300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload

2 end

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

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 04:53 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

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!

Oct 02, 2008 at 05:44 PM

Brad Barr
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #3 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

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

Oct 02, 2008 at 06:53 PM

Wingspar
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #4 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

I have the 300 f/2.8 I, and this is my sharpest lens. Makes the 70-200 VR look like a cheap lens. This year, I’ve starting using the 1.4 TC on it. Excellent combo. The non VR lenses will be lower in cost, but hard to find these days, as people just won’t sell them, they are that good. No experience with the VR version. Adding the 1.4 TC does not affect IQ at all thru my eyes.

This is Mark Sanchez from last year. He was about midfield, and I was on the sideline to give you an idea of the distance. Shot with the lowly D2H.

2008 © Wingspar

Exif information
Model	NIKON D2H
Date	2007:10:29 14:57:46
Original date	2007:10:27 13:35:35
Exposure time	10/10000 sec
Focal length	300mm
Focal number	f/2.8
ISO speed	200 ISO
Exposure compensation	0.0

Oct 02, 2008 at 08:33 PM

tuannie
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #5 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

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).

Oct 02, 2008 at 09:10 PM

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

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...

Oct 02, 2008 at 09:26 PM

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

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.

Oct 02, 2008 at 09:27 PM

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

Wingspar wrote:
I have the 300 f/2.8 I, and this is my sharpest lens. Makes the 70-200 VR look like a cheap lens.

Very high praise. I am definitely sold on the idea... just need to find the right deal now. Thanks for the photo, too... looks like great IQ.

Oct 02, 2008 at 09:28 PM

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

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!

Oct 02, 2008 at 09:29 PM

gman1339
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #10 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

I don't use my 70-200 VR if I can back up and use my 300 2.8 VR.

Oct 02, 2008 at 11:36 PM

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #11 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

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 03, 2008 at 01:12 AM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #12 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

dj dunzie wrote:
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...

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.

Oct 03, 2008 at 01:57 AM

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

Andre Labonte wrote:
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.

Ain't that the truth! Chewing up my bank account, credit limit, and kids' inheritance too!

Oct 03, 2008 at 02:37 AM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #14 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

dj dunzie wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
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.

Ain't that the truth! Chewing up my bank account, credit limit, and kids' inheritance too!

I used a 300 f/2.8 VR at the B&H store and fell in love. Even on DX it would be the perfect lens, but with 4 kids it will never happen.

Credit, you can get credit right now?

I sure hope the economy turn around.

So, how many rug rats do you have?

Oct 03, 2008 at 03:15 AM

VladiD
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #15 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

I am in the market for a 300mm/2.8 as well, probably want to go for the modern VR version though.

Any idea of availability of this lens? Haven't seen it on BH in ages.

Oct 03, 2008 at 03:59 AM

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #16 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

Andre... two anklebiters so far, plus a puppy. They don't need to eat 3 meals a day...

Vladi... I think even the new VR version takes some searching to find in-stock... good luck with the search.

Oct 03, 2008 at 04:37 AM

tkearney
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #17 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

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.

PM me your email and I'll send you some pics.

Terry

Oct 03, 2008 at 04:58 PM

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #18 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

Terry... that's great input... many thanks. And feel free to fire off any pics you want to djsphotography@rogers.com. 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 09:34 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

Only two! Get that lens now, because if you have any more there won't be any money left!

Kids are such a blessing.

Oct 03, 2008 at 11:17 PM

gman1339
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #20 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

DJ,

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.

Oct 04, 2008 at 02:34 AM

gman1339
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #21 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

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.

Oct 04, 2008 at 02:42 AM

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #22 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

gman1339 wrote:
DJ,

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.

Dangit you're a genious... I never even thought of doing that. I don't know why that never occurred to me. I'll be putting that to use... although I'd rather put it to use with a new f2.8 than my f4, but so be it (for now)...

Oct 04, 2008 at 02:44 AM

DragonflyDM
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #23 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

I miss my AF-I

Oct 04, 2008 at 03:45 AM

VladiD
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #24 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

Great idea, I shall give that a shot next week! Even though I do quite a bit of post-cropping, I am thinking that lacking the 12MP of full FX resolution may keep me from cropping much in PP.

While we are on the subject of 300mm 2.8s, is there any significant differences in sharpness and focusing speed between the AF-S I, II and the latest VR flavor? I don't care for weight (will use a monopod either way), nor the VR (monopod). I care for being able to retain sufficient IQ to follow fast sports action. I'm in the market for a 300/2.8 lens, just picking my brain over which one it's going to be. I like the idea of saving a few thousand dollars on an earlier AF-S I body over the VR.

Sorry to hijack your thread mate, thought it would make more sense to ask here since the thread is covering already this glass.

Oct 04, 2008 at 04:25 AM

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #25 · 300mm f2.8's - narrowing it down

VladiD wrote:
Sorry to hijack your thread mate, thought it would make more sense to ask here since the thread is covering already this glass.

No worries at all, in fact you're not hijacking it you're asking the same Q's I was wondering about. I think the AF-S II looks a lot more updated than the I, but it could just be that all the I's I've seen look abused. From Bjorn's review, they're both excellent, and better at f2.8 than the previous AF-ED and AI-S models, and with better contrast.

I think I'm aiming for an AF-S II at this point, but dang are these 2.8's ever hard to come by, particularly in clean condition!

Oct 04, 2008 at 04:38 AM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end