I know this topic has come up before but wondering if anyone has or has had both of these lenses and done direct side by side image quality comparisons. I have a project I will be working on where a 300mm lens would be ideal. I already have the 500 PF and a 600 F4E which are both super sharp and excellent lenses. I know the obvious differences with weight, price and speed between the 300mm options. What I would specifically want to know is how the image quality compares. Please post comparisons if you have them or anything else you feel could help. Thanks in advance for the help.
The 300mm F2.8 has beautiful bokeh. It can take the 1.4x, 1.7x & 2x and still retain great image quality with fast enough autofocus.
The 300mm PF has more nervous bokeh in comparison. It really is only usable with the 1.4x & 1.7x but definitely favours the 1.4x.
I always thought the 300mm F2.8 VRII had nicer rendering than my 200mm f2 so to say I'm a fan of the bokeh and rendering of the 300mm F2.8 VRII is an understatement. It is a top notch performer.
I own the 300mm PF now and have gotten rid of all of my large telephotos because I love the small package and the 300mm PF is an amazing travel telephoto. I put it in my jacket pocket at Fenway park for baseball photos. Can't do that with many other 300mm telephotos.
Thanks for the reply. I have read about how well the 300 2.8 takes teleconverters but for my use I will be using it at just 300mm. I have the 500 and 600 if I need more reach. My background will be controlled as well so I am not concerned with that as much either. Really just wondering about a straight up image quality difference.
aboutthelight wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I have read about how well the 300 2.8 takes teleconverters but for my use I will be using it at just 300mm. I have the 500 and 600 if I need more reach. My background will be controlled as well so I am not concerned with that as much either. Really just wondering about a straight up image quality difference.
Do you care about bokeh? Do you need F2.8? If not, the 300mm PF is plenty sharp but there are a lot of variables I'd consider first over absolute sharpness.
I have read a bunch about the busy bokeh on the PF lenses, but do not pay it any mind. The bokeh on my 500 PF is outstanding provided I work hard enough in the field to get the proper distance between my subject and the background. Or the proper shooting angle to optimize the background blur. If I do not execute properly in the field then I never fault the lens, that would be on me. So to answer your question, I do not need 2.8 and I do not think the bokeh is an issue at all as I will make sure the background is far enough away that it will be rendered as a pleasing and creamy blur as it is on my 500PF. Again, strictly looking for direct image quality comparisons. But thanks again for the response and info.
I owned the 300mm AFS vII and it was one my favorite lenses ever. I wish I had not sold it.
300mm f/2.8 lenses are so versatile.. so much so, that I have often contemplated selling my 500PF for a 300 f/2.8 VRII and adding a 2x converter to cover more distant subjects.
If size and weight are not limiting factors, the 300mm f/2.8 will be faster to focus and have more contrast in more diverse lighting conditions than the 300PF. If you don't need an f/2.8 lens and weight matters, the 300PF is a very close second to its larger namesake.
My 300PF is every bit as good as my 500PF if not even a little more micro-contrast with the 300PF. The only issue with 300PF is despite Nikon's claim that the FW fixed the VR issues around 1/100-1/200, it is still present. Shooting D850 in Qc mode fixes it but otherwise you just need to be aware of that limitation. It is very difficult to get a sharp shot handheld in that SS range.
Weight is not an issue, bokeh is not an issue, VR is not an issue nor is focus speed or shooting wide open. Only care about image quality and would love to know or see if anyone has done direct comparisons or has first hand experience with both lenses.
aboutthelight wrote:
Weight is not an issue, bokeh is not an issue, VR is not an issue nor is focus speed or shooting wide open. Only care about image quality and would love to know or see if anyone has done direct comparisons or has first hand experience with both lenses.
If your background is at infinity, the blur circle of single points of the background on the focus plane will be of the size of the aperture. So 2.8/300 will give you about 11cm, 4/300 will give you 7.5 cm. If this is important, get the 2.8/300. If it's not important, and you want to spend money for other things, get the 4/300 D AF-S, which is almost on a par at f/4. < ;https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f2-8g-vr-ii/3>;
(I do not own the lenses, but have owned the 4/300 D AF-S and tested the other two lenses at a photography store.)
I owned the 300 f2.8G VRII and only sold it because I purchased the 400 f2.8E FL VR, I have used the 300 f4 PF quite a bit.
The 300 f2.8G VRII is a superb lens I would say within a percentile of the 400 f2.8E FL VR as far as overall IQ, sharpness etc. They are two of the best lenses I think you could ever use from Nikon, the 200 f2 being another.
The 300 f4 PF is also an excellent lens but is not quite up there with the 300 f2.8G VR for overall IQ or sharpness. However, considering its size it is astoundingly good and in that regard is similar to the 500 f5.6 PF which I love.
I have no direct comparisons to show, but I just know that the 300 f2.8G VRII is sharper. I don't need to do back to back tests to ascertain that.
Hardcore wrote:
The 300mm F2.8 has beautiful bokeh. It can take the 1.4x, 1.7x & 2x and still retain great image quality with fast enough autofocus.
The 300mm PF has more nervous bokeh in comparison. It really is only usable with the 1.4x & 1.7x but definitely favours the 1.4x.
I always thought the 300mm F2.8 VRII had nicer rendering than my 200mm f2 so to say I'm a fan of the bokeh and rendering of the 300mm F2.8 VRII is an understatement. It is a top notch performer.
I own the 300mm PF now and have gotten rid of all of my large telephotos because I love the small package and the 300mm PF is an amazing travel telephoto. I put it in my jacket pocket at Fenway park for baseball photos. Can't do that with many other 300mm telephotos.
I second the above and experiences of the other posters. I only traded in my 300 f2.8G VR II toward 400 f2.8E. Minor criticism is the weight balance of the longer lens is better than the 300 G, which is distinctly end-heavy. Near mint copies of the 300 f2.8G VR II can be found, which is how I got mine and 2 years later it had retained almost the same value. I have camo' neoprene lens-coats on all my bigger lenses. This is mainly to try and maintain their resale value ;-) ;-)
All these top fast "exotics" are robust besides heavier. Everything works as it should (speaking of 200 f2G as well). All the threads here on FM and dpr etc agree the IQ is all superb, with the 500 f4E lagging just a little (according to pedantic reviewers but a trite difference IMHO) AND they all work very well with TCs, the f2.8's especially & the 400 f2.8E the best of all. As expected, the TC2 III exacts the highest penalty on IQ; nevertheless, I took many keepers with my 300 f2.8G + TC combo.
My only criticism of the 300 PF is the lens hood clip on is a joke, and it can be lost in brush etc. The hood with locking clip of the 500 PF is better but a rapid assembly (without checking) can leave the hood only partially attached (on 1 side)...then it drops off... The difference in "hood attachment quality" is stark compared to my 70-200 f2.8E and 80-400 . At the price, Nikon could do a better job (on the 300 PF especially). But minor criticisms as you say it's the IQ that is critical!
If I sought out a Used 300 f2.8 again it would be a near-Mint "later" AFD, because the AFS II only weighs 2.56 kg. My Z camera can take care of the VR....if ever needed so it will deliver on the D850 too
from Roland's database: IF ED AFS II 200001-205905 5905 approx. Feb 2001 - Sep 2004
Thanks for the replies everyone. I am well aware of all of the specs of the lenses but don't ever see actual image quality comparisons. My 600 F4E is hardly any sharper if at all than my 500 PF. Under ideal conditions it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between the 2 lenses. 600 has a bit more contrast and I like the colors a bit more, but others than that they are very close. As the 300 2.8 is supposed to be the sharpest lens according to so many, I just find it strange that actual image quality comparisons do not exist or are so difficult to find.
I have native 300mm four different ways. Never thought of comparing IQ, right tool for the task at hand.
Simply put, if you don't need f2.8/faster focusing the 300 PF will serve you well. I shoot wide open
90% of the time...THAT pretty much dictates which lens I'll be using. Apples 'n oranges, man.
aboutthelight wrote:
Thanks for the replies everyone. I am well aware of all of the specs of the lenses but don't ever see actual image quality comparisons. My 600 F4E is hardly any sharper if at all than my 500 PF. Under ideal conditions it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between the 2 lenses. 600 has a bit more contrast and I like the colors a bit more, but others than that they are very close. As the 300 2.8 is supposed to be the sharpest lens according to so many, I just find it strange that actual image quality comparisons do not exist or are so difficult to find. ...Show more →
What your asking for may prove to be a little difficult. In realty, who lugs a 300 2.8 and a 300 PF into the field and is able to get similar shots to compare, much less even wants to? These aren't 35mm 1.8 lenses, they are quite expensive and very few own both at the same time.
Probably the best feedback you will be able to get will be from people like Lance, who owned one and then the other, and can speak from general use and impressions.
trenchmonkey wrote:
I have native 300mm four different ways. Never thought of comparing IQ, right tool for the task at hand.
Simply put, if you don't need f2.8/faster focusing the 300 PF will serve you well. I shoot wide open
90% of the time...THAT pretty much dictates which lens I'll be using. Apples 'n oranges, man.
Agree and I doubt such direct comparisons will reveal much beyond what has become generally known about the excellent IQ (ie sharpness) of both 300 primes. The only pro who might have compared them directly is Brad Hill, but I recall he sold on his 300 f2.8G because it was superseded by more recent acquisitions.
I find that no one does direct comparisons kind of fascinating to be honest. When I bought my 500 PF I directly compared the quality to my 600 F4. I met up with a local falconer and shot his birds which was the first and only time I have ever done that. Was able to determine how the image quality of the 2 compare and what the differences were. A lighter and easier to hand hold lens that does not deliver on quality is pointless to me so the only way I was going to keep it was by directly comparing the 2. The 500 PF delivered extremely well and because of that was a keeper. Before I switched from Canon to Nikon I also did side by side comparisons. Comparisons of 1dx2 and 500 f4, vs 5d4 and 500 f4. Then compared 500 f4 and 5d4 and d850 and 500 f4. Both shot at same time with same settings, etc. Then I compared the differences between the 2 systems. I would think that if I owned and shot with a legendary lens like the 300 2.8 that I would only even keep a 300 f4 if I knew how much I was losing in terms of image quality by downsizing to the PF lens. So basically I would likely buy the 300 PF, test them side by side and then make a decision. Return it or keep it based on what I found in my test. Being a bird photographer it is super easy to find subjects, even geese at a local duck pond kind of place, or gulls that are tame and sitting in a parking lot. Easy enough to mount one lens, take a few shots and then switch to the other lens. Do that a few times with a few birds and different settings and then make a decision. If I am spending $2,000 or $5,000 I want to know what I am spending it on and how it performs.
And to be clear the lenses are not necessarily apples to oranges. Both are 300mm lenses. Say you were shooting hummingbirds using a multi flash set up. Your background is controlled, you are shooting at say f16, both tripod mounted and possibly even using a remote shutter and no auto focus. How would each perform? Would you be able to tell the difference in quality? Under those circumstances would they really be apples and oranges?
This may not be much help because I never did a controlled test between them. I've owned the 300PF for about 2 years now. I have used two different copies of the 300/2.8 VR (latest one) but I only borrowed those and only shot each of them about 1/2 a day (~3-500 images each time).
I can say I didn't find anything special or noticeably better in the IQ of the 300/2.8 images compared to the 300PF in regards to sharpness/contrast. Of course the DOF difference and knocking out backgrounds is present with the 2.8 but as you've already mentioned that is not a real issue for you (nor me).
I can say that the 300/2.8 is an overweight beast. It is front heavy, the VR/AF motors are noisy. It feels like a dinosaur compared to the Canon 300/2.8 IS II (which I did own for many years before replacing it with 400DOII). And even the Canon is getting a little old now.
As to AF speed, I found both lenses to be fast but I only shot Barred Owls in flight with the 300/2.8. I've shot all sorts of BIF with 300PF (usually with TC on) including Violet-green swallows, finches, towhees, tanagers, every duck around etc. Comparing the 300PF AF speed to the other Nikon lenses I've owned (200-500, 500E FL, 500PF) the 300PF has the fastest AF speed (probably due to the compact size and minimal movements it has to do to focus). The 500E and 500PF weren't far behind but still the 300PF is a top notch performer.
