Should I buy the 300mm F4?

[RobertLaw]

The lens may be a great lens, but I think the crux of the matter is your relationship with your wife. Only you can decide.
--
As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.
-- Max Ehrmann

 

[Oscarroos]

I have been following this thread since I too have an interest in this great lens. I have the 70-200 and recently received the great 200-400 but feel the 300 f4 would be a great addition. I, like thousand others, have been expecting the updated 300 f4 with nano coating and VRII. But if the optics and close focusing changes - then I will buy the non VR model. If the updated 300 f4 isn't released this year, then I will buy the current model based on everything I have read and seen. Yes, a great lens but a little long in the tooth.
--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/22388579@N08/

 

[David Nall]

It is a terrific lens for use in good light, and I find it easily hand holdable even at 1/400th with 1.7 TC EII attached. I always hold the lens barrel in my left hand and the camera with my right firmly against my forehead. Here is one I took last year. I haven't been out shooting much this winter as it has been pretty darn cold here in North Idaho.
Nikon D300 ISO 1600 1/320th 500mm (750mm in FF) f6.7 Uncropped



--
Visit my gallery at http://www.poperotzy.smugmug.com

 

[Kent J]

... But if the optics and close focusing changes - then I will buy the non VR model.

You can be pretty much guaranteed that if it goes VR, the optics will change...
--
-Kent

Life is too short for slow glass.
http://www.kentjoostenphotography.smugmug.com

 

[VarmintCong]

Here is one I took last year. I haven't been out shooting much this winter as it has been pretty darn cold here in North Idaho.

Beautiful shot, David. I love the context/surroundings, don't think I'd like it as much if you were zoomed in more.

 

[larrywilson]

The 300mm f4.0 is one heck of a lens. Mine always have the 1.4 attached to make it 420mm. I live here in western Oregon so the light is not good in winter. I don't shot under about 1/500 handheld and use the lens mostly on a tripod with a wimberly head. It is my opinion that vr is not required and would make the lens heavier and more expensive. Learn to use proper technique in using longer focal length lens on or off a tripod. I still have the original mount on the lens and have not had a problem since I shot at high shutter speeds. I do have a d3s in which I can crank the ISO up to allow me to get sharp images.

Just because it has been around for a while, only means that it one heck of a wonderful lens.

Larry

 

[David Nall]

Thank you VarmintCong. I didn't have the option to zoom or I probably would have. Dave
--
Visit my gallery at http://www.poperotzy.smugmug.com

 

[Skipper494]

For butterflies, the Sigma 150 f2.8 macro, for birds at least 300. The attached are with S2 Pro and Tamron 70-300 (105-450 equiv)

 

[Island Golfer]

My opinion is pretty much like everone else has told you-the 300mm f/4 is a fun lens.





--
truview

 

[peterclark55]

Have both the Sigma 150-500 and the 300 f4. The former is flexible but will not accept TC's. The latter will, is not flexible, but sharper. Having both is a good compromise. Peter
--
http://www.pbase.com/peter55/galleries

 

[JP Scherrer]

.....................I still want to test out some nikon glass on a 4/3 camera(for doubling the focal distance) but I have a felling the handling will be an issue.

Do you mean one can use a Nikon mount lens on some 4/3 cameras ??? Which one(s) ??? What lens-mount converter to use ?

I just bought a 300 f/4 to use on my D700, but of course it would be great to take advantage of a 4/3 camera for TELE use !!!

Cheers,
J-P.

Photo Galeries at http://www.pbase.com/scherrer - Spherical Panoramas (360x180°) at http://www.360cities.net/profile/jps or http://viewat.org/?sec=pn&id_aut=2489
Equipment list in profile

 

[Hauer]

Hi - I've been wrestling with the same thoughts over and over again. I had the opportunity of obtaining a rare white/grey edition but hesitated at the last moment.

I fail to understand why Nikon has not manufactured a 300VR f/4 N-coated edition to date. I'm convinced it would be an absolute success!

Guess I'll stick to my current wishlist for the 200-400VR.

Cheers - Herman

 

[slimandy]

It's a great lens. I have the AFS version and it's close focus ability has led me to areas of photography I hadn't explored before such as flowers. I use it as much for that reason as for the extra reach now.

--www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[Rick Moran]

This little lens packs a punch, small and light and all the sharpness you could ask for, also works well with tc's and has closeup capabilitys as well.
It's a very good choice for pretty much everything with decent lighting.
I use it mostly with a 14e and get good results.

Samples with 14e on D300











http://slopoki1.smugmug.com/Nature

 

[Tomx72]

Over the 2.8/70-200 VRII+TC you won't see a large improvement. Question is what is your first priority? Birds/small/shy animals-> sell the 70-200+buy the 4/300+TC17e. Fast action (sports) keep the 70-200 because the fast aperture or sell it for a 2.8/300.

Hi folks,

I need a push in the right direction!

I like to photograph most thing but have a special interest in birds, butterflies and nature in general. The truth is I would dearly love to own a 200-400 2.8 or a 300 2.8.

If I raided our savings the CO (wife) would freak out so I repeat to myself that I can't warrant it. Hence the 300mm F4 keeps burning into my brain.

I have a d300s, 16-85, 105 macro, 70-200 2.8 VRII, 1.7 TC and a Sigma 150-500 os.

Now the Sigma is OK..ish but not really super sharp, especially above 400mm but will get me a stabilised shot hand held. It has its uses.

The 70-200 is very good with the 1.7 TC and takes me to 340mm at f4.5 on a bright day.

The 300 F4 with a 1.4TC would take me to 420mm at F5 but in theory be much sharper than the Sigma.

Soo... I took a 100 mile round trip to Mifsuds camera shop and they kindly let me try one.

Very, very quick to focus but NO stabilisation. Much smaller than the big Sigma and no messing about screwing the hood on/off. It was a fairly bright day and I took a few shots near and far in various modes. Hand held and braced against the shop front.

When at home I checked out the shots and all but a couple were not sharp because of movement. Two sharp shots were indeed very sharp, both at 640s.
Clearly the speed has to be kept up.......... not easy at this time of year.

Now do you owners always use a tripod/monopod or can it be used hand held? I am unsure about not have stabilisation.
Incidentaly it worked fine with a 1.7TC but focussing was just a little slower.

This lens does seem expensive as the case seems to be half empty with no rear element!!

What would you do? Spend a £1000 and buy the 300 F4 and keep/dump the Sigma? Also buy the 1.4TC?
I want the reach but don't always want to lug around a tripod.

Thanks, Mr indecisive.

 

[mf999]

I just pulled the trigger and ordered the 300f4.
Next should i get the 1.4 or 1.7

Can i use the 1.4 or 1.7 for BIF or is it just for stills since most of my BIF shots are as close as 50 feet or as far away as 250 yards.

 

[Tomx72]

On a bright day no problem. The 1.7 needs bright sunshine for focusing, however 250yards are quite far, you need an extremely long lens (1000+mm) for that (or a whale as a subject)

I just pulled the trigger and ordered the 300f4.
Next should i get the 1.4 or 1.7

Can i use the 1.4 or 1.7 for BIF or is it just for stills since most of my BIF shots are as close as 50 feet or as far away as 250 yards.

 

[FishHawk]

http://bythom.com/300AFSlens.htm This might help with your decision. FishHawk

 

[Windancer]

This lens it made for a monopod and works excellently with one. I would never want to handhold this all day even if it had VR.

I agree this lens is made to use on a monopod, I tend to shoot a lot of sports as seen by my examples and I rarely use the VR on my 70-200/2.8 and wouldn't care if my 300/4 had VR or not. Just my opinion though. ;-)

Terry
--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://www.pbase.com/windancer
http://gallery.reginaphotoclub.com/TGraham
See my profile for all my equipment.

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise. ;-)

 

[Island Golfer]

These were taken with the 300mm f/4 af-s + TC-14E. This combination gives me 630mm on my D300 DX format. The surfers were about 250 yards away, while the whale was closer to 350 yards out. All of them were cropped to about 50%-67%. All were shot on a tripod, above f/7 and ISO 500 and 1000. High ISO doesn't seem to have that much effect on clarity with this combination (other than the whale, which was really far away). So, I'd go with the 1.4 teleconverter.













--
truview