300 mm f4

dcanningdcanning Posts: 9Member
edited September 2013 in Nikon Lenses
Is the new vr version with whatever extra cost worth the wait or should I just buy the current afs one, Using it on an D600 for nature and wildlife photos.
«13456712

Comments

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    I would never purchase this lens new. It must be one of the oldest lenses in the lineup. If one looks at the "Buying Guide" above, the recommendation is to wait. Not having VR, this is IMO an outdated lens. Amazon has used ones from about $750.....
    Msmoto, mod
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    Not having VR is hardly a deal breaker for wildlife shooters since most of them turn it off because of the fast shutter speeds needed to capture action. And buying the lens new gives you a 5 year warranty, hardly something to scoff at, plus finding one on sale for around $1000 isn't impossible. I'd much rather have a brand new lens for a couple hundred dollars more, personally.
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,006Member
    edited September 2013
    The AF-S 300mm F4 is a great buy, even without VR. Hardly one of the oldest lenses in the lineup @Msmoto. You are forgetting lenses like the 20mm F2.8D etc, which date back to early/mid 90's. Expect the new version to cost similar to the new 80-400mm VR, so if that's too much for you, get the current version.

    I would buy one new as well, simply for the five year warranty. The AF-S motor on mine went last year (after four years of ownership) and, I'm glad it was covered under warranty. The five year warranty is worth the extra cash, without a doubt.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,268Member
    Yeah, I'm waiting in the rollout for the new version on this lens too. Will be interested in reviews of the new version versus the older one, as well as the potential price drop on the older one if the new one is a winner. Also the performance with a TC.
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • framerframer Posts: 491Member
    edited September 2013
    This in one of my never sell lenses. Work great with the TC14E @420 f5.6 and it's small and light compared to the big brother f2.8. It is hand hold able all day long. I had mine about 10 years with out a problem. If you mount it on a tripod the foot sucks. I keep a rubber coated wooden dowel to jam in the tripod foot for support. Dollars vs performance this lens is IMHO a bargain .

    framer
    Post edited by framer on
  • mk2popmk2pop Posts: 80Member
    i wish they would make this a 100-300 f4 like my old sigma, and going by the new 80-400 they can make it just as good as fixed
    a prime doesn't always suit me at 300, i like the flexibility
    D300 | D90 | D40 | F65 x2 | F75 | 10-24mm | 18-200mm | 35mm f1.8 | 50mm 1.4d | 40mm Micro | 70-300mm Tamron | 100-300mm f4 Sigma |1.4x Sigma tc | Sb400 | Sb900 x2

    Awaiting a DX D400
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,006Member
    i wish they would make this a 100-300 f4 like my old sigma, and going by the new 80-400 they can make it just as good as fixed
    a prime doesn't always suit me at 300, i like the flexibility
    Considering that the current AF-S 300mm F4 beats the new AF-S 80-400mm VRII in resolution (see review at Photography Life) on it's own, and with the TC14E II, I wouldn't want a new VR version based on the latter.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    @SquamishPhoto: +1

    I believe Adamz has this lens. Have a look at the image he has taken with this lens to see if it meets your expectations.

    Admaz images on Flickr.
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,093Member
    i wish they would make this a 100-300 f4 like my old sigma, and going by the new 80-400 they can make it just as good as fixed
    a prime doesn't always suit me at 300, i like the flexibility
    If they make a 100-300 F4 it'd be a huge lens and probably even more expensive than the 80-400.

    Considering that the current AF-S 300mm F4 beats the new AF-S 80-400mm VRII in resolution (see review at Photography Life) on it's own, and with the TC14E II, I wouldn't want a new VR version based on the latter.
    Wow, that's quite cool. If a new 300mm F4 comes out, I may pick up the old one if the price drops a bit.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    Well, the lens is about 13 years old by my research. It lacks the Nano coating.

    However, I would support the idea of purchasing the lens at a discount. Or, seeing what the VR version looks like.

    For what it is worth, VR at slower shutter speeds can assist greatly in low light situations where wildlife may be hiding in the shadows. And, to have an investment at full retail in a lens which is going to take a big hit when the VR version comes out....

    Price on the VR version....my guess is it will not be a lot more...maybe $200.

    Thus, I will hang on to my idea of not purchasing the lens at retail, new. Maybe a $300 discount...
    Msmoto, mod
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    Bad guess. PB PM is right, more like $2500 or higher.
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • PeterPhamWesleyPeterPhamWesley Posts: 19Member
    I will certainty be paying close attention to this new 300mm F4 as I have the current version - and the current version is wonderful. For the price and the quality - it's got to be one of the best "bang for the buck" so to speak.

    But like others have already pointed out, this new version maybe very expensive.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    I love my AF-S version. Very fun lens and super sharp. I think VR would be a nice addition to it, but for the price...it will probably be touching on early generation 300 F2.8's. Glad I got mine a while ago now and don't regret it at all....very awesome lens.

    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    All these with the lens...
    DSC_0205

    DSC_0103

    DSC_0092

    DSC_0171-2

    DSC_0141-2

    DSC_0050
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 4,605Member
    Nice photos tcole1983
    D750 & D7100 | 24-70 F2.8 G AF-S ED, 70-200 F2.8 AF VR, TC-14E III, TC-1.7EII, 35 F2 AF D, 50mm F1.8G, 105mm G AF-S VR | Backup & Wife's Gear: D5500 & Sony HX50V | 18-140 AF-S ED VR DX, 55-300 AF-S G VR DX |
    |SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    I no longer own this lens, but I can add a few pics to the mix to show its worth. :)

    image
    image
    image
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,006Member
    Nice samples, here are some of mine.

    image

    image

    image

    image
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • blackfoxblackfox Posts: 48Member
    err have i missed something ,its not even out yet is it ???? and is it going to actually happen ??
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,006Member
    Not yet. There are patents, so it will come, someday.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited October 2013
    It appears a new member dropped a question and has all but disappeared. The responses do demonstrate how great we all are at grabbing the bait.

    As Nikon has updated the 80-400, actually produced an entirely new lens, it would seem logical that at some point the 13 year old AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED might be high on the list for adding VRIII.

    The current lens, while a good performer by the reports here, is nothing like the 300mm f/2.8 when one looks at the MTF charts. One might guess a new design would bring it closer to the f/2.8 performance and indeed, this could drive the price up. But, I still doubt this will be over about $1800 for the VRIII version.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    How much weight does VR add, and at some stage does that defeat the purpose? 300mm f/4 over 3 lb already (nearly 1.5 kg) but that's still only half the weight of the f/2.8, so there's significant pick-up in portability and the potential to hand hold. If we make the f/4 heavier and more expensive, at what point do people say they'll just run with a 70-200 and crop?

    Aside: in the current marketplace, I'm not sure why anybody would buy 300mm f/2.8. I can see so many other options and one of those options would be better for just about everyone. Some ideas:
    --300mm f/4, and $4K in hand
    --Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, and $2K in hand
    --200mm f/2, same price thereabouts. Extra stop of light when you need it, and even a crummy old 16 MP D4 has enough MP that one can crop out a great image (I kid, I kid...)
    --200-400mm f/4 about $1K extra, f/4 only, but extra reach and an extremely good lens (my own choice--and my craft isn't good enough yet to maximize my copy's potential...)
  • dcanningdcanning Posts: 9Member
    I am still here. Watching all the comments and waiting for its release, which reading nikonrumors should be soon.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,006Member
    How much weight does VR add, and at some stage does that defeat the purpose? 300mm f/4 over 3 lb already (nearly 1.5 kg) but that's still only half the weight of the f/2.8, so there's significant pick-up in portability and the potential to hand hold. If we make the f/4 heavier and more expensive, at what point do people say they'll just run with a 70-200 and crop?

    Aside: in the current marketplace, I'm not sure why anybody would buy 300mm f/2.8. I can see so many other options and one of those options would be better for just about everyone. Some ideas:
    --300mm f/4, and $4K in hand
    --Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, and $2K in hand
    --200mm f/2, same price thereabouts. Extra stop of light when you need it, and even a crummy old 16 MP D4 has enough MP that one can crop out a great image (I kid, I kid...)
    --200-400mm f/4 about $1K extra, f/4 only, but extra reach and an extremely good lens (my own choice--and my craft isn't good enough yet to maximize my copy's potential...)
    If money was no object I'd take the 300mm F2.8G VRII over those options. Optically better than F4 (more micro contast and better in low light), optically superior to the Sigma, and you can use Nikon TC's with it (Sigma lenses donot play nice with Nikon TC's). Lighter and smaller and gives more reach than the 200mm F2.8G (with and without TC). Optically superior to the 200-400, shorter, lighter, better in low light. Better performance with TC's.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • proudgeekproudgeek Posts: 1,422Member

    Aside: in the current marketplace, I'm not sure why anybody would buy 300mm f/2.8.
    I picked up a used copy of this lens (the VRII version) 6 months ago. I have to say I'm in awe. Paired with the D800 it's produced some pretty beautiful images. I've used it with a TC17x on D90 and was also very happy, and have yet to use that combination on a D800. As a bonus, the 300 is (for me at least) lightweight enough that it can be handheld for long periods of time.

  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    edited October 2013
    As for the OP...I think the lens as is now is a great lens. I think VR would be beneficial, but the cost of the new lens is going to be expensive. Seeing where Nikon has come in on new lenses lately they have all come in more expensive than most thought. So add VR and nano coating and you add $800 easy...the original price for the lens was $1500 so...I bet it comes in at least over $2000. If you have the funds I guess wait...I have had mine about a year or so and I don't regret not waiting for the VR updated version...it will come sometime, but...when and for how much?

    As for this compared to 300 F2.8...all reviews I ever saw said it is pretty close and for the price excellent. I have been nothing but pleased by it and it is very sharp so not sure how much more is gained by the extra money of the F2.8.
    Post edited by tcole1983 on
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
Sign In or Register to comment.