Natural Art: The Photography of Brad Hill

 

Field Tests: The AF-S Nikkor 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR

This write-up of my extensive comparative field test of the AF-S Nikkor 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR summarizes the vast majority of what I have discovered or learned about the lens. However, at times I present additional facts/factoids about specific pieces of gear in my comments that are associated with images that are found in the Galleries of this website. If you are interested in seeing additional comments about gear (including this lens) the single best place to "keep an eye on" is my Gallery of Latest Additions. To see the comments associated with any image simply click on the "In the Field" that is found tab that is found below the main image window.

Review Sections:

Introduction
Physical Characteristics
Optical Performance
Optical Performance with Teleconverters
Optical Stabilization and "Hand-holdability"
Autofocus Performance
Musings from Just Shootin'
The Final Wrap-up!
Appendix 1: Methods: Optical Performance
Appendix 2: Methods: Optical Stabilization and "Hand-holdability"
Appendix 3: Methods: Autofocus Performance

Please note that this extensive field test and comparative review of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is being written "incrementally" and new sections will appear as they are completed. I will be posting alerts on my blog indicating when new content is added to this field test and review. Some sections of the field test and review may also be updated or revised as I discover more about the lens (or its primary competitors). You'll find the posting date and revisions dates at the top of each individual section.

And, in case anyone is wondering, all the photographic/graphic elements within this review (e.g., photos in page topper, section headngs, etc.) were captured using the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E - either shot native or paired with a teleconverter.

Enjoy...and cheers!

Brad


Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E Field Test: Introduction

Introduction

• Post Date: June 5, 2020

In this extensive field test I compare various aspects of the performance of the AF-S Nikkor 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR against a host of competing lenses under real-world field conditions. While the three areas of lens performance that I pay the most attention to in this review are image quality, autofocus performance, and VR performance and "hand-holdability", I will be examining other performance characteristics as well (such as performance with teleconverters, etc.). It would be easy to "market" this field test and review as a "battle" between the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8, but because I tested and compared so many different lenses (at various focal lengths) in the course of this test presenting it as just a Nikon-Sigma battle would be very misleading.

As with all my gear testing, this review contains information gleaned from systematic and quite rigidly controlled tests performed in the field plus anecdotal observations after extensive periods of "just shooting" the lens(es) in the way I would in day-to-day wildlife photography. I find that the "just shooting" portion of my field testing is critical in determining if the observations and conclusions from the rigid tests have any real meaning when I am using the lens for what it is intended for (i.e., if the test results directly translate into tangible real-world performance differences).

The ultimate goal of all my field testing of this lens (and any bit of gear I test) is to determine if it is right for me and should be in my own field kit. In this particular case, my findings will likely determine which of the two 120-300mm lenses (the Nikkor or the Sigma) I end up keeping and which I end up selling. But because I am comparing the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E against many other lenses, I suspect this review will help many photographers decide not only if the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is right for them but also if some other lenses might be just fine for their uses.

The Nikkor 120-300mm for Wildlife Photography?

I am primarily a wildlife photographer. Nikon is marketing their 120-300mm f2.8E almost exclusively as a lens for sports photographers. I only field test products that I am interested in adding to my own wildlife photography kit. So...why is this wildlife photographer strongly interested in field testing a lens designed and built for sports photography? Well...despite how Nikon is marketing the 120-300 (and despite its astronomical price), I believe it has the potential to be a very important lens in my wildlife kit. Here's why:

1. Back in 2013 I borrowed a copy of the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 and found I liked the combination of its focal range and its fast f2.8 aperture very much. In fact, I liked it so much that I kept thinking about the lens long after I returned it - and I eventually ending up buying a copy for myself.

2. My favourite wildlife subjects are what many call "charismatic megafauna" - which loosely translates to "cool big animals". You know...bears, whales, sea lions, wolves, et cetera. I do the bulk of my wildlife shooting of these "cool big animals" on the coast of British Columbia and from a Zodiac, which is important because it means we can often approach these subjects quite closely while staying safe and not stressing out the subjects. And, I don't spend a lot of my time shooting small birds. So, based on preferred subject matter alone, I am probably less reliant on the very long focal lengths (e.g., 600mm+) than some other wildlife photographers.

3. I am not a member of the "closer is better" school of wildlife photography. This doesn't mean I won't shoot a portrait style shot of a bear or wolf if I get the chance, but I tend to favour "the wider view" in my wildlife shots. I love the challenge of shooting an "animalscape" shot - in fact I have an entire gallery on this website dedicated to animalscapes (see it here: Animalscapes). Over the years I have found that I have shot many of favourite animalscape shots in the 120-300mm focal range. Ironically, at the time of this writing, the lead image in my Animalscapes Gallery was shot with the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8! ;-)

Note that I am not saying that the 120-300mm focal length range will work well for all wildlife photographers - I am simply saying that I had strong reasons to believe it would work well for ME.

The Cost...And the "Zoom vs. Prime" Issue:

There is simply no denying that the sticker price of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is astronomical - it's the elephant in the room. At the time of this writing the street price of the lens in Canada is $12,399 CAD and in the US it is going for $9,496.95 USD. If you look at the price of the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E (which in itself is high) and then the price of the 120-300mm f2.8E one can't help but think "How on earth is the price justified?" Similarly, if you compare the price of the 120-300mm f2.8E to that of the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII (which is going for just a little over HALF the price of the 120-300) you end up with the same conclusion - that the price of the 120-300mm f2.8E is completely out of whack.

But here's my thinking on it - and why I was able to swallow the price. Historically zoom lenses offered versatility and convenience, but if your primary consideration was image quality (especially in the telephoto and super-telephoto focal lengths) fixed focal length lenses (i.e., prime lenses) ruled. But with the introduction of the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E back in 2016 this "written in stone" rule that zooms never matched prime lenses in image quality started to crack. Then, with the introduction of Nikon's first astronomically-priced super-telephoto zoom (the 180-400mm f4E) in 2016 the zoom vs. prime image quality paradigm was just blown to bits. Nikon had found a way to produce high-end zooms that completely matched primes in image quality (including not only sharpness, but also in the quality of the out-of-focus zones).

Moving back to the 120-300mm f2.8E: When I saw the specs and the price of the lens (and as one who owned and tested the 180-400), I felt it was extremely likely that the 120-300mm f2.8E would follow in the footsteps of the 180-400 and offer stunning image quality (along with a great AF and VR system). If so, it would functionally be like carrying a bag full of high-end primes with an f2.8 aperture in your bag. Suddenly - and if the lens performed the way I thought it would perform - the price didn't seem quite as unreasonable as it first appeared.

Caveats, Qualifiers, and Limitations of My Results:

Everything I did in this field test - and everything you'll read about the 120-300mm f2.8E and the competing lenses I compare it against - comes from the perspective of a WILDLIFE photographer. There will likely be LOTS of what I have to say that will apply to photographers of other genres (e.g., sports photographers), but I readily admit my wildlife photographer "bias". And, I tested ONE copy of each lens only. While one would like to assume that lenses costing almost $10,000.00 or more (in any currency) are built with a high degree of quality control and there is little between-sample variation in quality, it's possible that the results I obtain MAY differ a little from what others find with their own copies of the lenses.

I test my gear quite extensively in an effort to discover how it will perform for me (using my own shooting style) in a field situation. I do these field tests to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of a product in a field setting so I can understand how I can use the product to better create images of the best quality possible. For instance, I may go into the field with gear that will allow me to get to 200mm in two different ways - by using a 70-200mm f2.8E or using the 120-300mm f2.8E. But which of these two lenses produces the sharpest image when shooting a distance subject at an aperture of f2.8 and hand-holding the lens? This is the EXACT type of question I want my testing to answer.

I test gear under field conditions only (absolutely no lab work) and use the same techniques I'm likely to use when I'm shooting the particular item in the field. While much of my testing is done very methodically and under uniform conditions, a portion of it is pure "field shooting". I do not shoot images of targets under rigidly controlled lab conditions - I shoot images of wildlife (or "proxies", such as my Portuguese Water Dog) in the field. It's not critical to me to produce results that are generalizable or that are rigorous enough to be published in a peer-reviewed journal - I care about how I can use the gear in the field and how to get top-shelf results. While some "lab tests" have a real-world correlate that translates into a limitation (or advantage) in the field, I find an increasing number of tests quite esoteric and the "differences" between two products are real only in a statistical sense (and they are unrelated to producing a quality image, which is NOT a pure science). So you won't see any MTF charts in this comparative field test! It's my view that the level of discipline required to capture images in the field that are of the quality where differing MTF values would be even visible in the image quality of two competing products is a very rare (or non-existent) event. I believe that a mix of other characteristics (e.g., lens balance plus VR performance plus AF performance) often go MUCH further towards determining the quality of what you capture in the field than do MTF values.

Statement of Objectivity:

I'm a HUGE skeptic of what I read or see online myself. And I always wonder about the "corporate influence" on so-called product reviews (which are often little more than spec spews). For the record, I have received NO differential "perqs" or incentives (real or implied) to push my results one way or the other and I performed this field test without any form of "sponsorship" by Nikon, Sigma, or anyone else (and you'll notice there is NO advertising on this website). The products used in this test were either purchased by me or loaned to me by a friend or acquaintance (none of which work for Nikon, Sigma, or any other company in the photography industry).

Some Terminology, Abbreviations, and Acronyms:

To save typing and reading time (and the alphabet soup of full lens model names), here's some terms, abbreviations and/or acronyms you'll see in this review:

• Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E = AF-S Nikkor 120-300mm f/2.8E FL ED SR VR
• Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 = Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 DG HSM OS Sport
• Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E = AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR
• Nikkor 70-200mm f4 = AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR
• Nikkor 300mm f2.8G = AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II
• Nikkor 300mm f4D = AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF
• Nikkor 180-400 f4E = AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR
• Sigma 150-600mm = Sigma 150-600mm F/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sport

• Native (as in "shot native") = without a teleconverter
• OOF = Out-Of-Focus
• OOF Zone Quality = Bokeh (and refers to the overall quality of the out-of-focus zones, not just the specular highlights)

So off we go...fasten your seat belts!


Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E Field Test: Physical Characteristics

Physical Characteristics

• Post Date: June 11, 2020

Here are some of my impressions of the physical characteristics of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E. This overview is not intended as a "spec spew" where I regurgitate every specification imaginable - those kind of details are available on dpreview.com's website or virtually any of Nikon's many websites. Those wishing to review the detailed specs of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E can go HERE on dpreview.com's website.

My Two Sentence Summary? The Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is a large and quite heavy super-telephoto zoom lens with an impeccable build quality. And, it comes with all the controls and most of the design features that owners of any current Nikon super-telephoto prime or super-telephoto zoom lens has come to expect.

I. A FEW Specification Highlights

Here's a few of the more easily missed or overlooked specs that may be important to some photographers. Lens weight and size dimensions are in a separate section below.

Minimum Focusing Distance? 2.0 meters (6.6 feet) at all focal lengths and when shot native or with any teleconverter. So with the TC-14EIII you have a lens with a maximum focal length of 420mm that focuses down to 2.0 meters - and with the TC-20EIII you have a lens with a maximum focal length of 600mm that focuses down to the same 2.0 meters (and that's pretty cool).

Short-Wavelength Refractive (SR) Lens Elements? The 120-300mm f2.8E debuts a brand new type of lens element for Nikon. According to Nikon "SR is a high- and specialized -dispersion glass lens that refracts light with wavelengths shorter than that of blue. By controlling short-wavelength light, the lens is able to achieve highly precise chromatic aberration compensation so that the colors in your images are more accurately reproduced. It also allows for more flexible optical designs, which allows for compact, lighter lenses to be designed." The Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E has one SR element.

Fluorite (FL) Lens Elements? Yep, 2 of 'em. These have now been around for a few years and they are also found in some of Nikon's latest top telephoto prime lenses. In a nutshell, fluorite is a lightweight optical material with excellent optical properties - so they make the lens lighter and sharper.

Here's a schematic drawing of the 120-300 showing the placement of its special elements: Lens Elements of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E

ARNEO (ARN) Coating? This is another "first" for the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E - it's the only lens currently shipping that has this new coating (the elusive Z-mount 70-200mm f2.8S also has ARNEO coating, but at the time of this writing the whereabouts of this lens - and when it will ship - is anyone's guess). What's an ARNEO coating - and why do we care? Well...according to Nikon it's "An anti-reflective coating developed by Nikon and used in conjunction with Nano Crystal Coat to further reduce ghost and flare effects caused by incident light entering the lens vertically. This allows for the outstandingly clear capture of images even when a light source is located within the frame." Based on some of my own results of shooting strongly backlit subjects (with the sun IN the frame)...I think Nikon may be on to something here.

Filter Compatibility? Unlike most of the Nikon's other super-telephoto prime and zoom lenses, the 120-300mm f2.8E does NOT accept drop-in filters - it accepts screw-on filters (112mm). As one who has experienced internal lens fogging after "dropping in" a circular polarizer on my 400mm f2.8E on a humid and rainy day (and as one who shoots in wet conditions a lot) I like this change.

Tripod Foot? On the negative side - the stock foot follows Nikon's pattern and is NOT Arca-Swiss compatible. On the positive side - the bolt pattern attaching the tripod foot to the lens barrel uses the same standard as almost all of Nikon's super-telephotos...so it's no problem finding a 3rd party tripod foot with Arca-Swiss compatibility. I had a RRS LCF-14 tripod foot kicking around so I used that and it worked out perfectly - the foot is sufficiently long to allow me to balance the 120-300mm on a gimbal head with any of the bodies I use (D5, D6, D500, Z7) and when zoomed to any focal length. And it has the right amount of "drop" (distance between the lens barrel and plate section of the foot) for easy carrying (with hands of my size!), even when I'm wearing fleece glomitts...but not too much drop to complicate packing the lens into a backpack.

Lens Hood? Carbon fiber - and called a HK-41. Interestingly, it's the same hood as on the 180-400mm f4E. Nice and light, but super-expensive to replace if you break one (listed on the Nikon Canada website for a cool $829.95 CAD).

Focus Function Buttons? Yes - 4 of them near the distal end of the lens barrel (at the cardinal compass points). Since Nikon starting allowing users to use these buttons to program new functions (like instant switching of the AF area mode in use) these buttons have taken on increased value for many users.

VR Controls? Like with all recent super-telephoto primes and zooms it has a 3-position button for the various VR modes - OFF, VR Normal, VR Sport. Those shooters who like to shoot in bursts should be happy that the VR Sport mode hasn't gone away...

Environmental Sealing & Protection? Yes - sealed to keep dust and moisture out AND with a fluorine coating on the front element to repel dust and dirt.

Country of Manufacture? Japan.

II. Perceived Build Quality and Design Characteristics

Build quality is simple to describe - it's impeccable. All buttons and collars slide or rotate super smoothly. Nothing whatsoever about the build quality feels cheap, "plasticky" or less than top-notch. Which, for the price of the lens, should be expected.

Design is "typical" of Nikon's latest big lenses: the zoom ring is near the distal end of the lens with focus ring closer to the camera body. All buttons and controls (and there is no change in those controls compared to all recent Nikon super-telephotos) are closer yet to the camera body. The tripod collar itself is permanently attached to the lens barrel, but the tripod foot can be removed with the use of small Phillips screwdriver. In terms of overall "gestalt" - the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is remarkably similar to the 180-400mm f4E. In fact, if you surgically removed the section of the 180-400mm f4E that houses the built-in teleconverter the two lenses would be almost indistinguishable (in length, dimensions, appearance, etc.).

III. Lens Weights - Tale of the Scale

As one who isn't inclined to fully believe lens weights that come from a host of different sources, here's a listing of the weights of the 120-300mm f2.8E and several competing lenses weighed on my own digital scale. I won't claim my scale is accurate to .0001 gram, but at least I'm using the same scale to weigh ALL lenses! ;-)

1. Shooting Weights (includes lens, lens hood, but not the front or rear cap, and weighed with the stock [or OEM] tripod foot):

Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E: 3468 gm (7 lb, 10.4 oz)

Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8: 3648.5 gm (8 lb, 0.6 oz)

Nikkor 180-400mm f4E: 3735 gm (8 lb, 3.8 oz)

Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII: 3117.5 gm (6 lb, 14 oz)

2. Carrying Weights (includes lens, lens hood, supplied front and rear caps, and weighed with the stock [or OEM] tripod foot):

Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E: 3627.5 gm (8 lb, 0 oz)

Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8: 3725 gm (8 lb, 2.1 oz)

Nikkor 180-400mm f4E: 3864 gm (8 lb, 9.4 oz)

Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII: 3276.5 gm (7 lb, 3.6 oz)

Note that the shooting weights and the carrying weights are with stock tripod feet - and do not factor in weight gains (or losses) involved with making the tripod foot of each lens Arca-Swiss compatible. Adding Arca-Swiss compatibility may slightly reduce the weight of the lens (if a lightweight replacement foot is available from a 3rd party maker for the lens in question) or add noticeable weight if an Arca-Swiss compatible lens plate must be added to the stock tripod foot.

IV. Lens Dimensions - Tale of the Tape

Because the size of a lens impacts not only on handling when shooting, but also how easy (or difficult) the lens is to put in a case or backpack and travel with, I am giving dimensions with both the hood on and hood off, as well as the front diameter of the lens (which is virtually always the widest part of the lens and determines how much space the lens eats up in a pack).

1. Lens Length - both with and without lens hood

Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E: 404mm (15.9") with hood; 305mm (12.0") without hood

Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8: 380mm (15.0") with hood; 285mm (11.2") without hood

Nikkor 180-400mm f4E: 458mm (18.0") with hood; 364mm (14.3") without hood

Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII: 364mm (14.3") with hood; 267mm (10.5") without hood

2. Front Diameter (measured outside-outside without lens hood in place)

Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E: 120mm (4.7")

Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8: 118mm (4.65")

Nikkor 180-400mm f4E: 121mm (4.7")

Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII: 117mm (4.6")

V. A Subjective Summary: Weight, Size, Balance, and Handling

Ok...what might not be instantly clear from the weights and dimensions above is that 120-300mm f2/8E is NOT a small lens! Compared to its closest competitor (the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8) the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is a little lighter but slightly bigger. These two differences mean that when "in the hand" the Sigma feels noticeably "denser". And, probably owing to the fact that the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E lens has a large and light fluorite element near the distal end of its barrel (and the Sigma does NOT have a fluorite element), the Sigma is definitely more front heavy (which I consider to be a negative property). Between the density differences and the balance differences between the two lenses the Sigma 120-300 ends up feeling (at least to me) considerably heavier than the 180 gm (6 oz) weight differential between the lenses would suggest.

A couple other "frames of reference" might be useful to some. First, if you're an owner of the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII (or the VRI version) you will likely perceive the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E to be a noticeably bigger and heavier lens. If you think of the 300mm f2.8G VRII as a "size medium" lens, you'll probably think of the 120-300mm f2.8E as a size large! And, you certainly won't be mistaking the two lenses based on size and weight!

Second, if you're an owner of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E you will likely perceive the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E as a slightly smaller and slightly lighter version of your 180-400. And, if you don't look closely you could easily confuse the two lenses (even when you pick them up!).

The bottom line is this: How negatively - or how positively - you perceive the size and weight of the 120-300mm f2.8E will be largely influenced by your own experience with other F-mount lenses. If the biggest and heaviest lens you've ever shot with is something like the 70-200mm f2.8E or the 300mm f4E PF or even the 500mm f5.6E PF, then you will probably of the the 120-300mm f2.8E as an absolute tank! Conversely, if you are used to shooting with Nikon's super-telephoto primes or telephoto zooms (especially the G series or before), you will likely think of the size and weight of the 120-300mm f2.8E as a complete non-issue. Of course, when it is in a backpack and you're humping it and a bunch of other gear up a mountain ANYONE would like it to weigh about 4 lb less. But we live in the real world - and the relative importance of having a 300mm lens with a f2.8 aperture (and the unique type of images that can be captured ONLY with a 300mm f2.8) will vary dramatically between users. Which means the willingness to accept the reality of the size and weight of the lens will vary dramatically between users too. I am personally more than willing to "pay the price" of the size and weight of the 120-300mm f2.8E to get the fast aperture and the focal length range. Others may feel differently.

What about the balance and handling of the 120-300mm f2.8E? I have been shooting it primarily with a Nikon D5 (and now the D6) and a D500 with battery grip attached. With these bodies I find the 120-300mm f2.8E to be very well balanced and easy to hand-hold. In these cases the lens/camera combo neither feels front-heavy or back-heavy. Surprisingly, on the rare occasions when I hand-hold the 120-300mm on my Z7 (when shooting this combination I am normally shooting from a tripod) I don't find the combination awkward to use at all. But don't forget that all my impressions of lens weight, balance, and "hand-holdability" are those of a wildlife photography accustomed to hand-holding big lenses on a regular basis...

RETURN TO TOP


Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E Field Test: Optical Performance

Optical Performance (shot native)

I. INTRODUCTION

• Post Date: June 16, 2020

One of the most critical variables influencing any lens purchasing decision is the optical performance of the lens. Optical performance becomes particularly critical when deciding on which super-telephoto lens to buy - not only are super-telephoto prime lenses very expensive, but now selected super-telephoto zooms from Nikon have entered the pricing stratosphere as well. Additionally, if you aren't happy with the optical performance of a super-telephoto lens the re-sale market for it is much smaller than that of shorter - and usually less expensive - focal length lenses.

In this section I describe the results of head-to-head field-testing of the optical performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E against several competing lenses at three focal lengths, four camera-to-subject distances, and a wide range of apertures. The focal lengths, distances to subject, and apertures over which the lenses were tested and compared are discussed in Appendix 1: Methods: Optical Performance. Note that in this section only native focal lengths are considered (i.e., the lenses shot without teleconverters). Optical performance with both the TC-14EIII (1.4x) and TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverters are in a section below.

Note that I approach sussing out lens optical/image quality a couple of ways. The first and most extensive way is examining the "theoretical maximum image quality you could EVER get in the field". For this comparison I capture images using a high degree of control (much higher than I would use for about 99% of my wildlife photography). The goal here is to determine the absolute differences in image quality that are attributable solely to the optical qualities of the lenses - and NOT differences attributable to user technique, lens usability characteristics (such as autofocus or VR performance) or even autofocus tuning issues. So think of this section as revealing optical performance differences between the lenses in those rare "best case scenarios" that you occasionally experience in a field setting. The details of how these images are captured are discussed in are discussed in Appendix 1: Methods: Optical Performance.

The second way I look at lens image/optical quality (and overall usefulness of a lens) is how find out how much of the "theoretical" image quality can actually be realized in a field setting (where one is commonly hand-holding lenses, or shooting moving subjects, etc.). This realized image quality is influenced by other lens characteristics, including lens weight, balance, effectiveness of the stabilization (OS or VR) system and, of course, the effectiveness of the autofocus system. So during this field test I spent a considerable amount of time doing a more interesting thing - something I call "Just Shooting" the lens (and I suspect you can figure out what that means!). I find this time spent "just shooting" is very important to my testing for at least two reasons. First, it should (and usually does) tell me if the results I obtained during my more systematic and controlled testing translate into observable differences in lens performance when in the field. Second, I often notice things when "just shooting" that end up suggesting and/or directing additional (and more systematic) testing I should do. A perfect example of this is that I noticed very early on when "just shooting" with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E that it worked incredibly well with the 1.4x Nikon teleconverter - if fact it worked so well with the 1.4x TC that, to be complete in my testing, that I HAD to add the testing of the 2x TC to this review (and this was something I had decided against before beginning testing).

So while this section is dominated by results obtained during systematic and controlled situations, I will include some comments from observations made while "just shooting" the 120-300mm f2.8E (including some sample images). Later in the review there is a section fully dedicated to additional observations I made while "just shooting" the lens - that section is found here: Musings from Just Shootin'.

Finally, it's important to note that image quality is NOT solely a function of image sharpness. I believe that the perception of the "quality" of an image is determined partly by image sharpness, partly by the quality of the OOF zones (i.e., the bokeh), and partly by the interaction between the in-focus and out-of-focus zones of an image. So...in my view, the quality of the bokeh is JUST as important as the sharpness in assessing the optical performance of a lens. Further, it's my belief that most photographers looking at fast (those with wide apertures) super-telephoto lenses are doing so largely because of their ability to separate a subject from its background and they are sensitive to the quality of those OOF backgrounds (and, in some cases, foregrounds). As an example and particularly relevant to this review, owners of the almost legendary Nikkor 300mm f2.8G tend to love the "quality" of its images, especially those shot at wide apertures. Yet, that lens is definitely NOT Nikon's sharpest telephoto lens when shot wide open, but it has just beautiful and almost "buttery" OOF zones. And, those OOF zones contribute a tremendous amount to the lens-specific "look" of images captured with the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G...arguably MORE than its sharpness does.

On to the optical performance results. The three native focal lengths that were systematic and comparative tests were made were 300mm, 200mm, and 120mm. And, I'm going to proceed in "reverse order", beginning with optical performance at 300mm then proceeding down to performance at 200mm and at 120mm.

II. OPTICAL PERFORMANCE AT 300mm

• Post Date: June 19, 2020
• Update (Revision) History: June 22, 2020: Added section #3: "SOME LENS-SPECIFIC OPTICAL PERFORMANCE COMMENTS"

At 300mm I tested the optical performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E at four camera-to-subject distances (4.25m, 12m, 24m, and 1600m). The rationale for choosing these distances - and all other technical details concerning the methods I used - can be found in Appendix 1 below. The lenses tested and compared against the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E at 300mm included:

• Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8
• Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII
• Nikkor 300mm f4D
• Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (at 300mm of course)
• Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 (again at 300mm)

When comparing 6 lenses at 4 distances and at 10 different apertures it is more than challenging to reduce the matrix of results to a sound bite. I'll attempt to do my best to keep it straight-forward by giving you a short Executive Summary. I'll follow that up with: a number of clear, consistent, and reproducible trends I noticed during testing; some lens-specific optical performance comments; and finally some results of (and some sample images from) my time spent "just shooting" the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E at 300mm.

1. THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Optical Performance at 300mm

At a 300mm focal length - and over all test distances - the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E showed the strongest overall optical performance of all six lenses tested. At close and mid-distances (4.25m, 12m, 24m) the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E consistently ranked first in sharpness. The Nikkor 300mm f2.8G did tie it in sharpness in a number of instances, but never in the f2.8 to f3.5 aperture range. The Nikkor 180-400mm f4E also tied the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E in sharpness at overlapping apertures, but never beat it. At long distance 3 Nikkor lenses were in a virtual dead-heat for both center and edge sharpness - those lenses were the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E, the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G, and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. At long distance the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 did very well in central region sharpness (tying the other 3 lenses), but edges were softer than the other 3 lenses at all apertures.

In terms of the quality of the OOF zones (i.e., the bokeh) two lenses were clearly superior to all others and were tied with each other - those lenses were the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G. The Nikkor 180-400mm f4E exhibited the next best bokeh, followed by the Nikkor 300mm f4D. Both Sigma lenses exhibited significant focus breathing, especially at the closest test distance. This focus breathing had a very negative impact on the bokeh of the two Sigma lenses at the closest test distance (4.25m) and a significantly negative impact on the bokeh at the mid-distance tests (i.e., at 12 and 24m).

So...when all apertures were considered, the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E clearly ranked first in sharpness (central region), was in a dead-heat with the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G in bokeh, and tied the other two top Nikkors in edge-sharpness. Ergo...when it comes to optical performance at 300mm the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E wins. Period.

2. A NUMBER OF CLEAR TRENDS

• Sharpness/Aperture Variation (Sharpness "Progression"). Almost all telephoto and super-telephoto lenses (primes and zooms) don't show their maximum sharpness at their widest aperture - they must be stopped down at least some (how much varies between lenses). At this focal length the ONLY lens that is as sharp shot wide open as when stopped down by any amount (a characteristic I call "Aperture Independent Sharpness" or AIS) is the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. The next best in the test? DEFINITELY the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E - in most cases the sharpness difference between f2.8 and f3.2 was infinitesimally small...so small that virtually no one would notice it. In contrast, both the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G and the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 were very noticeably soft until stopped down to f4 (and sometimes beyond). Even the most discerning photographers (i.e., those obsessed with sharpness) wouldn't hesitate to shoot the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E at f2.8. That's significant. Anyone wishing to read a commentary on AIS can refer to my 5 July 2018 blog entry entitled "What's AIS?"

• Focus Breathing. None of the four Nikkor lenses tested at 300mm (and at the test distances of 4.25m, 12m, or 24m) showed any significant focus breathing (which is the shortening of focal length as distance-to-subject decreases). However, the two Sigma lenses - and particularly the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 - showed significant focus breathing. As an example, at a subject distance of 4.25m the Sigma 120-300mm lost almost 20% of its maximum focal length...which functionally meant that at that 4.25m it was really a 120-243mm lens. Now most of the time I don't make a big deal out of focus breathing (I recall saying to someone "well...just get closer" once), but when considering 300mm f2.8 lenses the bokeh is a big deal (otherwise just buy a f4 lens). And, in this case, the focus breathing of the Sigma 120-300 takes a big bite out of the bokeh quality (see this comparison image to see what I mean). And that can mean it can be MUCH more challenging (and sometimes impossible) to produce those "tack-sharp-subjects-with-dreamy-smooth-background" shots that we often WANT to capture with a 300mm f2.8 lens (like this one). Note that the focus breathing was still an issue with a subject at 24m (about 79') with the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 with a loss of about 7% of focal length - and a resulting degradation of the bokeh - at that distance.

• Vignetting? Finally - some proof the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E isn't perfect! It DOES vignette (EV values in corners and edges lower than in central region) when shot on cameras with full-frame sensors. How much? Well...a LITTLE more than the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G (like about 0.3 stops more), but pretty much the same amount as the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. So that means about 1.5 stops at f2.8, about 0.67 stops at f5.6, and about 0.2 stops at f11. Note that because vignetting can be easily corrected in post-processing, most view the vignetting as "something good to know" but rarely as a "problem." And if you are shooting with a cropped (DX) sensor the vignetting virtually disappears.

3. SOME LENS-SPECIFIC OPTICAL PERFORMANCE COMMENTS

Here's an overview of the optical performance of each lens tested at 300mm - both in absolute terms and relative to the Nikkor 12-300mm f2.8E:

• The Nikkor 120-300 f2.8E is just GREAT at 300mm: Edging out the "legendary" Nikkor 300mm f2.8G in sharpness at 300mm and then tying it in bokeh is a remarkable achievement for the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E. It's center-to-edge sharpness at long distances was tied by both the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E, but not BEATEN by them (or any of the other lenses). Owners of the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G prime lens would give up NOTHING in optical performance at 300mm if they swapped to shooting this zoom lens.

• The Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 IS a good lens at 300mm. The Sigma Sport 120-300 is a serious competitor at 300mm from an optical perspective - especially in sharpness. At most distances it was softer than the 120-300mm f2.8E at the widest apertures, but pulled equal in sharpness to it in by f4 or f4.5. Unfortunately very significant focus breathing does impact bokeh at the distances where you are LOOKING for good bokeh (i.e., in this test at shooting distances of 24m or below), but the bokeh still is NOT bad (and from previous testing I know it kicks the butt of a number of other lenses in bokeh, such as the Nikkor 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 at 300mm). And, it always has to be remembered that it's a third of the price of the Nikkor 120-300!

• The Nikkor 300mm f2.8G is STILL a REALLY SOLID lens! The Nikkor 300mm f2.8G is now getting a little long in the tooth (it was introduced back in 2010) and it lacks most of the "alphabet soup" acronym list of new features found on Nikon's latest lenses (like FL, ARN, SR, E, yada, yada, yada). But at 300mm it was chasing and almost catching the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E in sharpness - and definitely matching it in bokeh. If you are sure 300mm is the focal length you want (or need) this lens gives you almost all of the optical performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E at not much more than half the price!

• The Nikkor 180-400mm f4E? Yep, still pretty magical. The ONLY lens in this test at 300mm with pure AIS (Aperture Independent Sharpness). And, from f4 on it DID match both the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E AND the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G in sharpness. Basically, it's just lacking the f2.8 to f3.5 aperture range and it's a TAD off in bokeh (compared to the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G). At 300mm this is a great lens.

• The Nikkor 300mm f4D is STILL a good lens! I've never owned a copy of the Nikkor 300mm f4D lens myself and I had to borrow one for this test (thanks are extended to MS in Victoria BC for sending his 300mm f4D to use in this test). But what really struck me during the testing about this economical 300mm option was just how sharp it was. At most distances (excluding the closest distance where it didn't fare so well) it was competing with the best lenses in sharpness when you had stopped all lenses down to f5. At most apertures it didn't compete too well with the other lenses in bokeh, but if your primary concerns are just "getting to 300mm" and image sharpness - well...it's definitely the most pocketbook friendly way to get there! ;-)

• The Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3? It's almost unfair to put a lower-priced super-zoom lens into this mix of hot shot lenses! But it's always good to know how lenses stack up against one another. At the closest distance (4.25m) the Sigma 150-600mm faired poorly in sharpness and bokeh compared to all the other lenses. In the mid-distances (12m and 24m) it did fine in sharpness, tying the others but only once it was stopped down to f8 or f9. And at those mid-distances it's bokeh was a long ways behind the Nikkors (all of them). What about at long distances? Good in central sharpness from f5.6 on, but weak in edge sharpness at all apertures.

4. RESULTS FROM "JUST SHOOTING" @ 300mm

Since acquiring the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E I have shot just under 1,000 shots at 300mm while in the field. Most were hand-held and they have included action shots, close-ups of wildlife, distant scenes, and more. The most important thing I have learned is that the results I obtained during systematic testing are mirrored during my sessions of "just shooting" in the field. In practical terms that translates into the lens producing shots that are tack sharp where they are supposed to be combined with great out-of-focus zones. Owners of the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G lens know the almost "signature" look you get with that lens - and you get that exact same look and equal (or slightly better) optical performance with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E. Here's a few more take-home lessons - along with a few examples - of things I've found through my "just shooting" sessions with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E:

• Great Subject Isolation: If you like having the ability to have your subject stand out from the background you'll love this lens. And, you don't have to worry about sharpness loss when shooting this one wide open. Sample Image: Poncho - Putting his best paw forward.

• In-To-Out of Focus Transition: The best lenses have a nice smooth transition from the in-focus to the out-of-focus elements. This tight shot of a Dusky Grouse nicely shows the sweet transition you get with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E: Dusky Grouse Hooting Under Douglas Fir.

• Distant Scenes? While I'm well aware that a D5 (or D6) isn't what most people consider "landscape" cameras, but if you have one in your hands with a Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E on it when a scene that looks best at 300mm reveals itself to you...well...you can be sure the lens will render the scene very well (and it will be very sharp edge-to-edge). Here's one example: First Light - Findlay Creek, BC .

OK...so what happens when you start twisting that zoom ring back - how does the Nikkor 120-300mm perform at 200mm? Read on...

III. OPTICAL PERFORMANCE AT 200mm

• Post Date: June 23, 2020

At 200mm the optical performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E was tested at the same four camera-to-subject distances (4.25m, 12m, 24m, and 1600m) as it was for the 300mm focal length testing. The rationale for choosing these distances - and all other technical details concerning the methods I used - can be found in Appendix 1 below. The lenses tested and compared against the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E at 200mm included 5 other zoom lenses (and no prime lenses):

• Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8
• Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E
• Nikkor 70-200mm f4
• Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (at 200mm of course)
• Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 (again at 200mm)

Just like the situation at the 300mm focal length it is really tough to reduce a huge matrix of results down to a single succinct statement (when you are comparing 6 lenses at 4 distances and at 10 different apertures there is a LOT of nuance!). Here's an Executive Summary, followed immediately by a number of trends at 200mm that were very obvious, then some lens-specific observations at 200mm, and finally some comments (and sample images) based on "just shooting" the Nikkor 120-300mm at 200mm.

1. THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Optical Performance at 200mm

At 200mm - and when considering center sharpness, edge sharpness, and bokeh over a variety of distances and a range of apertures - FOUR lenses tested out quite strongly: the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E, the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8, the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E, and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. All produced professional quality output at all test distances and without careful scrutiny it was tough to separate out the performance of these four lenses.

However, when the images from the tests were examined closely, two lenses stood out above the others in the consistency of their performance. They were close to flawless and showed only the most trivial of weaknesses - these lenses were the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Both exhibited full Aperture Independent Sharpness (maximum sharpness in the central region from wide open through to f8) at all distances. At all distances and for every aperture tested these two lenses were ranked (and were tied) for first in sharpness (but note that at a few distance/aperture combinations other lenses joined them in the tie for first in sharpness). The only "weakness" of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E was in the quality of its bokeh at close distance in the f4.5 through to f8 range - here the Nikkor 180-400 f4E slightly beat it out (but note that the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E still beat all the other lenses in bokeh at this distance). The only "weakness" of the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E was in edge sharpness at long distance in the aperture range of f4.5 to f5.6 - here it placed second to the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E (but it still beat all other lenses in the test in these instances).

Is it possible to declare a "winner" at 200mm? Probably not. But my own preference is for the Nikkor 120-300mm over the 180-400mm simply because it has the larger aperture of f2.8 and at a 200mm having the f2.8 aperture is important to me. Note that of the 3 lenses in this test with an f2.8 aperture (the Nikkor 120-300, the Sigma 120-300, and the Nikkor 70-200) the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E consistently had the best center AND edge sharpness and the best bokeh in the f2.8 to f3.5 range.

2. A NUMBER OF CLEAR TRENDS

• Sharpness/Aperture Variation (Sharpness "Progression"). Only ONE lens exhibited complete AIS (Aperture Independent Sharpness) at all test distances AND when considering both central and edge sharpness - the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E. The 180-400mm f4E was exceptionally close to tying this result, but it did show slight edge softness with distant subjects in the f4.5 to f5.6 range. All other lenses required stopping down at least SOME distance before achieving maximum sharpness. For example, both the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E had to be stopped down to f3.5 before hitting maximum sharpness at the two closest test distances. Anyone wishing to read a commentary on AIS can refer to my 5 July 2018 blog entry entitled "What's AIS?"

• Focus Breathing. At 200mm neither the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E nor the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E showed significant focus breathing at any test distance. Both 70-200mm Nikkors (the f4 and the f2.8E) DID show easily noticeable focus breathing that "measured out" at about 10% at the closest focus distance, which means that the lenses functionally became 70-180mm zooms at this test distance. It's probably no coincidence that the bokeh of these two Nikkor 70-200mm lenses at the closest distance scored worse than that of the two Nikkors which did NOT show any focus breathing at this distance (the 120-300 and the 180-400). At slightly longer test distances (12m and 24m) the focus breathing of the two Nikkor 70-200mms decreased to under 5% but still slightly negatively impacted on their bokeh at these test distances. The Sigmas? Both Sigma lenses - and particularly the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 - continued to show significant focus breathing. As an example, at a subject distance of 4.25m the Sigma 120-300mm lost almost 13% of its maximum focal length...which functionally meant that at that 4.25m a lens setting of 200mm (on the lens barrel) equated to a REAL focal length of 175mm. And, the focus breathing continued to reduce the quality of the bokeh of the Sigma lenses. It should be acknowledged that with the Sigma 120-300mm and the Sigma 150-600mm the focus breathing at 200mm CAN be offset simply by increasing the amount you "zoom" the lens...so most users probably would NOT consider it to be a significant problem. The bottom line is that the most significant focus breathing "problem" at 200mm (in terms of having an impact on image quality that CAN'T be negated by simply zooming the lens further out) is found on the two Nikkor 70-200mm lenses at the closest test distance.

• Vignetting? Well...this one is simple to describe - at 200mm ALL the lenses tested vignetted, and all by ABOUT the same amount. So at f2.8 it was about 1.3 to 1.4 stops; at f4 about 1.1 stops; at f5.6 about 1 stop; at f8 about 0.67 stops, and at f11 still about 0.67 stops. As mentioned before, vignetting is easily controlled in post-processing for raw shooters so chalk this one up as a fact, not a problem (for any of the lenses).

3. SOME LENS-SPECIFIC OPTICAL PERFORMANCE COMMENTS

Here's an overview of the optical performance of each lens tested at 200mm - both in absolute terms and relative to the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E:

• The Nikkor 120-300 f2.8E is super at 200mm: Not too much to say here beyond the obvious: at 200mm the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E came in tied with the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E as the best of the bunch in overall optical performance - both were simply outstanding! SO...if you are carrying the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and any other of the lenses tested in this review while out shooting (with the exception of the Nikkor 180-400) and run into a situation where 200mm is the best focal length to use...well...USE THE NIKKOR 120-300MM f2.8E! And...realistically speaking...it's unlikely most anyone (if they're not employing a sherpa) would be carrying BOTH a Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8 and a Nikkor 180-400mm f4E in the field! The only "weakness" of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E at 200mm was in the quality of its bokeh at close distance in the f4.5 through to f8 range - here the Nikkor 180-400 f4E slightly beat it out (but note that the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E still beat all the other lenses in bokeh at this distance).

• The Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 is strong at 200mm. If you are shooting the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 at 200mm you will likely come home with images you are very happy with, especially if you remember two things. First, at short to moderate distances (so about 15m or less) you are best to stop the lens down to about f3.5 (or smaller) if your concern is getting the sharpest images possible. Second, that you have significant focus breathing to keep in mind, especially at distances of about 30m or less. But if you are like most photographers you will be composing your shot while looking through the viewfinder and zoom to the focal length that LOOKS right to you...not the focal length printed on the lens barrel. Compared to the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E you are a step behind in sharpness (at almost all distances) in the f2.8 to f3.5 range, at long distances you lose a LITTLE edge sharpness at almost all apertures, and at very close distances you may have trouble matching the outstanding sharpness/bokeh balance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E.

• The Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E isn't at its absolute best at 200mm. The Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E is universally considered Nikon's best ever 70-200mm lens by a wide margin (though that may be challenged by the currently mythical Z-mount Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8S). However, like many of Nikkor's zooms, it isn't at its best at its longest focal length. At the closest test distance it ranked behind both the Nikkor and the Sigma 120-300's in sharpness and in bokeh at wide apertures (f2.8 to f4). At 12m it competed well in sharpness with the Sigma 120-300mm at all apertures, but was noticeably softer than the Nikkor 120-300mm from f2.8 to f3.5 range. It did quite well at 24mm (pretty much matching the two 120-300's and the Nikkor 180-400 in both sharpness and bokeh), but at the longest test distance (1600m) in ranked behind those same 3 lenses in BOTH center and edge sharpness. On the positive side, it DID out-perform the Nikkor 70-200mm f4 in sharpness (center and edge) and bokeh at all test distances!

• The Nikkor 70-200mm f4 is beaten up pretty badly at 200mm. While I have been a fan of this lens for a number of years, this field test indicates that several newer lenses have passed it by in optical performance at 200mm. In fact the ONLY situation where it didn't place last in the test was in bokeh at the closest test distances in the f5.6 to f8 range (and here it JUST edged out the Sigma 150-600mm). But in every other combination of test distance and aperture used it lagged behind ALL the other lenses...including the Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3).

• The Nikkor 180-400mm f4E is just great at 200mm. Although the Nikkor 180-400 is anything BUT an "old" lens, this test is reminding me of how darned good it is. It's ONLY weakness in this test at 200mm was a slight edge softness in the f4.5 to f5.6 range - and the only lens beating it there was the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E.

• The Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3? At 200mm the Sigma 150-600 beat out the Nikkor 70-200mm f4 in most tests, but it lagged behind all of the other lenses in ALMOST all other test distances and apertures. Where did it NOT lose out (to ANY lens)? It did surprisingly well in both center and edge sharpness at long distances, tying the two 120-300's AND the Nikkor 180-400mm in the f8 to f11 range. Hey...give credit where it is due!

4. RESULTS FROM "JUST SHOOTING" @ 200mm

Interestingly, of the 5000+ shots I have taken when "just shooting" with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E (with 4 different camera bodies) - almost none appear to have been taken at 200mm (and those at 200mm were ALL captured on my Z7)! However, before the conspiracy theories start circulating about how I avoid shooting the Nikkor 120-300 for some nefarious reason (that I won't even try to guess), I suspect the reason is more benign - my guess is that there is such a narrow range on the zoom ring that registers as 200mm in the metadata that you almost never hit it when you're composing your shots through the viewfinder. And...out of pure curiosity I just took a few shots with the 120-300 on my D6 and D500 and found that to be the case - you CAN capture shots that are recorded as shot at 200mm in the metadata, but the zoom ring has to be in the EXACT right spot to get that (otherwise it's recorded as 195mm or 210mm). ANYWAY...here's some shots taken in the 190-210mm focal length range for your perusal. And the most critical thing they tell me is that the results I obtained during my systematic testing translate well into results in the field when "just shooting" - the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is just great at 200mm.

• Acceptable bokeh at 200mm? While it's fairly easy to capture images that show good bokeh at 300mm or longer focal lengths, is it really practical to do so when shooting at 200mm with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E? Yep! Sample Image: Poncho - Closing in on the Lick Target.

• Acceptable bokeh at 200mm with the D500? Can you get good bokeh in the 200mm range when shooting the D500 (I've been asked this a surprising number of times)? Yep. Check out this red squirrel captured at 210mm with a D5: Red Guarding His Fortress.

• Acceptably sharp to REALLY shoot at f2.8 in the field? In my view there is virtually NO penalty in image sharpness when shooting the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E in the field at f2.8. This Dusky Grouse was shot at f2.8 at 210mm: Dusky Grouse Under Douglas Fir.

• How is edge-to-edge sharpness on distant scenes shot on a high res body? This FULL RESOLUTION image was captured using my Z7 on the Nikkor 120-300mm at f4 at 195mm. See if you can pick out the raven on the distant treeline: Backyard Backdrop.

OK...I get it - the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8 is really strong optically at both 200mm and 300mm. But how is it at its shortest focal length? Read on...

IV. OPTICAL PERFORMANCE AT 120mm

• Post Date: June 30, 2020

At 120mm the optical performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E was tested at the same four camera-to-subject distances (4.25m, 12m, 24m, and 1600m) as it was for the 300mm and 200mm focal length testing. The rationale for choosing these distances - and all other technical details concerning the methods I used - can be found in Appendix 1 below. The lenses tested and compared against the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E at 120mm included 3 other zoom lenses:

• Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8
• Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E
• Nikkor 70-200mm f4

Just like the tests at both the 200mm and 300mm focal lengths the results are so nuanced that boiling it down to a single definitive statement that applies in all situations (and test distances) simply isn't possible. But here's my shortest possible Executive Summary that accurately reflects my test results, followed immediately by a number of trends at 120mm that were very obvious, then some lens-specific observations at 120mm, and finally some comments (and sample images) based on "just shooting" the Nikkor 120-300mm at 120mm.

1. THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Optical Performance at 120mm

At 120mm - and when considering center sharpness, edge sharpness, and bokeh over a variety of distances and a range of apertures - TWO lenses tested out very strongly: the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. Both of these lenses produced exceptionally high quality images at 120mm. The highly regarded Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E also tested out very well in terms of image sharpness (both central and on the edges) but - and to my surprise - competed poorly against the two 120-300mm f2.8 lenses in bokeh quality.

Is there ONE lens of the group that you could select in virtually any photographic situation at 120mm - from portraits to landscapes - and know that you are making no compromises in image quality? Yes...the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E. The only very minor "weakness" of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E that I could find at 120mm is that from f2.8 to f3.5 at mid-distances (12m and 24m) it placed JUST behind the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E in central region sharpness. At all other test distance and aperture combinations it placed first or tied for first in both central and edge sharpness.

2. A NUMBER OF CLEAR TRENDS

• Sharpness/Aperture Variation (Sharpness "Progression"). Only ONE lens exhibited complete AIS (Aperture Independent Sharpness) at all test distances AND when considering both central and edge sharpness - the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E. The Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E was exceptionally close to tying this result, but at mid-distances (12m and 24m) it needed to be stopped down to f3.5 before hitting maximum sharpness . The Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 had to be stopped down to f3.5 at all test distances before hitting maximum sharpness in the central region and to f4.5 before hitting maximum edge-sharpness. The Nikkor 70-200mm f4? It fared not too bad in central region sharpness beginning at f5, but showed edge softness at all apertures. Anyone wishing to read a commentary on AIS can refer to my 5 July 2018 blog entry entitled "What's AIS?"

• Focus Breathing. At 120mm none of the lenses exhibited serious focus breathing - and certainly not enough to impact on overall image quality or shooting limitations as was observed in the case of the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 at 300mm. The Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E exhibited the LEAST amount of focus breathing (if any) - each of the other 3 lenses showed focus breathing in the 3-5% range relative to the Nikkor 120-300 (so at 120mm on the "focus barrel" and metadata they actually were shooting in the 113 to 116mm range). So no big deal.

• Vignetting? A clear trend - at 120mm ALL the lenses tested vignetted, and all by ABOUT the same amount. So at f2.8 it was about 1.6 stops; at f4 about 1.4 stops; at f5.6 about 1 stop; at f8 about 0.67 stops, and at f11 about 0.5 stops. The vignetting WAS slightly worse (by about 0.2 stops at all apertures) with the Nikkor 70-200mm f4. Again, vignetting is easily controlled in post-processing for raw shooters so consider this a "stick this fact in the back pocket" thing and not a true problem.

3. SOME LENS-SPECIFIC OPTICAL PERFORMANCE COMMENTS

Here's an overview of the optical performance of each lens tested at 120mm - both in absolute terms and relative to the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E:

• The Nikkor 120-300 f2.8E is REALLY SOLID at 120mm: It became almost boring to summarize the results of the Nikkor 120-300 at 120mm: Central Region Sharpness - first; edge sharpness - first; bokeh - first; yada, yada, yada. There were definitely some lenses tying the Nikkor 120-300mm under certain test conditions (e.g., the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E in sharpness at almost all apertures, the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 matching it in bokeh in many cases), but the combination of central and edge sharpness and great bokeh at virtually all apertures exhibited by the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E was simply unmatched. The only "weakness" of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E at 120mm was that from f2.8 to f3.5 at mid-distances (12m and 24m) it placed JUST behind the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E in central region sharpness (but the sharpness difference between the two lenses was infinitesimally small...and within the range that tweaking sharpening in post-processing would completely negate the difference).

• The Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 is a good alternative at 120mm. In real world terms the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 faired very well against the Nikkor 120-300mm at 120mm. Like the Nikkor 120-300mm it showed a really strong mix of sharpness and bokeh and in a lot of situations the images of the two 120-300's are next to impossible to distinguish - it's only when you start pushing the boundaries that you start seeing differences between the images shot with the two 120-300's. In this case "pushing the boundaries" means shooting wide open or very close to it - at ALL distances you had to stop the Sigma 120-300 down to f3.5 to match the Nikkor 120-300 in central region sharpness and f4.5 in edge sharpness. Realistically this is pretty good performance for a lens costing not much more than a third of the price of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E.

• The Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E is REALLY SHARP at 120mm. If image sharpness is your only criteria in assessing image quality, then the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E is the lens for you at 120mm. In the vast majority of subject distance and aperture combinations it tied the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and it edged it out in sharpness in the mid-distance tests over the aperture range of f2.8 to f3.5. But the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E is definitely behind BOTH of the 120-300's in bokeh quality. This does NOT in any way mean the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E has "bad bokeh" at 120mm - in fact BEFORE getting the Nikkor 120-300mm I was very pleased with the bokeh quality of the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E. But now, after shooting both lenses extensively, if I'm in a situation of shooting at 120mm AND I want to separate my subject from the background as effectively as possible, I am going to grab for the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E. But place yourself in a situation of shooting a distant landscape or animalscape and you can't go wrong grabbing either the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E OR the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E.

• The Nikkor 70-200mm f4 trails at 120mm. Just like at 200mm, at 120mm the Nikkor didn't compete well with the other lenses in this test. Central region sharpness becomes comparable to the other lenses only at apertures from about f5.6 and smaller, and at ALL apertures edge sharpness was very poor on the left side. Bokeh? Overall the weakest of the bunch (consistently placed last in all comparisons). While I always liked this lens in the past (and when shooting with lower resolution bodies), it doesn't do very well when paired with current high resolution bodies like the Z7 or D850.

4. RESULTS FROM "JUST SHOOTING" @ 120mm

Because all the field testing of the Nikkor 120-300 took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, I wasn't able to travel to "exotic" locations and seek out dramatic subject matter to work with. Normally I'd use the 120mm focal length on a lens like this primarily for landscapes and animalscape shots and the occasional wildlife portrait (with highly cooperative subjects, of course!). So you'll have to bear with me on these sample shots! But the KEY point is that the strong optical performance at 120mm revealed during systematic testing continued during all sessions where I went out "just shooting" at 120mm.

• Good enough for high-resolution landscapes? Short answer - the excellent edge-to-edge sharpness observed during systematic testing continues when shooting in the real world with the Nikon Z7. Sample Image: Lavington Sunrise, Findlay Drainage.

• Landscapes shot wide open? I was pleased to discover that wide apertures worked just fine for landscape images (background "softness" on f2.8 shot is a DoF issue, not an indication of any optical weaknesses). Sample Images:

Lavington Sunrise at f2.8
Lavington Sunrise at f8

• Sharpness/bokeh balance with closer subjects? There's no doubt that you WON'T get the same wonderful sharpness/bokeh balance when you shoot the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E at 120mm as you will when you shoot it at 300mm, but there's no doubt this lens works well when shooting with wide apertures at 120mm. Here's 3 sample images to illustrate what I mean (using my reliable wildlife proxy Poncho):

Poncho Going Low...at f3.2
Overlooking the Columbia Valley...at f3.2
Poncho @ Sunset...at f2.8

V. DISCUSSION: OPTICAL PERFORMANCE FROM 120mm to 300mm

• Post Date: June 30, 2020

When shot in its native focal range of 120-300mm, the new Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is simply an optical powerhouse. You truly get prime-quality optical performance in BOTH sharpness and bokeh - at all focal lengths. Here's some of the most significant findings of my testing:

• At 300mm it showed the strongest overall optical performance, including slightly edging out the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII in sharpness and matching it in bokeh.

• At 200mm it was in a dead heat with the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E in optical performance (and beat out the highly regarded Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E). My own preference at 200mm is for the Nikkor 120-300mm over the 180-400mm simply because it has the larger aperture of f2.8 and at a 200mm having the f2.8 aperture (with the subject-isolating power it adds) is important to me.

• At 120mm the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 came the closest to matching the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E in overall optical performance, but the need to stop down the Sigma to match the central and edge sharpness of the Nikkor 120-300mm relegated the Sigma to second place.

For me the single thing that stands out for me about the optical performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is its complete lack of any optical weakness - shoot it at any focal length, any distance, and at any aperture and you get tack sharp images with wonderful bokeh. Over the years I have tested dozens of lenses and have only seen this kind of near flawless optical performance in one other lens - the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Both are "just can't miss" lenses...

It's probably worth summarizing the differences between the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and the lens that competes most closely with it - the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8. Both are very good optically but a few things clearly separate them. First, at close distances focus breathing REALLY hampers the performance of the Sigma 120-300. Why? Because when you have a 300mm lens "shortening" to 243mm via focus breathing your depth-of-field changes significantly which, in turn, really hampers your ability to produce those "dreamy, buttery-smooth" backgrounds at close distances that you wanted when you bought a 300mm f2.8 lens. Second, the Sigma suffers from the same fate as MOST super-telephoto primes and zooms - you have to stop them down from wide open to get maximum sharpness - and that difference in sharpness from f2.8 to f3.5 IS noticeable. In contrast, the difference in sharpness (at all focal lengths) between f2.8 and f3.5 with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is so trivial that you have no reason NOT to shoot it wide open all the time.

Simply put - when it comes to optical performance the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is just a beast!

So..what happens with the image quality of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E when you "extend" the focal length by adding teleconverters - does the optical magic continue? Read on...

RETURN TO TOP


Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E Field Test: Optical Performance with Teleconverters

Optical Performance with Teleconverters

I. INTRODUCTION

• Post Date: July 20, 2020

Historically I was strongly biased against the use of teleconverters with zoom lenses. This view was developed after testing and shooting lens/TC combinations such as the Nikkor 200-400mm f4G paired up with the TC-14EII (1.4x TC) and the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8G VR (versions I and II) with both the TC-14EII and the TC-20EIII. Simply put, the results I obtained using these lens/TC combinations lagged far behind what you would get with prime lenses of equivalent focal lengths. In short, they sucked - the resulting images were very soft in both the central regions and edges and the bokeh was jittery and "nervous".

My negative bias against using zooms lenses with TC's began to dissolve when I acquired the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E which features a built-in 1.4x TC. I was pleasantly surprised by the high image quality that can be obtained with the built-in TC (in the 401mm to 560mm focal range). I assumed this noticeable improvement in zoom lens plus TC combination image quality was largely because the built-in TC of the 180-400mm was "optically matched" to the lens. But then I compared the results obtained with the 180-400mm f4E plus the TC-14EIII against those obtained with the 180-400mm f4E plus its built-in 1.4x TC and found them to be completely indistinguishable. Hmmm...maybe Nikon HAD improved their zooms to the point where they were usable with TC's! Time to open up my mind a bit...

One other relevant observation I have made over the years is that there is a high degree of between-lens image-quality variability of various lens/TC combinations, with some prime lenses working FAR better than others with TC's. The BEST results I had ever obtained with TC's (both the TC-14EIII and the TC-20EIII) was with the Nikkor 400mm f2.8 (both G and E versions) and I also retained very good results when these TC's were paired up with the 300mm f2.8G VRII and the 200mm f2G. It was NOT lost on me that the best performing lens/TC combos were found with lenses with apertures of f2.8 or faster. And, of course, f2.8 or faster lenses also worked better with TC's in general "usability" terms - even with the TC's in the picture you still had good autofocus capabilities and weren't struggling to find enough light to use them hand-held.

Where am I going with all this? Well...when the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E came around one of my first thoughts was "You know, it's possible that it will perform very well with the TC-14EIII (1.4x) TC" (yes, I do think like this in full sentences). But, if I'm being fully honest, I didn't really think the 120-300mm plus TC-20EIII (2x) TC pairing would be of much value.

I suspect the first thing most wildlife photographers would say about the 120-300mm would be "Interesting lens, but a little short for my uses". However, when you pair the 120-300mm with the TC-14EIII it suddenly becomes a 120mm-420mm f2.8-f4 zoom and of considerably more interest to wildlife photographers...but only if the lens/TC combo produces optically "solid" results. Thus I decided to put in a huge effort on testing the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E with the TC-14EIII 1.4x teleconverter). And, by the time I was half-way through making those tests I knew I just HAD to test the 120-300mm with the TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter.

II. OPTICAL PERFORMANCE WITH THE TC-14EIII (1.4x) TELECONVERTER

• Post Date: July 20, 2020

I decided to emphasize the "longer" focal lengths in my testing of the 120-300mm plus TC-14EIII combination based on the assumption that if anyone is putting a TC on this lens it is to gain as much reach as possible. So the bulk of my testing was at 300mm (420mm when you factor in the increase in focal length associated with the TC). But please note that when I was "Just Shooting" the 120-300mm plus TC-14EIII combination I tried a wide range of focal lengths between 300mm and 420mm - those results are described in my "Results from Just Shooting" section below (along with a number of image samples).

At 420mm I tested the optical performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E at four camera-to-subject distances (4.25m, 12m, 24m, and 1600m). The rationale for choosing these distances - and all other technical details concerning the methods I used - can be found in Appendix 1 below. The lenses tested and compared against the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E at 420mm included:

• Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 plus Sigma TC-1401
• Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII plus TC-14EIII
• Nikkor 300mm f4D plus TC-14EII (the 300mm f4D is not compatible with the newer TC-14EIII)
• Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (at 300mm with built-in 1.4x TC engaged)
• Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 at 420mm (shot native).

By the time I was part way through these tests I began wondering how well the 120-300mm plus TC-14EIII combination would compare to the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E when both were shot at 400mm (so the 120-300mm f2.8E "zoomed back" to about 284mm while paired with the TC-14EIII and the 180-400mm shot at maximum focal length without its built-in TC engaged). So I performed this test as well (using the same test distances and test protocols described above and in Appendix 1 below). This additional test seemed useful for at least two reasons - it would tell me which lens (or lens plus TC combination) is best to use when I need to shoot at 400mm and it might help other wildlife photographers decide if they should invest in the 120-300mm f2.8E or opt for 180-400mm f4E.

1. THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - OPTICAL PERFORMANCE WITH THE TC-14EIII (1.4x) TELECONVERTER

At 420mm the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII combination performed superbly - over all 4 test distances and all apertures (and when factoring in central region sharpness, edge sharpness, and bokeh) it wracked up more first-place rankings than another other 420mm "solution" - and by a wide margin. As an example, at the closest test distance NO OTHER lens (or lens/TC combination) matched it in central region sharpness until all lenses were stopped down to f8. The single lens that came closest to matching it overall at 420mm was the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII. Here's how the lenses stacked up in 1st place rankings (or tied for first place) in the critical f4 to f8 range:

• 40 first/tied for first rankings: Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII
• 6 first/tied for first rankings: Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 plus Sigma TC-1401
• 31 first/tied for first rankings: Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII plus TC-14EIII
• 12 first/tied for first rankings: Nikkor 300mm f4D plus TC-14EII
• 16 first/tied for first rankings: Nikkor 180-400mm f4E with built-in 1.4x TC engaged
• 3 first/tied for first rankings: Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 shot native.

At 400mm the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII combination and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E shot without its built-in TC engaged battled to what was essentially a draw. There were TWO instances (over all distances and apertures tested) where the Nikkor 180-400mm was very slightly sharper (only noticeable when engaged in extreme pixel-peeping) - and that was at the closest test distance and f4 and f4.5 only. But there a total of 10 instances where the bokeh of the 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII was slightly (but noticeably) better than that of the 180-400mm f4E. In practical, real world terms you can shoot either of these lenses at 400mm at any aperture or distance and get results that are stellar (and virtually indistinguishable).

I can not overstate how well the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E performs when combined with the TC-14EIII (1.4x) TC - its ability to match Nikon's best primes extends to cases where you are using it combined with the 1.4x TC. This increases the versatility of the lens for wildlife photographers immensely.

2. A NUMBER OF CLEAR TRENDS

• Overall Optical Performance. Probably the most important clear trend is this: From an optical performance perspective there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to hesitate in using the TC-14EIII (1.4x) teleconverter with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E

• Sharpness/Aperture Variation (Sharpness "Progression"). There were two lenses in this test that could be shot wide open at all test distances without a significant or noticeable drop in image sharpness in any part of the frame (center or edge) - the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E.

• Focus Breathing. Not surprisingly, the focus breathing trend in these tests (@ 400mm and 420mm) paralleled those when the same lenses were shot at 300mm (i.e., without the TC's). None of the four Nikkor lenses tested at 420mm (and at the test distances of 4.25m, 12m, or 24m) showed any significant focus breathing. However, the two Sigma lenses - and particularly the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 - showed significant focus breathing. As an example, at a subject distance of 4.25m the Sigma 120-300mm plus TC-1401 lost almost 20% of its maximum focal length...so instead of producing a 420mm focal length it behaved like a 340mm lens. And, consequently, its bokeh took a large hit and wasn't nearly as smooth and creamy as any of the Nikkor lenses when shot with their respective TC's.

• Vignetting? Like with focus breathing, the amount of vignetting of the various lenses paralleled their performance at 300mm. Which means all lenses vignetted about the same amount - between 1 and 1.5 stops when shot wide open and down to about 0.5 stops when shot at f8. And, of course, this is a "flaw" that is easily corrected in post-processing so for most users it is not that big of a deal.

3. SOME LENS-SPECIFIC OPTICAL PERFORMANCE COMMENTS

Here's an overview of the optical performance of each lens tested at 420mm - both in absolute terms and relative to the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E:

• The Nikkor 120-300 f2.8E is EXCELLENT when shot with the TC-14EIII at 420mm: While I anticipated good optical performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E/TC-14EIII combination, I did not expect it to be THIS good! At 420mm it outpaced both the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII plus TC-14EIII (a combination many owners of the 300mm f2.8G swear by) and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E with its built-in TC engaged. And, at 400mm it tied Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (shot without its TC engaged) in optical performance...which is really quite remarkable.

• The Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 under-performs with the TC-1401 teleconverter at 420mm. There's no real way to sugar-coat this - the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 doesn't perform well (in absolute terms or when compared to the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E) when combined with the TC-1401 teleconverter. When shot wide open (at all distances) the images were soft and almost "cloudy" in appearance. And even when stopped down they didn't match any of the Nikkors in sharpness or bokeh (at any distance). And, the Sigma Sport 150-600mm beat the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 plus TC-1401 in sharpness at most distances (with their bokeh being about equal).

• The Nikkor 300mm f2.8G is VERY GOOD when shot with the TC-14EIII at 420mm: Overall the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G plus TC-14EIII placed a solid second in overall optical performance behind the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E. Where did the 300mm f2.8 plus TC-14EIII come up short? Mainly in sharpness - at all distances it had to be stopped down to between f5.6 and f8 before it matched the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII in central region sharpness. It should be noted that the two lenses were in a dead heat in bokeh (at all apertures and distances where bokeh is a factor).

• The Nikkor 180-400mm f4E is VERY STRONG with its built-in TC at 420mm: In a sense, the biggest "negative" about the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E at 420mm is that its maximum aperture is f5.6 (compared to the f4 max aperture of both the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G with the TC-14EIII). In sharpness the lens tied the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII at many overlapping apertures and most distances (but it wasn't quite as sharp in the central region at long distances at any overlapping apertures). Given my druthers - and if am shooting a scene/animal at 420mm - I'll opt for the Nikkor 120-300mm plus TC-14EIII over the Nikkor 180-400mm with its TC engaged in that I know I am not giving anything away in sharpness and I have a wider aperture available (and thus able to isolate my subject from the background that much better).

• The Nikkor 300mm f4D is SURPRISINGLY SHARP at 420mm: Given the age of this lens (so much so that it's only compatible with the "older" TC-14EII teleconverter) it is surprisingly sharp when shot at 420mm. BUT, it didn't do well in bokeh (commonly near the back of the pack with the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 plus TC-1401) or in edge sharpness with distant subjects. But if you have lots of light and your primary concern is central region sharpness at 420mm - this combination works!

• The Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 at 420mm? Well...not bad in central region sharpness...assuming you can stop down to f8 or f9 and still get the shot you want. But at most apertures the only lens/TC combination that the Sigma Sport 150-600mm consistently beats is the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 plus TC-1401. Bokeh? Not good - in most cases battling with the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 plus TC-1401 and the Nikkor 300mm f4D plus TC-14EII at the back of the pack.

4. RESULTS FROM "JUST SHOOTING" WITH THE TC-14EIII

I have now shot roughly 3,000 images in the field with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus the TC-14EIII using 4 different camera bodies - the Z7, D500, D5, and D6. The quality of the images is matching exactly what I found during systematic testing using the Z7 - excellent results at all distances and all apertures (including when shot wide open). I have also confirmed something that I did NOT examine during systematic testing - that the image quality is consistent across all focal lengths from 310mm to 420mm. I've also noticed anecdotally that the "hit rate" of the images (in terms of proportion of sharp shots) has been very high and pretty much in the "as good as top primes" range.

Here are 17 sample shots captured with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII combination and covering a range of focal lengths and apertures. Some obviously suggest strong autofocus performance - I'll be saying more about this in the Autofocus Performance section of this review. Critical tech info is contained on the captions of each image. All images are either full-frame or very close to full frame and have been reduced to 2400 pixels for bandwidth reasons.

310mm @ f4 with D5: Stretching for the Finish Line...

320mm @ f4.5 with D6: Kootenay Grizzly - Mid-morning Coffee Break

330mm @ f4.5 with D6: Bighorn Ram - Intent & Attentive

350mm @ f5.6 with D5: Red Squirrel - Who's Back There?

360mm @ f4 with D5: Poncho Going for Broke

360mm @ f5 with D5: Dusky on Display

380mm @ f5 with D5: Red Squirrel - Classic Pose

390mm @ f4 with D6: Just WHO are you calling "Patches"?

400mm @ f5.6 with D500: Mountain Chickadee

400mm @ f4 with D500: The Battle-scarred Warrior

420mm @ f4 with D6: Canada Goose at Daybreak

420mm @ f4.5 with D500: Dark-eyed Junco on Snag

420mm @ f7.1 with D500: Red-breasted Nuthatch

420mm @ f5 with D500: Bombycilla cedrorum avec Amelanchier alniflolia

420mm @ f5 with D6: Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner?

420mm @ f4.5 with D6: Kootenay Griz

So what happens when shooting the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E with the TC-14EIII and the subject is moving toward you and the "inevitable" happens - you screw up and zoom back to the point where you are shooting at UNDER 300mm and don't need the TC on at all (but don't have the time or opportunity to remove it) - do you take a big hit in image quality (compared to shooting the lens native)? Turns out you DON'T pay a big image quality penalty - check out this intentional screw up (190mm with D6): Poncho on West Ridge.

III. OPTICAL PERFORMANCE WITH THE TC-20EIII (2x) TELECONVERTER

• Post Date: July 22, 2020

I decided to test the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus 2x TC combination at 3 different focal lengths: 500mm, 560mm, and 600mm and against several different lenses. Like when testing the TC-14EIII (1.4x) teleconverter, when "Just Shooting" the 120-300mm plus TC-20EIII combination I used a wider variety of focal lengths, including in focal lengths that overlapped that which can be reached with the 120-300 plus 1.4x TC.

My protocol for the systematic testing followed that described in Appendix 1 with two exceptions. First, the test distances were increased slightly. This was done to accommodate the longer focal lengths and with the assumption that with focal lengths in the 500mm+ range most shooters would be working with longer distances-to-subject (or working distances). Second, I tested at only TWO different distances - at close distance (8.6m or about 28') and one mid-distance (30m or about 98'). I arbitrarily decided to not test at long distance (1600m or about a mile) as I had with other optical performance tests for the simple reason that I thought the majority of users (including myself) would not shoot many distance landscapes using a 2x teleconverter (if you do, sorry but you're on your own and can do your own testing! ;-)

At 500mm I tested the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus 2x TC against the following lenses:

• Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (at 355mm with built-in 1.4x TC engaged)
• Nikkor 500mm f5.6E PF
• Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 at 500mm (shot native).

At 560mm I tested the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus 2x TC against the following lenses:

• Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (at 400mm with built-in 1.4x TC engaged)
• Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 at 560mm (shot native).

At 600mm I tested the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus 2x TC against ONLY the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 (unfortunately I no longer had a copy of the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII when I decided to add 600mm testing to the mix).

1. THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - OPTICAL PERFORMANCE WITH THE TC-20EIII (2x) TELECONVERTER

At 500mm the optical performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-20EIII varied with the distance to subject. At the closest distance (8.6m) the 120-300 plus 2x TC was not too sharp - in fact it placed last in sharpness of all the lenses tested. It did place first in bokeh quality. However, at 30m (the mid-distance to subject) trailed the sharpness of the Nikkor 180-400mm (with its TC-engaged) by only an extremely small amount (so small that the difference could easily be negated by sharpening during post-processing). At 30m the 120-300 plus 2x TC was sharper and had better bokeh than the Sigma Sport 150-600mm.

At 560mm the optical performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-20EIII was considerably stronger optically and it did NOT vary with distance to subject. The Nikkor 180-400mm was very slightly sharper (only noticeable when engaged in extreme pixel-peeping) at only f5.6 and f6.3 - at smaller apertures the two lens/TC combinations were indistinguishable in sharpness (and both were considerably sharper than the Sigma Sport 150-600mm). The 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-20EIII had the best bokeh at 560mm.

At 600mm the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-20EIII was considerably sharper and had better bokeh than the Sigma Sport 150-600mm (at all overlapping apertures). In absolute terms the test images of the Nikkor 120-300mm plus TC-20EIII shot at 600mm were extremely sharp.

2. A NUMBER OF CLEAR TRENDS

• Overall Optical Performance. To be honest, the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-20EIII teleconverter combination greatly exceeded my expectations. It does under-perform slightly at close subject distances when using "shorter" focal lengths, but at longer focal lengths (and at all subject distances and virtually all apertures) the optical performance of this lens/TC combination was simply excellent and produced top-notch images.

• Sharpness/Aperture Variation (Sharpness "Progression"). The Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-20EIII combination sharpens up very slightly (at all focal lengths when you stop down by 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop, but it has to be noted that the difference between shooting the lens/TC combo wide open vs. f7.1 is quite negligible. In most cases the "sharpness penalty" incurred by shooting wide open is so insignificant it can be ignored.

• Focus Breathing. None of the Nikkor lenses in this test showed significant focus breathing. As in the optical performance tests at shorter focal lengths, the Sigma Sport 150-600mm showed more focus breathing at close distances (losing about 10% of its focal length at 500mm, 560mm, and 600mm).

3. SOME LENS-SPECIFIC OPTICAL PERFORMANCE COMMENTS

Here's an overview of the optical performance of each lens tested at in the 500-600mm range - both in absolute terms and relative to the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E:

• The Nikkor 120-300 f2.8E performs surprisingly well when combined with the TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter, with one relatively small caveat: I would personally hesitate to use it when shooting at short distances (10m or less) when using focal lengths of 500mm or less. At longer focal lengths and/or longer distances-to-subject this lens/TC combination performs very well, producing very sharp images with excellent bokeh.

• The Nikkor 500mm f5.6E PF is exceptionally sharp at 500mm - it was clearly the sharpest of the lot at 500mm and that sharpness began at its widest aperture (there is absolutely no need to stop it down at all to achieve tack sharp images).

• The Nikkor 180-400mm f4E is VERY STRONG with its built-in TC at 500mm and 560mm: While not quite as sharp as the 500mm f5.6E PF at 500mm, there is no doubting that the Nikkor 180-400mm performs very well with its built-in TC engaged, including at its longest focal length (560mm). And, like the 500mm f5.6E PF, there is absolutely no need to stop down this lens (even with its TC engaged) to get sharp shots.

• The Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3 at 500mm, 560mm, and 600mm? Just like in optical tests at shorter focal lengths, you CAN get sharp images out of the Sigma Sport 150-600mm...but this is dependent on stopping down the lens to the f8-f9 range. Whether or not this is practical for you will depend on the lighting conditions under which you generally shoot under, whether or not you are able to shoot from a tripod, etc.

4. RESULTS FROM "JUST SHOOTING" WITH THE TC-20EIII

I have now shot roughly 2,500 images in the field with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus the TC-20EIII using 4 different camera bodies - the Z7, D500, D5, and D6. A few things have stood out very clearly to me. First, the optical quality of this lens/TC combination has FAR exceeded my expectations. In my experience the prime super-telephoto that pairs up best with the TC-20EIII is the Nikkor 400mm f2.8 (both G and E versions). I believe the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E pairs up just as well with the TC-20EIII - which is nothing short of amazing.

Second, the 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-20EIII is quite easy to hand-hold (though this will vary between users). Of course, the hit-rate (proportion of sharp images) of the hand-held shots taken with this lens/TC combination will vary with focal length and available light (and thus the shutter speeds you can attain), but in general I have been getting a very high proportion of sharp images with this lens/TC pairing.

Third, the optical performance "weakness" I identified during my systematic testing (i.e., soft images when shooting at close subjects at focal lengths of 500mm or less) had minimal impact on the images I captured when out shooting in the field. In most instances I found myself turning to the 2x TC when subjects were at distances greater than 10 meters or so (and often considerably greater than 10 meters).

Here are 10 sample shots captured with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-20EIII combination and covering a range of focal lengths, apertures, and subject matter. Critical tech info is contained on the captions of each image. All images are either full-frame or very close to full frame and have been reduced to 2400 pixels for bandwidth reasons. With the exception of the 3 adults bluebird shots, all the shots below are hand-held.

450mm @ f7.1 with D6: Bighorn Portrait

480mm @ f7.1 with D6: Bighorn Ram - When you don't have pockets...

500mm @ f6.3 with D6: Young Bighorn Ram

560mm @ f7.1 with D6: Poncho Acting Guilty

600mm @ f7.1 with D6: Bighorn Ram - A Young 'Un

600mm @ f5.6 with D6: The Stalker

600mm (900mm EFL) @ f8 with D500: Female Mountain Bluebird on Bug Patrol

600mm @ f8 with D6: Fresh Out of the Nest

600mm (900mm EFL) @ f7.1 with D500: Female Mountain Bluebird @ Dawn

600mm (900mm EFL) @ f7.1 with D500: A Bluebird's Buffalo Berry Breakfast

And, how serious of a hit to image quality do you take when you "zoom out" to the shorter focal lengths and start shooting in the focal length range where you could get by with the TC-14EIII or even no TC at all? You DO lose some image quality, but in most cases it's not a fatal error. Check out this shot of a very scruffy bighorn ewe captured at a total focal length of 380mm with the 2x TC attached (so the lens itself was backed off to a focal length of 190mm): The Motley Ewe.

IV. DISCUSSION: USING TELECONVERTERS WITH THE NIKKOR 120-300mm f2.8E

• Post Date: July 22, 2020

Few wildlife photographers would argue that the idea of teleconverters isn't appealing - they're considerably less expensive than buying another high-end telephoto or super-telephoto lens plus they're small and light and thus very easily carried. I started experimenting with teleconverters decades ago and have persisted in trying them out on various lenses right through to the present. Unfortunately, I found very few lenses where the overall performance of the lens/TC combination was high enough that I would add a TC without hesitation. The most notable - and for me most useful - lens/TC combination that I would readily use was the Nikkor 400mm f2.8 (G or E versions) plus the TC-14EIII (and occasionally the TC-20EIII). With most other lenses two problems prevented me from using TC's - a noticeable decrease in image quality (in sharpness or in bokeh quality) or the loss of 1 or more available "stops" of aperture (and the associated need to have more light available).

Now, however, I can add one more lens to that very short list of lenses that I'll use with TC's with NO hesitation - the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E. The overall performance of the 120-300 plus TC-14EIII combination is simply exceptional, and the performance of the 120-300 plus TC-20EIII is at least "very good". You CAN capture professional-quality images with both of these lens/TC combinations. And, with the lens's fast f2.8 aperture you're not forced into shooting the TC's only in situations of "abundant" light.

How's autofocus when using the TC's? One quick caveat here - AF performance is a joint attribute with contributions from both the lens and the camera body in question...and most of my AF testing and much of my day-to-day shooting is with the two DSLR's that arguably rank first and second in AF performance - the D6 and D5. So those shooting with other bodies may not have experiences that mirror mine. Anyway...the f2.8 aperture of the 120-300 helps AF performance a LOT once you begin adding TC's. With the 1.4x TC in place I have noticed no impairment of AF performance at all and my hit rates when shooting "controlled" action sequences of my dog Poncho running (like this shot) is very high. In fact (and I will say more about this in the Autofocus Performance section of this review) I obtained higher hit ratios with the 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-20EIII at 400mm during systematic AF testing than I did with the Nikkor 180-400mm at 400mm (i.e., without the built-in TC engaged). How's the AF with the 120-300 plus 2x TC combination? While I haven't done systematic testing yet, it seems quite good...and certainly capable of capturing sharp shots of relatively fast moving subjects (as shown in this shot).

In my view the superlative performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E when paired with TC's dramatically increases the value of this lens for wildlife photography. For me it has shifted the lens from a "speciality" lens for low light and/or animalscape shooting to what I currently think of as my most versatile wildlife lens (even more versatile than the excellent 180-400mm f4E).

OK...so it's two thumbs up for optical performance of the 120-300mm f2.8E, including when TC's are in play. But the value and utility of a lens is determined by more than just its optical performance, including its optical stabilization system and its AF performance. How does the 120-300mm f2.8E measure up on these critical attributes? Read on...

RETURN TO TOP


Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E Field Test: Optical Stabilization & Hand-holdability

Optical Stabilization and "Hand-holdability"

I. INTRODUCTION

• Post Date: July 29, 2020

A lens is, of course, more than just a group of glass lens elements. Other characteristics of the lens - such as its optical stabilization performance and its autofocus performance - play a huge role in determining its overall usefulness and versatility. If a lens absolutely MUST be bolted down to a heavy tripod to allow the shooter to "access" or harness its optical performance, then the lens's usefulness and versatility takes a big hit. In the case of a lens in the focal length range of 120-300mm - and as a wildlife shooter who often works in low light conditions - I absolutely want and need to be able to hand-hold the lens and still get tack sharp images at only moderately fast shutter speeds (e.g., often in the 1/125s to 1/250s range, and at times even slower shutter speeds). Consequently, knowing how slow of a shutter speed I can use with a lens and still capture sharp shots is essential for me. And, this is MORE essential to me than just being told that a particular lens offers 3 or 4 stops of vibration reduction (VR) or optical stabilization (OS) compared to a lens without a VR/OS system.

For full context it's important to acknowledge that many variables interact to determine the slowest shutter speed that an individual photographer can hand-hold a lens at. These include user technique, lens weight (and lighter isn't necessarily better), lens/camera balance, optical magnification, and probably more. I approach (and test) a lens's "hand-holdability" directly - because what I really want to know is how slow a shutter speed I can hand-hold a lens at and get sharp shots, that's exactly what I test. And please note that my absolute results obtained in this testing are not generalizable - just because I can hand-hold lens X at 1/125s doesn't mean you could (you might be able to do much better). However, if I can hand-hold lens X at 1/125s and lens Y at 1/5s, the odds are you would do better with lens Y as well.

In this section I describe the results of head-to-head field-testing of the "hand-holdability" (the shutter speed that I can hand-hold the lens at and still acquire sharp shots) of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E against several competing lenses. The methods I used to determine the hand-holdability are discussed in Appendix 2: Methods: Optical Stabilization and "Hand-holdability". This appendix discusses all aspects of how the images were captured, assessed, and categorized.

The lenses tested and compared (all at 300mm) against the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E for "hand-holdability" included:

• Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8
• Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII
• Nikkor 300mm f4D
• Nikkor 180-400mm f4E.

II. RESULTS

• Post Date: July 29, 2020

All 5 lenses were field-tested and the results were assessed using the methods described in Appendix 2: Methods: Optical Stabilization and "Hand-holdability". In summarizing the results I looked at 4 different things:

The SLOWEST shutter speed where ALL 3 IMAGES in the burst of hand-held shots were categorized as sharp. For me this represents the "safe" shutter speed that I can take the lens to and be almost certain I will come away with sharp shots.

The SLOWEST shutter speed where AT LEAST 1 of the images in the burst was categorized as sharp. For me this represents a shutter speed when things are starting to get a bit dodgy - and I'm probably in a low-light shooting situation (which happens to at least THIS wildlife photographer a LOT). In this shutter speed range I will invariably shoot more bursts of shots because I am aware that I will lose some to image softness.

The SLOWEST shutter speed where AT LEAST 1 of the images in the burst was categorized as a "keeper". The definition of a "keeper" is defined here in Appendix 2". This is what I am thinking about in EXTREMELY low-situations (especially when shooting with my D5 or D6) - just how low of a shutter speed can I go down to with a particular lens and expect to come away with at least some keepers? I know in these situations it's NOT a given I'll come back with sharp shots...but sometimes ya just gotta try - right? ;-)

AND...The HJ Factor. HJ stands for "Herky Jerky" - and this term is a reflection of how badly a stationary subject jumps around in the viewfinder (and on the image sensor) BETWEEN shots in a burst. With a high HJ factor you're going to have a sub-optimal experience shooting a moving subject and even with a stationary subject you may find some shots jump around enough to impact on your chosen composition. With a LOW HJ Factor you find just the opposite - low jumping around of the subject in your viewfinder - so it's much better for shooting moving subjects and/or "hitting" a shot of your stationary subject in the exact composition you wanted.

Immediately below you'll find a short Executive Summary followed by more detailed results, then some clear trends, and finally some specific comments on hand-holdability for each lens.

1. THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The two lenses that allowed me to consistently obtain sharp hand-held shots (with ALL shots in the burst sharp) at extremely slow shutter speeds were the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. With these two lenses the VR Normal mode DEFINITELY permitted the use of slower shutter speeds than the VR Sport mode. While VR Sport mode didn't allow me to use the extremely slow shutter speeds that VR Normal did, it was the best mode to use when shooting bursts that required "stability" of images shot in a high-speed burst (as viewed through the viewfinder OR in the final image).

The Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 - when shot in OS1 mode - also provided very good overall performance. While the consistency of getting sharp shots in a burst at extremely slow shutter speeds didn't quite match the two Nikkor zooms, if we relaxed the standards to "at least ONE shot sharp in a burst" or "at least ONE keeper in a burst" (and not all 3 shots in the burst), then the Sigma Sport performed very well. And, in OS1 mode it also produced a high degree of stability in subject position in the viewfinder (and on the image sensor), i.e., it had a low HJ Factor in OS1 mode.

The smallest and lightest lens in the test was the Nikkor 300mm f4D - and it has NO VR/OS system at all. And, I needed to shoot hand-held shots at much higher shutter speeds with this lens (than the bigger/heavier lenses with VR/OS systems) to consistently get sharp shots. Additionally, I had to use quite high shutter speeds to get only 1 sharp shot per burst...or even to just capture keepers. The performance of this lens in this portion of my testing clearly illustrates that VR systems WORK and can MORE than offset lens weight when it comes to the "hand-holdability" of a lens.

2. DETAILED RESULTS

A. SLOWEST shutter speed - ALL 3 IMAGES in the 3-frame burst SHARP:

i. Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E:

• VR OFF: 1/500
• VR Normal: 1/50
• VR Sport: 1/125

ii. Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8:

• VR OFF: 1/640
• OS1: 1/200
• OS2: 1/400

iii. Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII:

• VR OFF: 1/1000
• VR Normal: 1/200
• VR Active: 1/200

iv. Nikkor 300mm f4D: (note that this lens does NOT have a VR/OS system)

• Non-VR Mode: 1/1000

v. Nikkor 180-400mm f4E:

• VR OFF: 1/1000
• VR Normal: 1/40
• VR Sport: 1/160

KEY RESULTS TO NOTE: Note the extremely show shutter speeds that can be used on both the Nikkor 120-300 and the Nikkor 180-400 in VR Normal mode and still get ALL shots in the burst sharp (1/50 and 1/40s respectively). That REALLY untethers the shooter from their tripods!

B. SLOWEST shutter speed - AT LEAST ONE IMAGE in the 3-frame burst SHARP:

i. Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E:

• VR OFF: 1/400
• VR Normal: 1/30
• VR Sport: 1/40

ii. Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8:

• VR OFF: 1/250
• OS1: 1/40
• OS2: 1/160

iii. Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII:

• VR OFF: 1/500
• VR Normal: 1/125
• VR Active: 1/125

iv. Nikkor 300mm f4D: (note that this lens does NOT have a VR/OS system)

• Non-VR Mode: 1/800

v. Nikkor 180-400mm f4E:

• VR OFF: 1/250
• VR Normal: 1/30
• VR Sport: 1/25

KEY RESULTS TO NOTE: Again note the extremely show shutter speeds that can be used on both the Nikkor 120-300 and the Nikkor 180-400 (in both VR Normal and VR Sport modes) and still get AT LEAST one shot in the burst sharp. The Sigma Sport 120-300 f2.8 does well in OS1 mode in this test as well.

C. SLOWEST shutter speed - AT LEAST ONE IMAGE in the 3-frame burst a KEEPER:

i. Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E:

• VR OFF: 1/160
• VR Normal: 1/20 (note that this is the lowest shutter speed in the test, so it IS possible that the true value here is even lower)
• VR Sport: 1/40

ii. Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8:

• VR OFF: 1/160
• OS1: 1/25
• OS2: 1/160

iii. Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII:

• VR OFF: 1/160
• VR Normal: 1/25
• VR Active: 1/25

iv. Nikkor 300mm f4D: (note that this lens does NOT have a VR/OS system)

• Non-VR Mode: 1/320

v. Nikkor 180-400mm f4E:

• VR OFF: 1/200
• VR Normal: 1/20 (note that this is the lowest shutter speed in the test, so it IS possible that the true value here is even lower)
• VR Sport: 1/25

KEY RESULTS TO NOTE: If you loosen your standards a little and are willing to accept "slightly soft" images (that would be classified as keepers) you can take the Nikkor 120-300 and the Nikkor 180-400 down to almost ridiculously slow shutter speeds (both produced keepers down to 1/20s). Note that 1/20s is the slowest shutter speed I used in these tests, so it's entirely possible I would have obtained keepers from these two lenses at even slower shutter speeds (1/10 of a second??).

3. A NUMBER OF CLEAR TRENDS

• The "big" Nikkor Zooms are VERY Hand-holdable. The two lenses that could be hand-held at the slowest shutter speeds were the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Interestingly, these are among the heaviest lenses in the test (as well as the most recently released lenses). I think the most "telling" results were the shutter speeds that these two lenses could be hand-held at with ALL images in the burst sharp - this speaks directly to the consistency and reliability of getting sharp shots down to very low shutter speeds.

• The HJ Factor? One thing that was very noticeable while assessing the images (especially when quickly scrolling through them one at a time in "fit window" magnification) was how much variation there was in the amount the images jumped around BETWEEN frames within a burst. When shooting with VR/OS OFF or VR Normal on the Nikkors and OS2 on the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 there was EXTREME bouncing around of the images within a burst. This bouncing around (i.e., High HJ Factor) was noticeable both through the viewfinder and in the final images. In contrast, when shooting the two Nikkor zooms in VR Sport Mode AND the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 in OS1 mode, the HJ Factor was very low (i.e., the images were very stable in the viewfinder and consistent in subject "position" in the final image).

• Your VR/OS Mode REALLY Matters. The results above - and my observations concerning the HJ Factor immediately above - strongly indicate not only that VR/OS works in reducing the shutter speed at which you can successfully hand-hold lenses, but also that choosing the right VR mode is critical to using it effectively. For instance, if you are shooting a static subject with one of the two Nikkor zooms and are in a VERY low light situation and must use very slow shutter speeds, you'll DEFINITELY have a higher proportion of sharp shots (or keepers) if you use VR Normal mode. Conversely, if you're shooting bursts of a moving subject at "moderate" shutter speeds (e.g., about 1/125s or faster) you'll be able to control your composition better - and keep the focus bracket EXACTLY where you want it on your subject - if you choose VR Sport mode.

4. SOME LENS-SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Here's an overview of the "hand-holdability" and stabilization characteristics of each lens:

• The Nikkor 120-300 f2.8E is VERY "hand-holdable"! I could hand-hold the Nikkor 120-300mm in VR Normal mode down to 1/20s and still capture images I consider "keepers". And note that this is a conservative estimate - because 1/20s was the slowest shutter speed I tested, it's entirely possible I could have gone even SLOWER and still got keepers! BUT...if you're shooting moving subjects - especially when panning them - your overall experience (including maintaining the position of your focus point on the subject) is likely to be better if you switch over to VR Sport mode. In my own case - and as a wildlife photographer - I tend to stick to moderate shutter speeds (e.g., 1/125s or faster) even in low light, and this is primarily because wildlife MOVES, even if it's just a twitching of the nose. And, I personally REALLY dislike having the image jump around between frames in a burst. Consequently, my own preferred (and default) VR mode has become VR Sport in ANY lens that has it - including the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E. In fact, about the ONLY time I shift over to VR Normal mode is if I happen to be shooting a hand-held landscape shot and want to keep my ISO as low as possible. In these cases I may choose shutter speeds that I KNOW will get me sharp shots in VR Normal mode but might not in VR Sport mode (e.g., in the 1/60 to 1/125 range).

• The Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 is ALSO very "hand-holdable". The OS1 mode of the Sigma Sport 120-300 works very well. Not only will it deliver keepers down to very slow shutter speeds (1/25 in this test), but it also features a low HJ Factor (i.e., the image is quite stable through the viewfinder when shooting a burst). The ONLY place where the Sigma Sport in OS1 mode did NOT match up with the Nikkor 120-300 or the Nikkor 180-400 is at the shutter speed where ALL shots in a burst were sharp - with the Sigma it was 1/200 versus 1/50 and 1/40 (respectively) for the two Nikkors. This means when you're shooting it you can't be confident that ALL shots in this burst will be sharp...but you do know SOME of them will be sharp. OS2 mode? My experience is that you should use it for what it is designed for - panning. So...for most shooters you should keep it on OS1 mode most of the time.

• The Nikkor 300mm f2.8G is FAIRLY hand-holdable! We know the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G is getting a little long in the tooth (it was introduced back in 2010) - and it is the ONLY of the Nikon super-telephotos that hasn't been upgraded to an E-version with fluorine lens elements (and my guess is that with the introduction of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E the 300mm f2.8G WON'T be upgraded). And, a consequence of its age is that its VR system is dated as well. So while it works reasonably well, the lens itself can't be hand-held down to the shutter speeds that the two newer Nikkor zooms can (and still produce consistently sharp shots). And, there is NO mode equivalent to VR Sport - in all modes (VR OFF, VR Normal, VR Active) there is a LOT of between frame subject "jumping" in a burst (i.e., all modes have a high HJ Factor). On the positive side - you can DEFINITELY hand-hold this lens down to shutter speeds far lower than you can with the smaller and lighter (and older) Nikkor 300mm f4D!

• The Nikkor 180-400mm f4E is VERY "hand-holdable"! You can apply virtually everything I said about the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E to this lens! For me, this lens is VERY hand-holdable (but yep, it's tiring to do so). And, given the lens is both bigger and heavier, this is pretty amazing. But...there's something I do have to say about hand-holding this lens - every shooter will differ in how heavy of a lens they can comfortably hand-hold. And, more importantly, the threshold weight where suddenly it no longer becomes practical to hand-hold a lens will ALSO differ between users. And, I SUSPECT that the size/weight of the 180-400 just may cross that threshold for a lot of users. So I expect there will be a number of shooters out there that could hand-hold the 120-300mm down to reasonably slow shutter speeds (similar to my own results), but may not be able to do the same with the 180-400mm. While the 180-400mm is "only" 267 gm (around 10 oz) heavier than the Nikkor 120-300, it's my observation and opinion that it "feels" considerably heavier when hand-holding it. Just sayin'...

• The Nikkor 300mm f4D - light, but HARD to hand-hold! The Nikkor 300mm f4D is the smallest and lightest of the lenses in this test (by a lot - it's only 1440 gm or 3.17 lb) and it's the ONLY lens tested that has no VR/OS system. And, most significantly, while easy to hand-hold from a physical perspective...I had to use VERY high shutter speeds to get sharp hand-held shots out of it. To ensure ALL 3 shots in burst were sharp I had to shoot at 1/1000s or faster. To ensure ONE shot in a burst was sharp I had to shoot at 1/800s or faster. And even to just get keepers I had to shoot at 1/320s or faster! This suggests two things to me. First...VR/OS works - plain and simple. Second...even if you compare this lens to the other lens shot with their VR OFF...it will be obvious that I had to use higher shutter speeds with the 300mm f4D. I personally think it's because the lens is TOO light for me (and presumably others) to hand-hold effectively. I have found this same pattern with other uber-light telephoto lenses, most notably the diminutive Nikkor 300mm f4E PF which I find almost impossible to hand-hold (and get sharp shots) with the VR off.

5. RESULTS FROM "JUST SHOOTING" HAND-HELD SHOTS

Since acquiring the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and completing this aspect of my testing I have shot at least 5,000 hand-held shots with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E in the field. These have included action shots, close-ups of wildlife, distant scenes, and more. They've been split about 30:30:40 between my D5, D6, and D500, respectively (with a handful shot with my Z7). Initially I shot my hand-held shots following the 1/focal length rule when using the VR Sport mode (so if shooting at 300mm I tried not to shoot slower than about 1/320s). Because my "hit-rate" of sharp shots following this guideline was so high (virtually 100%) I began dropping shutter speeds lower when the situation warranted (e.g., I wanted to stop down to increase DoF but didn't want to drive my ISO unnecessarily high), eventually getting down to about 1/half-the-focal-length with a very high hit ratio (so if at 200mm I was comfortable going down to about 1/100s) using VR Sport. And, when I had to shoot at SLOWER than 1/100s I normally switch over to VR Normal mode (and I have been getting a very high ratio of sharp shots down to about 1/40s in these cases).

The bottom line is two-fold: My sessions of "Just Shooting" have been consistent with what I found during more systematic testing...AND it means that - at least for me - the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E can be shot hand-held at very slow shutter speeds and still produce a high proportion of sharp shots. For my style of wildlife shooting this is essential and makes the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E more versatile and more useful to me.

Next up...another huge determinant of lens usability and versatility - Autofocus!

RETURN TO TOP


Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E Field Test: Autofocus Performance

Autofocus Performance

I. INTRODUCTION

• Post Date: November 30, 2020

Intuitively an experienced wildlife photographer can detect - and develop a "gut feeling" about - the autofocus (AF) performance of any given lens. However, over the last decade or so the AF capabilities of all lenses - from low-end to high-end and whether made by the camera maker or a third party - have improved significantly. The net result is that almost ANY lens made in the last few years has quite impressive AF capabilities. This can mean that differences in AF performance between lenses can be quite small, and these differences often only show themselves when shooting in extreme conditions, such as when a large mammal or bird-in-flight is moving rapidly and with its distance-to-camera changing quickly and constantly.

So...the question becomes "Just how does one field-test two (or more) competing lenses and obtain meaningful results?" Personally I am almost sick of reading information-free comments like "...the autofocus was very snappy...". SO...with my AF field testing I attempt to dig a little deeper - and the primary way I do this is to run a large number of trials of my non-patented "shoot long bursts of my cooperative dog running straight at me" test with a number of competing lenses and then compare the rates of in-focus shots that each lens produces. I describe this test in far more detail (including how the images are captured and assessed) in Appendix 3: Methods: Autofocus Performance (and I encourage those who are curious to read over the methodology). I acknowledge that this test does NOT examine all aspects of a lens's AF performance - but it does correlate well with something that I (and I suspect most wildlife and sports photographers) care a lot about - the ability of a lens to keep up with "the action"! Note that in my lens testing I combine my systematic AF testing with a lot of time "just shooting" to get an anecdotal feel for whether or not my test results match what I experience in day-to-day shooting.

Below are my results from both my systematic tests and from many sessions spent "just shooting" the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E

II. RESULTS FROM SYSTEMATIC TESTING

I compared the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E against a number of other lenses using my "shoot long bursts of my cooperative dog running straight at me" test (as described in detail in Appendix 3). The tests were conducted at 300mm, 400mm (with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E combined with the TC-14EIII [1.4x] teleconverter) and 560mm (with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E combined with the TC-20EIII [2x] teleconverter). Here are the lenses used in the comparisons:

A. At 300mm:

• Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E
• Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8
• Nikon 300mm f2.8G VRII
• Nikon 300mm f4D
• Nikon 180-400mm f4E (at 300mm).

B. At 400mm:

• Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII (1.4x) teleconverter (zoomed "back" to 400mm)
• Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (shot with built-in 1.4x TC NOT engaged).

C. At 560mm:

• Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter (zoomed "back" to 560mm)
• Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (shot with built-in 1.4x TC engaged).

1. THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

If you are looking for a telephoto lens with a blazing fast autofocus system that produces extremely high proportions of sharp shots and keepers of high-speed action sequences (see Appendix 3 for definitions of "sharp shots" and "keepers") you can do no better than the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E. Simply put, the AF system of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is astonishingly good for capturing action and produced the highest proportion of sharp actions shots of ALL the lenses it was tested against.

At 300mm the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E had the highest capture rate of sharp shots by a wide margin, and its overall keeper rate was also higher than any other lens in the test. When combined with the TC-14EIII and shot at 400mm the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E produced a much higher rate of sharp shots than the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (shot without its built-in TC engaged). At 400mm the 120-300mm plus TC-14EIII also beat the 180-400mm (sans TC) in overall keeper rate.

When tested at 560mm the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E (plus 2x TC) and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (with built-in TC engaged) produced virtually identical numbers of sharp shots and keepers.

2. DETAILED RESULTS

Here are the exact percentages of sharp shots and keepers captured in each trial by each lens. As mentioned above, definitions of "sharp shots" and "keepers" are provided in Appendix 3.

A. At 300mm:

• Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E: 84.8% Sharp; 98.4% Keepers (which means only 1.6% were sufficiently out-of-focus to merit being discarded)
• Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8: 22.8% Sharp; 54.3% Keepers
• Nikon 300mm f2.8G VRII: 66.0% Sharp; 96.2% Keepers
• Nikon 300mm f4D: 43.2% Sharp; 90.4% Keepers
• Nikon 180-400mm f4E (at 300mm): 52.7%; 90.8% Keepers.

B. At 400mm:

• Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII (1.4x) teleconverter: 76.1% Sharp; 96.9% Keepers
• Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (shot with built-in 1.4x TC NOT engaged): 53.1% Sharp; 86.9% Keepers

C. At 560mm:

• Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter: 70.0% Sharp; 98.4% Keepers
• Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (shot with built-in 1.4x TC engaged).69.0% Sharp; 99.0% Keepers

3. THE CLEAREST TRENDS

While the Nikkor matched or beat the "keeper rate" of every other lens in this test (and that is an notable accomplishment in itself), what really stood out was the large difference in the proportion of sharp shots (and I mean absolutely tack sharp) captured by the 120-300mm f2.8E compared to all the other lenses tested. As an example, while the Nikkor120-300mm f2.8E only beat the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII in the keeper proportion by 2.2%, if you look at how many of the shots were classified as sharp the 120-300mm f2.8E trounced the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII (84.8% vs. 66.0%). And it's important to keep in mind that at 300mm the 300mm f2.8G prime placed second in the test - the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E beat the other lenses in proportion of sharp shots by a far wider margin.

On other "trend" is worth commenting on - the AF performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E when it is paired with teleconverters. Many lenses exhibit a marked decrease in AF performance when you add in a teleconverter, but with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E the keeper rate of in the tests stayed in the same +90% range when combined with either the TC-14EIII (1.4x) or TC-20EII (2x) teleconverters. At 400mm (when combined with the 1.4x TC) the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E outperformed the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (shot without its teleconverter engaged!). And, even when I compared the 120-300mm f2.8E combined with a 2x TC to the 180-400mm with its built-in 1.4x TC engaged, the rates of sharp shots and keepers were virtually identical.

4. SOME LENS-SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Here's a few additional comments about the AF performance of each lens in this test:

• The Nikkor 120-300 f2.8E exhibits absolutely amazing AF performance! Not much more to say here...when shot without a TC no 300mm lens came even close to it in the proportion of sharp shots the 120-300mm produced. Add in either a 1.4x or 2.0x TC and the AF performance hardly drops off at all.

• The Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 lags in AF performance. Throughout all other aspects of my field testing (optical quality, VR performance, etc.) the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 has been a strong contender and, if you factor in price, is arguably the lens where you get the best bang for your buck. BUT, it does lag far behind the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E in the AF performance needed to capture sharp shots (or even keepers) of extreme action. Only a little more than one fifth of the shots of Poncho running were tack sharp, and only around one half of them were sufficiently sharp to be considered keepers. So you CAN expect to get SOME sharp shots of extreme action with this lens, but expect a lot of them to be soft to very soft. But...it's important to keep things in perspective here - the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 WILL produce a LOT of very sharp shots of less extreme action...if you're trying to get sharp shots of a walking animal or a bird in flight in smooth motion (like a soaring eagle), you'll do just fine with this lens. And you'll have a much smaller hole in your bank account than if you opt for the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E.

• The Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII is STILL offers very good AF performance! I find it quite amazing that a lens introduced a decade ago still stands up so well against the other lenses in this AF performance test. At 300mm this nearly legendary lens placed a strong second in both the keeper rate and in the proportion of sharp shots. If you're an owner and fan of this lens you can rest assured that you can still use this lens with the confidence that there's almost nothing out there much better in AF performance!

• The Nikkor 180-400mm f4E - strongly consistent AF! While in most circumstances the Nikkor 180-400mm doesn't match the 120-300mm f2.8E in the proportion of sharp action shots it produced, its overall keeper rate stayed high (around 90% or higher) at all focal lengths tested and whether or not its built-in TC was engaged. This matches exactly with what I have found in the field with this lens - it's a real strong and consistent performer and it's almost hard to shoot an out-of-focus shot with it. Solid, solid, solid!

• The Nikkor 300mm f4D - close...but not quite there! Given the rate of evolution of technology (including autofocus systems in lenses), I suppose it's not surprising that the oldest Nikkor in this test produced the weakest results. While the keeper rate of action shots captured with the Nikkor 300mm f4D was certainly "competitive" with the other lenses in this test, those keepers didn't include nearly as high a ratio of sharp shots as the other Nikkor lenses. In fact, it's the only Nikkor that produced under a 50% proportion of sharp shots. It did beat the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 in this regard, but it trailed all the other Nikkors in the test.

III. RESULTS FROM "JUST SHOOTING" THE NIKKOR 120-300 F2.8E

Have my anecdotal observations of the autofocus performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E made when "just shooting" it in the field matched the stellar test results it has produced? Yep, absolutely. Since acquiring the lens I've shot almost 10,000 images with it using four different Nikon bodies - a D5, D6, D500, and Z7. The following attributes have been common to the lens when used with all 4 bodies:

• Extremely fast focus acquisition: I'm the first to say that statements like "snappy acquisition of focus" don't contain a whole lot of usable information, but every time I pick up this lens (regardless of the camera it's mounted on), I'm struck by how quickly it grabs focus. This is especially noticeable during head-to-head testing where you are switching quickly between a number of lenses. I don't have a quantifiable number about how much faster it acquired focus than the other lenses, so I'll just say it was easily noticeable. Squirrels, songbirds, grouse, bears, deer, dogs running, birds-in-flight...whatever...the 120-300mm f2.8E focused incredibly fast on the subject and made it hard for me to screw up and miss a shot (tho' I did manage to find multiple ways to still blow a few shots! ;-).

• Exceptional focus accuracy - at ALL distances. Focus accuracy is the kind of thing you take for granted until you run into a lens that doesn't have it! But what quickly became noticeable with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is that regardless of the body I combined it with, the focal length I shot it at, or the distance-to-subject, you could count on the subject being in tack sharp focus. And...when shooting it with the Nikon's DSLR's in my kit, I couldn't see even the most remote need to tweak its AF tuning values.

• A ridiculously good "hit ratio"! Another observation I made from day 1 with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is that each time I went shooting with it I came back with an amazing ratio of sharp images - and the vast majority of the time these were hand-held shots. Low light, bright light, static subject, extreme action, hand-held, tripod-mounted...whatever...just everything was razor sharp. And, at the end of the day...isn't this what it's all about?

Because autofocus performance is a amalgam of AF performance of the lens AND the camera that lens is mounted to, here's some anecdotal observations on how the AF of the 120-300mm f2.8E "panned out" with various cameras:

• On the Nikon D5 and Nikon D6: OK...now you're talking complete and total autofocus nirvana. Incredible hit ratios of sharp shots, including in any situation of extreme action I have managed to find in these travel-restricted times. The D6 plus 120-300mm f2.8E combo exhibits the best autofocus performance of any camera/lens system I have shot, even if teleconverters are added into the equation. Period.

• On the Nikon D500: While many seem to believe that the Nikon D500 has an AF system on par with the D5, that hasn't been my experience. Where I have found the D500 particularly lagging (relative to a D5 or, of course, a D6) is in its ability to deliver sharp shots with super-telephoto primes or super-telephoto zoom lenses, especially if the subject is at a relatively long distance (e.g., about 100m or more). HOWEVER, this deficiency in performance is NOT rearing its ugly head with the D500 plus 120-300mm f2.8E - I am getting simply EXCELLENT AF performance with the D500 plus 120-300mm f2.8E combo. Fast and accurate at all distances. In fact, in a way the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E has breathed "new life" into my D500 - since get the the 120-300 I have found myself using my D500 FAR more than I had in the previous two to three years. Note that I have NOT performed the same action-sequence tests I did with the D5 with the D500 so I can't legitimately state how the 120-300mm f2.8E stacks up against the other lenses in this test when used with the D500.

One final comment: Those who took the time to read the details about the method used to test AF performance on a fast-moving subject (in Appendix 3) may have noticed that I performed all the tests using BOTH Group Area AF and 72-Point Dynamic Area mode. I did this to compare the effectiveness of the two AF modes, not to try to "separate out" the performance of the various lenses (and if you think about it there's no logical reason to assume among-lens differences in AF performance between the two AF modes). Interestingly, during these particular tests there was virtually NO difference in AF performance (in sharp shots or in keepers) between the two AF area modes (for each lens). AND, the trends reported above were exactly the same for BOTH AF area modes (the percentages reported above were for the tests using Group Area AF mode).

RETURN TO TOP

Musings From Just Shootin'

Information to follow soon...

RETURN TO TOP

The FINAL Wrap-up and My Lens Choice

Information to follow soon...

RETURN TO TOP


Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E Field Test: Appendices - Methods

Appendix 1: Methods: Optical Performance Testing

• Post Date: June 15, 2020

The primary goal behind the methodology used in the systematic testing of the optical performance of the various lenses was to produce the highest quality image you could reasonably expect to capture with each lens in a field setting. This means that the shooting discipline during the testing is probably beyond that under which most wildlife photography is performed, but still closer to what we "do" in the field than most lab-based tests. Of course, user technique plus some lens-based usability features (such as the performance of both the autofocus system and the vibration-reduction system) will also go a long way towards determining how close a given photographer's day-to-day wildlife captures will approximate the results obtained during my systematic testing.

1. Focal Lengths Tested: Lenses were tested and compared over 3 native focal lengths of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and 4 focal lengths where the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8 was paired with one of two teleconverters. The native focal lengths tested were:

• 120mm
• 200mm
• 300mm

The focal lengths tested when the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E was paired with teleconverters were:

• 420mm: 120-300mm @ 300mm plus TC-14EIII (1.4x) teleconverter
• 500mm: 120-300mm @ 250mm plus TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter
• 560mm: 120-300mm @ 280mm plus TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter
• 600mm: 120-300mm @ 300mm plus TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter

2. Distances to Subject: For each focal length the lenses were tested at several camera-to-subject distances. The test distances - and the rationale for choosing them - were:

A. For focal lengths of 120mm through to 420mm:

Close Distance (4.25m or 14'): This distance was chosen as it represents the distance that a wildlife photographer would often use to photograph subjects such as small birds or mammals (e.g., squirrels) or portraits of larger subjects (e.g., bears) with these focal lengths.

Mid-distance 1 (12m or 40'): This distance was chosen as is represents the sort of distance that wildlife photographers would commonly use to capture larger birds (e.g., approachable owls or birds of prey) and/or slightly mammals (such as foxes)

Mid-distance 2 (24m or 79'): This distance was chosen as is represents the sort of distance that wildlife photographers would regularly use to capture larger or more wary birds and mammals, including things like deer, elk, bears, wolves, etc.

Long distance (1600mm or 1 mile): This distance was chosen as it represents the typical distance one would commonly use to photograph a distant scene or, in some cases, an animalscape-style shot.

Note that when the images were assessed for image quality those captured at the close distance and both mid-distances were used to assess central region (but not edge) sharpness and bokeh while the images captured at long distances were used to assess both central and edge sharpness (but not bokeh). The rationale for this is that at both the short and mid-distances a wildlife photographer is almost never concerned about edge-to-edge sharpness - rather they are concerned with sharpness of what they focused on (which is not normally on the edges of the frame) and the quality of the OOF zones (the bokeh). However, at long distances both central and edge sharpness are important (but bokeh is almost never a concern as there are no real OOF zones at long distances).

B. For focal lengths of 500mm through 600mm:

Close Distance (8.6m or 28'4"): This distance was chosen as it represents the distance that a wildlife photographer would often use to photograph subjects such as small birds or mammals (e.g., squirrels) or portraits of larger subjects (e.g., bears) with these focal lengths.

Mid-distance (30m or 98'): This distance was chosen as is represents the sort of distance that wildlife photographers would commonly use to capture larger or more wary birds and mammals, including things like deer, elk, bears, wolves, etc.

Tests were not performed at long distances in the 500mm to 600mm focal lengths giving the rarity that these focal lengths are used to shoot distant scenes.

3. Apertures Used: For images captured with the 120-300mm shot native OR with the 1.4x TC images were captured with the aperture wide open (so at f2.8 if shot native and f4 if shot with the 1.4x TC) then at 1/3 stop increments up to f5.6. Thereafter images were captured at one stop increments (so at f8, f11, and f16). For images captured with the 120-300mm f2.8 plus the 2x TC images were captured in 1/3 stop increments from wide open (f5.6) through f11.

4. Image Capture Protocol: Each test image was captured using the following setup:

Camera Used: Nikon Z7: This camera was selected because its high-resolution full-frame sensor can reveal lens flaws (e.g., edge softness) that lower resolution or cropped sensor cameras may not resolve

Support System: All images were shot tripod-mounted using a Jobu Killarney tripod equipped with a Jobu MkII HD gimbal head

Autofocus mode: All images were shot using AF-S Pinpoint area mode which fully employs contrast-detect autofocus. This removes any bias in lens sharpness by removing possible AF-tuning issues

Shutter Release mode: All images were shot using a full electronic shutter (to negate possible vibrations induced by mechanical shutter curtains) and triggered using a Nikon MC-DC2 cable release

Frames Shot per aperture/distance/focal length combination: For each aperture, subject distance, and focal length combination two frames were captured. For each frame the lens was slightly defocused and then re-focused before exposure. The time between frames was a minimum of 5 seconds to allow any vibrations associated with changing the aperture or manually de-focusing the camera to dissipate. Yes, this took a long time!

File format: RAW - 14 bit compressed

5. Image Capture Conditions: For each session (e.g., the capture of all images using all competing lenses compared at 300mm and at close distance) all images were captured under consistent atmospheric conditions with medium contrast. In practical terms this means "under overcast skies with no wind".

6. Subjects: Here's a description (and look) at each subject used in the testing:

Close Distance - AKA "The Stump" (see it here): This subject sits in my yard and its strong texture, the distance from its front edge to back edge, and the objects at various distances in the background make it a great subject to assess both image sharpness and bokeh. As an added bonus, and unlike most grizzly bears, it is always easy to find.

Mid-distances - AKA "The Eagle" (see it here): I use this "almost" life-size eagle carving for my mid-distance subjects. Like the stump, it has strong texture (carved feathers and peeling paint!) to assist in assessing sharpness plus objects at different distances in the background to help assist in assessing bokeh. And, it's pretty much as easy for me to find as my stump! ;-)

Long Distance Scene (see it here): This is a scene looking directly south from my property. The treeline is the "key" part of this subject in that it runs perfectly perpendicular to your line of sight, meaning it's great for assessing edge-to-edge sharpness.

7. Image Quality Assessment: Images were visually assessed for sharpness and the quality of the OOF zones (i.e., the bokeh) at 100% magnification on a 27" Eizo CG279X display with a native resolution of 109 ppi. Images were viewed using Capture One Pro standard previews (with no sharpening) because Capture One Pro allows the simultaneous side-by-side comparison of up to 12 images at 100% magnification.

8. Image Quality Assessment - Sharpness AND Bokeh! Images were assessed for both sharpness AND the quality of the OOF zones (or bokeh) as follows:

Sharpness: For each aperture/focal length/subject distance combination the images of the various lenses were ranked from sharpest (assigned a value of 1) through to softest (assigned with a higher number that depended on the number of lenses in the number of individual test). Given the nature of the test subjects in almost all cases it was an easy matter to separate out and rank images based on sharpness. Here's one example of the images used to assess sharpness (on the viewer of Capture One Pro) - in this case 3 lenses at 300mm, f2.8, and a camera-to-subject distance of 24m: Download image.

Bokeh: - Exactly as above, but in this case the "quality" of the OOF zones were evaluated. Assessing the quality of the bokeh is somewhat more subjective than assessing sharpness, but in practical terms the smoothness of the background areas - plus the appearance of specular highlights - differed enough between images that ranking the images was not too difficult. In most cases the entire images (rather than just a subset of the image viewed at 100% magnification) were viewed to "see" differences in bokeh. Here's one example of the images used to assess bokeh (on the viewer of Capture One Pro) - in this case 6 lenses at 300mm, f5.6, and a camera-to-subject distance of 4.25m: Download image.

RETURN TO TOP

Appendix 2: Methods: Optical Stabilization and "Hand-holdability"

• Post Date: July 23, 2020
• Update (Revision) history: July 29, 2020: Added brief descriptions of the VR/OS modes found on the lenses in this test.

The primary goal behind the methodology used in the systematic testing of the optical stabilization and "hand-holdability" of the various lenses was to mimic what wildlife photographers often do in the field - shoot short bursts of shots while hand-holding their lenses, often under less-than-optimal conditions. And they do it while balancing of the usual concerns of a field photographer - technically and creatively optimizing the fine balance between shutter speed, ISO, and aperture under conditions that are often rapidly changing. It's important to note that I am not fixated on the optical (or image) stabilization values quoted by manufacturers. While I do not necessarily think they are lying (which is now more politely referred to as "spinning" or "misspeaking") the thing that really matters to me - and what I want to know - is the slowest shutter speed I can hand-hold a particular lens at and still have a reasonable expectation of capturing sharp shots. Most importantly, the optical or image stabilization values of the lens are only ONE of several determinants that impact on the shutter speed with which a particular user can hand-hold a lens at. Other important determinants include user technique, lens weight (and lighter isn't necessarily better), lens/camera balance, and probably more. So rather than examine only one determinant of the shutter speed at which a lens can be held at (i.e., the optical or image stabilization value measured in f-stops), I go directly to measuring what I ultimately care about - the shutter speed at which the lens can be held at. It is VERY IMPORTANT to note that my absolute results obtained in this testing are not generalizable - just because I can hand-hold lens X at 1/125s doesn't mean you could (you might be able to do much better). However, if I can hand-hold lens X at 1/125s and lens Y at 1/5s, the odds are you would do better with lens Y as well.

Capturing the test images: So what did I do? Basically I shot a ton of hand-held shots with the various lenses mounted on my D5 - and at a wide range of shutter speeds. For each lens and shutter speed I shot 3-frame hand-held bursts of a large road sign at 40 meters. The sign was large enough to more than fill the viewfinder and image sensor. The sign has sharp edges on the lettering, multiple cracks varying in width, and a textured surface - all of which assist in making sharpness differences between images extremely easy to see. I shot the 3-frame bursts at shutter speeds from 1/1000s down to 1/20s in 1/3 stop increments. Each lens was tested at 1 focal length (300mm) and one aperture (f5) only. Each lens was tested using all of its VR/OS modes. So, for example, the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E was tested with VR OFF, VR Normal, and VR Sport. Note that the Sigma 120-300mm has additional customizability of their OS system that can be configured using their USB docking system (in conjunction with their Optimization Pro software). I chose to use the default setting on the Sigma Sport 120-300 (the one that anyone without their optional USB dock would be forced to use) for all tests.

Assessing the test images: I assessed image sharpness via examining previews of the raw images using Capture One Pro 20.1.1. Images were viewed at 100% magnification (1:1) on a 27" Eizo ColorEdge CG279x with a native resolution of 109 pixels per inch (ppi). I chose this monitor for all image comparisons because small differences in sharpness are often "masked" when images are viewed at 100% on some newer high resolution displays (e.g., almost ANY image looks sharp on my 218 ppi iMac 5K Retina Display). Yes, like with my testing on optical performance I was basically pixel-peeping!

I categorized all images into one of the following 6 sharpness categories:

Sharp: All detail on central portion of target object absolutely sharp (good 'ol "tack sharp"). Sharp images are also included in the more inclusive "Keeper" category.

Slightly Soft: Shows any softening of detail in central portion of sign, but careful sharpening in Photoshop would make these shots indistinguishable from those categorized as "Sharp". Slightly Soft images are also included in the more inclusive "Keeper" category.

Softer: Noticeable softening of image detail; sharpness loss NOT fully recoverable by digital sharpening. While careful post-processing "surgery" may save this images from instant death or rejection, they are NOT included in the "Keeper" category.

Soft: Unacceptable image sharpness. NOT included in "Keeper" category

Very Soft: Close to garbage! NOT included in "Keeper" category

Very, Very Soft: Pure garbage, AKA a bloody and blurry mess! NOT included in "Keeper" category

While subjective, in practice I had NO problem quickly assigning an image to one of these 6 categories. As an example, here is an image classified as Sharp (download image), and here is an image classified as very, very soft (download image). To maintain consistency in my image assessment and categorization, all images in the test were slotted into their categories during one VERY long session. ;-)

Only images in the first and second categories (Sharp and Slightly Soft) are images I considered - and later classified - in the "Keepers" category. This "Keeper" category is representative of what I do when culling images - I generally keep only images that are Sharp or Slightly Soft (and that can be sharpened in post-processing and made indistinguishable from Sharp shots).

On VR/OS "Modes": Since VR/OS technology was developed for camera lenses it has gone through constant evolution - both in terms of its effectiveness and in the various modes offered. Here's a quick run-down of the VR/OS modes of the lenses in this field test:

VR/OS OFF: Self-explanatory - the optical stabilization system is turned off and the lens acts just like a lens that has NO VR or OS system.

VR Normal: Found on virtually all Nikkor lenses with a VR system. If the lens has OTHER VR modes, the VR Normal setting tends to be the one that offers the MOST absolute stabilization and stabilizes moderate vertical and horizontal vibrations. For many users this is the "default" mode to use in a variety of situations. With most modern lenses VR Normal CAN be used while panning and CAN be used while on a tripod. Note that if you are shooting high-speed bursts of shots the image may "bounce" around significantly in your viewfinder (and on your image sensor) between successive shots.

VR Active: Found on some slightly older Nikkor lenses. This VR system was designed to removed extreme vibration in all planes and Nikon most commonly described it as the "best" mode to use if you were shooting off a non-stable platform (e.g., shooting from a moving car or boat, etc.). VR Active not recommended when panning with a moving subject.

VR Sport: Found on many newer Nikkor lenses, especially on telephoto and super-telephoto zoom and prime lenses. This mode offers improved image stability (as seen in through the viewfinder) when shooting high-speed bursts so it is very effective when shooting subjects that are in motion. It does not offer quite as much absolute vibration reduction as the VR Normal mode does. CAN be used on tripod and while panning (in fact it is probably the BEST overall mode to use when panning). This is my own favourite VR mode and I use it extensively on any Nikkor lens that has it.

OS1: Found on Sigma lenses that have more than 1 OS mode. This system is roughly equivalent to Nikon's VR Normal mode and is used as the general "go to" mode. It stabilizes vibration in vertical and horizontal planes. In many Sigma lenses this mode can be customized (e.g., how the image appears in the viewfinder) using the optional Sigma Optimization Pro software and USB dock.

OS2: Found on Sigma lenses that have more than I OS mode. This mode is used for panning - it attempts to cancel out vertical vibrations but doesn't try to negate horizontal motion. In many Sigma lenses this mode can be customized (e.g., how the image appears in the viewfinder) using the optional Sigma Optimization Pro software and USB dock.

RETURN TO TOP

Appendix 3: Methods: Autofocus Performance

• Post Date: November 25, 2020

Objectively field testing and comparing the autofocus performance of two (or more) lenses is challenging. This is largely because finding a test situation that is both reproducible and that actually "pushes" the autofocus capabilities of modern lenses is in itself a challenge. Over the years I have found that the most useful AF test that I can do (and repeat as many times as I need to) - and that mimics or has direct application to the type of challenging field situation where you NEED a good AF system (e.g., a running bear or wolf or a bird in flight) - is my "cooperative dog running straight at me" test. In short, with this test I get my dog Poncho to sit approximately 75 meters from me and, when I call him and he breaks out running toward me, I shoot a long, high speed burst of shots of him. I then evaluate the "hit rate" of the various pieces of equipment involved in the test (in this cases a number of competing lenses).

This test simultaneously evaluates three distinct and important aspects of AF performance - autofocus speed, predictive AF capabilities, AND focus-tracking. Predictive autofocus capabilities (which most modern DSLR's have whenever one is in continuous servo mode) are important in keeping a subject that is moving away or towards the camera, even if it stays in position under a single AF focus point. Focus tracking is important if the subject is moving erratically and it's likely that you CAN'T keep the subject under a single focus point (or zone). In these cases the camera/lens combination has to be able to "hand" the focus off when it moves from one point to another (without losing focus on the subject in the process). And, of course, focusing speed is critical simply to "keep up" with the movement of the subject (especially if the subject is moving towards or away from the photographer). Because I was using the same camera for all the test sequences, neither AF tracking nor predictive AF capabilities are really being tested here. But ultimately these tests highlighted the AF performance variable I was most interested in testing - the AF speed of the various lenses.

WHAT I DID: Capturing the test images:

• I used a hand-held Nikon D5 body at its highest frame rate (12 fps). Each sequence was shot at f4, 1/1600s and using Auto ISO. The only exception to this protocol is that f5.6 was used when I compared the 120-300mm f2.8E plus the TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter against the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E with its built-in TC engaged.
• Using GROUP AREA AF, I ran the following test sequences (with each sequence consisting of continuous bursts of between 125-135 frames) using the following lenses (and focal lengths):

The Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E vs. the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 and the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII and the Nikkor 300mm f4D. Note that these four lenses were tested at 300mm and ALL were tested sequentially on the same day under the same overcast sky conditions.
The Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E vs. the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E - with both lenses zoomed to 300mm. Note that these two lenses were tested sequentially on the same day (but a different day than the 4 lenses compared above) and under overcast sky conditions.
The Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-14EIII (1.4x) teleconverter vs. the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (shot WITHOUT its built-in TC engaged) - with both lenses zoomed to 400mm. Note that these two lenses were tested sequentially on the same day (but on a different day than the test sequences above) and under overcast sky conditions.
The Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E plus TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter vs. the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E (shot WITH its built-in TC engaged) - with both lenses zoomed to 560mm. Note that these two lenses were tested sequentially on the same day (but on a different day than the test sequences above) and under overcast sky conditions.

• Then, using 72-POINT DYNAMIC AREA AF, I ran the exact same test sequences again! In total I captured 1304 images during the Group Area tests and 1288 images during the 72-point Dynamic Area tests. And Poncho did a LOT of running and ate a lot of treats!

WHAT I DID: Assessing the test images:

• All images were painstakingly (trust me, this got VERY boring!!) assessed for sharpness at 100% magnification in Capture One Pro and on a 27" Eizo ColorEdge CG279X with a native resolution of 109 pixels per inch (ppi).
• Each image was placed into one of three categories - Sharp, Slightly Soft, and Unacceptable
Sharp images were those where the leading edge of the subject (Poncho's nose) was absolutely sharp with all "nose wrinkles" visible
Slightly Soft images show only VERY slight softening of the image and that softening is such that it can be overcome with careful sharpening (to be made indistinguishable from the Sharp images at full resolution)
Unacceptable images are "all the rest" (which corresponds to the ones you'd trash during normal image culling)
Keepers? This is all those that are NOT UNACCEPTABLE (Sharp Images + Slightly Soft Images = Keepers).

For reference, here is a shot that would be considered both a KEEPER and a SHARP shot. This shot nicely shows what I mean by "nose wrinkles":

Poncho Stretching for the Finish Line: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.2 MB)

RETURN TO TOP

Field Test Index


Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRIINikon's Series 3 tele-converters4 Ways to 400mm
Nikon D7000 - First ImpressionsLensCoat RainCoat ProThe Nikon V1
The Nikon D800The Nikon D4Nikon AF-S 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR
500mm Wars - Sigma vs. NikonNikkor AF-S 120-300mm f2.8ENikkor AF-S 180-400mm f4E