• 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.

300 f4 afs vs 300 f2.8 VR? (1 Viewer)

roemer

Member
For some months now I use the nikkor 300 mm f4.0 AFS and I am very satisfied with the performance of this lens, sharpness, contrast and color are all top notch, probably one of the nikkors with the best price/quality ratio on the market. I am using the lens in combination with an extension tube for macro and with the TC 1.4E en 1.7E for birding etc.
But I miss VR on this lens!

Handheld and in less than optimal light I am not capable of getting critically sharp images with this lens, something which is no problem with my 70-200 VR, so I am forced to use a tripod 99% of the time.

Furthermore I find the speed of the AF in combination with the tc 1.7 for the most part very slow (hunting).

For these reasons I am pondering the purchase of its bigger brother the 300 mm 2.8 VR. Especially after reading the excellent review of Andy Bright on www.digiscoped.com

Its quit a steep step in price and i am wondering if it is also significantly better in quality.

And by this I mean: how is the quality of this lens + 1.7 TC compared with its f4 counterpart, (IQ and AF speed) are there members in this forum who have first hand experience with both lenses and forementioned TC and can make a valid comparison?

Thanks,

Roemer
 
Used to use the Sigma 100-300F4 as a walk around lens and found it to be a great performer hand held but only when conditions were right.
Last year took the decision (after a long time of doubt and dilemma) to get the 300 F2.8 vr and a TC17 converter, and immediately found a significant increase in the quality of my images.
Assuming you are happy with just a 300mm lens rather than spend a bit more on say the 500mm vr (and there have been several recent threads that may be relevant) then you probably wont regret getting one.
Just remember it is quite a bit bigger and heavier than an f4 lens!
 
Used to use the Sigma 100-300F4 as a walk around lens and found it to be a great performer hand held but only when conditions were right.
Last year took the decision (after a long time of doubt and dilemma) to get the 300 F2.8 vr and a TC17 converter, and immediately found a significant increase in the quality of my images.
Assuming you are happy with just a 300mm lens rather than spend a bit more on say the 500mm vr (and there have been several recent threads that may be relevant) then you probably wont regret getting one.
Just remember it is quite a bit bigger and heavier than an f4 lens!

I'm in a similar situation to Roemer. I have the 300 f/4 with TC-14 and feel that moving to a VR lens with one stop extra would be a real bonus, so I'm very seriously contemplating getting the 300 f/2.8 VR.

I haven't had a chance to try out the lens yet, but I'm particularly interested in finding out how hand-holdable this lens is for, say, flight shots. Do you have any experience in this area? The reason why this is so important to me is that I want to maintain a certain degree of mobility with this lens and not always have to rely on a tripod/monopod for sharp pictures.
 
Flight shots I do find tricky-its taken me some time to find suitable focus/drive settings on my D2x that work for me (most of the time!) .
Also of course, with a fairly heavy hand held lens following birds can be difficult.
Have attached a few Black Headed Gull images taken from one of the hides at Minsmere on Sunday in rather poor light and it was windy as well.
First two at F2.8, second two with the TC17 at f4.8.
 

Attachments

  • _PB15435.jpg
    _PB15435.jpg
    38.4 KB · Views: 1,014
  • _PB15432.jpg
    _PB15432.jpg
    46.9 KB · Views: 575
  • _PB15401.jpg
    _PB15401.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 766
  • _PB15417.jpg
    _PB15417.jpg
    62.8 KB · Views: 932
One other thing-it does dragonflies very well.
Brilliant Emerald Loch Bran Scotland last July
 

Attachments

  • _PB13919.jpg
    _PB13919.jpg
    36.6 KB · Views: 1,306
One other thing-it does dragonflies very well.
Brilliant Emerald Loch Bran Scotland last July

Thanks for the photos Phil, they look great. I guess I'll have to try one out soon to see how hand-holdable it is for me. Perhaps I'll hire one for a day.
 
Roemer,
Save some money and get the D300 instead. With the D300 ( or D3 ) and the 1.4x you'll have lightning speed and about 3 stops of speed so VR is not necessary. The 300/2.8 is not a "carry around all day" lens and because of it's thick barrel it's not easy to hold or grab quickly for a sudden opportunity. The 300/2.8 is a better lens but I haven't noticed that much difference in speed (maybe 5%) and not that much difference in quality (also 5%). I've not been impressed by the 1.7x , either in speed or quality on either lens.
Neil.
 
Roemer,
Save some money and get the D300 instead. With the D300 ( or D3 ) and the 1.4x you'll have lightning speed and about 3 stops of speed so VR is not necessary. The 300/2.8 is not a "carry around all day" lens and because of it's thick barrel it's not easy to hold or grab quickly for a sudden opportunity. The 300/2.8 is a better lens but I haven't noticed that much difference in speed (maybe 5%) and not that much difference in quality (also 5%). I've not been impressed by the 1.7x , either in speed or quality on either lens.
Neil.
Neil,

Do you have experience with the 300 afs?

I for myself have already a D300, and although i am very impressed with this machine (coming from a D80) it does not help with the slow focusing of the 300 f4 + TC1.7. I know by experience that with the tc 1.4 the af is quite good, but i find the reach of 420 mm not enough. What i am looking for is a handholdable 500 mm lens with good IQ and AF, and i thought that the vr + tc was the way to go. But maybe i am wrong and i should opt for a 500 vr, but in that case i would partially have to switch to Canon (500 f4 IS) because the Nikkor 500 vr is way to expensive, and that would be a pity because i find my D300 by far the best camera ive ever had.
But anyway, before investing that amount of euro’s i have to be dead sure about any alternatives.
 
Flight shots I do find tricky-its taken me some time to find suitable focus/drive settings on my D2x that work for me (most of the time!) .
Also of course, with a fairly heavy hand held lens following birds can be difficult.
Have attached a few Black Headed Gull images taken from one of the hides at Minsmere on Sunday in rather poor light and it was windy as well.
First two at F2.8, second two with the TC17 at f4.8.
Phil,

Nice photo's, what is your experience with the handholdabiltiy of this combination, i've only used the 70-200, but the 300 vr is quite a different beast,i guess, is it really a walkaround lens, as ive read in the Andy Bright review?
 
In terms of bulk, it isnt really much larger than the 70-200, about 50% wider and a bit longer, but is twice the weight. Add a D2 or D3 and it can seem very heavy to those used to smaller cameras and lenses.
I find it balances quite well with my D2x, with the left hand supporting the lens, the thumb falls naturally on the left hand focus button, and the tripod mount sits on the back of the palm. I used to keep a Gitzo plate on it but that was rather uncomfortable. The right hand really just supports the weight of the camera body.
As to how long I can hold it up to the eye waiting for a shot, much depends on how tired I am, but generally I can hold it for a few minutes-Im a sort of average person, definitely not a strongman/athlete. Usually I find it better to hold it with my left arm resting on the hip and bring it up to the eye when required. Kneeling and putting elbow to knee is another option.
As to tracking flying subjects I dont really find it much different to my other lenses (except the 500 F4 manual focus!), other than I have to take a break and rest my arms a bit more. The weight and bulk do not seem to affect the acquisition and tracking of subjects.
 
Neil,

Do you have experience with the 300 afs?

Roemer,
I have the 300/4, 300/4 AFS, 300/2.8 AF-S and now the 500/4 G AF-S ED VR. The AF-S is much faster than the old AF. Teals in flight is no problem with AF-S, although if you want to fill the frame you need to have a 600 mm plus 1.4x. As I do 90% of my photography from a fixed position I like to use the tripod. Neil.
 
“The 300/2.8 is a better lens but I haven't noticed that much difference in speed (maybe 5%) and not that much difference in quality (also 5%). I've not been impressed by the 1.7x , either in speed or quality on either lens”


Neil,

if i read your mail correctly then a rather substantially amount of money (lowest price in holland about 4300 euro's) would give me about 5% increase in performance and image-quality, a stop faster and very probably a nicer bokeh. I don’t think that would be called a wise investment. I find this very dissapointing, for i had hoped that such a expensive lens
would bring home the bacon, regarding the raving reviews all over the internet.
 
The reason you are finding 300 f4 AFS and TC-17E II combination slow to focus is that it is not a recommended combination.

This from the NikonUsa website.

Autofocus not possible with, AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED, AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4D IF-ED, AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR, AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4D IF-ED II AF-S NIKKOR 600mmf/4G ED VR, AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4D IF-ED II and AF-S VR Micro 105mm f/2.8G

It will work but due to the loss in light it will not work particularly well.
 
Outboard,
that's the reason why i started this thread, i like to know if there is a major difference in a 2.8 prime and a f4, regarding this TC. According to Neil's experience, not significant.
 
Outboard,
that's the reason why i started this thread, i like to know if there is a major difference in a 2.8 prime and a f4, regarding this TC. According to Neil's experience, not significant.

I would agree paying 3x more for 1 stop of light and 5% faster AF is hard to justify and I can't now that I have used all lenses. I bought the 300/2.8 AF-S VR as an upgrade to the old 300/4 AF . This gave me a big improvement in AF speed but slowed me down due to weight. As I digiscope too I have the DSLR on the ground next to me to grab when action happens. This is why I bought the 300/4 AF-S as my carry-around all day lens (I do this hobby all day 5.5 days a week so weight is an issue ). The 300/2.8 worked much better on the D2x than the 300/f4 AF-S. On the D3 the difference is much less.
The biggest difference in quality/speed I've seen is upgrading from the 300/4 AF to 300/4 AF-S ( 50 % speed improvement ) and from the D2x to the D3 (big improvements everywhere).
The 300/2.8 AF-S VR doesn't fit into my lens line-up anymore but I will probably keep it anyway as it's a beautiful lens.
Neil.
 
Interesting thread ! I have made a comment on another topic regarding Neils quoted figures. I am not sure exactly where you're coming from Neil as on occasion you seem to contradict yourself. As you have all the lenses discussed you are obviously in a perfect position to pass judgement on their performance but it seems that you are biased towards the 300f4 because you want to carry it around all day.Fair enough. I briefly tried the 300f4 and D300 last week. Compared to the f2.8 D200 combination it was a peashooter to a canon. No doubt you could walk around with that no problem. The f2.8 does get heavy after a while and it's nice to put it down. However, as previously quoted, Nikon only recommend the 1.4 TC with the f4 whereas the f2.8 will support a 2.0TC. For anyone on a more limited budget than you appear to have the f2.8 might be a handy compromise solution. The ability to walk around with it and yet convert to a 600mm lens too. I was sat next to someone in a hide the other day who had a Canon 500mm and yes, I wished I had that lens as I was unable to get close enough to the small birds we were taking photo's of. On the other hand the previous day I had been on a 6 mile hike which would have been impossible with the 500mm lens. Yes, in reality both would be nice and that remains an ambition but for the meantime the f2.8 will have to do.It was half the price of the 500mm too.
As for hand holding, yes you can but you will get better results resting it on a beanbag or tripod... and that goes for any lens as far as I am concerned. For flight pictures I find 300mm perfect as the field of vision is much wider than at 500mm with a TC. The closer the subject the better the detail and sharpness. The other thing to remember too is that Neil based his judgement on his experience of using the lenses in Hong Kong. The rest of us might not be so fortunate to have those sort of lighting conditions. I know in Britain we don't for most of the time.
In summary I think it's great to read Neils judgements but remember his needs might not be the same as yours.
 
Life would be so much easier if Nikon made an AF-s II F4 400mm, (VR would be nice too). whatever lens you purchase, there will be a situation where you need more reach. My view would be for the F2.8 300mm for general walk abouts. Hoping that in the future Nikon increase their sensor size, which they will do.
 
Not sure what you mean by this. What about the D3?

I didn't explain this very well?

The point I was raising is we rarely change our (expensive) lenses like a F2.8 300mm. Cameras we trade in on a regular basis for newer models.

What I meant by sensor size is not the physical dimensions, but the increase in recorded pixel count.

Nikon have made a huge leap forward in ISO sensitivity, The D3 is very good. The next step will be to combine this with better definition from more pixels, therefore giving a better enlargement factor, ideal for those with medium sized lenses.

Now, large image sizes aren’t the be-all or end-all for reproduction, but once the improvements come out the technology tends to move down the range to more affordable models.

Nikon lenses I can’t see coming down in price.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 16 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