• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Nikon 300f4 VR? (1 Viewer)

jascha777

Well-known member
Hi there,
I`ve been using the 70-300VR lens and have been pretty
happy with it,but really fancy moving to a prime 300f4 and
1.4 converter.Does anyone have any idea if there is a real
possibility that Nikon will bring out a VR version in the near
future?
Many thanks
Mark
 
no idea but I'd rather they had brought out a 400/4vr or 400/5.6vr, you could use the 80-400vr at the moment
 
Reasonably safe to say that eventually, all of Nikon's longer lenses will have vr.
The 300f4 is a nice lens and you can get decent hand holdable shots with a 1.4 converter (I used to use a Sigma 100-300f4 had a pretty good hit rate). I do prefer though to use a long lens on a tripod-even my 300f2.8 vr.
 
I've really enjoyed my 70-300VR as a good starter lens for birding, I've now got a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 non VR/OS which can give excellent results when used properly - even with 1.4x TCs - giving me 420mm F4 I think. However as I'm as, if not more, interested in record shots, than in spending all day with the Sigma on a tripod, I've just bought a 80-400mm VR.

As a bit of a newbie my thoughts are that its quite a bit heavier than the 70-300VR but it feels rock solid and works well on my D80 [but not my back up D60 which isn't supported for this lens] and whilst I know some users don't like the slower focusing its not been a huge problem for me - early days yet but I have played with the focus limiter which helps. The VR system does make some noise but not nearly as much as the Sigma OS system I've heard in action on one of their 150-500s...

I think for 90% of the time I'll be using 80-400 VR and for some of that time on a monopod and keep looking out for a 500mm F4 within my price range in place of the 120-300.
 
I think for 90% of the time I'll be using 80-400 VR and for some of that time on a monopod and keep looking out for a 500mm F4 within my price range in place of the 120-300.

You could also consider the Tamron 200-500 to give you the extra reach. AF is a little slower than the Nikon, but in good light the image quallity is excellent - check some of Doc's images on the forum.

kevin
 
Doc's images are amazing, but when I had the big T, I couldn't produce anything like he has. The 300/4 is definitely sharper, and worked far better for me. Never noticed the drop in focal length, as the extra sharpness allows for more heavier cropping, even with a 1.4 teleconverter.

Despite no VR, and slow autofocus with the 1.4 tele on, I still think that the 300/4 is perhaps the best lightweight choice of the Nikon mount lenses.

I wouldn't hold your breath for a VR version to come out. Historically, Nikon is very slow at upgrading lenses, especially at the supertelescopic end.
 
Don't get me wrong - I agree the 300/4 is a great lens and I find it's on my camera more often than the Tamron (I have both). It's faster AF is fantastic for BIF shots.

However, I have to strongly disagree with the comment of the extra sharpness of the 300/4 allowing heavier cropping to make up for the loss of focal length. I've carried out controlled tests of both the Nikon and Tamron, using the same subject and camera body, to check this often-quoted belief, and it is simply not true. Period.

I haven't tried this with a 1.4TC so can't comment on this combo. With the TC it may be that the reduction in focal length can be compensated for by cropping.
 
Don't get me wrong - I agree the 300/4 is a great lens and I find it's on my camera more often than the Tamron (I have both). It's faster AF is fantastic for BIF shots.

However, I have to strongly disagree with the comment of the extra sharpness of the 300/4 allowing heavier cropping to make up for the loss of focal length. I've carried out controlled tests of both the Nikon and Tamron, using the same subject and camera body, to check this often-quoted belief, and it is simply not true. Period.

I haven't tried this with a 1.4TC so can't comment on this combo. With the TC it may be that the reduction in focal length can be compensated for by cropping.

No worries. I didn't carry out any tests; this is just my memory from about 2 years ago. Perhaps what I should have said is that I didn't miss the reduction in focal length when I moved to the 300/4 (with the 1.4 tele attached).

I also thought the Tamron's autofocus was about on par with the 300/4 with the 1.4 tele. attached. I certainly had less trouble with it. Again, this is just my memory.
 
No worries. I didn't carry out any tests; this is just my memory from about 2 years ago. Perhaps what I should have said is that I didn't miss the reduction in focal length when I moved to the 300/4 (with the 1.4 tele attached).

I also thought the Tamron's autofocus was about on par with the 300/4 with the 1.4 tele. attached. I certainly had less trouble with it. Again, this is just my memory.

Hi Helios. Thanks, this is interesting. I am considering getting a TC for the 300 but have heard that it slows down the AF. If you think it's on a par with the Tammy then this gives me something to go by. Cheers.

On the other point, the 300+TC gives a final focal length not too far off the Tammy, so I can understand that it's not too noticeable unless you're comparing them side by side.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top