# Nikkor lens comparisons 200mm vs 300mm



## kundalini (Dec 31, 2008)

There's been a few threads recently about telephoto lenses, teleconverters and what reach you get. Well, I was bored. This isn't scientific at all and not really fair because one lens is a prime and the other is a zoom, but it's what I've got.

All shots taken with the D300 mounted on a tripod. The shooting distance was 6'-6" (1.98m) from subject to center column of tripod. I chose this distance because at 510mm, the glass filled the frame.

These have only been resized and no editing.....SOOC.... okay, one exception...WB is set at 5650K in Lightroom. I also thought it would be funny to have shots of a shot. 


*Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8*​*......................................f/4..........................................................................f/8...........................................................................f/22.......................*









 
*Nikkor 300mm f/4*​*......................................f/4..........................................................................f/8...........................................................................f/22.......................*








 

So then I figured that I'd slap on the Nikkor TC-17EII 1.7x Teleconverter.​ 
*Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 (effective 340mm focal length)*​*..................................f/6.3..........................................................................f/8......................................................................f/22.......................*​











*Nikkor 300mm f/4 (effective 510mm focal length)*​*......................................f/6.7..........................................................................f/8...........................................................................f/22.......................*








 



Is this of any value to you? Probably not, but again, I was bored.​ 
..... and I'm a huge Tarheels fan. ​


----------



## epp_b (Dec 31, 2008)

All I'll say is that those lenses have some creamy smooth bokeh!

_*me wants long fast prime*_


----------



## Overread (Dec 31, 2008)

Nice!  good to see a 1.7TC in use - seen a lot of 1.4 and 2* but less of the 1.7.

Also since it would be a great idea to add some 100%crops for each comparison shot - that way we can get a look at the quality at fullsize and not just resized full images


----------



## Joves (Dec 31, 2008)

Well that was a nice little comparison. Thanx!


----------



## kundalini (Jan 1, 2009)

epp_b said:


> All I'll say is that those lenses have some creamy smooth bokeh!
> 
> _*me wants long fast prime*_


Yes, the bokeh is pretty sweet on both lenses.



Joves said:


> Well that was a nice little comparison. Thanx!


Thank you for looking.



Overread said:


> Nice!  good to see a 1.7TC in use - seen a lot of 1.4 and 2* but less of the 1.7.
> 
> Also since it would be a great idea to add some 100%crops for each comparison shot - that way we can get a look at the quality at fullsize and not just resized full images


As requested"

*Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 @ f/8 - 200mm - 100% crop*


 

*Nikkor 300mm f/4 @ f/8 - 100% crop*


 

*Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 @ f/8 (effective 340mm focal length) - 100% crop*


 

*Nikkor 300mm f/4 @ f/8 (effective 510mm focal length) - 100% crop*


 


I don't think the degradation is too bad with the 1.7TC. The edge of the lettering on the glass is jagged when viewed under a magnifying glass.​ 
What do you think?​


----------



## Garbz (Jan 1, 2009)

What is wrong with your 70-200 f/2.8 at f/8!

Try that again and see if it was camera shake or if there is something wrong with it. That  is not even in the slightest the level of performance expected of that lens.


----------



## skiboarder72 (Jan 1, 2009)

I agree, I don't think the 1.7x makes too big of a difference, thanks for posting this!


----------

