Nr 2 and 3 are the same lens (just described differently), and the latest version of Nikon's stellar 300 f2.8 family. If you're considering the 300 f2.8 for high shutter speed shooting (i.e. sports) then the previous gen lens (nr 1 above) may be the best option for you. They can be bought used for much less than a new 300 VR. I photograph critters in low light with my 300 VR , so the VR option has proven to be invaluable to me.
bitmaker wrote:
Nr 2 and 3 are the same lens (just described differently), and the latest version of Nikon's stellar 300 f2.8 family. If you're considering the 300 f2.8 for high shutter speed shooting (i.e. sports) then the previous gen lens (nr 1 above) may be the best option for you. They can be bought used for much less than a new 300 VR. I photograph critters in low light with my 300 VR , so the VR option has proven to be invaluable to me.
Hope this helps,
Greg
Greg, thanks for the info. is the glass the same for these lenses. Is there improvement in glasses between AFS and VR?
You recommanded the old VR but than turned around saying that VR in invaluable for you! did you mean you shoot handheld all the time?
nugeny wrote:
You recommanded the old VR but than turned around saying that VR in invaluable for you! did you mean you shoot handheld all the time?
If you shoot alot of high shutter speed stuff the VR may not be worth the premium price to you. Given the subjects I shoot I wouldn't want to be without the VR. I guess my point above was that everybody's needs are different... choose what works best for you and your shooting style.
phatnev wrote:
The VR has the best IQ but that's splitting hairs as they all have outstanding IQ.
And I've heard owners of the non-VR lens say it offers the best IQ. In the end me thinks you're correct in that any discussion about which lens is best is splitting hairs. They're both amazing!
I started a thread a few days ago called 300mm f/2.8 AF-S II. I ended up buying the 300 f2.8 AF-S II lens for $2700 (it didn't include a hood, manual or carry-bag -- a new hood replacement will cost me an additional $300).
My understanding from digging through old threads that the AF-S II version that I bought does not have the VR and nano-coatings and has slightly less pleasing bokeh than the current generation, but is about 0.5 lbs lighter in weight. I was looking at the VR lens too, but I just can't swing the extra $$$ right now.
The VR has the nano-crystal coating and what not so it does indeed have an edge in flare control, maintaining contrast while shooting into the light, etc etc.
bitmaker wrote:
If you shoot alot of high shutter speed stuff the VR may not be worth the premium price to you. Given the subjects I shoot I wouldn't want to be without the VR. I guess my point above was that everybody's needs are different... choose what works best for you and your shooting style.
And I've heard owners of the non-VR lens say it offers the best IQ. In the end me thinks you're correct in that any discussion about which lens is best is splitting hairs. They're both amazing!
Greg
BTW, which PF do you use? Adorama lists one for $279 and one for $199. None was indicated for 300/2.8 just for 200/2 lens.
I have the non-VR II version as well as the 200 2.0 VR. The 200 tests out sharper than the 300 on the bench but the pictures in real use are just as pleasing as the 200.
And I've heard owners of the non-VR lens say it offers the best IQ. In the end me thinks you're correct in that any discussion about which lens is best is splitting hairs. They're both amazing!