Long Nikon Prime (300mm)

ryanyboy

ryanyboy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,275
Name
Ryan
Edit My Images
Yes
I've suddenly got it in my mad head that I fancy a long prime lens for birds and the like.

The 300 2.8 seems to be the one for me as I can pair it up with a TC and get some excellent range or keep it at 300 for when the light is rubbish.

So I'm looking at the two 300 2.8's on the market and there is approx £1000 between them. I realise the newer one is not out yet (and least I think I'm right in saying that) but is it going to worth the extra grand - and the wait? Or is there an alternative??

I know I don't need such a lens but you know what NAS is like!!

Ryan
 
Well all I can say is the present 300mm 2.8 vr is superb. Not sure how they intend to improve on it really. A couple of stops with the vr II.
I like my gear, but I wont be rushing out to replace my 300mm.
Mind you, I did with the 70-200mm vr and the new one (vrII) is a lot better in my opinion...

Kev.
 
Well while you can certainly get by with 300 shooting birds you may find that a second hand 500 is more suited to the purpose......if thats what you truly wan't it for. A 500 however is somewhat limited in what you can shoot (motorsports as well perhaps) a 300 on the other hand is more general purpose in the telephoto range so is more suited to other things......your choice, though if you wan't a birding lens i'd recomend the 500 over the 300 personally, others may do diferently.
 
The new 300mm f2.8 VR11 has a better VR performance (so I've been told) but its exactly the same optically. TBH if your a VR/IS user then it maybe worth considering, if not I know what I would do with the money saved.

Mark
 
I just bought the original 300 f2.8. Its superb, it really is. My understanding is that the new one is identical optically (which makes sense, I dunno how they could improve it). the difference is with the VR. Obviously it would be handy to have the improved VR, but the price difference (about £1200) makes it a very very expensive improvement.
 
This might be a stupid question, but if you want to shoot birds, why not trade in one of your FX bodies for a D300? That will give you a lot more effective reach. 300mm on a FX body isn't really long enough.

Regarding the two versions of the 300mm f/2.8 VR, the "old" one is an absolutely superb lens. When Nikon announced the "new improved" version, nobody thought that made any sense.
 
StewartR said:
This might be a stupid question, but if you want to shoot birds, why not trade in one of your FX bodies for a D300? That will give you a lot more effective reach. 300mm on a FX body isn't really long enough.

Regarding the two versions of the 300mm f/2.8 VR, the "old" one is an absolutely superb lens. When Nikon announced the "new improved" version, nobody thought that made any sense.
Click to expand...

It's not a stupid suggestion. In fact I had a D300s until it was nicked last month. Trouble with it was at high ISO's I lost any advantages with crop factors etc as noisy images were just not good. It would be a great idea in great light but as we don't get much in the uk (and as birds like to hide in dark trees) I would prefer to stick with the FF bodies and get longer glass I think.
 
Way too short on a FX body for birds. To be honest without TC's its touch and go with motorsport unless you are trackside.

The 500 f4 is the way to go....
 
Richard Peters said:
I'm not sure VR on 300mm is that necessary?!
Click to expand...

I do fine with mine at both 300mm and even with a 1.7x TC at 500mm!

If I had a 300 with VR I don't think I'd ever turn it on, not even once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top