Be careful what you wish for…

She was tall, dark, leggy. I was always at a distance, never permitted in her presence. She was, I was told, out of my class, forbidden. I could only look on with envy, lust even. Then one day last year, I was allowed, no, encouraged to whisk her to a cricket match and fondle her…


Much more, after the break.

Well, that clearly caught your attention – but it’s the company 600/f4 I’m talking about. What were you thinking, hmmm???

The 600 has always had that air of mystique about it, and I recall that when I was younger and more foolish it was the subject of much desire and envy. I started my pro career, part-time, shooting motorsport, and seeing these monsters at race meetings would stir the green-eyed monster of jealousy - I “only” had a 300/f2.8 with converters. 

OK, OK, even the 300/f2.8 is an object of desire, and it took me a while to get hold of my first one. With motorsport you need quite some reach, so it was something I knew I eventually needed to fund – luckily the day job could help out. It was a 300 AF-I, bought in October 1999. I also bought it used, which saved a good few ££s, and it wasn’t the latest AF-S model, though it worked fine and was high quality glass. Not long after this, I began to do the (now-defunct) Saturday half-shift for Sport on the paper I now work for, and this lens was just right; coupled with F5s, a willingness to learn and a modicum of ability, it probably helped me into the job I have today. But that’s another story, and I digress…

The 600 was always VERY hard to justify. Even used, they cost as much as a decent car. So I settled for my existing glass - and mild envy…

…then I was sent out and allowed to use the company beast for a couple of county cricket games last season, and HOW my opinion changed!

Frankly, the thing is bloody terrifying! It is SO heavy as to be nearly unmanageable – I have a heavy Manfrotto tripod and the weight of the combination is killing. I think I can see why so many sports pro-snappers are tall, solidly built blokes. Now, I ditched the tripod after the first game and settled for using it on my (still-substantial) Manfrotto monopod, given how hard it is to manage. Even with cricket, the lens needs to be in motion for some things, and the tripod was just too restricting. I’m only boring Mr Average: height, weight, strength, and the tripod/lens combo is just too much. The lens/monopod pairing is still desperately weighty but at least I can move it. It is a thorough drag to carry about and it has so much inertia I am scared that if it gets away from me I won’t be able to stop it!

In addition, as I found out last week when I covered a county match again, it’s so huge it gets blown about in any wind, and if there’s any heat haze even the fantastic glass in a Nikkor 600 can’t make a cricketer at the crease look razor–sharp…

And this is why my opinion has changed.

For local cricket through the summer, I only have available my normal glass, so I shoot D3 + 300/f2.8 + 2x converter. This combination is only adequate optically, though OK for newspaper use, and needs to be used at f11 to make the converter work at its best. Luckily, on a D3 the “terrors” of high ISOs are gone, so I don’t think twice if I set 1/1000 and f11, and see the ISO go to 1600. But it’s a pairing I am used to using, and although the 300 isn’t light, with the 2x it is a FAR more manageable 600mm than the 600.  Okay, you are at the limits of your reach, but if you add, say, a D7000* with its DX crop, that should give you 900mm effective, and all the magnification needed.

  (*I say D7000, because the new generation DX sensors have ramped up the quality again – they still don’t equal the D3, let alone the D3S, but they aren’t too far behind at the higher ISOs needed to allow for the converter.)

Kent vs Worcestershire, Clydesdale Bank40 match, with
Geraint Jones striking out. This is a view cropped to
about 9 million pixels, and is shot on the 600 + 1.4x
converter, as the far wicket was a fair distance away.

Local league, Sheppey vs Hollingbourne. This is on 300
+ 2x converter and is actually uncropped, which shows
how much difference there is at a smaller ground where you
can stand also right on the boundary. You can't see it here,
but trust me, quality-wise, there isn't a great difference
between the two images, since the 600 shot suffers from
softness caused by heat haze, and the 300 from the softness
introduced by the 2x. Both actually print, at decent sizes, more
than well enough for a newspaper's purposes.

I’ve got my name down for one of the new Nikon TC20E3 converters,– these new 2x aspherical versions are being rated (by those lucky enough to get their hands on one – they remain rare even 9 months after launch) as the canine’s gonads, which should help resolve the weaker optical performance. I’m also toying with acquiring a D7000, for short video clips as much as anything, but its DX crop will be handy to have.

And then, I think, any remaining envious thoughts about super-long lenses will largely disappear.