I'm looking at trying to find and buy a clean used 300/f2.8 lens, and I've narrowed it down to the current VR version, but more preferrably (I think) the AF-S I or AF-S II non-VR lenses. The lens will be strictly (ha!) used for sports - baseball, football, hockey, etc. I will be using it at times with a 1.4x TC, and rarely if ever will I really NEED VR.
I'd love to hear your comments (and see photos too!) if you've used both the 300VR and the previous non-VR versions, and particularly in relation to sharpness and "punch" between f2.8 and f4, since I'll often be in this range.
I currently use an AF-S 300mm f4 and am looking for the upgrade since I have found need for extra reach and speed with the D700.
Many thanks in advance.
(Also, if anyone is selling a cream puff of a 300 AF-S I or II please PM me! Cheers!)
Oct 02, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
i just ordered the 200 2.0VR, as with a 1.4/1.7tc it hardly looses anything...nothing according to many....and you can still use it handheld...and use it at 200 which is about a long as i need for weddings. Something else to think about. Honestly I cant see having that long a lens without VR....you may not always need it, but when you need it..you really need it. Even on iffy speeds, the vr images are consistently sharper.
bb
the 70-200 VR is nothing compare to the 300 2.8 VR! Man, what a sweet lens. It is crazy heavy for weddings but now I have it on during the ceremony (hood off of course to help with the weight issue).
Andre Labonte wrote:
Are you bailing on me!!!! I thought we were holding out for the Nikkor 120-300 f/2.8 AF-S VRIII. You must be strong and wait!
Yeah, I think I'm going to have to. The D700 has really necessitated longer good glass for me... although if those Nikon engineers ever start listening to you and I I'll kick myself...
Brad Barr wrote:
i just ordered the 200 2.0VR, as with a 1.4/1.7tc it hardly looses anything...nothing according to many....and you can still use it handheld...and use it at 200 which is about a long as i need for weddings. Something else to think about. Honestly I cant see having that long a lens without VR....you may not always need it, but when you need it..you really need it. Even on iffy speeds, the vr images are consistently sharper.
bb
I think the 200mm f2 just doesn't do enough for me focal-length wise. I already own the 70-200, and granted the 200 will be far superior at 200, it still isn't 300, or 420 with a TC. That's the beauty of the 300 f2.8 for me, I can add the TC.
tuannie wrote:
the 70-200 VR is nothing compare to the 300 2.8 VR! Man, what a sweet lens. It is crazy heavy for weddings but now I have it on during the ceremony (hood off of course to help with the weight issue).
Tuan, you're a voice I can trust for sure. I couldn't imagine lugging that thing around a wedding though with other bodies and lenses... you are pumping iron!
Point well taken GMan... although I'll still keep the 70-200VR on the D300 for closer stuff.
Well I'm still torn on whether or not I should just bite the bullet and throw the credit card at a new 300VR or keep desperately shopping for an AF-S II... sigh... dammit this FX move is a killer on the bank account.
Oct 02, 2008 at 08:12 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Yeah, I think I'm going to have to. The D700 has really necessitated longer good glass for me... although if those Nikon engineers ever start listening to you and I I'll kick myself...
Ha! One more reason I don't go for FX. You have been sucked in my friend. NAS is chewing you up like the dark side of the force.
Hey dj, you won't regret the 300/2.8 in any version. I can tell you from experience that the 200/2 (although an excellent lens) will leave you wanting on FX. The 300 is about the sweet spot for me, being as long as you can practically go and still be relatively hand-holdable.
FWIW, I have the VR version, but I don't ever use the VR for sports. If my shutter drops too low, I just put it on a monopod. Normally I'm hand holding, as I find a monopod to restrictive for soccer.
I also had the 300/F4 to start the season this year, but I ended up selling that and springing for the 2.8. The F4 is a great value, but there is a reason why these lenses cost what they do.
Terry... that's great input... many thanks. And feel free to fire off any pics you want to [email protected]. Thanks again!
I used the f4 AF-S today for a HS football game and even from the sidelines I definitely wouldn't want less than 300mm. In fact, I even threw the 1.4X TC on it (f5.6, sigh) and it was usable on FX for sure, even on the sidelines, not just the endzones.
Oct 03, 2008 at 04:34 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I tried the 70-200 on the D300 and the 300 2.8 with TC on the D700 for youth football. I don't even bother taking the D300 to the games now. I set up a custom settings bank that uses the function button and the rear wheel to switch between FX and DX mode on the D700. I just leave the 300 2.8 vr (and in most cases the TC-17II) mounted on the D700 and switch on the fly (it takes about 2 seconds) from DX to FX if the action gets closer. The 5MP DX mode is plenty for my youth sports pictures (coming from the D2H I used last year). And switching from DX to FX is a lot faster than trying to switch cameras.
tkearney wrote:
FWIW, I have the VR version, but I don't ever use the VR for sports. If my shutter drops too low, I just put it on a monopod. Normally I'm hand holding, as I find a monopod to restrictive for soccer.
Terry
Get a Wimberley Sidekick and mount it to a ball head locked in the 90 degree position on your monopod. It's the best combination I have found for field sports. A gimbal on a monopod that can be locked down when you need to be on the move in a second with a quick twist of it's big knob.
Cheers!)
I sure hope the economy turn around.