Nikon 300 f2.8 AF-s VR (1 Viewer)

Michael Hogan

Acroperus

• Jul 27, 2007

• #1

I have some spare cash and I was wondering if it is worth splashing out on a new Nikon 300 F2.8 AF-S VR for bird and general wildlife photography. I have a Nikon D80 and a Tamron 200-500 f5.6. I find the Tamron good but it needs loads of light so it can be kept at f8 or above to give the best results. Would to Nikon give me much better results and because of this would the loss of magnification not be missed.
I also have a Kenko pro 300 1.4. Will it work with the Nikon

Thanks

 

DonFrambach

Active member

• Jul 27, 2007

• #2

I found that 300mm was a little short for me when I used a 70-300 VR zoom. But with a 1.4x TC and f2.8! and VR to boot, I think you'll do just fine. You could even add a larger TC if the combo was still short for your needs. I think you'll have a lot of fun with it.

 

Duke Leto

Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that s

• Jul 27, 2007

• #3

save some money and buy a 300-800/5.6 sigma

 

O

Outboard

Well-known member

• Jul 27, 2007

• #4

The suitablility of your lens choice depends entirely on your style of bird photography. If you bring the birds to you by sitting in a hide in front of a prepared feeding station for instance then a 300mm will be fine on it's own. If you want to photograph birds on a lake or reservoir then 300 mm will not be long enough. If you want to walk around photographing birds then a 300 plus a 1.4 converter will be okay length wise but a litle on the heavy side (the 2.8 is quite a heavy lens). The 300-800 Sigma is NOT a walk around lens, you will also need to allow quite a lot of money for a suitable tripod for the Sigma 300-800.

 

Michael Hogan

Acroperus

• Jul 28, 2007

• #5

Thanks for the great replies. Tripod is not a problem - I have a Manfrotto 055PROB with a Manfrotto 393 head. Is the Sigma 300-800 a good sharp lens. The Tamron at 500 is a bit soft - that's why I was thinking of moving from a zoom to a prime. How about a Sigma 500 f4.5 prime. What I am looking for is the best compromise for the money. I have been advised to go for the Nikon 300 f4 and the Sigma 500 f4.5- should get both for the price of the Nikon 300f2.8. I not sure about the 300 f4. It does not have VR and I'm not the steadiest so I'm not sure how hand holding would be. I have a Manfrotto monopod as well and I find it good on the Tamron but only in very bright weather

 

O

Outboard

Well-known member

• Jul 28, 2007

• #6

The Sigma 500mm f4.5 is a superb lens, I have seen some wonderful pictures taken with one. The 300 f4 is also a great lens with and without a 1.4 teleconverter. The lack of VR is not a big deal, it is much more of a walk around lens than the f2.8. If you would like to see the results of both the Sigma 500 f4.5 and the Nikon 300 f4 in action check out Tim's website on the link below.

Tim Zurowski Photography

 

P

Phil Bishop

Well-known member

• Jul 29, 2007

• #7

The 300vr is a great albeit heavy walk around lens ie when I dont want to cart the tripod around, and is hand holdable down to 1/30 sec. Obviously best for fairly close birds, but stick a TC17 on it and it works quite well for the more distant subjects.
Does a good job with with dragonflies and butterflies too.
Now my preferred lens for wildlife photography-my old manual focus 500 f4 (with 2x converter) only goes out now and then when I know I will need the reach.
Mind you if Nikon ever bring out a 500vr....

 

Michael Hogan

Acroperus

• Jul 29, 2007

• #8

Thanks again for all the help. I have decided on the Sigma 500 f4.5 but I also feel that I need a more friendly lens when I am not in the humor of lugging 500mm around I think 300 will be adequate. Now the question - which one, zoom or no zoom vr or no vr. I am drawn to the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 though but I think it will be too small and if I am going to put a 1.4x or 2x on it then I think going for a 300 makes more sense. Which 300 zoom that is the question. The Nikon 70-300 and 80-400 are not getting great reviews and I thing the 200-400 plus the Sigma will be outside my budget. Someone told me that the Sigma 100-300 is a good lens

 

Last edited: Jul 29, 2007

Doug Greenberg

Well-known member

• Jul 30, 2007

• #9

My advice: don't get a zoom. None of the lenses you are considering will perform at all well with teleconverters. Get a 300mm. fixed focal length lens--an f4 will be quite portable. An older, D-type model should work fine with your camera and will cost less than an AF-S version.

 

P

pe'rigin

Well-known member

• Jul 30, 2007

• #10

Michael Hogan said:

I have some spare cash and I was wondering if it is worth splashing out on a new Nikon 300 F2.8 AF-S VR for bird and general wildlife photography.

Click to expand...

Michael,

Yes, but it's a lot of dosh!

 

M

Moadib

Well-known member

• Jul 30, 2007

• #11

The Nikon 70-200 2.8 is an exceptional lens, really sharp, and combines well with a good TC. With digital crop and TC you would be at around 450mm. It's a manageable weight...but even with a TC I feel quite short for bird photos. The 80-400 is about the same weight, and for sure it isn't as good as the 70-200, but it's still a good lens. Focus is the main issue, as it's rather slow.

If I were you I'd still tend toward the 70-200 + TC. It will give you almost the reach of the Sigma 500 4.5 (when you don't want the weight), and if you are carrying the Sigma (or for other subjects) is a superb lens for other types of shot.

My flickr stream is below, and as an example the first falconry shots were all with the 70-200, and also the later puffin photos etc. No TC used.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/senninha/