300 PF + 1.4x and 200-500 - difference in image sizes and quality

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
graemechapman
graemechapman Regular Member • Posts: 171
300 PF + 1.4x and 200-500 - difference in image sizes and quality
2

Thought I'd check how these two perform at 10metre subject distance, a rough average of how close I can get to my birds in the wild (usually closer)

Not as much difference in image size as I previously thought.

Using the figures from the measures included in the images, the image from the 200-500 is only 1.15x larger than that from the 300 PF + 1.4x. Assuming the 300 PF with 1.4x is actually 420mm, that makes my 200 - 500 only 487 at full zoom, no doubt because of focus breathing.

More interesting is the difference in colour rendering - quite blue with the 300PF + 1.4x and neutral to warm with the 200-500.

To me that difference in focal length is insignificant and certainly not worth toting the 200-500 around unless you want to add a 1.4x to achieve 700 mm which does affect the performance of that lens.

So, for a significant increase in focal length, you need 600 mm. At 600 mm lenses become unwieldy and not for hand holding, certainly not for me.

The outcome is I'll spend more time out there and less time and money researching that ever bigger lens.

Even the predicted 500 PF won't solve this one. With a 1.4x it will be effectively f/8 and still struggle to focus. And my prediction on price for this one will be AU$6000.

D500 + 200-500 at full zoom at 10 metres

D500 + 300 PF and 1.4x at 10 metres.

Nikon D500
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow