Hi Matt, I’ve got a 500pf and it’s now paired with my Z6ii. What can I say other than it’s incredibly sharp and light. Yes only f5.6 but very portable and more opportunities to use so imo it’s a win win. Love it 😍
I've had the 300PF for several years now - initially with my DSLRs (D500 & D850) and now with my Z6 & Z7ii (still waiting for the Z9 ordered at the beginning of November!!!). A really great lens, never disappoints. Works well with the 1.4x TC for 420mm f5.6 range giving better image quality that my 200-500f5.6 at the same focal length. Thanks for the video, Matt.
I have a 300 pf paired with a D500. It´s about the only lens I use together with my 105 micro 2.8 for wildlife and macro work while hiking. Love love love it.
I bought the F4 PF 300mm to use on my then Nikon 7500, beautiful results especially on safari in Botswana. Using the F4 on my Z5 with the FTZ adaptor has been very successful.
Love to see your experience with this lens for your uses. Even at f4 I do plan to use it for some 'action' portrait work at some point. I use this lens for wildlife (often with the 1.4 tc) when I get tired of carting the 180-400 in the gimbal on the end of the tripod over several kms.... It's a remarkably sharp lens, especially on its own. From the D6 to the Z9 I like the lens even more as I have far more room to crop to bring subjects closer in post. Cheers!
I've thought about getting this lens, Matt, for all the reasons you've cited! My main question is whether Nikon is getting ready to introduce something similar in the Z mount. I don't like using those FTZ adapters!
I have been loving my 300pf for years now! It’s a great lens in size, weight, travel ability, and performance. I did have issues with it on a D810, something with the focus that appeared to be not unique to me. No issues with a D610 or D850. Still awaiting my Zbody but the 300pf is one of the F mount lenses that I won’t be getting rid of.
good post Matt. My guess would be that folks with a 70-200 will likely gravitate towards the 500 pf - but I can see the 300 fitting in some collections. Good review, and something to think about.
I had been happy with the old non-pf 300mm and more recently bought the pf version. Same sharp qualities with portraits. So if someone can find the earlier version and want to save money, pick one up.
Hello Matt, The 300mm PF was a bit of a game changer for me. It is so light and small with very good image quality with some strange highlights on odd occasions. Yes it a lens I have had and used for a long time, and soon after it I started emailing Nikon to make a 500mm pf which as we know they did, and that to is a lens the os just amazing at its price point. Keep well, keep safe and enjoy life. ps I have both the 300mm pf and the 500mm pf but no 800mm pf (out of my budget)
I have the 24-70 F4 lens and I have used it at night to film the Aurora Borealis and it does well. As for the PF 300 I think that would work well for my Astrophotography and wildlife shots. Definitely would add to my possibilities. Thanks for sharing Matt. Can’t wait for your full test on it
It additionally makes a wonderful closeup lens that can be used with rings. The quality of the images I get far surpass those obtained with my Z 70-200mm f/2.8 for that purpose. I also use it for fast flying birds when shooting up close, under 15 meters for swallows and the like. I regret that Nikon does not make a Z 300mm 2.8 PF and Z 500mm f/4 PF. Sure somewhat longer and heavier but could be fast action killers. I am most often happy being limited to 720mm but would love the extra stop of light on the 500mm lens.
I own the 300 PF which I shot extensively with and without the 1.4 TC on my D500's. It is not used much now that I have the 500 PF but it does get broken out in low light and in situations where I need a wider field of view. It is very handy to have in a pouch on my waist belt for exchange with the 70-200 f4 on my second camera, or as part of my landscape kit in the bag.
Very good, Matt. I have both the 300 & 500mm PF lenses. Still waiting for the details on the upcoming 800mm PF. The 500 PF is ideal on the Z9, now that DxO Pure RAW has been updated.
I have the 300 PF. It's great. Couldn't afford the 500 PF at the time. Will trade-in the 300 and 70-200 when my 100-400 Z arrives. Then I'll be a 2-lens bloke with the aforementioned and my 28-70mm Z.
Hi Matt great content! I own bothe the 300mm pf and the 500mm pf . I use them primarily for wild life ... love them both... best purchase I made. I also have the 500mm f4 ... but these lenses give me more mobility
Hello Matt, I use a 500 f/5.6 PF on a D780. Thank you for inspiring me to try it at night. And thank you for inspiring me to visit Melbourne. And for you videos.
I came close to buying the 500mm f/5.6 E PF ED VR last summer when it was on sale for $4399CA. Still trying to decide between it and the Z 100-400 w/ teleconverter. Latter is more versatile but 500 maintains the 5.6 aperture. Hmmmm.
interesting how in 2023 this lens is still very relevant and still the gem it was since released. Not night photography but I'm using mine for small birds in heavy canopy forest scene where the f/4 shines at 450mm pairing up with my trusty, a bit outdated tech, D7000 getting 1/125 to 1/400 speed handheld, not to mention the VR is excellent!
Nice Vid Matt - I have it - but like my 300mm f/2.8G VRII rarely use it. The real challenge for f/4 is to use it for indoor sports/action etc. when you need higher shutter speeds in "crappy" light. F4 -vs- F2.8 -vs- F2.0 on my 200mm. I find that I am using my Stubby on the Z9 and while it is huge and heavy - it is soooo sharp. I find that when testing with Focal my AFS 200/2.0G VRII (-2), Z70-200/2.8 (-1), 300/2.8GVRII (+1), 400/2.8EFL(+2) and 600/4EFL(+2) - when mounted on my Z9 all needed small/tiny AF fine-tune adjustments to find their very sharpest operating point. My Z mount S-line lenses also benefited from a tiny help 24-70/2.8 -1 at 24mm and +1 at 70mm , 70-200/2.8 -1 at all ranges and 105/2.8 +1. These are almost nothing compared to optimal AF-fine tune settings for the same/similar lenses on a D810. I will be working through the rest of my Z-mount and F-mount primes and zooms over then next few weeks -- including the 300/PF. Have you tried it (300PF) with a 3rd party lens collar/foot -- for added stability and less stress on the lens mount? (ishoot and others seem to work OK)
If I had a PF lens I’d likely keep it, but I think I’m only investing in Z lenses from here forward. I have 2 longer F lenses that I’ll likely replace, 70-300 & 200-500, but I’m in no rush because they’re both fast / quiet / sharp. Thanks for your vid’s Matt!
It is so tempting, I have an old all metal ED AF 300mm F4, it is so sharp & used with a D700 & D810, obviously it would fit into my bag easier & of course the D810 sensor compared to what I was used to for so many years has additional advantages & the evolving processing programs.
I am a prime guy but only because of the brightness advantage of primes. When a prime is 3.5 or higher, the appeal goes away and I start comparing them against more useful zooms. I am happy with the quality of my Sigma contemporary 150-600mm from both a usability and value for money perspectives.
I photograph (almost exclusively) dragonflies in flight. The hardest aspect of this task is to point the camera in the right direction (I'm talking about full-whizz, not hovering). I used to use the 300mm f/2.8 Vr. It was heavy to handhold for more than 10 minutes at a time, which meant when waiting for the next shot I wasn't holding it up to my shoulder. And it had so much inertia - following the dragonfly was really difficult. As soon as the 300 PF became available in Europe, I bought it - I knew it would be a huge game changer for me. It transformed my results. Now I can hold it up all day long and have no inertia problems. And a MUCH higher keeper rate (in terms of frames per hour).
Spot on! It additionally makes a wonderful closeup lens that can be used with rings. The quality of the images I get far surpass those obtained with my Z 70-200mm f/2.8 for that purpose. I also use it for fast flying birds when shooting up close, under 20 meters for swallows and the like.
it's a nice lens. I never really understand why these are so popular when zoom lenses offer so much more in terms of framing, composure etc etc. Is it that they're so much sharper than the zooms? I think the S zooms (for the Z mounts) are pretty sharp, The z 24-70 f2.8 is like a bunch of primes. I guess that's more difficult with those loner beasties? Maybe you could chat on it? cheers
I have the 300mm PF and am eagerly awaiting the 4-4.5/400mm Z that appeared on the roadmap. It is a nice little gem but somehow neither meat nor fish as we say in Germany. For portraits I prefer the 70-200mm focal range and for wildlife I want more than 400mm.
@Peter T - size and reach is what I would love for travel as well. The 400mm Z seems more along the size of the 70-200 2.8 judging by the lens roadmap pictures - just too large in my opinion. A Z 300mm f4 with a x1.7 converter would be perfect for me. Gives 510mm f6.7 and smallest possible solution. Guess not going to happen. I'm currently using a AF-P 70-300E on FTZ, the best compact tele for the time being. That 'time being' will last quite long I suspect...
@@marcusbraun8889 for travel I also use the AF-P 70-300mm. If I am not travelling I wish I had a 4/400mm with the option to go 560mm with tc 1.4 or even 800mm with tc 2.0. Just pack it and walk for not more than 2km will be fine for a starter in wildlife photography like me. Don’t want to spend 10k plus to try it out and realise I will stick to landscape and people ;)
The f lenses seem to work fine on the Z. You could compare the images taken with the 300 f4, with those taken with the 400 f2.8. And see if anyone can guess which is which.
May not have a valid need to buy one but, a PF Z telephoto would be most suitable for an old guy like me. Have seen many photos from the PF lenses in F mount and they are great. The owners tend to rave about them, as you do.
The 300PF balances perfectly with my D500 (there's about 30 grams difference between them), and getting an effective 450mm FoV for 1.5kg total mass is just insane. It also plays quite nicely with the 1.4 TCiii.
The 300mm and 500mm PF are great lenses - It will be interesting to see what Z lenses Nikon comes up with to replace them. As people move to the Z system the 300mm and 500mm PF lenses are great value and discounted like most older G/F glass...
Thé 500pf was great with the d850… do not know how… just better with the Z9! I had one of the first 300… loved the F4… but somewhat desapointed with the sharpening…. Years later, I had an opportunity to exchange my 80-400 for a new 300… was really better… I realized that all the copy are not always the same! Sold it and bought the 500pf… so good! Light and easy to carry!
At 9:36 he says "Affordable. Less expensive than if you bought a non PF lens". That's so not true. In fact the PF is 500$ more than the non PF and on the used market the PF is more than 2.5x the price of a used 300mm f/4 AFS non PF lens.
My wife uses the 300mm pf on the D500 and it is stunningly nimble and lightweight. Minimum focus distance is also really great. To me one of the most underrated lenses period. The only downside if there is any: with certain camera combinations (like D810) shutter shock will interfere with the VR at certain shutter speeds (1/60 to 1/160) resulting in blurred photos. Wife loves it, I love it... even tho it has that one downside.
@@MattIrwinPhotography I have one and it is awesome, you are right. My wife tried my Z9 but it is too heavy for her. She is pretty happy with the D500 anyways.
@@lcador9 True, however the only Z camera that surpasses the D500s AF performance is the Z9, and my wife does not like it. It is too heavy for her liking.
I struggle to figure out where this focal length fits in my camera bag. I have the 500pf and the 100-400 both of which really are excellent bird and wildlife lenses. I just don't see where the 300mm fits for me, but I'm attracted to it for its lightness and F4 aperture.
@@MattIrwinPhotography Wild birds in UK. But, I have kept the 300 and added other lenses that I never use (yet) because I will want to learn how to photograph other subjects in the fairly near future.
…hi matt…! …my 200-500 can do it better…! (even it is a f5,6) …sharp pictures you can get with 1/30 of a second…! …good wishes from germany chris ps: the pf lenses and the stabiliser from of the 200-500 is one reason why i stay with nikon for wildlife…;)
This ls a good lens, but the lightspots that aim towards the lens directly sucks...they are a mess..so blurry mass of light. ( minute 7.10 for instance among other examples that you provide)...and you say nothing about it. Cheers!!
iso 3200 is absolutely nothing with today's technology, iso 6000 would still look perfectly fine so not sure what you're going on about 3200 as if it's at the stupid end of the iso scale, nothing is sharp, that's either down to you not checking focus of the z9 not being all it's cracked up to be
I bought one 7 years ago, life happened, and I never used it! Now, I feel inspired to use it. Thanks for the inspiration!
Hi Matt, I’ve got a 500pf and it’s now paired with my Z6ii. What can I say other than it’s incredibly sharp and light. Yes only f5.6 but very portable and more opportunities to use so imo it’s a win win. Love it 😍
Thanks for including video samples even if it is just a quick af-c check!!! It is so hard to find proper examples for video focus. Cheers!!!!
I've had the 300PF for several years now - initially with my DSLRs (D500 & D850) and now with my Z6 & Z7ii (still waiting for the Z9 ordered at the beginning of November!!!). A really great lens, never disappoints. Works well with the 1.4x TC for 420mm f5.6 range giving better image quality that my 200-500f5.6 at the same focal length. Thanks for the video, Matt.
I have a 300 pf paired with a D500. It´s about the only lens I use together with my 105 micro 2.8 for wildlife and macro work while hiking. Love love love it.
hi matt i use the 300 and 500 pf for birding on a d500 and d850 they r so sharp i use them for macro love your channel from wellington new zealand
It’s so compact and optically it’s v sharp wide open, it’s sharpest aperture is just F5.6 so it’s a very convenient lens to use too. Good one Matt👏😀👍
I bought the F4 PF 300mm to use on my then Nikon 7500, beautiful results especially on safari in Botswana. Using the F4 on my Z5 with the FTZ adaptor has been very successful.
Love to see your experience with this lens for your uses. Even at f4 I do plan to use it for some 'action' portrait work at some point. I use this lens for wildlife (often with the 1.4 tc) when I get tired of carting the 180-400 in the gimbal on the end of the tripod over several kms.... It's a remarkably sharp lens, especially on its own. From the D6 to the Z9 I like the lens even more as I have far more room to crop to bring subjects closer in post. Cheers!
I've thought about getting this lens, Matt, for all the reasons you've cited! My main question is whether Nikon is getting ready to introduce something similar in the Z mount. I don't like using those FTZ adapters!
Looking at picking one of these up along with a 1.7tc to use with my Z6ii. Thanks for the great review.
Hi Matt, the 300 mm PF is one of my favorite lenses from Nikon!
I have been loving my 300pf for years now! It’s a great lens in size, weight, travel ability, and performance. I did have issues with it on a D810, something with the focus that appeared to be not unique to me. No issues with a D610 or D850. Still awaiting my Zbody but the 300pf is one of the F mount lenses that I won’t be getting rid of.
same here!
good post Matt. My guess would be that folks with a 70-200 will likely gravitate towards the 500 pf - but I can see the 300 fitting in some collections. Good review, and something to think about.
I had been happy with the old non-pf 300mm and more recently bought the pf version. Same sharp qualities with portraits. So if someone can find the earlier version and want to save money, pick one up.
Hello Matt, The 300mm PF was a bit of a game changer for me. It is so light and small with very good image quality with some strange highlights on odd occasions. Yes it a lens I have had and used for a long time, and soon after it I started emailing Nikon to make a 500mm pf which as we know they did, and that to is a lens the os just amazing at its price point. Keep well, keep safe and enjoy life. ps I have both the 300mm pf and the 500mm pf but no 800mm pf (out of my budget)
Hi Matt
I use my Nikon 300mm PF lens for shooting wildlife stills and birds in flight on a DX body and I love this lens, it's very sharp
I have the 24-70 F4 lens and I have used it at night to film the Aurora Borealis and it does well. As for the PF 300 I think that would work well for my Astrophotography and wildlife shots. Definitely would add to my possibilities. Thanks for sharing Matt. Can’t wait for your full test on it
It additionally makes a wonderful closeup lens that can be used with rings. The quality of the images I get far surpass those obtained with my Z 70-200mm f/2.8 for that purpose. I also use it for fast flying birds when shooting up close, under 15 meters for swallows and the like. I regret that Nikon does not make a Z 300mm 2.8 PF and Z 500mm f/4 PF. Sure somewhat longer and heavier but could be fast action killers. I am most often happy being limited to 720mm but would love the extra stop of light on the 500mm lens.
I own the 300 PF which I shot extensively with and without the 1.4 TC on my D500's. It is not used much now that I have the 500 PF but it does get broken out in low light and in situations where I need a wider field of view. It is very handy to have in a pouch on my waist belt for exchange with the 70-200 f4 on my second camera, or as part of my landscape kit in the bag.
Very good, Matt. I have both the 300 & 500mm PF lenses. Still waiting for the details on the upcoming 800mm PF. The 500 PF is ideal on the Z9, now that DxO Pure RAW has been updated.
I have the 300 PF. It's great. Couldn't afford the 500 PF at the time. Will trade-in the 300 and 70-200 when my 100-400 Z arrives. Then I'll be a 2-lens bloke with the aforementioned and my 28-70mm Z.
Met a guy on the boundary at the cricket in 2017 or 2018 who was using the 300pf with a D500 to capture his son. Very nice setup for sure
Hi Matt great content! I own bothe the 300mm pf and the 500mm pf . I use them primarily for wild life ... love them both... best purchase I made. I also have the 500mm f4 ... but these lenses give me more mobility
Hello Matt, I use a 500 f/5.6 PF on a D780. Thank you for inspiring me to try it at night. And thank you for inspiring me to visit Melbourne. And for you videos.
It’s a pleasure Hank. Thanks for being here. 📸
The PF 500 is perfect, maybe I should have a look at the 300 as well...
I came close to buying the 500mm f/5.6 E PF ED VR last summer when it was on sale for $4399CA. Still trying to decide between it and the Z 100-400 w/ teleconverter. Latter is more versatile but 500 maintains the 5.6 aperture. Hmmmm.
interesting how in 2023 this lens is still very relevant and still the gem it was since released. Not night photography but I'm using mine for small birds in heavy canopy forest scene where the f/4 shines at 450mm pairing up with my trusty, a bit outdated tech, D7000 getting 1/125 to 1/400 speed handheld, not to mention the VR is excellent!
Nice Vid Matt - I have it - but like my 300mm f/2.8G VRII rarely use it.
The real challenge for f/4 is to use it for indoor sports/action etc. when you need higher shutter speeds in "crappy" light.
F4 -vs- F2.8 -vs- F2.0 on my 200mm. I find that I am using my Stubby on the Z9 and while it is huge and heavy - it is soooo sharp.
I find that when testing with Focal my AFS 200/2.0G VRII (-2), Z70-200/2.8 (-1), 300/2.8GVRII (+1), 400/2.8EFL(+2) and 600/4EFL(+2) - when mounted on my Z9 all needed small/tiny AF fine-tune adjustments to find their very sharpest operating point. My Z mount S-line lenses also benefited from a tiny help 24-70/2.8 -1 at 24mm and +1 at 70mm , 70-200/2.8 -1 at all ranges and 105/2.8 +1. These are almost nothing compared to optimal AF-fine tune settings for the same/similar lenses on a D810. I will be working through the rest of my Z-mount and F-mount primes and zooms over then next few weeks -- including the 300/PF.
Have you tried it (300PF) with a 3rd party lens collar/foot -- for added stability and less stress on the lens mount? (ishoot and others seem to work OK)
It would be interesting to see a comparison with the z70-200 with a 1.5 TC at 300mm! I cannot believe how tiny that lens is!😎🙏🏾
Yes it is very small for sure Eugene. :) Great idea about the 70-200 .... :)
Awesome video!
Yes, 500pf love it’s weight and size, great image quality.
If I had a PF lens I’d likely keep it, but I think I’m only investing in Z lenses from here forward. I have 2 longer F lenses that I’ll likely replace, 70-300 & 200-500, but I’m in no rush because they’re both fast / quiet / sharp. Thanks for your vid’s Matt!
It is so tempting, I have an old all metal ED AF 300mm F4, it is so sharp & used with a D700 & D810, obviously it would fit into my bag easier & of course the D810 sensor compared to what I was used to for so many years has additional advantages & the evolving processing programs.
I am a prime guy but only because of the brightness advantage of primes. When a prime is 3.5 or higher, the appeal goes away and I start comparing them against more useful zooms. I am happy with the quality of my Sigma contemporary 150-600mm from both a usability and value for money perspectives.
I photograph (almost exclusively) dragonflies in flight. The hardest aspect of this task is to point the camera in the right direction (I'm talking about full-whizz, not hovering). I used to use the 300mm f/2.8 Vr. It was heavy to handhold for more than 10 minutes at a time, which meant when waiting for the next shot I wasn't holding it up to my shoulder. And it had so much inertia - following the dragonfly was really difficult. As soon as the 300 PF became available in Europe, I bought it - I knew it would be a huge game changer for me. It transformed my results. Now I can hold it up all day long and have no inertia problems. And a MUCH higher keeper rate (in terms of frames per hour).
Spot on! It additionally makes a wonderful closeup lens that can be used with rings. The quality of the images I get far surpass those obtained with my Z 70-200mm f/2.8 for that purpose. I also use it for fast flying birds when shooting up close, under 20 meters for swallows and the like.
it's a nice lens. I never really understand why these are so popular when zoom lenses offer so much more in terms of framing, composure etc etc. Is it that they're so much sharper than the zooms? I think the S zooms (for the Z mounts) are pretty sharp, The z 24-70 f2.8 is like a bunch of primes. I guess that's more difficult with those loner beasties? Maybe you could chat on it? cheers
I have the 300mm PF and am eagerly awaiting the 4-4.5/400mm Z that appeared on the roadmap. It is a nice little gem but somehow neither meat nor fish as we say in Germany. For portraits I prefer the 70-200mm focal range and for wildlife I want more than 400mm.
@Peter T - size and reach is what I would love for travel as well. The 400mm Z seems more along the size of the 70-200 2.8 judging by the lens roadmap pictures - just too large in my opinion. A Z 300mm f4 with a x1.7 converter would be perfect for me. Gives 510mm f6.7 and smallest possible solution. Guess not going to happen.
I'm currently using a AF-P 70-300E on FTZ, the best compact tele for the time being. That 'time being' will last quite long I suspect...
@@marcusbraun8889 for travel I also use the AF-P 70-300mm. If I am not travelling I wish I had a 4/400mm with the option to go 560mm with tc 1.4 or even 800mm with tc 2.0. Just pack it and walk for not more than 2km will be fine for a starter in wildlife photography like me. Don’t want to spend 10k plus to try it out and realise I will stick to landscape and people ;)
The f lenses seem to work fine on the Z. You could compare the images taken with the 300 f4, with those taken with the 400 f2.8. And see if anyone can guess which is which.
May not have a valid need to buy one but, a PF Z telephoto would be most suitable for an old guy like me. Have seen many photos from the PF lenses in F mount and they are great. The owners tend to rave about them, as you do.
The 300PF balances perfectly with my D500 (there's about 30 grams difference between them), and getting an effective 450mm FoV for 1.5kg total mass is just insane. It also plays quite nicely with the 1.4 TCiii.
Yeah it is amazing stuff Fetzie, so much reach with the D500 and then to add the TC 1.4. Cheers Matt
Bought one when they first came out. Rarely used it. Traded it off. Prefer the versatility of the Nikon 28-300mm FX.
The 300mm and 500mm PF are great lenses - It will be interesting to see what Z lenses Nikon comes up with to replace them.
As people move to the Z system the 300mm and 500mm PF lenses are great value and discounted like most older G/F glass...
Yeah I agree Roy. The 500 and 300 are still pretty modern glass and great value for what they offer. They also couple well with Z mount. Win win. 👍😀
Morning Matt
Good morning :)
Thé 500pf was great with the d850… do not know how… just better with the Z9! I had one of the first 300… loved the F4… but somewhat desapointed with the sharpening…. Years later, I had an opportunity to exchange my 80-400 for a new 300… was really better… I realized that all the copy are not always the same! Sold it and bought the 500pf… so good! Light and easy to carry!
At 9:36 he says "Affordable. Less expensive than if you bought a non PF lens". That's so not true. In fact the PF is 500$ more than the non PF and on the used market the PF is more than 2.5x the price of a used 300mm f/4 AFS non PF lens.
My wife uses the 300mm pf on the D500 and it is stunningly nimble and lightweight. Minimum focus distance is also really great.
To me one of the most underrated lenses period.
The only downside if there is any: with certain camera combinations (like D810) shutter shock will interfere with the VR at certain shutter speeds (1/60 to 1/160) resulting in blurred photos.
Wife loves it, I love it... even tho it has that one downside.
Yes a lot of power in a small package. Perhaps the Z 9 is the answer Martin, no shutter ... no shock :) Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography I have one and it is awesome, you are right.
My wife tried my Z9 but it is too heavy for her. She is pretty happy with the D500 anyways.
Use it on a Z and the only shock you will get is the vastly improved performance.
@@lcador9 True, however the only Z camera that surpasses the D500s AF performance is the Z9, and my wife does not like it. It is too heavy for her liking.
I struggle to figure out where this focal length fits in my camera bag. I have the 500pf and the 100-400 both of which really are excellent bird and wildlife lenses. I just don't see where the 300mm fits for me, but I'm attracted to it for its lightness and F4 aperture.
I own the 300 PF, never use it, and the 500 PF, use it nearly every day.
What are you shooting?
@@MattIrwinPhotography Wild birds in UK. But, I have kept the 300 and added other lenses that I never use (yet) because I will want to learn how to photograph other subjects in the fairly near future.
…hi matt…!
…my 200-500 can do it better…!
(even it is a f5,6)
…sharp pictures you can get with 1/30 of a second…!
…good wishes from germany
chris
ps: the pf lenses and the stabiliser from of the 200-500 is one reason why i stay with nikon for wildlife…;)
So it’s about the size of the 50 1.2 lol
This ls a good lens, but the lightspots that aim towards the lens directly sucks...they are a mess..so blurry mass of light. ( minute 7.10 for instance among other examples that you provide)...and you say nothing about it. Cheers!!
I think it’s been 4 years since I made this video, but perhaps I like them.
iso 3200 is absolutely nothing with today's technology, iso 6000 would still look perfectly fine so not sure what you're going on about 3200 as if it's at the stupid end of the iso scale, nothing is sharp, that's either down to you not checking focus of the z9 not being all it's cracked up to be
Scott, you were not listening correctly. I made clear reference to the shutter speed being too slow as the reason. Not ISO.