1:2 photo - Nikkor 300mm+17E TC versus Sigma 180mm lens

[LVF]

Boy, has this exploded into something other than what I originally posted. This discussion should have been another post. I no longer have anything to contribute. Keep it going among yourselves.

Leon

[Lou Jost]

Sorry about that Leon. I agree, this is ridiculous.

[JohnKoerner]

Gosh, it's hard to know whether to leave well enough alone here or to make a final post in defense of this spiral.

I originally posted here 1) because of my passion for macro, and 2) because I had a lot of experience with the Sigma macro vs. the 300mm Nikkor (the better one), at macro distances. My post was to LVF suggesting a better Nikkor 300 for his stated purposes:

I am interested in doing close-up photography at 4 feet because I cannot kneel on the ground to get close to a subject near the ground level.
I have determined that I can get 1:2 photos with the Nikon D500 camera and Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF lens with either the Nikon 14E III or Nikon 20E III teleconverters at 4 feet.

Lou Jost (having experience with neither) debated a few conceptual points, and then brought in Robert O'Tool onto the topic, who said this to me:

Being a professional who shoots with multiple brands like Nikon, Sigma, Canon, Mitutoyo, I find these kinds of statements disappointing. They are just tools to get a job done. I stopped putting too much emotion and energy behind any one brand a long time ago. I feel people shouldn't waste too much time being a brand fan, there are many more important things in life, like getting out there and having fun making images.
Robert

Really?? Not trying to fan the fire, but while Robert says the above to me, I want to underscore my own disappointment when I discovered his motive, based on what is blatantly advertised on his own website:

From Mr. O'Toole's site:

• PARTNERS
  Sigma Corporation of America
  Instead of talking about the technical aspects of Sigma lenses and what makes them so good just take a look at the images on this site where 99% of the images were made with a Sigma lens. I have shooting with Sigma lenses for more than 10 years and I have been working with them professionally as a Sigma Pro since 2010.

Accusing me of being a 'brand fan,' while himself being a paid brand partner (who confesses to shooting '99% of his images' through Sigma glass) is, um (let's be kind) a bit 'disingenuous.'

I came here to give my honest (un-paid, unsponsored) opinion, based on actual usage. FYI, I myself actually shoot about 50% Nikon, 35% Voigtländer, 15% Zeiss.

In the end, I agree with Mr. O'Toole. Instead of talking about 'technical aspects,' just take a look at the photos:

Mr. O'Toole posted this:





I posted this:




I also posted this:




A review of the discussion will show I did not 'start' the image comparison. (Though I believe my point finished it.) The difference in realistic colors, subtlety, etc. is pretty obvious.

A review of the discussion will show I did not start the digression into printing lenses, either. (Totally different subject.)

If we can overcome one man digressing into a totally different topic, while another professes 'brand agnosticism,' while actually having paid-for brand loyalty, we can get back to the original topic.

The original goal of LVF was using a 300mm VR II + 2xTC III ... to replicate macro images from 4-7' away.

Here is what can be done from the high-end 300mm VR II + 2x III from 7' away:


The Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II from 7' away:






If the reader will recall the original point ... getting macro-quality images from a 4+ feet away ... these images deliver exactly that. They don't involve creeping, sneaking ... or getting 1-2' away.

These images were were taken from 3-7x the distance ... and (I think) they show much-much more detail on the arthropod's body than the Sigma Macro shows up-close. The Sigma macro just does deliver the subtle color nuances.

Let your eyes be the judge, but don't judge them as studio-stacks either; they're not.

In the end, I respect Mr. Jost (I looked at his website and applaud what he's doing). Wish I had access to a rainforest!

I respect Mr. O'Toole (we actually have almost everything in common, from a passion in photography ... down to Brazilian jiu-jitsu I just saw he wrote an article on reverse-macro photography ... while I am finishing my own.)

Much respect to both, would like to meet you both!

But I know I am right on this ... and the images prove it.

If you get a high-end (not budget) 300mm f/2.8 lens, you can achieve macro-quality (or better) field images (limited @ 1:4-1:2) ... happily-cropped from 3-7x the distance.

This was LVF's original goal. The 300 PF was not the right lens choice, however.

This will be my last $0.02.

[RobertOToole]

Hi Jack

Just want to clear up some errors and explain one thing you brought up.

First of all you spell my name OToole, O'Toole, O'Tool and OTool, I would prefer just Robert OToole, thanks.

Gosh, it's hard to know whether to leave well enough alone here or to make a final post in defense of this spiral.

I came here to give my honest (un-paid, unsponsored) opinion, based on actual usage. FYI, I myself actually shoot about 50% Nikon, 35% Voigtländer, 15% Zeiss.

I am a full time professional photographer for something like 20 yrs+ and have been a full time wildlife photographer for going on 13 years. So this means that I work with and have worked with many companies as a paid photographer, Sigma (you got that one), Nikon, Canon, Acratech, LensCoat, Jobu tripod, F-stop gear, even Patagonia clothing, and they have all paid me, sponsored me or given me free or loaner gear. It's no secret thats why the information is on my site :-)

Correct me if I am wrong but I have never told anyone to buy any gear, Sigma, Nikon, Patagonia or anything else. I don't get paid for sales, I am not a salesman.

For Sigma (and Nikon) I have been sponsored to do image presentations and this weekend as a matter of fact I am giving an image presentation in Riverside at a camera Expo. PM me if you are interested in details.

Sigma is also nice enough to feature my photography on their website, social media and in blogs.

......If we can overcome one man digressing into a totally different topic, while another professes 'brand agnosticism,' while actually having paid-for brand loyalty, we can get back to the original topic.....

As I mentioned before I work with and worked with a lot of companies and I shoot with lots of macro gear, Nikon, Canon, Sigma, so this means I am paid and compensated by more than one company. This is how professionals earn a living. Should I stop talking about my D810 or not mention anything about my D850 when it arrives since NPS (nikon professional services) has sponsored my presentations?

Correct me if I am wrong but I have never posted anything about a certain piece of gear being being best or the ultimate or nothing compares. I just state the facts that I know in my experience and recommend that you try one yourself.

Hope this helps get the facts straight.

Robert

[RobertOToole]

BTW I forgot to mention that the photo of the female Common Bluetail damsel (orange form) photograph is 100% wild and free, shot in the field on a tripod and is 100% natural. Background is just green grass lit by clouds. Thats it. Simple and straightforward.

Thanks

Robert

[ChrisR]

This thread has now gone way Off Topic from Leon's comparison between the two lenses he has, in the context of his application, and a post has had to be removed for inappropriate comments.

The thread has been left Open only in case the Original Poster(s) should wish to contribute further.

ChrisR
Admin team.

[LVF]

Thanks Chris

I have nothing more to add. I was going to see what the Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF with the Kenko 68mm extension tubes (produces 1:2 photos at 48 inches) would produce. But from reading these posts I have a cheap lens and should buy the more expensive Nikkor 300mm mentioned above. However, I am satisfied with what I have.

So, I will continue having fun with what I have and continue to enjoy photography and Photoshop without buying the every best.

Leon

[JohnKoerner]

I have nothing more to add. I was going to see what the Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF with the Kenko 68mm extension tubes (produces 1:2 photos at 48 inches) would produce.

And it is perfectly-capable for that.

But from reading these posts I have a cheap lens and should buy the more expensive Nikkor 300mm mentioned above. However, I am satisfied with what I have.

Not 'cheap,' as in no-quality, but cheap as in price. ($1900 is 1/3rd the cost of $5,400, so yes it's cheaper ... and, as expected, if you wanted the best resolution possible, the VR II is the choice.)

This doesn't mean the Nikkor PF 4 is no good. In fact, the PF 4 offers size/weight advantages for field use, which can (and do) matter.

Sometimes I am loathe to lug the 300 VR II around

So, I will continue having fun with what I have and continue to enjoy photography and Photoshop without buying the every best.
Leon

Didn't mean to rain on your decision. However, these should brighten your day ... thread topics concerning the 300mm Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4E PF ED VR

http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/ ... 255.0.html

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1346257/0

There are some really fine images here, especially in the second link.

[JohnKoerner]

Here is some close-up work on the latter thread.