after soulsearching I have decided against heavy lenses-- I used to shoot 500/4--So the 300/4 AFS is the one i would "need." At this time is there any reason why I shouldn't buy this lens? exp: a new Nikkor 300/4 is coming soon> or other alternatives?
I too used to shoot 500mm f4. While it is excellent for wildlife, it and the tripod it needs are bulky/heavy. The 300mm f4 is an outstanding lens and performs well with TC-14E. I'm in the same boat you're in as I want one too. However, I'm holding out just a little longer to see if VR version ever appears. I'm starting to give up hope though. If you buy a used one you should come out OK if you do decide to resell at some point. If you think you'll use the lens between now and next February when Nikon typically announces new products, then you might consider the lost photo opportunities if you wait. OTOH, used photo gear is typically at a lower price in February on eBay. That's when I do most of my buying.
I gave up hope on a new VR 300/4 announcement. I really really wish I had VR but the 300/4 AFS I got is one of my favorite lenses. My only issue is VR. As far as size and weight, the 300/4 is the exact same size... (length, diameter, weight) as the 70-200 2.8 VR but with a much smaller lens hood.
This lens 300/4 AFS has had just positive reviews. I do have an old Sigma 400/5.6 that isn't bad but it is dated: AF is to slow and IQ is just acceptable. When the 300/4 arrives and if it is as good as I have been reading, I will let the Sigma go.
BTW, the Bush hawk works well with 70-200/2.8 VR. So as I see, it should fit well to the 300/4.
There is little to no perceptible difference in IQ with the 1.4TC. The AFS 300/4 is a fantastic lens wide open. I had to let it go to fund other needs, but I highly recommend it to anyone. Only issues are: no VR, and the built-in hood is kinda flimsy (it's not as nice as the 70-200VR or 17-55 hoods), and the tripod foot sucks (get the RRS foot instead). But for lightweight wildlife shooting, you really can't go wrong, and the IQ really is stellar.
I had an old one I got used, then the 300 2.8 (non VR) and have recently sold it and bought the f4 again. Great IQ, takes 1.4 or even 1.7 in good light.
Avi B wrote:
Only issues are: no VR, and the built-in hood is kinda flimsy (it's not as nice as the 70-200VR or 17-55 hoods), and the tripod foot sucks (get the RRS foot instead). But for lightweight wildlife shooting, you really can't go wrong, and the IQ really is stellar.
I agree with the thought of replacing rotating collar/foot with either RRS or Kirk. It made a big difference on my 80-400mm VR lens when I did that, and the 300mm f4 is also widely reported as having a weak one. My ballheads all have Arca/Swiss-style QR.
Two23 wrote:
I agree with the thought of replacing rotating collar/foot with either RRS or Kirk. It made a big difference on my 80-400mm VR lens when I did that, and the 300mm f4 is also widely reported as having a weak one. My ballheads all have Arca/Swiss-style QR.
Kent in SD
I did so for my 70-200/2.8 VR. I am wondering if the same one would go for 300/4 as well? It would be to good to be true?
Bob
I've had very good luck with mine and with the 1.4TC I hardly see any drop in IQ. I don't think we'll see a VR version for at least another year and if/when it comes, there will be a higher price to pay.
I have a 300VR I use with TC14eII and TC17eII. Recently, I purchased a 300 f4 AF-S here at FM mainly for travel. I'm amazed at the sharpness and resolving power of this lens and find myself using it more than my VR lens when shooting in exceptable light. I replaced the foot with the Kirk and it works perfectly. The near focusing ability of the lens at 4.8 feet is an excellent feature.
When using the TC14eII and 17eII image quality is still exceptional. You may have to stop down 1 to 1/2 of a stop. When using the TC17 AF and tracking will take a hit even in good light. Not as noticable with tht TC14eII.
This lens can be difficult to handhold with shutter speeds less than 3x the focal range and proper long lens technique is crucial. A monopod or tripod is advised IMO.
Avi B wrote:
This lens is not hard to handhold if you have a pro body because the balance is similar to the 70-200VR. So go and work out
Go re-read
Not weight wise jees. For slow shutter speeds it is. The lens is light and I think thats why its a bit challenging to handhold for static objects regardless which body.
Nope ... if weight is not your issue, then maybe too much coffee?
Seriously though, I guess depending on the situation 1/100 @ 300mm or more (with a TC) might be hard to get critical sharpness. I forget that on the 70-200 +TC I have VR to help in that area. But you mentioned less that 3X the focal length range which implies to me 1/900 which should be plenty fast. I'm thinking you meant 1/3rd.
This lens can be difficult to handhold with shutter speeds less than 3x the focal range and proper long lens technique is crucial. A monopod or tripod is advised IMO.
This is the exact comment I was referring to. And I stand by my comment, unless you meant shutters 1/3 the focal length (but you did say 3x). Anyway, this is one of those rather subjective things, different people can handhold at different speeds. Physical strength does help with the ability to handhold at slower speeds, though.
+10