Quote (Boochie @ Oct 9 2015 03:06pm)

Yeah I might add the 300mm to my arsenal later on in life. lol

Quote (Canadian_Man @ Oct 10 2015 02:21pm)

It's too bad there aren't 400mm f5.6 vibration reduction lenses at a price-point of around $1000, and 600mm f5.6 vibration reduction lenses at a price-point of around $2000. That would change the whole game.

I have a 150-600 Sigma Contemporary lens. A wonderful lens, but at 500mm gets 9.75 equivalent megapixels of sharpness (stopped down), and at 600mm about 8.25 equivalent megapixels of sharpness. That is on a full frame DSLR. The equivalent sharpness will be significantly less on a crop sensor, since less of the glass is being used.

If the 300mm f4e lens by Nikon gets 16mp of equivalent sharpness or better, I would probably say it's just the better lens to go with. Granted, cropping in to 600mm would increase the appearance of noise, so shooting at f4 would render an image that has a depth of field that looks the same as f8 at a 600mm, and also appear as though your ISO were ~doubled.

I think in the end if you want to do wildlife, pick up a 150-600mm lens, it's cheaper and it's meant for wildlife :) But a 300mm f4e is on my dream list of lenses as well. I'll never buy one though... pretty sure.

Quote (Canadian_Man @ Oct 10 2015 02:21pm)

It's too bad there aren't 400mm f5.6 vibration reduction lenses at a price-point of around $1000, and 600mm f5.6 vibration reduction lenses at a price-point of around $2000. That would change the whole game.

I have a 150-600 Sigma Contemporary lens. A wonderful lens, but at 500mm gets 9.75 equivalent megapixels of sharpness (stopped down), and at 600mm about 8.25 equivalent megapixels of sharpness. That is on a full frame DSLR. The equivalent sharpness will be significantly less on a crop sensor, since less of the glass is being used.

If the 300mm f4e lens by Nikon gets 16mp of equivalent sharpness or better, I would probably say it's just the better lens to go with. Granted, cropping in to 600mm would increase the appearance of noise, so shooting at f4 would render an image that has a depth of field that looks the same as f8 at a 600mm, and also appear as though your ISO were ~doubled.

I think in the end if you want to do wildlife, pick up a 150-600mm lens, it's cheaper and it's meant for wildlife :) But a 300mm f4e is on my dream list of lenses as well. I'll never buy one though... pretty sure.

Quote (Boochie @ Oct 20 2015 08:43am)

Think I may go with the Tamron 150-600. It's a lot cheaper and I hear it's the same, just tamron is easier to deal with.