Nikon 300 f2.8 vr1 to nikon 200-400 f4 worth it?

rob-nikon

rob-nikon

Messages
7,085
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been thinking for a while of swapping my 300mm f2.8 vr1 to a nikon 200-400 f4 vr1. Has any one done this swap? Although the 300 f2.8 is a great lens I'm finding it's not as versatile as I would like. My composition seems to be dictated by the fixed focal length as it's not easy to move position when Ive crept up on animals like water voles, hares etc as I'm likely to scare them off. Looking at Lightroom for focal lengths at over 200mm I spent about 25% at 200mm (70-200), 50% at 300mm and 25% at 420mm. From this it got me thinking whether the 200-400 would be a nicer fit and stop the need for changing lens or adding teleconverters whilst in position to get different compositions by the zoom.

The only stopping point at present is I have read about the softening issue when subjects are further away. What distance are we talking here? Greater than 30m, 50m, 100m? Most of my photography is between 5m to 30m.

Any opinions would be greatly received, especially from 200-400 users and any one who has done the swap.
 
I've had both (well the 300 VRll) and the image quality of the 300 was better than the 200-400.
The 200-400 certainly suffers with further subjects, maybe 50m+ but I think there are good and bad ones and some people love them, others have changed them or bypassed them for the new 80-400 AF-S.
 
gramps said:
I've had both (well the 300 VRll) and the image quality of the 300 was better than the 200-400.
The 200-400 certainly suffers with further subjects, maybe 50m+ but I think there are good and bad ones and some people love them, others have changed them or bypassed them for the new 80-400 AF-S.
Click to expand...

Thanks Gramps. I think you are right that there are good and bad ones. I've heard quite a few people rave about them but then some say the new 80-400 is better. I'm currently leading towards keeping the 300, shooting a little wider and cropping more.
 
I agree with gramps. Much preferred the 300 (VR11)
I know you'll lose the versatility, but seeing as 75% of your shots were @ 300mm+ I'd say it would be best to stick as is.

You mention swapping lenses & 70-200mm, would it be easier to get a second body? (pre-owned?)
 
OldCarlos said:
I agree with gramps. Much preferred the 300 (VR11)
I know you'll lose the versatility, but seeing as 75% of your shots were @ 300mm+ I'd say it would be best to stick as is.

You mention swapping lenses & 70-200mm, would it be easier to get a second body? (pre-owned?)
Click to expand...

I'm leaning towards staying out as the 300 is great IQ wise. I currently have two bodies, a D7100 and a recently purchased D700 off here. The problem with two bodies is it's not very practical to crawl with two bodies/lens. To make it easier I now leave the bag behind and only take a TC. I think it's a case off thinking more, get the wider shot and crop if needed or use a TC to get that little bit closer.
 
Joeturner11 said:
Maybe keep the 300mm f/2.8 you have and swap your 70-200mm for a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and use on a second body could be another option?
Click to expand...

I thought of the sigma 120-300 before getting the 300 but I thought it would be a bit too large for the places I use the 70-200 (zoos etc) and wouldn't of wanted to keep both (70-200 and 120-300).
 
I have both the 300 f2.8 vrII and the 200-400. I find myself using the 200-400 far more than the 300 unless it's really low light.
Can't say I'm seeing much difference in IQ between the two, but there again, I very rarely pixel peep.
I have on occasion, printed A3 from both lenses and attached to my D4s, I'm loving the prints.
 
I have the 300m Vr2 & a Sig 120-300mm - I finding I use the Sig a lot more (generally with a 1.4 attached) - thinking about switching out the 300mm for a 400mm
 
Oh & was at Marwell Zoo yesterday with the 120-300 + 1.4... it was about right - I'm finding the versatility outweighs the weight.
 
Thanks your advice Cowleystjames and Diving Pete, I'm sure I wouldn't see much difference myself except with further away subjects. It would only be owls, red kites, buzzards etc that I would shooting within the 30-50m range, I quickly learnt getting close is the way to get sharp detailed images.

I'm still thinking the versatility of a zoom would help me 'work' the composition of an image better. I'm currently torn on whether it's a good idea or not.
 
I love my Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR - don't think I will ever sell it ……… or the AFS 300mm f4 … both are Nikon "classics" IMHO
plus TC20Elll it is a great way to get to 600mm f4 or 900 mm f4 on a DX

For flexibility the next lens I will buy is the new AFS 80mm 400mm f4
 
Last edited:
Joeturner11 said:
Maybe keep the 300mm f/2.8 you have and swap your 70-200mm for a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and use on a second body could be another option?
Click to expand...

I have thought of this but the larger size, weight of the sigma and the fact you can't fit a nikon 1.4 TC to it put me off. I've been a whipsnade before and had people comment about the size of the 70-200, let alone the sigma 120-300. Im not one for liking to stand out, the reason why i never take the 300 f2.8 to zoos and wildlife parks. A f2.8 120-300mm zoom would be very nice though.

I am thinking that maybe having a zoom telephoto may mean I never need to remove it or even sell the second body. It would save having to put on and take off teleconverters.
 
BillN_33 said:
I love my Nikon 300mm f2.8 VR - don't think I will ever sell it ……… or the AFS 300mm f4 … both are Nikon "classics" IMHO
plus TC20Elll it is a great way to get to 600mm f4 or 900 mm f4 on a DX

For flexibility the next lens I will buy is the new AFS 80mm 400mm f4
Click to expand...

I think you are right, the 300 f2.8 is a stunning lens, I was sad to sell my 300 f4 but it was rarely used after I bought the f2.8. At 300mm f2.8 it's fantastic, it takes the 1.4 TC with little/no degrading of image and similar results as the lens without a TC. The 2x TC impressed me, to be honest it blew me away considering it's a 2x TC. I've taken back lit in flight barn owls and close to full frame water vole images with it. With both you can hardly believe it's with a 2x TC at 900mm f5.6 on a dx camera.

If only nikon made TC's with an on/off switch on them like the cannon 200-400, that would definitely sort my problem by producing a zoom able 300 f2.8/420 f4! I know if I do swap I probably end up missing the 300.
 
Of course there is always the Tamron 150-600 to consider, it won't match the 300 f2.8 image quality or light availability but would give even more zoom flexibility for the wildlife shots :D
 
gramps said:
Of course there is always the Tamron 150-600 to consider, it won't match the 300 f2.8 image quality or light availability but would give even more zoom flexibility for the wildlife shots :D
Click to expand...

It is an option but after using a 300 f2.8 it's probably going to be a noticeable difference. To keep ISO down and shutter speed up sometimes I need f4. Losing a stop and bit more will push ISO beyond the acceptable level of about iso2000/2500 on the d7100.
 
The new AF-S Nikon 80mm 400mm f4 VR zoom seems a "no-brainer" for the flexibility, size, weight, IQ, and price …………..if the reviews are correct

I do not think I have seen a review with a TC14 ………...
 
BillN_33 said:
The new AF-S Nikon 80mm 400mm f4 VR zoom seems a "no-brainer" for the flexibility, size, weight, IQ, and price …………..if the reviews are correct

I do not think I have seen a review with a TC14 ………...
Click to expand...

It is not an f4 lens, it's f4.5 and at the longer end it's f5.6. It's very good nonetheless but obviously not as sharp as a prime. In exchange you have the flexibility of a big focal range. I have tried it with the 1.4tc but would not recommend using one with it as the result is quite poor for my personal liking. Hope this helps.
 
dragonfly said:
It is not an f4 lens, it's f4.5 and at the longer end it's f5.6. It's very good nonetheless but obviously not as sharp as a prime. In exchange you have the flexibility of a big focal range. I have tried it with the 1.4tc but would not recommend using one with it as the result is quite poor for my personal liking. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

It is a pity that Nikon do not upgrade the 300mm f4 adding VR
 
Just been looking through some of my previous images, the 300 f2.8 with the 1.4x and 2x TC's is pretty versatile with great IQ. Perhaps just not as quick to be as versatile as a zoom. Makes me think I would be draft to replace the 300 f2.8. It seems shooting wider and cropping would be a better idea.
 
rob-nikon said:
Just been looking through some of my previous images, the 300 f2.8 with the 1.4x and 2x TC's is pretty versatile with great IQ. Perhaps just not as quick to be as versatile as a zoom. Makes me think I would be draft to replace the 300 f2.8. It seems shooting wider and cropping would be a better idea.
Click to expand...

I always use my 300mm f2.8 VR on a tripod or mono ……. just too heavy to "hand hold" and carry around
 
rob-nikon said:
It is an option but after using a 300 f2.8 it's probably going to be a noticeable difference. To keep ISO down and shutter speed up sometimes I need f4. Losing a stop and bit more will push ISO beyond the acceptable level of about iso2000/2500 on the d7100.
Click to expand...

I haven't gone over 1600 and most are at 400-800.
 
rob-nikon said:
I have thought of this but the larger size, weight of the sigma and the fact you can't fit a nikon 1.4 TC to it put me off. 'snip' A f2.8 120-300mm zoom would be very nice though.
Click to expand...

You can get the Sigma 1.4 tele really easy (£100 ish) & it weighs diddly...

However,

The 120-300 is the same size as the Nikon 300mm, If you want smaller then it won't be 2.8...
 
BillN_33 said:
It is a pity that Nikon do not upgrade the 300mm f4 adding VR
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised to see it replaced this Photokina if the rumours of a new FX action camera are true. There were also some rumours of Sigma releasing some new superteles a while back and photokina would be the ideal time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top