300 mm f4

proudgeek

I would agree with those who think a new 300mm f/4 with VRIII will be north of $2,000. Think of the price jump between the older 80-400 and the newer one. I know it's not a strict apple-to-apples comparison, but it gives you an idea of what Nikon is thinking in terms of pricing when significantly updating older lenses.

tc88

I would agree with those who think a new 300mm f/4 with VRIII will be north of $2,000. Think of the price jump between the older 80-400 and the newer one. I know it's not a strict apple-to-apples comparison, but it gives you an idea of what Nikon is thinking in terms of pricing when significantly updating older lenses.

I agree too.

PB_PM

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.

Having shot with the F2.8 VRII, and the owning the F4, I agree that in most situations the extra cost isn't worth while over the F4. That said, AF is faster (by a wide margin), especially when the light starts to fall off. It is sharper and focuses faster with with a TC as well.

That said I still prefer the F4, because it is smaller and lighter.

Golf007sd

@PB_PM: +1

The 300 2.8 VR II rock's the house....Period! I hope to have this lens in my bag by the end of this year if not early next year. After all Christmas is coming :P

Yet by all mean let us never over look the excellent performance of the 300 f/4. Have a look at these two lenses side-by-side and you will see what I mean.


Photographylife lens comparison of the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II vs Nikon 300mm f/4.0D AF-S

PB_PM

I could buy the 300mm f2.8 VRII, but I'd then have to sell my car to eat.

shutterdancer

I don't think anyone doubts that the 300mm f2.8 edges out the 300mm f4,especially if you want to move beyond a 1.4 TC,but does anyone think that the difference is worth an extra $4430.00? I don't personally. The 300mm f4 is my favorite lens and There isn't anything else that comes close to it in it's price range.

blackfox

do we need v.r i don't have a lens with v.r fitted and while it might make some difference to some shots ,the primary objective of a long lens is long range shots ,if in good light you don't need v.r if in poor light you use a tripod so switch off v.r anyway .so in my books its a marginal need that would push up prices without actually achieving much
just wish nikon would bring out a 400mm f.4 or f5.6 to equal canons L prime ,i would be at the front of the queue

scoobysmak

I just have to mention that the main reason I have my copy of the 300/f4 is due to the aperture ring. Needless to say the newer G lenses won't work that well with a FM3a.

Golf007sd

do we need v.r i don't have a lens with v.r....if in good light you don't need v.r if in poor light you use a tripod so switch off v.r anyway .so in my books its a marginal need that would push up prices without actually achieving much
just wish nikon would bring out a 400mm f.4 or f5.6 to equal canons L prime ,i would be at the front of the queue

The key word is "if." Moreover, for all long telephoto lenses you will find that VR is very much useful and a God sent to have. You should try a lens which has it to and give it a go. In fact, the one that comes to mind is the new Nikon 80-400mm VR 4.5-5.6. This lens will fully address your 400mm need. From all the reviews it has superb optics and performance.

Msmoto

@dcanning

Thanks....LOL

As to why one purchases the 300mm f/2.8.....incredible sharpness.....and when pushed to the limit, f/2.8 has its advantages....one being bokeh...

And, I am getting my spices ready in case this lens comes out and I need to eat some crow..... (

blackfox

do we need v.r i don't have a lens with v.r....if in good light you don't need v.r if in poor light you use a tripod so switch off v.r anyway .so in my books its a marginal need that would push up prices without actually achieving much
just wish nikon would bring out a 400mm f.4 or f5.6 to equal canons L prime ,i would be at the front of the queue

The key word is "if." Moreover, for all long telephoto lenses you will find that VR is very much useful and a God sent to have. You should try a lens which has it to and give it a go. In fact, the one that comes to mind is the new Nikon 80-400mm VR 4.5-5.6. This lens will fully address your 400mm need. From all the reviews it has superb optics and performance.

i use my d7100 with the 300mm f4 plus 1.7tc hand held 90% of the time ,using the full focus switch i find it a superb close up rig ,at full stretch it gives me quality bif shots ,and as i have just
done a micro adjust i,m hoping for even better .yes a 80-400vr would give a longer reach but in the u.k its around £2400.00 thats a lot of dough on a pension .not many about on the secondhand market yet either ..the 300mm f4 can be bought brand new for a third of that and i already have it anyway .

and as a btw i have had v.r lenses in the past just not now .i suppose it really ties in with what you use it for

shutterdancer

Take a look at this guys challenge winning shot on dpreview .If the 300mm f/4 was any sharper it would cut your eyes when you looked at it ;-)

http://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=778057

DenverShooter

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.

Well let me say this about that. The Nikon 300mm F/2.8 is an incredible lens. Makes images that will knock you right out. And when push comes to shove and you need every available photon on the imager to make the shot that lens will make it happen in a very big way. Rented one multiple times and shot images that made me shake my head with awe.

I ended up purchasing the Nikon 400mm F/2.8 (along with the 600mm F/4 and the 800mm F/5.6) because I needed just a little bit more reach than the 300mm F/2.8... The 400mm F/2.8 knocks me out too!

The 300mm F/2.8 is on my list of lenses to buy.


Denver Shooter

DenverShooter

I
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.

I recently purchased the Nikon 80-400 and its a really nice piece of glass. Makes really nice images stopped down one or two stops. If I am shooting outside in full sun conditions without a polarizer it rocks.

Need creamy bokeh? Need a couple of extra stops to drive the ISO down to under 400 at 1/1250 with the polarizer? I will get out the big glass: My Nikon 400mm F/2.8 or my Nikon 70mm to 200mm F/2.8 or the 600mm or the 800mm. Of course I have my sherpa to help me move all of that!

Denver Shooter

shutterdancer

The OP asked about the 300mm f/4.......and not the 300 mm f/2.8,or anything else in Nikon's exotic line.He may be like me......on a fixed income and not able to spring for an extra $5000.00 to $10000.00 bucks.Just because some of you have deep pockets and flip off the 300mm f/4 as inferior because it's priced reasonably doesn't make it so! Try it, ( which the detractors,have obviously not) and if you still think that it can't compete,we can have a legitimate argument.

DJBee49

I have the 300mm f4 and have found it to be excellent. Very sharp, light enough to hand-hold, OK with TCs and affordable. Would like the f2.8? Of course I would! I cannot afford it and the f4 does just fine for me.

For what it is worth, I think that the argument FOR VR on long lenses is mostly non-valid. I shoot birds and motor-sports (plus a few portraits and other things on this lens) and almost never find myself using shutter speeds that drop me into the 'danger zone' of shutter speeds that will give me camera shake. If I do, I use a monopod or tripod where I would not be using VR anyway. The slowest speeds I use for wildlife or motor-sports are normally faster than 1/1000sec. and therefore do not need VR, on or off a tripod, at this focal length. At 500mm plus, there might be a more valid argument. The only occasions where VR might be of use for me with this lens are with slower (about 1/250th second) panning shots with bikes and cars and I am not sure if these really need VR either. I seem to have it permanently switched off when using my 70-200mm f2.8 (fabulous lens by the way) for the same tasks, even with a 1.7TC attached.

Paradoxically, the lenses that really do benefit from VR are the wide angles and medium telephotos such as my 16-35mm and 24-120mm f4s where I am frequently shooting portraits, street scenes and architecture in low light without a tripod and possibly need some DOF to help out as well. Here, the VR is really useful (who would have thunk it?). I almost never use it on long lenses as the subject matter has already dictated a high shutter speed by its very nature. There is normally little point in shooting a bird, motorcycle or car at slow shutter speeds as it will be unsharp due to subject movement anyway. Not enough light to do this? On the D800, just bang up the iSO to make it all possible and the trade for a little noise against a blurred image due to subject movement is a no-brainer!

Just my personal view.

smkunder

This is a great post, I just joined the forum today with the intent on getting this information, I am at the same crossroads, wait for the new one or buy now. I just want the current model as I am not in need of the VR for my usage, but wonder if the price will come down with the introduction of the new one. The buying guide says to wait.

manhattanboy

The buying guide has been saying to wait for a long time LOL.
Anyways, I am in the same boat as you and am wondering to jump on a deal for the current version or wait it out. Personally, I am going to wait it out and continue with the 70-300 in the interim unless Nikon announces this lens also at the Df media event (doubtful).

PB_PM

Indeed, the buying guide has said wait for the last three years. Frankly, I'd just ignore it.

shawnino

I love this site but the buying guide is the worst bit.

If I was designing it, it wouldn't so much be a buying guide as a table with five columns:

(name of piece of gear)
(release date)
(time of refresh cycle, if established) (mostly for bodies)
(link to latest rumour posted on main blog, with asterisk if update announced) ... this one's the new key...
(links to affiliate deals at B&H, Adorama, Amazon, etc.)

...and that's all. E.G.

D4
Jan 2012
4 years
link to latest D5 (or D4x, I don't care...) story on main blog
links to affiliates

adamz

guys, please remember that the main site is done only by admin... and the buying guide is not the priority. over here at the forum there's three of us moderating and sometimes that's not enough.

shawnino

But that's the sad part, @adamz : to my knowledge Admin is trying to cover expenses/earn money with the site (I don't think you Mods are earning much...). I wish Admin every success, I try to give Admin affiliate business because this site helps me, and I meant the above as constructive criticism.

You are of course 100% correct: the Buying Guide isn't the focus of the site -- but it's the only page onsite that always gives Admin a direct chance at earning a little money to help pay bills. For that reason alone, it ought to be the cleanest, most accurate part of the site. I wish it was better for Admin's sake, not mine: when I need info I come straight to the Forum and get great help from Mods and other posters. (Just yesterday @msmoto, unsolicited, found me a good refurb deal on a lens for my wife! I hope the site recoups a little money--I clicked through to B&H from here, and I owe @msmoto a beverage if we ever meet...).

Long live both the main site and the forum.

adamz

@shawino - it's a volunteering job, so we don't get paid. true I get your point that as a revenue source the buing guide page should be updated more often and will inform Admin about that. thanks for the input.

smkunder

I am thinking that if I can find this lens at the $1000.00 price point with the 5 year warranty I will go for it, someone earlier mentioned this price point, but I can not even come close. So I will continue to wait and watch.

Golf007sd

@shawnino: Speaking for myself and perhaps even for the other mods, i (we) take on the responsibility for the love of photography. I would never accept any money for doing what I do here...even if it was offered, I would give it right back.

@smkunder: The current 300 F/4 is a great lens. Adamz allowed me to use his while in Colorado and the image I took with it was amazing. In fact, a great majority of the wildlife shots he takes are with that lens. Have look at this Flicker profile here and you can see the results for yourself.