My main question is how good is the AF on the 300? I've read Thom's review where he said it was quite poor and other people have said it's very fast. How does it compare to the 80-200 or the 70-300? (On my D300)
And what about with a 1.4 converter? Is it still usable for fast moving sports?
I just sold my 300 F4 AF-S and found it to be a tremendous lens. On DX I found it to be a great lens for when I need reach, but it seemed to be an odd focal length for FX. Anyways, I would say the AF was pretty quick. It's not quite as fast as my 70-200 but a lot quicker then any of the consumer lenses I've tried. Sorry, I haven't used the 70-300 or 80-200. I'll say I had no trouble keeping up with a Jack Russell running at full speed.
For Lacrosse, soccer and cycling I'd say the AF won't be a problem. If the focal length works for you, I'd say go for it!
unrlmth wrote:
I've read Thom's review where he said it was quite poor and other people have said it's very fast.
Thanks
incorrect, thom stated that is was not a "barn burner" and not as fast as expected, he did not say poor. with correct lighting and the 51 point AF of the d300, you'll be more than fine TC'ed or not.
owning both the 80-200 2.8 D and the 70-300 VR in the past, i'd say i like the AF much better than 80-200 D, and similar if not better than 70-300 aswell. however it depends on what body your shooting. today pro cams can make AF D lenses look quick as hell.
I have the 70-300VR and the 300 f/4 AFS, and while I've never done a direct comparison, my seat-of-the-pants impression is that the 300 is faster focusing than the 70-300VR. The 300 f/4 AFS is a fine lens that produces results that belies its price, especially if you find a gently used one at a good price.
To be sure, I'd much rather have the 300 f/2.8 VR, but that's in a whole different price range. If your lacrosse and soccer photos typically occur in good light, the 300 f/4 should be fine even with a 1.4x extender. If you're shooting in lower light situations, you'll likely need a faster lens especially if you're going to use an extender.
---XR--- wrote:
incorrect, thom stated that is was not a "barn burner" and not as fast as expected, he did not say poor. with correct lighting and the 51 point AF of the d300, you'll be more than fine TC'ed or not.
owning both the 80-200 2.8 D and the 70-300 VR in the past, i'd say i like the AF much better than 80-200 D, and similar if not better than 70-300 aswell. however it depends on what body your shooting. today pro cams can make AF D lenses look quick as hell.
Haha yea I know, it was in the cons section of the summary so I think that left me with the impression that he thought it was poor.
And thanks for the replies, I was already pretty sure about it and I think you guys have removed any doubts.
I love my 300 f4 AFS. Just used it yesterday with the TC17 to shoot some Bighorn Sheep in the mountains west of Denver. I bought mine in May 2006 and haven't looked back.
I also have the 70-300 VR and 70-200 VR. I find the 300 f4 AFS focuses almost as fast as the 70-200, and noticeably faster than the 70-300. I also find that the 300 f4 is stunningly sharp (even wide open) - which is something I can't say about my 70-300 VR (unless I've stopped it down).
The other thing to consider is the tripod mount. I found that my results with the 300 f4 improved dramatically at slower shutter speeds once I bought the Kirk replacement tripod mount.
If you look on the sell/buy board here and at Nikonians, you'll sometimes see them for sale with the Kirk tripod mount.
It is not as fast to focus as the AFS 70-200 VRI. It is however, just as sharp wide open as is the 70-200VR. It also takes the 1.4 TC w/o any real IQ loss. As David has said, if you can get the thing with a Kirk tripod mount, you'll find it's fantastic (the tpod mount that comes with it is less that "good").
Now, if you're shooting those sports in good light, the 300/4 + 1.4TC will give you some fantastic reach, but expect some sluggishness when the light drops.
Definitely a good lens -- though I, too, wish it had VR.
It's exceptional wide open, clearly beating the 70-300VR at that focal length as long as you have sufficient shutter speed to stabilize it. If 300mm is the outside end of the reach you need, the zooms may still be appealing -- but if you have any interest in using TC's to go longer, it gets even more attractive. There simply isn't anything else in that range that can push out to 1.4x or 1.7x without taking a severe hit in image quality.
Are you finding your 80-200 + TC to be too short? Because all I can see that you would gain would be getting a 420 f/5.6 when you add your TC to the 300mm. If that's what you need then the 300 f/4 seems to be your cheapest/best choice in Nikon mount. But my question is why isn't your 80-200 sufficient? The zoom seems like it would be a much greater advantage for all of the sports you have mentioned, even at 112-280 f/4 when its kenkoed.
rshiery88 wrote:
Are you finding your 80-200 + TC to be too short? Because all I can see that you would gain would be getting a 420 f/5.6 when you add your TC to the 300mm. If that's what you need then the 300 f/4 seems to be your cheapest/best choice in Nikon mount. But my question is why isn't your 80-200 sufficient? The zoom seems like it would be a much greater advantage for all of the sports you have mentioned, even at 112-280 f/4 when its kenkoed.
Riley
Not that it's too short with the TC, but the AF is slow and the IQ is really degraded. And with lacrosse there is so much space behind the goal I'm thinking the option for a 420 f5.6 will be nice. I might also shoot with both of them, one on each body.
Hmm, I see. Why not consider selling the AF-D and buying an AF-S VRI/II? Then the AF should be much faster certainly than an f/5.6 AF-S. I do see the merit in your dual body setup tho, I just had to use f/5.6 lenses for the past few years and since I got my 300 2.8 I never want to use such a slow long lens again, the AF is soo much faster and more accurate on my 2.8 AF-S lens that it is like night and day, and my many 400mm f5.6s were soo slow and light hungry... Anyways I am supposed to be helping you make a decision not muddling it up. I hope I haven't done you a disservice.
Well, if it was between the f/2.8 version and the f/4 version, the f/4 version is rather pokey. My 600 f/4 also blows away the 300 - but for the price it should.
Otherwise, the 300 f/4 is a phenomenal lens in my opinion. It isn't for low light situations with a 1.7X or 2X TC if you need speed, but otherwise it performs just fine. Adding the 1.7X gives a nice compromise when you want the extra reach and can give up a stop and a half. IQ is superb if you are not comparing it to the pricier versions, and I believe it is well worth the money.
I sure wish Nikon did offer VR on this lens, but I'm still satisfied with it just the same. (Right now I wouldn't be rushing out to buy the VR version even if they did release one, but it would be nice to know it was there when I was ready to spring for it.)
rshiery88 wrote:
Hmm, I see. Why not consider selling the AF-D and buying an AF-S VRI/II? Then the AF should be much faster certainly than an f/5.6 AF-S. I do see the merit in your dual body setup tho, I just had to use f/5.6 lenses for the past few years and since I got my 300 2.8 I never want to use such a slow long lens again, the AF is soo much faster and more accurate on my 2.8 AF-S lens that it is like night and day, and my many 400mm f5.6s were soo slow and light hungry... Anyways I am supposed to be helping you make a decision not muddling it up. I hope I haven't done you a disservice.
Nope no disservice done. The 2.8 version isn't really in the cards right now. It seems like the cheapest one I would want to get is the afs version which runs at least $2600.
And I think it will be a step up in AF speed and IQ than the 80-200, right? (especially with TCs)
Also one more thing, would it be worth it to replace the Kenko TC with the Nikon one, when/if I get the 300?
I own the 300 f4 AFS and I use it for Soccer. I have also owned the 80-200 and the 70-300. The 300 F4 AFS is much faster focusing than either lens. The image quality is awesome. I would sell the Kenko TC and get the Nikon TC.
I would think that that plus a TC would be excellent, bigger but better. Thats just on paper tho, I have not used a 70-200 AF-S VR. I do however think it would improve this: the AF is slow and the IQ is really degraded
The other thing to keep in mind is which lens would wear the TC, if any at all, while you were dual wielding? I still think for action that a 100-280 @ F4 would be better than a constant 400 @ f/5.6. Are you most often saying to yourself "if only i had more reach" or "if only i had faster AF" or "if only i had more light" ??
300/4 AF-S is a fine lens. It got a bad rap early on due to the ill-designed tripod mount, but Kirk made a replacement for that. (It may not matter for your usage patterns.) Of course there is no excuse for a 300mm prime not to have VR by 2010, but that is the way it is. You could probably buy a used 300/4 AF-S and resell it later on for practically no loss. There are plenty around since many people prefer zooms.
rshiery88 wrote:
I would think that that plus a TC would be excellent, bigger but better. Thats just on paper tho, I have not used a 70-200 AF-S VR. I do however think it would improve this:
The other thing to keep in mind is which lens would wear the TC, if any at all, while you were dual wielding? I still think for action that a 100-280 @ F4 would be better than a constant 400 @ f/5.6. Are you most often saying to yourself "if only i had more reach" or "if only i had faster AF" or "if only i had more light" ??
I never did direct comparisons so I might be out to lunch on this, but I don't recall my 70-200 VR with a TC (1.7X) being any faster focusing than the 300 f/4 by itself. I don't have the 1.4X to compare, so maybe that makes a big difference in itself. In any case, the 300 seemed to do fine by itself. It was just when I wanted more reach than what the 300 provided and added a TC to it that things started slowing down.
The one big plus of the 70-200 VR + TC is the range of focal lengths available, as you mentioned. Also, by itself it provides better everything except reach over the 300. Then again it costs quite a bit more too, so I guess it is all relative.
I'm more of a zoom guy, so the range difference dictates what lens gets used more for me. As much as I like the 300, the 70-200 or 80-200 see more use. Each person has different needs, but that was my experience with those lenses.
I haven't sprung for the Kirk collar for my 300 f/4 yet. I went the poor man's route and use a wine cork between the lens and the foot to stabilize it. Works pretty good, especially for a no-cost remedy.
Just got the 300 today and I have to say that I am pretty impressed with it. The IQ wide open is very good and the AF speed both bare and w/ TC is very good compared to my 80-200. The 70-200vr1 is definitely on my wish list though. Along with the 85 f1.4 and a D700. lol
