Well... I've shot with a 300 f/4 at a race track and It was actually fun to use to shoot people and get headshots with, at the same time i use my 80-200 as a walk around lens and find myself shooting at 80 wishing i had a wider aperture to get more background seperation.... a 300mm f/4 headshot has some AWESOME bokeh on the full frame but i've yet to shoot with an 85 f/1.4
so, 85 f/1.4 or 300 f/4
i currently have a 28 f/2.8, 50 f/1.8 and 80-200 f/2.8D
well im not really doing headshots, just whatever. I shoot automotive stuff mainly. the 300 was fun at the track but it definitely wasnt long enough on a full frame.
heres the kind of stuff i normally shoot... all of these are with a D700
80-200 f/2.8D @ 200 f/2.8
Well then.
AFS 300/4 with 1.4TC (either II or III) would get you to 420mm @5.6 and for motosports, you'd probably be better off than with a 85/1.4, which is Nikon's cream machine under 200mm
i just did some math and it looks like 200 f/2.8 and 300 f/4 results in the same amount of area in focus if you're getting the same ~10ft wide object in frame... something like 5.5ft... so i imagine the fall off is about the same as well... the 85 f/1.4 comes out to be similar to the 200 f/2 from what math i did.
At almost half the cost, the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is really really good. And that's what I decided to get (back when it was $799).
I could have afforded the Nikon, but having used both, the Nikon wasn't worth twice the price tag of the Sigma. If it was $300 or even $350 more, I could have been swayed, taking into account resell value, weather sealing, etc.
But at the current prices, I'd get a Sigma no matter what! If you're aching to get better separation at 80mm, well, then get what you need! I'd get the Sigma 85mm/1.4.
Of course, the money saved by going Sigma rather than Nikon goes to your "long lens fund"
The time used to save up for a 300/4 may lead to an updated model with VR?
(BTW, what's keeping you from using a 1.4x TC on your 80-200 to get to ~300/4?)
I'm not going to buy a G lens... so the sigma is silly to buy in my case... i'll pay 100 bucks more for the nikon glass and not have to worry about sigma quality control.
Sigma QC issues though present, do not appear to plague the 85 as much.
I've had 2 and both were well uneder +- 6 for AF micro adjust. Sharp, fastish to focus and accurate.
I currently have the 85 1.8G and have used the Canon 85L. The Sigma came close to the 85L IMO, the 1.8G is a good compromise.
To the Ops question, I too love the flattening effect that the 300mm focal length provides. If you do any wildlife/birding, then the 300 might be a great lens to have along anyway.
The current version came out in 2000 and a VRII version with nano coat is sorely needed.
Ahh yes the mythical 300mm f4 VRII version that we've all been waiting the last 5 years (at least) for. I think your better off trying to find bigfoot. Just get the current 300mm f4 AFS lens. It's very sharp wideopen and with the current crop of DSLR bodies with excellent high ISO characteristics I really don't know why you would want VR anyway.
Waiting for a possible lens as the world spins and time passes is a fools errand. And cheats you of possibly years of good photography, while you wait.
The best way for that mythical lens to appear is by buying the current and available 300mm f/4.0
If it comes out, then take your lumps and sell the old version... And buy the new version at $2,300
I'd personally go for the 85, its one of my favorite focal lengths. Maybe look at the new Nikon 85 f/1.8G and save up for a used 300 f/4. Thats what I'd do. Or go for the Sigma 85, one of my favorite lenses ever.
Picked up an older 300mm F4 for under $400 and couldn't be happier. It's not as fast focusing as the 2000 version, but it was a great value. Might be able to get both that way.
I have the 85 1.4G which I upgraded this year from the 1.4D. It is a dream lens which I would recommend. I have three long lenses, 300mm 2.8, 200-400m f4 and a recent addition - the 400mm 2.8. The primes are great lenses, less so with the zoom but it is good for soccer. The lens I use least is the 300mm, not because of acuity, but rather the focal length. It is neither here not there - seems to be either too short or too long.
.