Nikon 300mm F 2.8

amadeus

I own a Nikon D700 and use a Nikon 80-200 F 2.8 for action - mostly motocross.

I'm by no means a pro. I'm considering buying a 300 mm F2.8.

Yes I know it's expensive and yes I know I don't need it but I want it.

Does this lens have the potential to deliver significantly higher quality shots with regards to DOF and clarity when compared to the 80-200?

Again I know I don't need it but I do...want it.

thank you.

jwear

The 300 2.8 to me is the best lens nikon or cannon makes if nikon was to make the 200/400 in a 2.8 I would never touch another lens . YOU WILL BE VERY HAPPY

perroneford

I have 2 Nikon 300/2.8 lenses, and have used nearly every pro lens Nikon makes. I will not say the 300/2.8 is the best lens Nikon makes. However, I will say it is one of the few lenses that you can attach to your camera and you, other pros, and the general public, can look at the images and know you just shot with something that did NOT come from an an amateur setup. If you get your shot right (focus, composition, timing) with the 300/2.8 you have something you can sell.

Other lenses in this class are 600/4, 400/2.8, 200/2, 200-400/4, and 85/1.4. They just look like nothing else.

Mitchell

The 300mm, f2.8 is the finest Nikon lens I own. Many would argue that it is one of the finest lenses in their lineup. It also takes teleconvertors quite nicely for added reach.

I agree with perroneford, there is something about the images from this lens that is really special. There is no doubt that the images are different from any consumer level lens. When shot wide open, the lens is still very sharp and produces a dreamy bokeh. I still get a thrill whenever I shoot with this glass.

amadeus

thank you to everyone who responded. I'm sure this has been asked before but..

this grey market thing.

B&H says they have the grey market Nikon lens but Nikon does not service it even under warranty?

you have to buy the US market version for Nikon to warranty support it.

any input on the whole grey market pro's and cons appreciated.

perroneford

Many years ago, grey market items were significantly cheaper than US market one's and the temptation was VERY high to buy them if you were hunting a bargain. Today, the cost is nearly the same, and you get NO help from Nikon warranty wise. You can send them to Nikon Authorized places for repair, but at your own cost.

Here is my take. I have a lot of Nikon glass. I have no grey market glass. I did buy a lot of used glass. Buying used glass from a reputable source, and I must emphasize reputable, saves a LOT of money, and you end up with the same deal as if you had gone grey market. On something like a 300/2.8, the savings of going used can be over $1000. I said I have 2 300/2.8s. One is a manual focus version I bought used. I bought that lens as a backup to my AF-S 300/2.8 which I also bought used. If anything should happen to my autofocus one, I have the manual backup. The 300 is so important to what I do, I carry two of them. There is really nothing to fail in the manual focus one. It's just metal and glass with gears.

So I say avoid the grey market stuff. The cost savings is next to nothing, and the risk simply doesn't seem commensurate with the savings.

puzzledpaul

perroneford wrote: »

... Other lenses in this class are 600/4, 400/2.8, 200/2, 200-400/4, and 85/1.4. They just look like nothing else.

Does this mean you consider the 500/4 a compromise too far?

pp

perroneford

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Does this mean you consider the 500/4 a compromise too far?

pp

I didn't care for it. Not to say it's a bad lens, I just personally didn't care for it as much as the other lenses. If someone GAVE me one I'd be thrilled. But if I was spending my own money, I'd get the 600.

puzzledpaul

perroneford wrote: »

If someone GAVE me one I'd be thrilled.

I suspect you'd not be alone ...

pp

perroneford

The other big benefit of the 500 is the weight. It weighs a noticeable amount less than either the 600 or the 400. And if you have to lug it around all day, that might be significant.

puzzledpaul wrote: »

I suspect you'd not be alone ...

pp

puzzledpaul

perroneford wrote: »

The other big benefit of the 500 is the weight. It weighs a noticeable amount less than either the 600 or the 400. And if you have to lug it around all day, that might be significant.

Yep - one of the reasons I bought the 500 (used, I hasten to add)

Yes, a 300/2.8'd also be nice - but even more junk to carry around and probably less useful (to me)

pp

perroneford

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Yep - one of the reasons I bought the 500 (used, I hasten to add)

Yes, a 300/2.8'd also be nice - but even more junk to carry around and probably less useful (to me)

pp

By the time you get into this big glass, you REALLY have to know and understand your needs. You see VERY few discussions of 400-600mm lenses, and about a million threads on which 50 or 85 to get.

Harryb

jwear wrote: »

The 300 2.8 to me is the best lens nikon or cannon makes if nikon was to make the 200/400 in a 2.8 I would never touch another lens . YOU WILL BE VERY HAPPY

A 200-400 2.8 would cost as much as a new car. Sigma makes a 200-500 2.8 that weighs 38 lbs and costs $26,000. A nikon lens would cost close to $40K.

perroneford

Harryb wrote: »

A 200-400 2.8 would cost as much as a new car. Sigma makes a 200-500 2.8 that weighs 38 lbs and costs $26,000. A nikon lens would cost close to $40K.

That's not necessarily an issue for numerous buyers. I had planned to go medium format this year, and a body, back, and 2 lenses would have put me at the $40k easily.

I know several owners of the Sigma "Bigma" and they like it quite a bit.

Harryb

perroneford wrote: »

That's not necessarily an issue for numerous buyers. I had planned to go medium format this year, and a body, back, and 2 lenses would have put me at the $40k easily.

I know several owners of the Sigma "Bigma" and they like it quite a bit.

I just bought the D4 and D800E so I could see spending bucks on something I would use. I don't see many folks going for a 40lb lens. Of course if you could afford a $40K lens then you probably could afford a sherpa.

perroneford

40 pounds is a light load for me. By the time I get my 3-4 bodies, plates, super clamps, magic arms, big glass, etc., etc., I've got that much easily. Astronomers run around with 100 pound telescopes all over the countryside looking for dark sky.

Just a matter of doing what you have to do.

amadeus

perroneford wrote: »

Many years ago, grey market items were significantly cheaper than US market one's and the temptation was VERY high to buy them if you were hunting a bargain. Today, the cost is nearly the same, and you get NO help from Nikon warranty wise. You can send them to Nikon Authorized places for repair, but at your own cost.

Here is my take. I have a lot of Nikon glass. I have no grey market glass. I did buy a lot of used glass. Buying used glass from a reputable source, and I must emphasize reputable, saves a LOT of money, and you end up with the same deal as if you had gone grey market. On something like a 300/2.8, the savings of going used can be over $1000. I said I have 2 300/2.8s. One is a manual focus version I bought used. I bought that lens as a backup to my AF-S 300/2.8 which I also bought used. If anything should happen to my autofocus one, I have the manual backup. The 300 is so important to what I do, I carry two of them. There is really nothing to fail in the manual focus one. It's just metal and glass with gears.

So I say avoid the grey market stuff. The cost savings is next to nothing, and the risk simply doesn't seem commensurate with the savings.

the difference is about $500?

what about the sigma/tamron alternatives to the Nikon 300 F 2.8? any thoughts?

ps. appreciate the input.

kdog

perroneford wrote: »

40 pounds is a light load for me. By the time I get my 3-4 bodies, plates, super clamps, magic arms, big glass, etc., etc., I've got that much easily.

So adding another 40 lbs to your kit is just in the noise, eh?

Harryb

amadeus wrote: »

the difference is about $500?

what about the sigma/tamron alternatives to the Nikon 300 F 2.8? any thoughts?

ps. appreciate the input.

I would go with the Sigma if $ is an issue. Otherwise the Nikon 300 2.8 is a hell of a piece of glass.

jwear

All I will say is if they make the lens

---

I will start working out or get a motorized wheel chair w/offroad wheels

Icebear

If you want to play with a 300mm f/2.8 on your D700 for little or no financial risk, try to find a Nikkor 300mm, f2.8 AF IF-ED. You can get them quite reasonably from KEH or Adorama (usually.) OK, no fancy focusing motor (it's a screw-drive) but your D700 will take care of that no-muss-no-fuss. No VR, but I personally don't miss it for sports. The first couple of images in this recent thread of mine were shot through it. If you try one and later feel you need the latest bells and whistles, you can resell it for probably what you paid for it. Believe me, it's fully depreciated. I have to say, I feel quite smug when I compare my images with those of other guys and gals shooting with the AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II, for which they paid north of $5500. For one thing, they've usually turned their VR off too, so as to not adversely affect their frame rate. Is it a better lens? Hell yes! But I think mine at closer to $1500 was a better value. YMMV.

perroneford

Only you can make the choice. I wouldn't do it for a gap of $500 but that's me. MANY people would do it, and more power to them. $500 represents an 8% savings. Is that enough to forgo the warranty for you?

amadeus wrote: »

the difference is about $500?

what about the sigma/tamron alternatives to the Nikon 300 F 2.8? any thoughts?

ps. appreciate the input.

perroneford

Harryb wrote: »

I would go with the Sigma if $ is an issue. Otherwise the Nikon 300 2.8 is a hell of a piece of glass.

The Sigma appears to be $3400 new. About what I paid for my 300 AF-S (no VR). New Sigma vs. used Nikon... I'd take the Nikon. And in the case of our poster, he's clearly not overly concerned about a warranty. Tough choice I guess.

perroneford

kdog wrote: »

So adding another 40 lbs to your kit is just in the noise, eh?

Yea, pretty much.

amadeus

Icebear wrote: »

If you want to play with a 300mm f/2.8 on your D700 for little or no financial risk, try to find a Nikkor 300mm, f2.8 AF IF-ED. You can get them quite reasonably from KEH or Adorama (usually.)

if I was looking at the right one these are over 3K new?

are these still available new?

what price range are you referring to? not sure if you are talking new or used. I don't seem to have much luck finding anything used.

anyone have any thoughts on grey market lens quality versus US market lens?

perroneford

Same quality. It's the same lens from the same manufacturer. The lenses just aren't brought into the US by the manufacturer so they don't carry a US warranty through Nikon.

As for the IF-ED that lens is about 4 generations old now. Nothing wrong with buying used lenses but be VERY critical of lenses thus age and size. Many were used in the press and have been used very hard.

Icebear

My experience with KEH is that you can rely on their ratings. My copy is optically perfect, near as I can tell. It came with the hard case, and had obviously been used, but well cared for. I used to know when they quit making the series, but would say around 20 years ago. The only drawback I've noticed for my sports shooting (and birds too for that matter) is the focus isn't as "snappy" as my new 70-200, but then what lens is ?

amadeus

rather than start a new thread...

whats the deal with lens hoods? seems the bigger the lens the bigger the hood I see.

my 80-200 didn't come with one?

what is the reason/function of a hood and what is the downside to shooting without one?

thank you.

perroneford

If you didn't get a lens hood with the 80-200 you got shafted. It's supposed to have one. The purpose of the hood is to keep stray light from entering the lens. That light has the potential to cause flare and will certainly lower contrast. I don't shoot without one.

The reason for big glass to have big hoods is that their front element is very large and more susceptible to flare and stray light.

ziggy53

perroneford wrote: »

... The purpose of the hood is to keep stray light from entering the lens. That light has the potential to cause flare and will certainly lower contrast. I don't shoot without one.

The reason for big glass to have big hoods is that their front element is very large and more susceptible to flare and stray light.

Absolutely.

In addition, a lens hood provides some physical protection for the front of the lens. Without a hood, the front lens element is typically exposed, and can be scratched or even broken.

The lens hood protects the filter threads from being damaged.

A lens hood also creates a cushion of dead air in front of the lens, somewhat reducing dust buildup on the front element.

In short, a lens hood is a valuable and protective part of the lens, and I try not to shoot without one attached.

puzzledpaul

I've found the hood on my 500 to be of sufficient importance that I can now extend it from the standard 160mm to 600mm, depending on circumstances.

In addition to the issues previously mentioned, having a longer hood helps to protect the front element in adverse conditions - especially when shooting close to water level - water splashes in rain / hail / wind-blown spray / wave conditions have further to travel before reaching the front element.

pp