Upgrade Nikon 300 f4 to 300 f2.8 (for Birding)

htid

htid

Messages
2,497
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm in a quandry as I'm sure a lot of photographers are! I've had the Nikon 300 f4 AF-S for about 4 years with 1.4TCII glued to it and have always been really happy with it but just felt I lacked a bit of reach and also feel a lot of my images are not quite sharp enough or too noisy due to higher ISO unless it's a nice day. The weather often means I have to up my ISO on my D7200 which I feel gives too much noise at 100% crops. For a long time (ie I was waiting for my christmas bonus which I now have!) I've been considering getting the Sigma 150-600 Sport for the extra reach so I didn't need to crop as much, or the d810 so that I can increase the ISO without as much noise. I've been umming and arring for ages as to whether the Sigma shots I've seen are sharp enough, as I often feel they are slightly less sharp than my current setup and I definitely couldn't accept that. I was also considering the 300 f2.8 VRII (second hand) with the 2xTCIII but I've read a few things saying the Sigma is sharper at 600 than the Nikon with 2xTCIII.

I've basically decided that the 150-600 is just a slight downgrade from my current sharpness and the f6.3 (from the f5.6 I have now) is also worse and since I'm already pushing ISO higher than I want, I'll have to go even higher. There are no other long range options as I can't afford/don't want to carry a 400/500/600 prime so I've decided that I'll have to accept I won't get any more reach (300 x 1.4 x 1.5crop is already 630mm which isn't bad) and instead look at the 300 f2.8 for its other advantages over my current setup. I've read a lot about people's opinions on this upgrade and some people say "do it, the difference will blow you away" and others say "you'll barely notice a difference in sharpness or AF speed".

So my question is, would you upgrade if you could afford it? Is it a worthwhile upgrade? In my head it is, because the increased f-stop will allow me to keep the ISO lower and VR is something I don't have (I will be using the lens handlend 20%, monopod 50% and beanbag in hide 30% probably) which will allow me to get away with slower shutter speeds and not worry about ISO as much. I can also get a 2xTCIII at some point if I really need some extra reach, and still have AF which I can't have on my current setup. But really, do those few differences justify the £3k I'll have to spend to buy it?

What would you do? Thanks for any replies!
 
One word Yes. The only down side I see is the extra weight.
 
The starting point is that you won't have any more reach than you have at the moment, so you have to look for other benefits to make the purchase worthwhile.
There is no question that the 300 f2.8 is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses and it will work very well with the 1.4x, pretty well with the 1.7x and not bad with the 2.0x so that will be a bonus for you. The f2.8 will make a difference to getting images at lower light obviously and an f2.8 lens will almost always give you that bit extra contrast and detail as well as allowing for a faster shutter speed ... the downside is the extra weight.
I had the 300 f2.8 VRII and it was a brilliant lens but for me just didn't give the reach that I wanted, I wouldn't want to have to be relying on using the 2.0x a lot.
 
Ok,

I bought the 300 vr2, the 1.4, 1.7 & 2.0 teles.
The 1.4 is normally welded on, the 1.7 never gets used (once last year) & the 2.0 only when I don't want to carry the 400mm f2.8.... used maybe 15 times last year....
95% handheld, 5% tripod.
if you use or have used the 70-200vr2 then the 300 is exactly the same with just a longer reach - in other words - AWESOME.....
 
Icee said:
One word Yes. The only down side I see is the extra weight.
Click to expand...

The weight is obviously more than I have now but I've been planning for months to get the Sigma Sport which is the same weight so I've already been expecting that.

gramps said:
The starting point is that you won't have any more reach than you have at the moment, so you have to look for other benefits to make the purchase worthwhile.
There is no question that the 300 f2.8 is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses and it will work very well with the 1.4x, pretty well with the 1.7x and not bad with the 2.0x so that will be a bonus for you. The f2.8 will make a difference to getting images at lower light obviously and an f2.8 lens will almost always give you that bit extra contrast and detail as well as allowing for a faster shutter speed ... the downside is the extra weight.
I had the 300 f2.8 VRII and it was a brilliant lens but for me just didn't give the reach that I wanted, I wouldn't want to have to be relying on using the 2.0x a lot.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't have a 2x and am not sure when I can afford one. It won't give me the reach I want either since my current set up doesn't. Thing is, nothing will. As you know, we ALWAYS want more reach but my only options are this with less reach but as sharp as I'm happy with, or the Sigma which won't be as sharp as I'm happy with but gives the reach. I think I'd prefer getting some shots I'm happy with rather than lots I'm not happy with. Ideally I'd love the 500 as I think you have but since I can't afford it and its 1kg heavier, this its not really in the running.

Diving Pete said:
Ok,

I bought the 300 vr2, the 1.4, 1.7 & 2.0 teles.
The 1.4 is normally welded on, the 1.7 never gets used (once last year) & the 2.0 only when I don't want to carry the 400mm f2.8.... used maybe 15 times last year....
95% handheld, 5% tripod.
if you use or have used the 70-200vr2 then the 300 is exactly the same with just a longer reach - in other words - AWESOME.....
Click to expand...

That's good to hear! I've never used that lens but if you say it's awesome it gives me confidence!
 
Chris,

I'd think about (and buy) the 300PF and TC14 ...... you will use it far more as it is easy to hand hold ....... at the end of the day not many shots (of birds) will be taken at f2.8 or even f4

all the shots on my South African image page have been taken with the 300PF + TC14 and D7200 so far - out here I do not need to go over ISO 800 much - lots of bright light and shade so the D7200 is standing up well noise wise ..... hardly used the 300 f2.8VR and I never use it hand held anyway .. just too bulky ..... it is OK on a bean bad or resting on the car window .. but hand held not easy to manoeuvre quickly

The ability to use a set up hand held means that you will get far more shots and the VR on the 300PF helps this

(Nikon should produce a 400mm f4 PF VR which I am sure would be well received)

all lenses take some getting used to, before you can say that you are happy with them
 
htid said:
Yeah I don't have a 2x and am not sure when I can afford one. It won't give me the reach I want either since my current set up doesn't. Thing is, nothing will. As you know, we ALWAYS want more reach but my only options are this with less reach but as sharp as I'm happy with, or the Sigma which won't be as sharp as I'm happy with but gives the reach. I think I'd prefer getting some shots I'm happy with rather than lots I'm not happy with. Ideally I'd love the 500 as I think you have but since I can't afford it and its 1kg heavier, this its not really in the running.
Click to expand...

It's always going to be a question of options, weight and finance unfortunately :(
I bought the 300 f2.8 to use for birding and the quality of the image from it was second to none but in my location it was hopeless for reach on my FX bodies ... on a crop body you are up to 450mm and I am often at that now using my 300 f4 PF VR but for me that's light enough to do anything with all day, I couldn't with the f2.8 but you may well be able to.
My 500 f4 is a great lens and I should have got it in the beginning and saved myself some grief but it is heavy and is causing some strain on an injured shoulder so it may reluctantly have to go ... I can't handhold, it's always on either tripod or beanbag.
 
Chris you are not taking our advice mate, most of us have done the routes you are considering, trying to save you money,I've had 300mm nikon 2.8 with all the converters, also sigma 120-300 2.8 ,these are great lenses ,but you will not be happy with the reach for birds, at a distance,that means either 600f4 or perhaps the sigma 500mm 5.6? like i said,try a cropped v2 or v1 for distance and a full frame for carrying about?
 
gramps said:
It's always going to be a question of options, weight and finance unfortunately :(
I bought the 300 f2.8 to use for birding and the quality of the image from it was second to none but in my location it was hopeless for reach on my FX bodies ... on a crop body you are up to 450mm and I am often at that now using my 300 f4 PF VR but for me that's light enough to do anything with all day, I couldn't with the f2.8 but you may well be able to.
My 500 f4 is a great lens and I should have got it in the beginning and saved myself some grief but it is heavy and is causing some strain on an injured shoulder so it may reluctantly have to go ... I can't handhold, it's always on either tripod or beanbag.
Click to expand...
fully agree, I had the 600 f4 bloody kills you on a long walk..
 
@Bobsyeruncle Yeah that's what I'm thinking of doing actually

@BillN_33 There's no doubting that the 300f4 PF looks like a fantastic lens and must be great as a walkabout. Since I already have the non PF version, I can't really justify to myself £1499 to literally only gain VR. I'm happy with the 300 f4 as a walkabout so the weight isn't really much of an added benefit. You're right though, there should be a 400 f4 and it's always puzzled me why Nikon don't produce any 400mm lenses bar the 2.8 which is ridiculously big and heavy (and expensive!). A good priced 400 F4 would be an amazing seller within the wildlife community but they must have their reasons.

@mark richards @gramps I know what you're saying but as I said I (not just me, but everybody) will never be happy with the reach of any lens! In general the 300 f4 I have now serves me well and I do get good shots with it (on my DX body paired with the 1.4tc) so it's not always lacking distance. It's more that because I go out on less than perfect days, I have to up the ISO and then when I crop quite a bit, the noise shows. I was thinking that with the faster lens I can keep the ISO down and when I do crop there won't be as much noise and I'll be happy with the images I get. I know what you're saying though, the 3002.8 isn't the holy grail and I'm sure I will wish for more length but it all comes down to money and weight as has been said. @mark richards I have been looking at the Sigma 500 and it looks a great lens and would be exactly what I want (cheaper than the 3002.8 second hand, more reach) but it's not got any type of VR. I'm on the fence about that - if I'm using it on a monopod, will I need VR? Some places say yes, some say no. With the increased length it does mean that I'll have to be even more steady than I currently am with my 300f4 and VR would be very useful. Having looked about, I'd probably need to stop down to f5.6 for super sharp images which is the same f stop as I'm using on my 300f4 + 1.4tc. That means, taking into account the crop factor, I'd get 750mm @f5.6 on the Sigma and 630mm @f5.6 on my current setup. The 300 f2.8 would be 630mm @ f4. Hmmm, difficult decision!
 
htid said:
I'm in a quandry as I'm sure a lot of photographers are! I've had the Nikon 300 f4 AF-S for about 4 years with 1.4TCII glued to it and have always been really happy with it but just felt I lacked a bit of reach and also feel a lot of my images are not quite sharp enough or too noisy due to higher ISO unless it's a nice day.

Snip

So my question is, would you upgrade if you could afford it? Is it a worthwhile upgrade? In my head it is, because the increased f-stop will allow me to keep the ISO lower and VR is something I don't have (I will be using the lens handlend 20%, monopod 50% and beanbag in hide 30% probably) which will allow me to get away with slower shutter speeds and not worry about ISO as much. I can also get a 2xTCIII at some point if I really need some extra reach, and still have AF which I can't have on my current setup. But really, do those few differences justify the £3k I'll have to spend to buy it?

What would you do? Thanks for any replies!
Click to expand...


As I gave you just an answer on the 300mm I didnt comment on the rest of what you said....

However,

Based on your specific questions:

Yes,
Yes,
Only you can answer this,
I'd buy the Nikon 500mm and the Nikon 1.4 tele - it's the same cost ish and you already have a 'good' 300mm
 
Last edited:
Sorry to blaspheme and butt in here, but from past experience doing the same change with Canon from 300 f4 to 300 f2.8, the low light difference was huge. Also having 420 at f4 with a 1.4 extender was also a great asset. Just my small contribution but I don't know Nikon well enough to offer anymore than this.
 
A 300mm vr2 is circa £3000.
wardy07 said:
Sorry to blaspheme and butt in here, but from past experience doing the same change with Canon from 300 f4 to 300 f2.8, the low light difference was huge. Also having 420 at f4 with a 1.4 extender was also a great asset. Just my small contribution but I don't know Nikon well enough to offer anymore than this.
Click to expand...

The Nikon is the same... Focusing speed is incredible, it is a work of Art...

If you don't need more range than 420 x 1.5 (crop) & also want the ability to handhold it then I'd get it....

BUT

for birding you can never have a long enough lens....

The OP doesn't hand hold it , is on a monopod or bag and he feels he is missing a little bit of reach.... Hence get the 500mm & a 1.4
 
Another option Chris,

From what I have seen that you have posted, your not happy with the D7200 for your shooting due to the noise. If you have 3k to spend why not consider a D750 or D810 and the Sigma Sport or Nikon 200-500 which will take your 1.4TC which you already own.. I haven't used the D7200, but have owned both the D7000 and D7100 and IMO the D750 I have now, is far superior in noise handling over those two IMO.

You can get the D810 for around £1500 from Panamoz or HDEW and the D750 for around £1050 and buy a UK lens.
 
I think I've decided on the 300 2.8.

Just to clarify, I was never looking at the Nikon 500 as its £1000 over my budget. It was a toss up between the Sigma 500 f4.5 and the Nikon 2.8 + 1.4 TC (420mm). From what I've read, the Sigma needs stopping down to 5.6 or 6.3 for sharp images and doesn't take TCs very well, so I'd only be gaining 80mm with no VR.

Another consideration I've forgotten to mention is that although this lens will be used for birding, it will also be used on safaris etc in future so I think limiting myself to 500mm is a bit much, the 300 gives me the flexibility of 300/420/600 (if I get the 2xTC).

@Swanseajack this whole thread started because I was looking to get the Sigma 150-600 (after having seriously compared the Nikon 200-500 and deciding the Sigma was sharper) but just haven't seen anything that has impressed me sharpness wise (bar a few from a member on here who has great shots but they're really close, once the distance becomes greater they aren't up to what I class as good enough for my perfectionist eye).

I might lack reach but at the end of the day, I can always go to 600 with the 2x and still get reasonable shots. :)
 
htid said:
...they aren't up to what I class as good enough for my perfectionist eye.

I can always go to 600 with the 2x and still get reasonable shots. :)
Click to expand...

As long as you appreciate that using the 2x will provide reasonable and not perfectionist then you will be fine ... however I hope you do not experience the frustration I did over reach :)
 
gramps said:
As long as you appreciate that using the 2x will provide reasonable and not perfectionist then you will be fine ... however I hope you do not experience the frustration I did over reach :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm going to have to accept that. As I say, a 500f4 and 600f4 are way out of budget so it's either this or the Sigma 500 and I don't feel that 80mm and no VR (with no flexibility on focal length as I can't use TCs) is worth the upgrade. I'm sure I will experience frustration over reach and one day (after I've managed to save a deposit and bought a house!!) I will hopefully get a 500f4! But for now, I have to put up with what my budget allows.

Thanks for your inpuit everybody, I geninely have listened to everything that has been said and taken it all on board!
 
htid said:
Yeah, I'm going to have to accept that. As I say, a 500f4 and 600f4 are way out of budget so it's either this or the Sigma 500 and I don't feel that 80mm and no VR (with no flexibility on focal length as I can't use TCs) is worth the upgrade. I'm sure I will experience frustration over reach and one day (after I've managed to save a deposit and bought a house!!) I will hopefully get a 500f4! But for now, I have to put up with what my budget allows.

Thanks for your inpuit everybody, I geninely have listened to everything that has been said and taken it all on board!
Click to expand...
It's your choice ultimately.people can only offer opinions and let's face it, we all strive for extra reach whatever lenses we buy!
I hope you get on well with the 300 f2.8, I'm sure you will as it's a great lens and will give you so much flexibility with extenders. The 2x will give you adequate images but with the 1.4x you will get excellent ones and still have the bare 300 which is fantastic.
Enjoy it when you get it and don't keep wondering what if, just embrace what you have and use it to full advantage.
 
The 300 f2.8 is a great lens. I had one for a while that I upgraded from a 300 f4 af-s. Fantastically sharp and took the 1.4tc very well and the 2x to actually surprised me as it was better than I was expecting.

BillN_33 said:
(Nikon should produce a 400mm f4 PF VR which I am sure would be well received)
Click to expand...

htid said:
You're right though, there should be a 400 f4 and it's always puzzled me why Nikon don't produce any 400mm lenses bar the 2.8 which is ridiculously big and heavy (and expensive!). A good priced 400 F4 would be an amazing seller within the wildlife community but they must have their reasons.
Click to expand...

A 400 f4 lens would be very interesting especially if it came in at around 2kg too. The only reason I can see why Nikon hasn't made one yet is because of the 200-400 f4. It doesnt take teleconverters as well as it should be it does give a good 400 f4 just maybe not as good 560mm f5.6. It's the same with with why there isn't a 400 f5.6 as the 300 f4 and 1.4tc does such a good job.
 
mark richards said:
Chris you are not taking our advice mate, most of us have done the routes you are considering, trying to save you money,I've had 300mm nikon 2.8 with all the converters, also sigma 120-300 2.8 ,these are great lenses ,but you will not be happy with the reach for birds, at a distance,that means either 600f4 or perhaps the sigma 500mm 5.6? like i said,try a cropped v2 or v1 for distance and a full frame for carrying about?
Click to expand...
+1
Chris
I have the 300mm f2.8 and also now the 600mm f4 The 300mm f2.8 is really no good for birds as the reach that everyone is talking about is just not enough. I wish I had got the 800mm f5.6 over the 600mm as even 600mm with small birds is not enough. If I were you, I would try and rent a 600mm for a day and compare it with your 300 f4 and you will know what I mean
Good luck with which ever way you decide to go
 
quite simply - if you want a walk around birding set up - choose a DX + x 1.4TC + 300 PF

If you are serious about birds on a tripod a 600mm f4 + x 1.4TC is where you start

to answer your question which talked about 300mm lens, (and not 600mm/500mm/400mm) - the 300PF is the way to go because of it's size, weight and VR .. rather than the 300mm F2.8

I can only tell you from experience as I have all three lenses, (and had the 300mm f4 AFS), plus the TC's - and used them with FX, DX and Nikon 1 bodies
 
BillN_33 said:
quite simply - if you want a walk around birding set up - choose a DX + x 1.4TC + 300 PF

If you are serious about birds on a tripod a 600mm f4 + x 1.4TC is where you start

to answer your question which talked about 300mm lens, (and not 600mm/500mm/400mm) - the 300PF is the way to go because of it's size, weight and VR .. rather than the 300mm F2.8

I can only tell you from experience as I have all three lenses, (and had the 300mm f4 AFS), plus the TC's - and used them with FX, DX and Nikon 1 bodies
Click to expand...
bloody show-off!!
 
@ndwgolf as I said though, the 600f4 is way out of budget and I can still get 600 with the 2x at 5.6 which isn't bad. Ok optically it won't be a patch on the 600f4 but the price puts it out of my reach for the foreseeable future.

Also I have to point out that whatever upgrade I get will mean selling my 300f4 to fund it (leaving me with no lenses). It's unfeasible for the only lens I own to be a 600f4 as then I have to plan everything every time I go out.

@BillN_33 I'd love the 300f4 PF as a walkabout but I said before that I can't justify £1400 just to gain VR (which is what I'd be doing since I find my current 300 perfect already for a walkabout). The way I'm looking at, I still have the option of 600mm which I can't with the PF. At 2.8kg the lens is also OK for hand holding for a few shots and can be carried around relatively easily. A 600mm is another kg on top of that and as well as the lens (which is already way out of budget) id have to get a good tripod. It's just not in my price range.

Again I am listening to what everybody says but I have to compromise as I'm young(ish!), live alone in London and trying to save for a deposit. The 300 2.8 is already hard to justify to myself but I can just about manage it. Anything more is just not realistic in my circumstances. Thanks again for all the input.
 
Chris you don't have to justify your purchase, it's your money and your photography ... there is no such thing as the ideal lens so everything is a compromise. I had my 300 f4 PF on yesterday and everything was fine until I saw a Peregrine Falcon ... if only I had my 500 f4! :(
Use your 300 f2.8 and enjoy it ... one thing for sure, although you will miss a few, it will give you some excellent images. :)
 
mark richards said:
bloody show-off!!
Click to expand...

not really it is just a simple answer - if Chris has a 300mm f4 AFS - don't buy a 300mm f2.8 for birding - wait until he can afford a longer prime lens it is called learning by other peoples experience or mistakes - I started with a 70 300mm VR - moves to the 300mm AFS, then to the 300mm f2.8VR and then to the 600mm - on a tripod I use the 600mm and I have recently replaced the 300mm AFS with a 300mm PF, because it is much lighter and easier to carry around .... simple as that ....... I never really use the 300mm f2.8VR for birding - the price difference between a used 300mm f2.8VR and a 600mm f4 is not all the large.

I would suggest Chris waits until he can afford a 500mm or 600mm lens and when he gets one to sell his 300mm f4AFS lens and buy a PF - he would then have a flexible lens combination for birding with the x 1.4TC
 
Sorry to drag this thread up but now that I've been burgled and am starting again, I've been thinking again.

Lots of you suggested not getting a 300 2.8 and going for a 500. Mifsuds have a 500 f4 (non VR) for a good price. This weighs less than the VR version and costs much less. I'm thinking of just getting my stolen 300 f4 (the previous model) again as I can't afford the PF, then this 500.

My only issue is that as I say the 500 is non VR. I can use the 300 plus a 1.4tc as a walk around but would only use the 500 in hides with a 1.4 and on my monopod. Would it be worth getting the non VR on a monopod? I can't afford a top end tripod as well. This just means I have to have two lenses rather than the 300 2.8 and different TCs which is easier to carry.
 
A good 500 f4 is a great lens and you don't need VR ... only you know hoe steady you are at holding a lens but with a reasonably high shutter speed you should be fine. Having had both the 300 f2.8 and now the 500 f4 (although VR) I wouldn't hesitate at getting the 500 ... and a beanbag, incidentally mine works really well with the 1.4 and 1.7 TC's. :)
 
gramps said:
A good 500 f4 is a great lens and you don't need VR ... only you know hoe steady you are at holding a lens but with a reasonably high shutter speed you should be fine. Having had both the 300 f2.8 and now the 500 f4 (although VR) I wouldn't hesitate at getting the 500 ... and a beanbag, incidentally mine works really well with the 1.4 and 1.7 TC's. :)
Click to expand...

Just realised the one I've seen is the AFS ED D IF, not the II version, so it's pretty old. Think I'll pass but thanks anyway!
 
htid said:
Just realised the one I've seen is the AFS ED D IF, not the II version, so it's pretty old. Think I'll pass but thanks anyway!
Click to expand...

Isn't the AFS model the next one down from the 500mm VR model?.......a bit like your old 300mm afs, which has only recently been replaced by the PF version. I thought the AFS were a pretty modern lens?

Ffordes have a II version in stock and it's a couple of hundred more than the Misfuds one. They also do a no obligation 10 day trail of equipment, so if not happy just return for a full refund. I have bought a few items of them in the past and have found them to be a good company to deal with. >

http://www.ffordes.com/product/15061711271831

http://www.ffordes.com/search/nikon+500mm/
 
Swanseajack said:
Isn't the AFS model the next one down from the 500mm VR model?.......a bit like your old 300mm afs, which has only recently been replaced by the PF version. I thought the AFS were a pretty modern lens?

Ffordes have a II version in stock and it's a couple of hundred more than the Misfuds one. They also do a no obligation 10 day trail of equipment, so if not happy just return for a full refund. I have bought a few items of them in the past and have found them to be a good company to deal with. >

http://www.ffordes.com/product/15061711271831

http://www.ffordes.com/search/nikon+500mm/
Click to expand...

Wow thanks for that! I don't know all these scond hand dealers so had only checked mifsuds, mpb and greys of Westminster. The II version which you've linked to is exactly what I thought the mifsuds one was (but the mifsuds seems to be the version before the ffordes one). At that price I would definitely go for it so assuming it's still available when I'm back off my holidays, I'll get it. thanks a lot, I'd already resigned myself to the fact that I wasn't going to be able to get it after all, and now I can again :D
 
htid said:
Wow thanks for that! I don't know all these scond hand dealers so had only checked mifsuds, mpb and greys of Westminster. The II version which you've linked to is exactly what I thought the mifsuds one was (but the mifsuds seems to be the version before the ffordes one). At that price I would definitely go for it so assuming it's still available when I'm back off my holidays, I'll get it. thanks a lot, I'd already resigned myself to the fact that I wasn't going to be able to get it after all, and now I can again :D
Click to expand...

This info may also help, showing some of the different AF/MF models. >

https://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/glossary/af_designations.php

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-an...-nikkor-lens-type-is-right-for-your-dslr.html
 
@gramps @mark richards @Diving Pete @Swanseajack @BillN_33 @wardy07 @ndwgolf

Sorry to tag you all, just don't know if anybody would notice this otherwise and didn't want to start a new thread.

As it stands I've now seen the nikon 500mm (but with no VR) which I might get. As you may have seen I was burgled so my 1.4tc and 300 f4 are gone. So to go with the 500 I can just about stretch to replacing them both so I'd have a 500 and 1.4 when I know I'm going somewhere specific and the 300 (non VR) plus 1.4 as a walkabout.

On the other hand I can still just go with the 300 2.8 vr ii with the 1.4tc and 2tc

Everybody seems to be clear that the 500 is the way to go but is a 500 plus 1.4 on a crop body with no VR on a monopod/beanbag still better than a 300 plus 1.4x/2x on a crop WITH VR? Unfortunately now I've been burgled the 500 with VR which is another 2k on top of that is WAY over budget.

What's the verdict? :)
 
[QUOTE="

Everybody seems to be clear that the 500 is the way to go but is a 500 plus 1.4 on a crop body with no VR on a monopod/beanbag still better than a 300 plus 1.4x/2x on a crop WITH VR? Unfortunately now I've been burgled the 500 with VR which is another 2k on top of that is WAY over budget.

What's the verdict? :)[/QUOTE]


I also use the 500mm, mine is the VR version, if it helps in your choice of what to get I cannot remember the last time I used the VR, When I was looking to buy a 500mm I was undecided whether to get the VR version or not, so played it safe an got one with VR, but knowing what I know now if I had to do it over I would be quite happy with no VR, if it helps have a look at my Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/90652257@N05/ 99% of the shots on it are handheld with the VR turned off, Im not saying do not use a support or the VR but for the birding I do a tripod is not practicable and I prefer the VR turned off. I gave the link to my Flickr to show what the lens is capable of without support or VR.
Im in my 60s, disabled though I do realise hand holding is not for everyone as some here are steadier than others when it come to using a heavy lens.

I should add that mine is on a D7100 or D750 with the 1.4 teleconverter which is never off the lens for the type of birding I do.
 
Last edited:
Not sure where you get £2k more for the 500 VR over the 300 2.8 VR II ? Think there less than £1000 in them as not seen VR II under £3k and 500VR around £4K if your lucky maybe just under? Or did I misread sorry?
 
Forgot to say I believe the VR model takes teleconverters better too? Even if your not using VR I understood the optics were better
 
@htid - I did have a 300 f2.8 VRll and used it with all three TC's ... 600mm obviously required the use of the 2x and although it would capture a reasonable image it wouldn't compare with my 500 + 1.4. I think you are over stressing the overall value of VR for wildlife, many togs never use VR and most that have it don't use it on tripod/monopod as they are at a shutter speed already that helps eliminate movement.
I have the 500 f4 VR and the 300 f4 VR PF and I find them the perfect combination, not because of VR but because of the length ... I'm sure you would regret just getting the 300 & TC's and end up looking for longer, just as I did :)
 
For what it's worth I have to agree with gramps, VR or IS is overrated by so many people. Shutter speed is a necessary evil in bird photography so it becomes useless to a large extent particularly if you're mounting the kit anyway. Also 300 f2.8 is still only 600mm with 2x extender and at f5.6 whereas a 500 f4 with 1.4x is much longer at the same f number. If you could afford both the 300 VR & 500 non VR f4 lenses, for me that would be nirvana as you'd cover pretty much everything you'll ever need.
I've had both versions in Canon, IS and non IS and the IS was off a lot more than on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top