Do I need a 300mm lens?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 68495
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 68495

Guest
I keep switching between buying the new Nikon 300mm f4 PF, the older 300mm f4 ED and not bothering at all.

I currently own a D810 with it's 36mp sensor and for telephoto purposes I am currently using a Nikon 180mm f2.8. Would I gain a lot by switching from the 180mm to a 300mm with (or without, depending on model) VR or is the large sensor capability perfectly adequate with the 180mm?

I want the telephoto for bird and wildlife shots. I can afford all the options so cost is not central but I don't want to waste money if I don't need to.

I have no other criteria so I will base my purchase (or not) on the number of replies I get for each option.

300mm f4 pf -- £1639 ish but only when available

300mm f4 ed -- £999 from London Camera Exchange

180mm f2.8 -- cost nothing 'cos I alrerady own it.
 
Had a lot of frustrating time with the 150-600 which replaced my 120-400,600 opened a new world to me but got too fed up with the problems so returned it,now i have decided to go with the 300pf and 1.4 getting me back to 400mm ish:) at the moment all my birding is being done on a P610 nikon bridge camera so looking forward to getting back to DX.
My thinking is 300mm f4 new lightweight with VR should be a tidy lens but the fact it works so well with the 1.4 giving me 420mm f5.6 with VR should be a very usable option so my vote would be for this option.
 
The new 300pf looks a fantastic lens, @gary43 has been using his with 1.4,1.7 & 2.0 teleconvertors and the results look very good even with the x2. Also, the new 80-400 is getting good reviews and a big step up from the older model, especially AF. The flexability of a zoom can be useful at times.
 
Last edited:
The 80-400 works well on the d800e so I'd imagine it would be good on the d810 too but I keep thinking of the 300 f4 too but with tc it still becomes f5.6 so would only benefit me on the d7200 I think
 
even with 36mp 300 mm is on the short side for birds .

Rob.
 
I've wondered about the new 300 f4 PF (incidentally the LCE price you quote for the older 300 is high) but having used a 300 f2.8 in the past I know that I wouldn't be happy all of the time with the bare 300mm for wildlife/birds. Having used the older 300 with a 1.4 TC I know that works and so would expect it to work even better with the new lens ... what I don't know is how well it would work with the 1.7 & 2.0 TC as my older one wasn't good with either and I know I would want it to give me usable 600mm a lot of the time.
With my interest in wildlife/birds the lighter 300 f4 PF would be great, if it works well with a TC 2.0 III but until I see a lot more evidence that it will I wouldn't spend nearly £2k.
You say,
ShinySideUp said:
I can afford all the options so cost is not central
Click to expand...
but I don't know whether that implies just between these two options, or you could go higher ... if higher is an option you might want to consider a 500 f4.
 
For birding.. the longer the better.. thus 300 is better than 180.. its not that hard is it? But why 300.?. you will like the 300 but after a while you will be wishing you got 400 :)
 
KIPAX said:
But why 300.?.
Click to expand...

Because the 300mm F4, new or old, is a reasonable price, but once we get to 400mm and longer the price rises exponentially. Not being a professional tog I really can't justify prices in the three to five thousand pound area.

I am now thinking that the jump from my 180mm to a 300mm is not worth the change though and the 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 is rearing it's head now.

Strangely, Jessops have this lens at £939 but others have it nearer £1800 (not including grey imports). Are they the same lens I wonder?

Just had a closer look and no they are not the same. One is the AF the more expensive is the AF-S.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are 2 versions of the 80-400mm - newest & best (also most expensive) is the latest version (with a gold coloured VR symbol on the barrel).

The older version has a RED VR symbol.
 
I have um'd and ah's over which lens to get to replace my 180mm 2.8 Nikon. My 180 was bought to give me 270mm equivalent on my old DX camera and as such it did a good job. The lens is sharp if a little slow to focus having no AF motor but in general is a fantastic lens. However, it just did not give me the reach I wanted when I switched to FX and so as above, I have been considering 300mm lenses of varying types.

Yesterday I just got fed up with pondering and completely out of the blue, went on the net and bought a 80-400mm zoom! It was way over what I envisiaged paying for a new lens but it was next day delivery (today, Sunday) and it would put an end to weeks of pontificating.

Is it worth the money? Time will tell. Does it work well? Oh god, yes. It is a monster but it is also sharp as a nut and the AF is the fastest I have ever had on any of my lenses. If the weather had been better here in the South West today I would have some pictures to show from it but I wasn't going to take it out in the pouring rain. This next week should provide something to photograph and I'll give my full verdict afterward but first impressions...bloody hell, what a lens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Out of the options you've given it would have to be the 300mm PF for me. BUT 300mm on FF isn't long enough for birding, not by a long shot IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top