300PF sharpness vs 200-500

[xPhoenix]

For those of you who have tried both, do you find this accurate? The resolution tests on Photography Life show that the 300+1.4TC is actually a bit sharper than the 200-500 at 500mm. Now I know it's 420mm vs 500mm, so not exactly apples to apples, but this is how I'd be using the lens most of the time.

I rented the PF a while back, and when compared, I thought the 200-500 looked sharper in some cases, but now that I look back at those images, I think the focus points might have been slightly different.

 

[briantilley]

For those of you who have tried both, do you find this accurate? The resolution tests on Photography Life show that the 300+1.4TC is actually a bit sharper than the 200-500 at 500mm. Now I know it's 420mm vs 500mm, so not exactly apples to apples, but this is how I'd be using the lens most of the time.

I rented the PF a while back, and when compared, I thought the 200-500 looked sharper in some cases, but now that I look back at those images, I think the focus points might have been slightly different.

I'm not one for extensive testing or resolution charts, but I do own both 300mm f/4E PF and 200-500mm f/4.5E, and have used the 300mm with a TC-14E II (mote - not the later TC-14E III).

I would say that the charts do match my own experience.

Having said that, the difference is not huge, and resolution is not a factor for me in choosing which of the lenses to use for a particular shoot. I would favour the 300mm (with or without TC) for size, weight and AF speed, and the 200-500mm for flexibility.

 

[Tim S]

I like this answer as there's more to a lens than sharpness, I have both and enjoy them for their different characteristics. When choosing you need to ask yourself which is most useful to you, zoom or portability?

 

[larrywilson]

For those of you who have tried both, do you find this accurate? The resolution tests on Photography Life show that the 300+1.4TC is actually a bit sharper than the 200-500 at 500mm. Now I know it's 420mm vs 500mm, so not exactly apples to apples, but this is how I'd be using the lens most of the time.

I rented the PF a while back, and when compared, I thought the 200-500 looked sharper in some cases, but now that I look back at those images, I think the focus points might have been slightly different.

I'm not one for extensive testing or resolution charts, but I do own both 300mm f/4E PF and 200-500mm f/4.5E, and have used the 300mm with a TC-14E II (mote - not the later TC-14E III).

I would say that the charts do match my own experience.

Having said that, the difference is not huge, and resolution is not a factor for me in choosing which of the lenses to use for a particular shoot. I would favour the 300mm (with or without TC) for size, weight and AF speed, and the 200-500mm for flexibility.

I don't put too much importance on resolution charts. One reason is the optical quality of a same model lens may vary quite a bit. When I buy a lens I look at sharpness charts as general information, but I am more interested in other attributes such as auto focus speed, build, water resistance and operational aspects. I also assume that a good quality single focal lens will most the time beat a zoom lens.

Larry

 

[MrWinnieThePooh]

Having said that, the difference is not huge, and resolution is not a factor for me in choosing which of the lenses to use for a particular shoot. I would favour the 300mm (with or without TC) for size, weight and AF speed, and the 200-500mm for flexibility.

I agree 100%. The IQ difference between the 300mm + 1.4 against the 200-500 at 420mm is minimal and this should not be a factor in deciding which lens to use.

I also have both lenses and most of the time I prefer the 300mm due to its compactness. I use the 200-500mm either when the flexibility of a zoom is required, or when I require 500mm.

 

[xPhoenix]

Thanks for the replies! Any of you using this on a D8xx body? Supposedly, those had the worse issue with VR from 1/80 to 1/160.

 

[PatMann]

As long as the target field of view matches that of the prime fairly closely, of course a good prime will usually outshoot a good zoom at the same focal length.

If you're cropping out half the pixels from the prime for your image, and can zoom in on that field with the zoom, not so much. If you're shooting from and to a fixed location and have matched your prime to your field and your subject, great. If you're walking and shooting a variety of birds ranging from hummingbirds to cranes between 15 and 1200 feet away, the zoom has a big advantage. AF speed and lens speed are other factors that may weigh in favor of the prime and give more keepers in some cases, though adding a TC compromises both of those advantages.

Each lens has its place. I love my 200-500 with the D500, but sometimes would like to have a 300 f/2.8 for the full frame camera as well.

 

[larrywilson]

As long as the target field of view matches that of the prime fairly closely, of course a good prime will usually outshoot a good zoom at the same focal length.

If you're cropping out half the pixels from the prime for your image, and can zoom in on that field with the zoom, not so much. If you're shooting from and to a fixed location and have matched your prime to your field and your subject, great. If you're walking and shooting a variety of birds ranging from hummingbirds to cranes between 15 and 1200 feet away, the zoom has a big advantage. AF speed and lens speed are other factors that may weigh in favor of the prime and give more keepers in some cases, though adding a TC compromises both of those advantages.

Each lens has its place. I love my 200-500 with the D500, but sometimes would like to have a 300 f/2.8 for the full frame camera as well.

 

[xPhoenix]

Yeah, as far as flexibility, the zoom wins, but I find that I spend at least 90% of my time at 500mm, then I zoom back to 200mm when carrying, then back to 500 when shooting, so I think not having to zoom at all might be a nice break.

If I can get practically the same sharpness from the 300PF + TC @420mm that I can get out of the 200-500, I think I'll be happy. The D850 allows quite a bit of cropping. I'm just a little nervous about the "VR issue", as it seems to affect some lenses and bodies, but not others. I guess if I get it, and it has the problem, I just return it. The weight reduction is a HUGE advantage, IMO.

 

[MrWinnieThePooh]

Thanks for the replies! Any of you using this on a D8xx body? Supposedly, those had the worse issue with VR from 1/80 to 1/160.

Yes, I have used the 300mm f/4 PF (a later version with the supposed VR fix) on both a D800 and D850. My impression used to be that the results on the D800 in the region of 1/100 were not that good, whereas I am very satisfied with the results on the D850 at any (reasonable) shutter speed. However, I have not done any formal verification of this perceived improvement with the D850, so it may be complete nonsense.

 

[briantilley]

Thanks for the replies! Any of you using this on a D8xx body? Supposedly, those had the worse issue with VR from 1/80 to 1/160.

I haven't seen any evidence of the reported VR problem with the 300mm f/4E PF, on a D3s, D5, D810 or D500. I haven't used it on the D850 yet.

 

[breivogel]

For those of you who have tried both, do you find this accurate? The resolution tests on Photography Life show that the 300+1.4TC is actually a bit sharper than the 200-500 at 500mm. Now I know it's 420mm vs 500mm, so not exactly apples to apples, but this is how I'd be using the lens most of the time.

I rented the PF a while back, and when compared, I thought the 200-500 looked sharper in some cases, but now that I look back at those images, I think the focus points might have been slightly different.

Why compare one lens at 420mm and the other at 500? Should have measurement of 200-500 at 420mm to be a valid comparison. Agree that the 300 +tc is a nice compact and light combination, though pretty expensive.

 

[xPhoenix]

For those of you who have tried both, do you find this accurate? The resolution tests on Photography Life show that the 300+1.4TC is actually a bit sharper than the 200-500 at 500mm. Now I know it's 420mm vs 500mm, so not exactly apples to apples, but this is how I'd be using the lens most of the time.

I rented the PF a while back, and when compared, I thought the 200-500 looked sharper in some cases, but now that I look back at those images, I think the focus points might have been slightly different.

Why compare one lens at 420mm and the other at 500? Should have measurement of 200-500 at 420mm to be a valid comparison. Agree that the 300 +tc is a nice compact and light combination, though pretty expensive.

Well, I would most likely be shooting at the long end, so with the 500, I'd be at 500. I think the sharpness of the 200-500 is great at the long end, wide open, so that gives me a point of reference. If the 300PF +TC does at least as well, I'll be happy, even though it's only 420mm.

That said, he did compare 500 vs 500, and the 200-500 won by a only few points, which was surprising (I thought it'd win by quite a bit when the 300 has a 1.7 TC). Some of it probably has to do with sample variation.

 

[larrywilson]

For those of you who have tried both, do you find this accurate? The resolution tests on Photography Life show that the 300+1.4TC is actually a bit sharper than the 200-500 at 500mm. Now I know it's 420mm vs 500mm, so not exactly apples to apples, but this is how I'd be using the lens most of the time.

I rented the PF a while back, and when compared, I thought the 200-500 looked sharper in some cases, but now that I look back at those images, I think the focus points might have been slightly different.

Why compare one lens at 420mm and the other at 500? Should have measurement of 200-500 at 420mm to be a valid comparison. Agree that the 300 +tc is a nice compact and light combination, though pretty expensive.

Well, I would most likely be shooting at the long end, so with the 500, I'd be at 500. I think the sharpness of the 200-500 is great at the long end, wide open, so that gives me a point of reference. If the 300PF +TC does at least as well, I'll be happy, even though it's only 420mm.

That said, he did compare 500 vs 500, and the 200-500 won by a only few points, which was surprising (I thought it'd win by quite a bit when the 300 has a 1.7 TC). Some of it probably has to do with sample variation.

The tc 1.7EII has always reduced the sharpness by more than with the tc 1.4EII or III. I sold my tc 1.7EII a long time ago when I had my d4 and 500 f4.0g lens because I could tell that there was a decrease in sharpness compared to the tc 1.4EII. If the Nikon 300 with a tc 1.7EIII compares almost to the sharpness of the 200-500 naked then the 300 has to be an excellent lens. You will lose a 1/2 stop using the tc 1.7 on the 300 compared to the 200-500.

Larry

 

[xPhoenix]

I'll probably just stick with the 1.4 on the 300 since I don't want to go slower than f/5.6. I found a review on another site that showed the 300 + TC1.7 vs the 500 bare, and the difference was very noticable. The 200-500 was much, much better. I'm not sure how much faith I put in that one test on Photography Life. Maybe he just got a really good 300 and a really poor 200-500. Anyway, as long as it does well with the TC 1.4, that should be fine.

 

[briantilley]

The tc 1.7EII has always reduced the sharpness by more than with the tc 1.4EII or III. I sold my tc 1.7EII a long time ago when I had my d4 and 500 f4.0g lens because I could tell that there was a decrease in sharpness compared to the tc 1.4EII. If the Nikon 300 with a tc 1.7EIII compares almost to the sharpness of the 200-500 naked then the 300 has to be an excellent lens.

There is no TC-17E III. The only version of that TC is the TC-17E II.

 

[larrywilson]

The tc 1.7EII has always reduced the sharpness by more than with the tc 1.4EII or III. I sold my tc 1.7EII a long time ago when I had my d4 and 500 f4.0g lens because I could tell that there was a decrease in sharpness compared to the tc 1.4EII. If the Nikon 300 with a tc 1.7EIII compares almost to the sharpness of the 200-500 naked then the 300 has to be an excellent lens.

There is no TC-17E III. The only version of that TC is the TC-17E II.

I got it right two times out of three didn't I ha ha???

 

[xPhoenix]

The tc 1.7EII has always reduced the sharpness by more than with the tc 1.4EII or III. I sold my tc 1.7EII a long time ago when I had my d4 and 500 f4.0g lens because I could tell that there was a decrease in sharpness compared to the tc 1.4EII. If the Nikon 300 with a tc 1.7EIII compares almost to the sharpness of the 200-500 naked then the 300 has to be an excellent lens.

There is no TC-17E III. The only version of that TC is the TC-17E II.

I got it right two times out of three didn't I ha ha???

 

[jbear]

Having both...and what I think are issue-free units of both. If I had to be at 500...I much prefer the output of the 200-500 @ 5.6 over the 300PF @ 6.7 or even 7.1, as it is much sharper (et. al) . My particular 200-500 is a little better at 5.6 than it is at 6.3, so it's 5.6 or 7.1 with that lens. The bare PF and the 14eIII (or II) PF is great and super-manageable (my favorite for hummingbirds and butterflies). The 17e...while being extremely good (after fine tuning) on the 500 G VR f4, 300 2.8 VRII, and 70-200VRII...is not great on my PF unless the light is very good (in which case it's good...not great)...for whatever reason that may be.

Another consideration...The VR on the 200-500 is significantly more effective than the PF lens. That may be a combination of better VR and the balance/heft/inertial properties of these two lenses.

I find these observations to hold true with all of my bodies.

 

[Hasa]

For those of you who have tried both, do you find this accurate? The resolution tests on Photography Life show that the 300+1.4TC is actually a bit sharper than the 200-500 at 500mm. Now I know it's 420mm vs 500mm, so not exactly apples to apples, but this is how I'd be using the lens most of the time.

I rented the PF a while back, and when compared, I thought the 200-500 looked sharper in some cases, but now that I look back at those images, I think the focus points might have been slightly different.

Why compare one lens at 420mm and the other at 500? Should have measurement of 200-500 at 420mm to be a valid comparison. Agree that the 300 +tc is a nice compact and light combination, though pretty expensive.

Well, I would most likely be shooting at the long end, so with the 500, I'd be at 500. I think the sharpness of the 200-500 is great at the long end, wide open, so that gives me a point of reference. If the 300PF +TC does at least as well, I'll be happy, even though it's only 420mm.

That said, he did compare 500 vs 500, and the 200-500 won by a only few points, which was surprising (I thought it'd win by quite a bit when the 300 has a 1.7 TC). Some of it probably has to do with sample variation.

The tc 1.7EII has always reduced the sharpness by more than with the tc 1.4EII or III. I sold my tc 1.7EII a long time ago when I had my d4 and 500 f4.0g lens because I could tell that there was a decrease in sharpness compared to the tc 1.4EII. If the Nikon 300 with a tc 1.7EIII compares almost to the sharpness of the 200-500 naked then the 300 has to be an excellent lens. You will lose a 1/2 stop using the tc 1.7 on the 300 compared to the 200-500.

Larry

Hi Larry,

You may have been unlucky with your sample of TC1.7x. I am quite happy with mine on first the 70-200mm F4 and now the 300mm PF F4. Subjectively it is probably a bit better on the 200mm end of the 70-200 than on the 300mm PF.

I am done reflecting on whether the 200-500 would be more or less sharp. Fact is there would be no picture at all with the 200-500 because I would not be carrying around all the time like I do with the 300 plus TC1.7 because of the added weight. I am also very fond of the added close focus capability shown here with the 70-200mm plus TC1.7.

The 300mm PF plus 1.7TC combo is so sharp in the center that sticking it on the D7200 (24Mpix aps-c) pulls in more detail than with a similar cutout of the world with an aps-c crop of 15 Mpix on the D800. So I have a lightyweight APS-C to FF equiv. crop of 750mm F6.7. The main problem now of course is finding the d... bird flitting about on the branches LOL - my technique is lacking.




D800 and 70-200mmF4 plus TC1.7x is 340mm

The real winner I think is the 300mm PF F4 and the D7200 or another APS-C and there is quite a pick now with all excellent sensors at any price point.


D7200 plus 300mm PF F4 is 450mm F4 FF equiv

Of course you can expect worse sharpness going from TC1.4 and up to 1.7 or even 2. That is a compromise like any other compromise we have to make and you are the only one to decide which solution is acceptable to you.

The rock was shot across a lake from the identical vantage point.




D7200 plus 300mm PF F4 plus TC 1.7x is 750mm FF equiv

This humming bird landed on a thistle quite close to me and (damn Nikon) every time I clanked my big mirror it flew away 2 metres and then came back 4 times and then its patience with Nikonøs delay in launching a silent! mirrorless FF ran out and it flew away.

Because the 300mm PF is light enough for me to carry with the strap wrapped around my neck and the camera lying on top of the backpack I was ready to shoot this short-lived opportunity. Focus is more on the thistle than on the stupid bird. I like thistles


D800 plus 300mmPF F4 plus TC1.7x



--
Smile and the world smiles back!