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

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

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

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'

• Post Date: December 5, 2020

I've mentioned several times in this field test that when I test a lens I combine fairly rigid and systematic field-based tests with sessions where I just SHOOT with the lens(es) in the way I would when "at work". The time spent "just shooting" under less controlled conditions serves multiple purposes, including demonstrating to me how closely the daily use of the lens will match the "theoretical best" performance it exhibits under highly controlled conditions. This is critical to ME in that I almost never shoot under controlled conditions in the field - as a wildlife photographer who works only with free-ranging, non-constrained, and fully wild subjects I end up doing a whole of "cowboy shooting"! Additionally, the time spent "just shooting" gives me a feel for how several different and independent parameters of lens performance interact in the field. For instance, when hand-holding a big super-telephoto lens in the field at least 3 factors can impact on the quality of the resulting images - the lens weight and balance, the optical stabilization system, and the autofocus system. At times we test or evaluate these factors independently, but the reality in the field is that they interact in producing that final image that we either keep or throw away.

So...here's some musings about several things I have observed during the many hours I've spent with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E in a field setting. Unfortunately this year's COVID crisis has interfered with my field shooting and the diversity of conditions under which I have shot the 120-300mm f2.8E is more limited than during a normal year (e.g., no shooting under the harsh conditions we often face on BC's mid-coast where we run many of our photo tours). But I think the following anecdotal observations still merit mentioning.

I. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (AND CONSEQUENCES) - IN THE FIELD

As I've mentioned earlier in this review, the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E is not a small and light lens - it's big and heavy! Exactly how you perceive its size and weight (and thus its general portability, including how easy it is to carry around in the field) will depend a lot on your experience with other lenses. If the biggest lens in your kit is a 70-200mm f2.8 zoom then you'll likely feel that the 120-300mm is a massive tank. But if you have own or have used (and lugged around) a Nikkor 600mm f4E (or worse yet a 600mm f4G), then the 120-300mm f2.8E will seem kinda "medium" in size. Here's a few more "relative" observations I've made...

• Relative to the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G VRII. If you have experience with the Nikkor 300mm f2.8G lens and then pick up and go for a walk carrying the 120-300mm by its tripod foot you'll instantly know you're carrying a bigger and heavier lens (there's not a hope you'd mistake them!). In a sense, you've gone from a "medium-sized" (and medium-weight) lens to a "large-sized" lens.

• Relative to the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Now we run into the exact opposite situation - as an owner of the excellent 180-400mm lens I instantly noticed and appreciated the smaller size and weight of the 120-300mm f2.8E when carrying it around in the field (relative to the 180-400). In fact, it wasn't long after getting the 120-300mm that I noticed myself "gravitating" to it (and away from my 180-400mm) when heading out on morning "camera walks" in the forests around my home. In fact, and largely owing to how well the 120-300mm gets along with teleconverters, my absolute favorite "walk around in the woods" kit quickly became walking with my 120-300mm mounted on my D5 (and now my D6) with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters in pouches on a belt on my waist.

• What about portability in absolute terms? This is kind of a dicey question to answer as a HUGE number of between-user variables will affect the answer, but I have carried the 120-300mm plus D5 (or D500 with battery grip attached) by its tripod foot for walks of up to 8 km and haven't felt like it was an ordeal. Please do not misinterpret this comment...I'm definitely NOT saying everyone else would feel the same way about the experience!

• What about "hand-holdability"? Ahhh...ANOTHER dicey question to answer! Well...for me the 120-300mm f2.8E is a "hand-hold almost all the time" lens. And, fortunately between its excellent VR system and its size and weight I CAN hand-hold the 120-300mm quite easily (and at quite slow shutter speeds) - and for MUCH longer (while taking a single shot or over a number of shots over a long session) than I can the 180-400mm. Of course, many would be able to hand-hold it for longer periods (and/or at slower shutter speeds) than I can - and some may struggle with hand-holding it at all.

Of course, in a perfect world I would LOVE it if the 120-300mm f2.8E was smaller and lighter. But at least for me, its size and weight don't limit my use of it nearly as much as the size and weight of the big primes (non-PF versions of the 400mm through 600mm Nikkor primes) and the 180-400mm zoom limit my use of them.

II. USEFULNESS OF THE 120-300MM FOR WILDIFE PHOTOGRAPHY?

A very germane question when considering the usefulness of the 120-300mm f2.8E as a wildlife lens is simply "...is it a long enough focal length for wildlife work?". Well...it's obvious that it's DEFINITELY on the "too short" side for a lot of bird photography, especially the photography of small songbirds. But for the medium-to-large mammals that I often shoot - and in the situations that allow close approach that I commonly work in - the 120-300mm focal range works really nicely. I also tend to like shooting wider view animalscapes (as opposed to frame-filling shots of wildlife)...and for that approach the 120-300mm focal length really works well.

Of course, there are some very viable ways to "extend" the focal length of the 120-300mm f2.8E for wildlife work. First off - and as alluded to in the autofocus section of this review - I have obtained EXCELLENT performance out of the D500 plus 120-300mm combination. Relative to a D5 or D6 (i.e., cameras with identical resolution but on a larger sensor) you get a true 1.5x magnification/crop factor, functionally changing the lens into a 180-450mm zoom. And, because of the excellent performance of the 120-300mm f2.8E with both the TC-14EIII (1.4x) and TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverters you have additional means of extending the long end of the focal range. And, for the record, I have obtained excellent performance (including AF performance) and output when I have combined the cropped sensor D500 with the 120-300mm f2.8E plus EITHER the 1.4x or 2x teleconverters (giving a total effective focal length of 900mm).

III. HIT RATES, IMAGE QUALITY, AND THE BOTTOM LINE

For me the $64,000 question (which in the case of this lens isn't much of an exaggeration) when I am testing a lens like the 120-300mm f2.8E is if the stellar performances in all areas that I systematically test the lens (so that would be optical performance, VR performance and "hand-holdability", and autofocus performance) directly translate into a lens that delivers in the field. In the case of the 120-300mm f2.8E the answer to that question is simple - the test results ABSOLUTELY translate into phenomenal overall performance in a field setting. And, the most obvious manifestation in this is the incredibly high "hit ratio" of tack sharp images with great image quality I obtain every time I go shooting with this lens. I thought it would be impossible for anyone to create a telephoto or super-telephoto lens that - at least for me - produces a higher hit ratio than the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E lens. I was wrong - the 120-300mm clearly beats it!

Like a small number of other telephoto and super-telephoto lenses (that list would include the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E and the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E) if you pair this lens with a high-performance body you end up an image capture system that almost never misses! I'm not saying that the focal range of this lens would work for everyone, but if you need a lens that covers the 120-300mm range you simply can not beat this lens in any way.

IV. SOME SAMPLE IMAGES FROM "JUST SHOOTING" WITH THE 120-300mm f2.8E

Here's a few more sample images captured with the 120-300mm f2.8E since I acquired it. All but the Z7 landscape shots below are hand-held captures. This images were shot over a variety of focal lengths, with a variety of camera bodies, and both shot natively (sans teleconverter) and with teleconverters. The term EFL below refers to "Effective Focal Length" and factors in the crop factor of the cropped sensor of the Nikon D500 (e.g., a shot with the 120-300mm f2.8E at a 300mm focal length on the D500 has an EFL of 450mm). As always, all images converted/processed from RAW using Capture One Pro (in these cases, with version 20). All images captured on or around our property in BC's East Kootenays (hey...I'm conforming to COVID-19 restrictions in my region!):

• 120mm; Z7, f2.8: Lavington Sunrise: Download 4800 pixel image (JPEG: 3.5 MB)

• 180mm; Z7, f6.3: Spring Sunrise, Findlay Creek: Download 4800 pixel image (JPEG: 6.5 MB)

• 240mm; Z7, f5.6: Smoky October Sunrise: Download 4800 pixel image (JPEG: 2.1 MB)

• 300mm; D5, f2.8: One Very Focused Dusky Grouse: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.5 MB)

• 300mm; D6, f4: Poncho on West Ridge: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.4 MB)

• 300mm; D6, f3.2: White-tail Doe in First Light: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 0.9 MB)

• 330mm; D6, f4.5, 1.4x TC: Intent & Attentive: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.4 MB)

• 300mm (450mm EFL); D500, f3.2: Return of a Shadowy Character: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 0.5 MB)

• 300mm (450mm EFL); D500, f3.5: White-tail Fawn: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.7 MB)

• 300mm (450mm EFL); D500, f3.5: Fawn. Forest. Sunrise: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.0 MB)

• 600mm; D6, f5.6, 2x TC: The Stalker: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.1 MB)

• 600mm; D6, f8, 2x TC: Fresh Out of the Nest: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 0.8 MB)

• 420mm (630mm EFL); D500, f4.5, 1.4x TC: Dark-eyed Junco: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.0 MB)

• 420mm (630mm EFL); D500, f4, 1.4x TC: Cassin's Finch Hovering: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 0.8 MB)

• 420mm (630mm EFL); D500, f5.6, 1.4x TC: Yellow-Pine Chipmunk: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.7 MB)

• 420mm (630mm EFL); D500, f4, 1.4x TC: White-tail Fawn 2: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.3 MB)

• 600mm (900mm EFL); D500, f8, 2x TC: Female Mountain Bluebird: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.5 MB)

• 600mm (900mm EFL); D500, f8, 2x TC: Elk Calf: Download 2400 pixel image (JPEG: 1.4 MB)

RETURN TO TOP

The FINAL Wrap-up and My Lens Choice

• Post Date: December 6, 2020

My own interest in testing the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E was largely spurred because of my experience with - and strong affinity for - the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8. Adding to my interest in the Nikon version of the 120-300mm was my overwhelmingly positive experience with Nikon's other recently introduced super-telephoto zoom lens - the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E. Simply put, the performance of the 180-400mm f4E (partly in conjunction with the astronomical price tag of the 120-300) left me confident that the Nikkor 120-300mm would be a stellar performer. Consequently, as soon as the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E was announced, I KNEW I had to test it...and I had exceptionally high expectations for how it would perform. Did the lens meet my expectations? Yep, but it didn't just MEET my expectations - it absolutely shattered them.

After extensive testing, here's the most concise summary I can offer on the overall value and performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E

I. THE FINAL SUMMARY

There are three negatives of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E that are apparent after even a cursory reading of its specifications - it's quite big, it's quite heavy, and it's VERY expensive.

However, after extensively testing and shooting with the 120-300mm f2.8E the list of its superlatives far outweighs those obvious and real negatives for me. Those superlatives include:

• Optically the 120-300mm f2.8E is virtually flawless. It offers exceptional edge-to-edge sharpness at all focal lengths and all apertures, including when shot wide open. And, the quality of the out-of-focus zones (or bokeh) is simply fantastic. Critically (especially for wildlife photographers), the optical performance with the TC-14EIII (1.4x) teleconverter is exceptional, and qualifies at least as "very good" with the TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter.

• The Vibration Reduction system of the 120-300mm f2.8E also performs exceptionally well - it was best in class of all the lenses that compete with it most directly. The VR performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E allowed me to fully eliminate camera shake and successfully hand-hold shots down to shutter speeds (in the 1/40s range) where subject movement (especially when shooting wildlife) becomes the biggest concern in capturing a sharp image.

• The Autofocus Performance of the 120-300mm f2.8E shot native (without teleconverters) was simply unmatched in capturing sharp shots of extreme action by any other lens in this field-test. With the TC-14EIII (1.4x) teleconverter the autofocus of the 120-300mm f2.8E outperformed the autofocus system of the Nikkor 180-400mm (shot without a teleconverter). And, with the TC-20EIII (2x) teleconverter the autofocus of the 120-300mm matched that of the Nikkor 180-400mm shot with its built-in teleconverter engaged.

When one moves away from testing situations and just starts shooting with the 120-300mm f2.8E in a field setting the most obvious observation is the exceptionally high "hit ratio" of in-focus shots it produces. Paired with a high-end DSLR (or adapted to shoot with a Z-series body) it is almost hard to miss a shot with the 120-300mm f2.8E!

Each of Nikon's last three professional-level telephoto or super-telephoto F-mount zoom introductions have set the performance bar progressively higher. The Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8E brought prime-level sharpness and autofocus performance to the popular 70-200mm focal length range. At the time I thought it would be impossible for Nikon (or anyone else) to produce a better zoom lens. But then the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E was introduced, and it similarly produced prime-like image sharpness. Plus, the 180-400 offered this sharpness even when shot fully wide-open. Then came the 120-300mm f2.8E, and it matched (or exceeded!) the optical quality of its two predecessors, and added even better autofocus performance. Critically to wildlife shooters, both the optical performance and the autofocus performance of the 120-300mm extended to situations where teleconverters were used. With the rapid transition to mirrorless technology, I honestly don't know if Nikon will ever introduce another F-mount telephoto or super-telephoto zoom. But even if they don't, they've left F-mount shooters - and those Z-mount shooters willing to use "adapted lenses" - in good shape for years to come. Which is a good thing, especially given that it may be years before we see Z-mount versions of the 120-300mm f2.8E or the 180-400mm f4E.

While comparing the quality of zoom lenses of different focal lengths is fraught with challenges, if I was put on the spot and asked which lens is Nikon's BEST telephoto or super-telephoto zoom lens EVER, I'd cast my vote for the 120-300mm f2.8E.

II. MY LENS CHOICE

I began this field test with the goal of deciding whether I would keep the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 or replace it with the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E. Short answer: I'm keeping the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E and will soon be parting with my Sigma Sport 120-300mm. Why? A combination of factors. While the Sigma Sport 120-300 is strong optically, the Nikkor 120-300 is stronger, especially when shot at the widest apertures. Realistically, while the Nikkor edges out the Sigma in optical stabilization, the gap isn't really that big. However, in autofocus performance there was a very large gap between the two lenses (and the ability to get high hit rates of in-focus shots of extreme action is important to me). But almost as important to me as autofocus in making this Sigma vs. Nikon decision is the relative performance of the lenses when paired with teleconverters - and here the Nikon 120-300mm clearly beats the Sigma 120-300mm. So for me - and despite the much larger price tag for the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E compared to the Sigma Sport 120-300mm f2.8 - the Nikkor wins and has earned its spot in my gear kit.

Interestingly - and quite unexpectedly - it wasn't long into my lens testing I began asking myself another question: Given the strong performance of the Nikkor 120-300mm f2.8E with teleconverters, can I really justify keeping both the 120-300mm f2.8E and the 180-400mm f4E in my kit? At this point I'm not quite prepared to make that decision, but I will say this: If I could keep only the 120-300mm f2.8E OR the 180-400mm f4E for my wildlife shooting, I would keep the 120-300mm f2.8E. Really - it's THAT good!

And...that's a wrap. I'm now going shooting (and guess with which lens!). Have a good day!

RETURN TO TOP

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