300 2.8VR lust anyone?

[Doug]

I'm talkin hardware lust, not shot lust. here's the goods. 300 2.8VR on sidekick mounted to RRS BH-55 sitting on a Gitzo CF pod, driven by D2X by a little ole man on Sunday's only, namely me. haha.

Please excuse the mess.

Photo by Leica V-Lux1 handheld with flash.

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

 

[adebartolo]

Now that's the real deal!

 

[cadman]

That's illegal in 50 states. Contributing to the delinquincy of something. I would say very bad things about you right now but they would pulll this post.

Just say no to drugs. Hi, my name is garry and I'm a gearholic!

Stop the madness man..... This is not safe.....

Get back Satan!!!!!!

 

[Frits]

Way gorgeous Doug, WOW!!

 

[arthury]

I'm talkin hardware lust, not shot lust. here's the goods. 300 2.8VR on sidekick mounted to RRS BH-55 sitting on a Gitzo CF pod, driven by D2X by a little ole man on Sunday's only, namely me. haha.

Please excuse the mess.

Photo by Leica V-Lux1 handheld with flash.

Do you mean Nikon Porn? :biggrin:

 

[Doug]

I've been testing this setup some. I was having movement using just the BH-55 with the lens, apparently it's just to much for even one of the best heads made without the sidekick. Put the sidekick on, and things firm up exactly how they should be. So, I've discovered the sidekick is required for this tri-pod mounted lens. It's really a blast to free steer anyway, like the big gimbals, but without the big gimbal price. Well Let me rephrase, at the price of a BH-55, it's almost the price of a big gimble, but it gives me a normal head for most photo needs, (Standard zooms, primes) and the Sidekick I got from Wade gives me that gimbal too.

Thanks on the complements Tony, Garry, I know that feelin!, believe me!

Thank you Frits. Still some second thoughts about letting my 200-400VR go, but the 300VR is a bit more compact, which is nice and once I get good it mastered, I am counting on 300VR speed and agility to get me some real money shots in Cades Cove in the setting evening sunlight.

Yes Arthur, Lust is Lust, it don't matter what you are lusting after! lol

 

[cadman]

OK, the 200-400vr is top of my lust list. Tell me all the details as to why you would forsake her for the 300 2.8 vr!

 

[Candidcameraman]

Woooooooooooo the infamy!!!! Very nice set up :biggrin:

 

[arthury]

[...]
Thank you Frits. Still some second thoughts about letting my 200-400VR go, but the 300VR is a bit more compact, which is nice and once I get good it mastered, I am counting on 300VR speed and agility to get me some real money shots in Cades Cove in the setting evening sunlight.
[...]

That will depend on your application and what you need most. I know, I know ... lust and needs are counter-intuitive concepts sometimes.

 

[Doug]

Garry, I almost bought the 300 2.8 to begin with. So, my relationship with the 200-400 began somewhat with doubt as to if I made the right choice. I know, I know, am I crazy? I think you already know the answer to that anyway.

I am not so much a birder, I respect what you birders do, but it is not my main goal. The 200-400 is still a great long landscape lens, but for my needs I found that it was not getting used half as much as my 200VR. I also found that when I used the 200 2.0VR, I typically was more successful with my style of shooting and that the prime lens made me think a lot more about composition. Thus, the doubts crept in, and I had to finally explore whether the 300 2.8 was my missing mistress, or whether she was just some temptress trying to dethrone the queen. Well, I still can't answer that as yet. I admit to seeing the last 200-400 for sale, and lusting. I'm so bad and sick.

But the 300 2.8 is very close to the 200 2.0VR in size and I am going to give her every opportunity before turning and admitting, I had the right lens to begin with. I figured someone would always want the 300 2.8, and if I do want to go back the other way, opportunity shall present itself someday.

Thanks Dude!

Your right Arthur, absolutely, if not profound.

Doug

 

[cadman]

Doug,

Thanks for the process. I will (for the time) live vicariously thru you. Just keep us informed along the way. And BTW, that is really a sexy shot to a gearaholic.

 

[TerribleTwins]

Garry, I almost bought the 300 2.8 to begin with. So, my relationship with the 200-400 began somewhat with doubt as to if I made the right choice. I know, I know, am I crazy? I think you already know the answer to that anyway.

I am not so much a birder, I respect what you birders do, but it is not my main goal. The 200-400 is still a great long landscape lens, but for my needs I found that it was not getting used half as much as my 200VR. I also found that when I used the 200 2.0VR, I typically was more successful with my style of shooting and that the prime lens made me think a lot more about composition. Thus, the doubts crept in, and I had to finally explore whether the 300 2.8 was my missing mistress, or whether she was just some temptress trying to dethrone the queen. Well, I still can't answer that as yet. I admit to seeing the last 200-400 for sale, and lusting. I'm so bad and sick.

But the 300 2.8 is very close to the 200 2.0VR in size and I am going to give her every opportunity before turning and admitting, I had the right lens to begin with. I figured someone would always want the 300 2.8, and if I do want to go back the other way, opportunity shall present itself someday.

Thanks Dude!

Your right Arthur, absolutely, if not profound.

Doug

Doug,
Quick Question - would the 200/F2 VR with a TC 1.4 = 300VR/F2.8 in performance? Thanks

BTW your photo is not helping with my lens lust addiction problem:biggrin:

 

[Mason]

Doug,
Quick Question - would the 200/F2 VR with a TC 1.4 = 300VR/F2.8 in performance? Thanks

BTW your photo is not helping with my lens lust addiction problem:biggrin:

Oh no...note to self, don't come back to this thread! I don't want to know the answer.

Doug will probably know, but it also has been discussed in the 200VR thread (you would have to search as it is pretty long). I don’t want to look there either, even though I have read every post, because I am scared of the answer!

 

[Frank207be]

Quick Question - would the 200/F2 VR with a TC 1.4 = 300VR/F2.8 in performance? Thanks

I'm also having both, but no TC-14EII. I'm going to rebuy that TC_14EII soon again, so I can run various tests to compare both 200/2 and 300/2.8 VR :biggrin:

 

[Macusque]

From what I read the 200/2 VR + TC-14EII is slightly worse than the 300/2.8 VR, especially wide open, while it is said to work surprisingly well with the TC-20EII. Someone even stated it has the same quality of the 200-400/4 @ 400... :Unsure:

I love my 300 VR but I don't have the 200 VR, nor the 200-400 VR, hence I can't comment those statements.

Anyway I had the Leica 180/2 Apo-Summicron, probably the best 180/200 mm out there, and indeed it worked much better with the 2x Apo-Extender than with the 1.4x Apo-Extender. Odd behaviour indeed, but clearly evident even to an untrained eye.
The 180/2 + 2x instead gave a nice 360/4, which was great if stopped down only half stop.
That said, the quality never quite matched that of the bare lens, so I'm not sure that the 200 VR + 2x works like the excellent 200-400 VR, especially wide open...

I'm looking forward to your test Frank! :smile:

 

[aman17]

Hey Doug ,heres a question for you.If you had the choice between these 3 lens which would you purchase.The 300 2.8,200-400 or the sigma 120-300?This is my dilemma.I photo birds have a sidekick although my head is the RRS40,and purchasing the neotec 685b.so with all this info lets hear your decision.
Thanks arnie

 

[Doug]

Garry, your welcome!

David, the two would be pretty close, and sometimes, I wondered about my decision from that perspective. That's what you have, so, in a way it is replication. But the 300 would be a bit faster focusing. However, I can have 2 rigs, 200, 300, or 200, 300 + 1.4 TC, but the advantage is, my apertures then can go to 2.0, 2.8 and 4.0 on the longest end, so with a few steps, I mostly didn't loose anything. Also, left over funds from my transaction paid for half my 85 2.8 PC that I wanted to get again.

Arnie, tough call, I guess if I knew the answer I wouldn't be trading lenses all the time, lol. But since your a birder, you may want that zoom.

Doug

 

[TerribleTwins]

Garry, your welcome!

David, the two would be pretty close, and sometimes, I wondered about my decision from that perspective. That's what you have, so, in a way it is replication. But the 300 would be a bit faster focusing. However, I can have 2 rigs, 200, 300, or 200, 300 + 1.4 TC, but the advantage is, my apertures then can go to 2.0, 2.8 and 4.0 on the longest end, so with a few steps, I mostly didn't loose anything. Also, left over funds from my transaction paid for half my 85 2.8 PC that I wanted to get again.

Arnie, tough call, I guess if I knew the answer I wouldn't be trading lenses all the time, lol. But since your a birder, you may want that zoom.

Doug

Doug,
Thanks for the answer - don't yet have the 200, but in the event I get a crack at one, I don't think I could justify the cost of it and the 300, so was trying to see what the potential options are.

 

[aman17]

thanks Doug for the reply.So here we go again.Thanks again
Will keep you informed
arnie

 

[aman17]

Someone Please Tell Me to Do It

Please tell me to move to the 300 2.8.This was taken today hand held with my 300 f/4.and the lust continues.

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