08-30-2015, 12:44 PM
A couple of times I was tempted to try the Nikon CX. With their genuine 70-300 it comes close to light weight solution and is supposed to be reasonably fast. However, if you think about 1,9 kg Sigma or Tamron I don't see much of a reduced weight. Or size. Yesterday I saw a rucksack big enough for the Sports version with attached lenshood. On second look I thought "really big enough??", doubted and left it in the shop.
Also, when I put it on Gimbal head I realize some axial play in the mount, even more so with a converter. An additional adapter plus the smallish A6000? Everything is alright, I'm sure, but it feels kind of wobbly.
The Nikon 300/4 PF E is now in my bag. More often than the Sigma, for which I only have a big bag but none to carry around while walking. But I'm still doubting if the VR fix a couple of months ago worked out. There are taboo-shutterpeeds, still. And it is bloody expensive, too, while not remarkably better performing at 300 mm than the Sigma - that's what I think today with the extra thought "but maybe it's the photographer who should learn how to use it?".
Anyway, I used it in dim light and it worked out well, so my complaints should focus on my skills more than on the lens.
Also, when I put it on Gimbal head I realize some axial play in the mount, even more so with a converter. An additional adapter plus the smallish A6000? Everything is alright, I'm sure, but it feels kind of wobbly.
The Nikon 300/4 PF E is now in my bag. More often than the Sigma, for which I only have a big bag but none to carry around while walking. But I'm still doubting if the VR fix a couple of months ago worked out. There are taboo-shutterpeeds, still. And it is bloody expensive, too, while not remarkably better performing at 300 mm than the Sigma - that's what I think today with the extra thought "but maybe it's the photographer who should learn how to use it?".
Anyway, I used it in dim light and it worked out well, so my complaints should focus on my skills more than on the lens.