nikon 300mm f2.8 vr or 300mm f4???

oskanoears

oskanoears

Messages
910
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
If anyone has owned both this would be a huge help!
im about to hit the button to order the f2.8 vr from warehouse express... (its now on back order because iv taken too long:'( ) i previously owned the f4 afs version and was smitten with it in the month i got to use it before theft...
I was going to get the 200-400mm but after great deliberation decided it was just too big to carry around and with a 1.4x tele il have a smaller kit with near equal flexibility...
I love the 300mm focal length and it suits my shooting needs of birds flower insects sporting events etc but will i see the difference between the 2 lenses or should i get another f4 afs and get another wishlister?

im not a pro its a hobby but im very passionate about it and believe in having the very best... il be adding this lens to the following kit for reference..
Nikon 18-35, nikon 24-70 nikon 70-200 nikon 200mm f4 micro and r1, d3 and d700 bodies.

cheers Andy
 
I'd go with the 200-400, it's a much more versatile lens once you reverse the lens hood it's not much bigger than my older model 300mm 2.8, which incidentally hasn't been out of it's coffin since I got the zoom ;) It balances really nicely when carried around by the mounting foot, the extended Kirk foot also helps with the balance and holdability
 
Hairyduck said:
I'd go with the 200-400, it's a much more versatile lens once you reverse the lens hood it's not much bigger than my older model 300mm 2.8, which incidentally hasn't been out of it's coffin since I got the zoom ;) It balances really nicely when carried around by the mounting foot, the extended Kirk foot also helps with the balance and holdability
Click to expand...

thanks hairyduck whilst your thoughts are more than valid my head may explode if i come back to the 200-400 vs 300mm argument... I think i read every possible review and comparison of both lenses the other factor here is I just dont have the extra grandish mark to got the 200-400 as iv spent it on the above kit!

my real dilemma is should i spend 3 x the price of the 300mm f4 afs on the 300 f2.8 or get another f4 and a 14-24mm, 105mm macro and 60mm macro for the same dosh?
 
you only need to answer this single question

Will i ever need to use f/2.8

if you answer yes, wether it be youll need to use f/2.8 once a week or once a year then you need to go with the f/2.8

if you answer no and you are 100% sure you will never need anything faster than f/4 then go for the f.4 and save some money
 
Gary Coyle said:
you only need to answer this single question

Will i ever need to use f/2.8

if you answer yes, wether it be youll need to use f/2.8 once a week or once a year then you need to go with the f/2.8

if you answer no and you are 100% sure you will never need anything faster than f/4 then go for the f.4 and save some money
Click to expand...

thanks gary, i must admit i used the tokina 2.8 last night shooting deer at dusk and yes i shot at 2.8.. but is there any sharpness difference between the f4 and f2.8 lenses?

lastly if I use the 300mm 2.8 with a 1.4x i get 420mm f4 not f5.6 as would with the f4
 
I've owned both - the 300mm f/2.8 VR is superb, and is stunning with the 1.7x TC.

Its also big and heavy. Its sharper wide open at f/2.8 than the 300mm f/4 AF-S is wide open at f/4. If you've used the 300mm f/4 AF-S thats quite an achievement.

I sold my 300mm f/2.8 VR last year and went back to the 300mm f/4 AF-S as I didn't enjoy lugging an a 3kg lens around. But its a superb optic.
 
I had the 200-400mm and sold it for the 300mm 2.8. A superb lens that I use 90% of the time. Works just as well with the 1.4 and 1.7 converter.
Get that order made. ;)


Kev.
 
i own the 300 f/2.8 VR and simply cant imagane any lens being sharper, i have a 1.4x stuck to it most of the time and there in no quality loss at all
 
OK don't own either lens, however, have both the canon equivalents, you will certainly notice the difference in performance in low light conditions with the f2.8 from what I've read both are great lenses, and from my experience, even though I've got the 300mm f2.8 the 300mm f4 is still in the camera bag for practicality. Recent trip to Portugal for WSB, hand luggage restrictions meant 300mm f2.8 stayed home because easyjet have reduced their luggage size and the 300mm definitely wasn't going in the hold. So each lens has its merits....

I've heard good things about the 200-400mm f4, versatile, but I've also heard a few reviewers say its soft wide open. Its a decision that took me awhile to take the plunged, although my 300mm f2.8 was mint 2nd hand, it was still £2500 to hand over.
 
thanks to everyone on feedback on this its a big help when your making a purchase this financially large and worry it could be the wrong one... im sure id be happy enough with the f4 afs as i was before, but right now i have the opportunity to own the daddy and after having everything pinched I feel iv bled for it!
worst case scenario I do what puddleduck did, sell it and downsize to the f4 afs and get another few lenses to boot.
thanks again all il order it tonight!
 
pete.rush said:
I've heard good things about the 200-400mm f4, versatile, but I've also heard a few reviewers say its soft wide open.
Click to expand...

I can confirm that the 200-400VR is sharp wide open, I have yet to see a review that says otherwise ... that would be a review by someone who has A- used it, and B- knows how to use it :D

Reading the original post the 300 f2.8 would be my choice, will give you a 420mm f4 with the 1.4TC, and would be more manageable than the 200-400.

Nothing against the 300f4 AF-S, if budget was an issue it would be my choice, but the OP has the funds, so the f2.8 is the way to go.
 
If your photography is all about wandering around and taking photos if you see something that takes your eye, I'd suggest weight is your primary consideration. Lugging something really heavy around is going to get on your nerves sooner than anything else.

The 300 2.8 is as good as any long glass gets, it really is and the 200-400 is what happens when Nikon listen to the moaners on here (and elsewhere) and actually make a top notch long zoom. Both are excellent, but both are for people determined to go out and shoot pictures - casual snappers need not apply, because otherwise you will have bought a 4k paperweight.

The 300 f4 is for the more feint hearted....
 
oskanoears said:
I love the 300mm focal length and it suits my shooting needs of birds flower insects sporting events etc but will i see the difference between the 2 lenses or should i get another f4 afs and get another wishlister?
Click to expand...

check the minimum focus dist on both the lenses, I'm fairly sure that the s00f/4 focusses much closer than the 300/2.8VR, making it much more useful for some of those things.
 
oskanoears said:
my real dilemma is should i spend 3 x the price of the 300mm f4 afs on the 300 f2.8 or get another f4 and a 14-24mm, 105mm macro and 60mm macro for the same dosh?
Click to expand...

I would go with the 4 lenses you will still have the 300mm focal length covered plus the versatility of extreme wide angle and also 2 macro options though one macro 105mm my first choice of those two would suffice and possibly look at a SB900.
Your then covered for any eventuality they may come along when you are out togging:)
300mm f2.8 shooting isn't a every day shooting situation unless your sports or wildlife tog.

Even the 14-24mm is a little more special you are well covered with the 18-35mm it's a cracking bit of glassware.

decisions:D decisions :D decisions:D
 
300mm f4.0 Minimum focus distance 1.45m
300mm f2.8 Minimum focus distance 2.20cm
 
Nikon SB-900 Speedlight Flashgun £319.00
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens £1268.00
Nikon 105mm f2.8 G AF-S VR IF ED Micro Nikkor Lens £593.89
Nikon 300mm f4 D AF-S IF ED Lens £947.99

Delivery: £4.99
Total: £3133.87

Nikon 300mm f2.8 G AF-S VR Nikkor Lens £3892.99
Delivery: £4.99
Total: £3897.98


£3133.87 against £3897.98:bonk: = a very Merry Xmas :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top