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. ...Show more →
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)...
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. ...Show more →
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.
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!
All of the AF-S 300 2.8 Nikkors are great lenses. But the VR has a special letter in it's designation that the others don't, and that's the N. Nikons first lens to use the Nano Crystal Coat technology. But you really can't go wrong with any of them.
About VR: you can always turn it off.
But, as soon as it becomes overcast, light levels plummet.
Now, we're shooting at f2.8 and 1/160 sec and it sure
is nice to have VR.
I'd get the VR version. More flexible.
I shoot a 300/2.8 AF-S I with a 1.4TC on a D3 frequently, even on Friday night lights as long as I can stand it (ISO 10000+ and shutter speed's not fast enough) then drop the TC. I frequently switch DX/FX as necessary. The image quality is amazing. It's definitely my #1 favorite shooting gear I actually picked this lens up about two years ago used in the sports shooter classified section. They are out there just few and far between.
Be careful if you obtain one of these older lenses because the next step to fix a NAS habit is a 400/2.8 VR or 500/4 VR! Both of which are even harder to find on the used market.
The other thing to consider with either of the AF-S I or II's is the fact that if the lens needs service parts may be harder to come by or completely unavailable. Just something to think about when you're spending that kind of cash.
Brent, thanks for that feedback... do you think that Nikon would be anable/unwilling to repair a broken or defective AFS-I? That would definitely be disappointing...
dj dunzie wrote:
Brent, thanks for that feedback... do you think that Nikon would be anable/unwilling to repair a broken or defective AFS-I? That would definitely be disappointing...
I think getting a repair is possible - as long as parts are available if a replacement part is needed. That's my main concern with the older lens especially since I use it the most.
State Farm has additional insurance for breakage/malfunctioning/etc that might kick in that could afford an upgrade to a 300 VR if the lens was not able to be repaired... Something to research and consider. There are probably similar coverages available from other companies as well.
Well, I have never seen an AF-I need repair, and I can't imagine that the gears are so obscure that they wouldn't be able to be fixed. What other discontinued lens does anyone not purchase because of the possibility of parts?
Are we saying they may not be able to repair an old AF-I lens or and AFS-I lens ?
Surely, I say surely you should expect Nikon to carry parts for all it's AFS lenses for years and years to come ? As a 300 2.8 AFS-II owner I certainly bloody hope so !!!
You think you should get the VR version because of this ? I would have got the VR if I could have afforded it over the AFS-II but I couldn't.
I paid $3200 for mine a few months ago from a sports shooter here on FM. Someone else offered me one too IIRC.
Well, Nikon (or any other manufacturer) cannot hold an infinite amount of spare parts. Most companies have a policy to repair/service products X year after they've been discontinued. Nikon replaced AF-I motors with AF-S in 1996.
I think the fear with the 300 2.8 AF-I lens is that Nikon no longer stocks parts for it. We all know that all things mechanical eventually break. When (not if) the motor in your AF-I lens dies you will have a manual focus lens.
Weather is complete s**t today, not getting to shoot anything other than the new glass itself.
The focus is seriously the fastest I have ever seen.
I suppose this is normal operation, but does the VR on this lens really sound like there is a little motor running the whole time you depress the shutter for focusing? Sure sounds different than the VR operation on the 70-200 or the 105micro.
