300 2.8 VR for Pros Only?

Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
59
Location
Minnesota
I am wanting longer reach than my 70-300 VR provides and am considering the 300 f4 AFS, 300 2.8 AFS VR, or the 200-400 AFS VR. As strictly and amature my sensibility tell me that the 300 f4 and a TC is the way to go. I am worried that I will miss the VR that the 300 f4 doesn't have though. I can afford the 300 2.8 AFS VR or the 200-400 but I would have to do some really fast talking to my wife as to why these lenses are worth $3-4K. I am also thinking that as an amature that these lenses are way out of my league and that I would not be able to get the most out of them. So I guess my main question after all this rambling is how many of you that own the 300 2.8 or 200-400 VR are amatures and don't rely on these expesive lenses to provide income.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
32,971
Location
Boston
If You Can Afford It....Buy It!! You Dont Need To Be A Pro Race Car Driver To Own A Ferrari! The Lens Is Amazing! You'll Love It & People Will Think Your A Pro When They See The Results From It! Good Luck.....:biggrin: (Amateur Thats Made A Few Bucks!)
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
2,076
Location
Ontario, Canada
I'm one of those (amature) that spent a lot for a lens that I don't use that much. Having said that, when I do need the reach, I know I'm using the best and it shows with the results. That can be said for other lenses in my small collection. When I do go out to shoot for myself, it's almost always with my 105 VR macro. I just love macro....I don't do people unless I have to. But man cannot live by one lens alone, so I spent to have a relatively complete range. I wanted to expand my capabilities and try other styles. BTW, I do sell some of my photos but it's strictly a hobby for me.

All hobbies involve spending money that only you can justify.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,519
Location
Suwanee, GA
I agree, if you can afford it go for it. I'm working to get a 300 f/2.8 right now. However you're prices are a bit off...the 300 f/2.8 VR and the 200-400 f/4 VR are more like $4,500 to $5,500.
 
B

barnclos

Guest
I'm an amateur with a 300/2.8, and can thoroughly recommend it.

For sure, anyone (professional or otherwise) who uses this lens for long periods on a regular basis (unlike me :frown:) will develop better technique, will understand the limits of the lens, and will have a familiarity with the controls which will give them the potential to take better photographs. BUT, it is still only a lens, and after only a few weeks/months, you'll be well up the learning curve.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
230
Location
East TN
I'm an amature, and have the 400 f2.8 VR. I would suggest that if the 70-300 is to short the 300 f?? x 1.4 will not be that much more. I would at least go for a 400, and consider the 500.

Mike
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Messages
1,855
Location
New Orleans area, Louisiana
I am no pro, but a serious amateur. I have the 200-400 VR and I primarily use it for birding. The flexibility of the zoom is useful for non-pros like myself. I am sure the 300/2.8 VR is sharper and better IQ wise, but for my use, the 200-400VR does the job.

Hope this helps.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
3,522
Location
Thornhill, Ontario, a suburb of Toronto
Whether you "need" it or not is not for me to say, so I'll stay away from that issue.
As for the lens itself, my 300 2.8 is an old, beat-up manual focus AIS version that originally belong to Canadian Press News Service. I got it about seven or eight years ago on consignment for what at the time was a very good price. It had been through the wars, and probably also used for stunning cattle in a slaughterhouse.
However, the optics and mechanics were fine so I grabbed it. Even had the steamer-trunk case. Works like a champ and is so sharp they should have sold it with band-aids.
Today, the Manual focus versions of Nikkors, Tamrons and Sigmas are to be found very cheaply and as for their lack of VR (the solution to a non-existant problem), who except me shoots handheld with a 300 2.8 anyway? Stick it on your tripod and you'll be fine
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Messages
966
Location
Nottingham, UK
If you need something cheaper and longer, the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 is a brilliant lens for the money, or Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 is also very good (not as good as the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 prime but cheaper and more versatile).
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
45
Location
Canada
I use the 300 F4 AFS...

Could not justify the cost of the faster Nikkor lenses unless I was making money from this hobby.

The 300 F4 is one of my most frequently used lenses. And I get superb image quality with or without TCs (use both 1.4 & 1.7.) Awesome lens.

I always shoot either handheld or with a monopod and have never worried about the lack of VR in this lens.

Cheers,
Mark
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
122
Location
Sandy, UT
Total amateur and owned a 300 2.8vr. It was an awesome lens and I miss it!

I sold it and bought a 200-400. Love the 200-400, but want to put another 300 2.8 in the bag again......

When everything lined up for me with a pic...the 300 2.8 made me look good!
 
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
213
Location
virginia
Hi

If you are going to use, then you should buy it. If you want it for occasional use, once a month, maybe less then it is a waste of money. These lens are expensive for good reason. Nikon produces them in limited quantities, they are virtually hand put together and they are technically superior.
You may look at a pre vr version of the 300, I do not know the name. The vr is nice to have, but unless you are shooting at shutter speeds below 1/200 maybe, it is not needed.
The 400 as someone recommended is twice as expensive, in my opinion unless you use it weekly, and earn some money from it. A very expensive piece.

Look for an older 300 2.8, no vr, it should serve you well.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
343
Location
Steady Brook, NL, Canada
I am wanting longer reach than my 70-300 VR provides and am considering the 300 f4 AFS, 300 2.8 AFS VR, or the 200-400 AFS VR. As strictly and amature my sensibility tell me that the 300 f4 and a TC is the way to go. I am worried that I will miss the VR that the 300 f4 doesn't have though. I can afford the 300 2.8 AFS VR or the 200-400 but I would have to do some really fast talking to my wife as to why these lenses are worth $3-4K. I am also thinking that as an amature that these lenses are way out of my league and that I would not be able to get the most out of them. So I guess my main question after all this rambling is how many of you that own the 300 2.8 or 200-400 VR are amatures and don't rely on these expesive lenses to provide income.
or as you mentioned....you could go the route of the 300mm f4 with 1.4 or 1.7 converters. it's much cheaper than the big gun route. but you do have to sacrifice IQ, speed and possibly VR, depending on what lens you would have chosen.

these were shot with the 300 with 1.7X converter...
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


i have to admit that i've been pleasantly surprised with the results.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
1,490
Location
California
Think of it this way. The 300 2.8VR and 200-400VR are "new" designs and not likely to be upgraded for at least a few more years. They're going to hold thier value. If you buy a new one now you'll lose maybe $300/year if you keep it 4-5 years. If you buy used you should be able to pare that number to $150 -200/year. Is that a more palatable way to present it?
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom