses. Have you tested both lenses on a standard DSLR? I am really torn between 300mm and the 500mm PF
I think it's more than anything the fact that the f-mount lenses are designed to work with the phase-detect AF of DSLRs and this is basically faster, while the mirrorless cameras use contast-detect on the sensor... I believe (guess) that the reason the native lenses work faster on the mirrorless bodies is that they are /really/ fast at focussing and are optimised for the mirrorless way of doing it.. Back to your question though, I have not tried the lenses on a DSLR as I don't have one, but I have read that both are pretty fast, with the 300 being faster.
@@GeoffCooper ahh that makes sense. I think I’m set on trying to secure the 500mm PF!! Once they become available again
@@GeoffCooper now I’m looking at Nikon Z7s 😂. Do you think you would ever go back to a DSLR?
@@andg80 I don't think so now - I really like the advantages of mirrorless :)
Hi Geoff. First of all, you managed to pull of a very nice informative video. I do have some comments on your results with the 300mm + TC20III. You got some very nice results with this combination. However, the user experiences with this combination are somewhat mixed. I tested this combination as well. It seems that up to about 10m the resolution and contrast is very good at f5.4. This is basicly what you tested in this video. However, at longer distances this combination behaves differently. Some resolution and contrast is lost if the focus is further than roughly 10m. You can stop down to f11 for improvement in mostly contrast and some resolution. From approx. 20m and further focus it does not matter if you stop down. The contrast takes a hit and the images are too soft (lowest resolution i have seen in my life). I tested this on a dx body. In my opinion it useful for birding from blinds under good lighting conditions and not so much for other things.
Thanks A G, that's a really interesting observation about the contrast drop-off beyond 20m... I have had some acceptable results with the 2x and the 300mm at longer ranges, but they were never spectacular images. I have to admit I assumed it was atmospheric effects rather than the lens and converter not being sharp, but I will definitely have to look into it more.
Great video, only reason I was going to downvote it was the fact that 200-500mm is NOT weather sealed. That's an important mistake to make, it could literally cost someone $1200, when they decide to buy one and or use the one they already have and take into rain or whatever bad weather situation and learn the hard way that it's not weather sealed, so you have to be more careful. Some beginners watch people like you and they trust whatever you say and that can lead to them damaging gear, because they hear you say one thing, but reality is another thing if you know what I mean! I know it was just an innocent mistake, but it could be a costly mistake for someone who listens and got their 200-500mm lens all wet in a downpour of rain, thinking the lens is weather resistant when its actually not. Although it's a sharp lens, I would never buy or use the 200-500mm lens, it's focus motor is juts too slow for sports and birds in fight, etc. Plus it's a consumer grade lens with poor weather sealing, poor build quality and a plastic extending barrel that takes multiple turns to get from 200mm to 500mm. For not much more money than a new Nikon 200-500mm lens, I'd highly recommend people save up and buy a used Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR lens or used 300mm f/2.8G VR! For about $500m more you'll get a much faster, professional build quality weather sealed lens!
That's very interesting information Patrick, I genuinely believed the lens to be weather sealed - not to the standard of the big pro lenses, and of course the extending barrel zoom makes that difficult, but still fine in a shower etc. Obviously it's not waterproof, but it has all the external signs of being a weather sealed lens: a gasket at the mount, a rubber seal at the front element, and, I have read, o-rings in the zoom mechanism, so I'm surprised when you say it is not. Also, I've had that lens in some shocking weather and there have never been any issues - I am always careful to dry everything off afterwards of course - and it certainly is better sealed than the old AF-D 80-400mm lens that I had before it.. Anyway, I agree that the 200-400mm f/4 or 300mm f/2.8 would have even higher build quality, but the weight of those would make it much less convenient to carry / hand-hold, so the 200-500mm is still one to recommend.
I have both Lenses and use them on D4s, D850 and Z6. Real life situation with the TC 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 all the latest versions. The 300 f2.8 with all 3 TC's on all three bodies is not only faster but focus accuracy is also substantially better. I have used the 300 f2.8 for almost 12 yrs in different models. I like the 200-500 for its versatility and shoot them side by side. In Africa we mostly shoot from an SUV for obvious reasons. In those conditions I never change lenses or TC's due to dust. The 300 vr system is old compared to the 200-500.
Thanks for your comment and insights. While I had had the 200-500mm for years, the 300 was pretty new to me when I made this.. I totally agree that in the situation where there is dust preventing lens changes (here in Scotland the cause is more often heavy rain), the only way to go is the zoom, or indeed two bodies side by side..
Very interesting comparison, Geoff. On a side note, I see that you’re using the Z7. I don’t know whether you’ve got both, but I would’ve thought the Z6 would’ve been the better fit for a wildlife photographer based on its low light performance. I’d love to hear your reasons for using the Z7.
Thanks. I had two main reasons for getting the Z7 over the Z6: Firstly I hadn't had a full frame body before so I was worried about losing reach, so wanted to have something that would still have plenty of resolution in DX mode. The second reason is one of availability, I managed to get the Z7 kit second hand from someone who had got it at release, tested for a while, and decided against it. I've not had a chance to try out a Z6 but so far my experience with the Z7 in low light had been pretty good.
Interesting points, Geoff. I agree about losing reach with full frame. Not a problem for landscape shooters really, but wildlife is a different matter. I haven't got any full frame kit, so thanks for explaining your thoughts about it.
Geoff Cooper definitely a major selling point for high MP full frame is that you have basically 2 focal lengths for each lens.
With a Z7 you have about 20mp dx... for that exact reason I have been wanting to get a D850 and sell my D500.
Jesse H That’s a great way to look at it, Jesse. It really hadn’t occurred to me.
Yes, that’s exactly how I use it, especially for video! Additionally, the advantage of the Z7 EVF is that the field of view adapts to the crop mode rather than greying out the edges as on the DSLRs
Sorry have to disagree with you. Even the 300 f2.8 with TC 2.0iii is not only sharper but the focus speed is faster and more accurate then the 200-500. I have used both extensively over that past 4 yrs side by side in all conditions. On the Z Bodies the TC's have a negative effect on focus speed but on DSLR bodies there is no comparison. These two lenses fall into different budgets and both are very good lenses. I don't mind using any of the two in any condition. The 500 f5.6 pf again on the Z bodies is disappointing ito low light focus. I have just sold my 500f5.6 as on the Z bodies the focus is no different from the 200-500 and sharpness wise the difference does not justify the money difference. Again, these lenses are designed for F mount and on F mount bodies they are all very good. If I was going to change over 100% to the Z bodies I will wait to see what the 200-600 S lens would be like beforeibuy the 500pf. In my view the 200-500 and 500 pf perform at same level on the Z bodies and the 500 f5.6 price difference does not justify the spend. The f2.8 and f4 primes however is a different story due to the incredible fast focus and sharpness.
Well, I hope I was careful to say that everyone's mileage may vary and there can be a tremendous difference from one copy of a lens to another. I completely agree that both are great lenses, but I just consistently found it harder to lock focus with the 300 + TC in my tests. It wasn't a big difference though and I could believe that my kit might act differently enough to yours to see a different trend.. Can't agree re the 500 PF vs 200-500 on the Z7 though - perhaps my 200-500 was a bit tired and battered by the end, but it was a night and day difference in image quality when I changed over! Also, while the low light AF isn't as good as the 300 2.8, the draw of the 500 PF for me was always the weight and size, so I can see myself keeping it for a while.
The 200-600 does look very interesting but I don't think we're likely to see it in the shops for quite a long time...
The teleconverters are in theory a great idea, but in reality they really degrade the quality... unless you're not that picky. I would rather have the 500 PF than the 300 f/2.8 with a TC.
Yeah, I agree the 500PF blows the 300 with teleconverters away most of the time, but the reason for these kind of tests is to know how close the quality might be if you don't have access to the top-of-the-line equivalent... Having said that, I have found that the TCs do seem to work better on the mirrorless system compared to my previous DSLRs, I guess because there is less likely to be any autofocus calibration issue when the AF is done on the sensor..
Regarding being not that picky... I am fairly picky, but I'd rather capture the moment at a slightly lower quality compared to not having the shot at all!
Interesting video Geoff, would be worth trying the same with the D5oo if you still have it. The 500 PF looks great but its impossible to find one at the moment! then there is the price!
Thanks! That would be interesting but sadly I don't have the D500 anymore. The 500 PF has a wait time of around 5 months in the UK (I have in fact just received one) and yes, to even consider getting it a fair amount of my other kit found its way onto eBay!
...yes...the af speed is nothing for action...but the biggest disadvantage is that the converters only work manually...
...so i think i must invest a little bit more...in one of the newer versions...(my wife will kill me)...
...but i think ist a future proof investment...(more proof than new cameras)...gw
...but i find a information in the net about nikons new patends:
...400mm and 600mm pf 5,6...
...i find this before the 500pf came out...so iam sure they will produce a 600mm pf (this would be fantastic)...
@@chriswildlife8826 Yeah, glass holds value way better than camera bodies... A 600mm PF at f/5.6 would be very interesting but also so would a 400mm, especially if it was at f/4 to directly compete with the Canon 400mm DO lens!