Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II - User experience.

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

S

Sean B

New member
Member's gallery
Hello everyone.

I was just wondering if there is anyone out there who has extensive shooting with the Nikon 300mm VRii. I already have the newest version of the Nikon 70-200, is it worth the $$ just to gain an extra 100mm, or is the image quality from the 300 prime in a league of its own? I also understand its a pretty big bulky lens, is the reality of carrying the lens around an option, would you you get similar results shooting the 70-200 on the D500? Sorry for the confusing questions, always nice to hear from someone who owns the lens and not relying to heavily on youtube reviews. I would be pairing the 300 with a D850. Thanks in advance for your help team!
 
Member's gallery
I had both the 70-200 VRII and the 300 VRII but sold them because they both, though extremely sharp, proved to too heavy for my ageing muscles. I now use the 300PF and have absolutly no regrets.
 
Member's gallery
I had the Nikon 70-200 G and the 300 VRii. I have sold both of them. For wildlife I use the 500 f/4E and 500 f/5.6 PF as well as the 300 f/4 PF. Which lens depends on how far I may be hiking, if traveling - is there a severe weight limit, expected subjects, etc. The 70-200 and the 300 f/2.8 VRii were too heavy for my uses. With the limitations of their maximum f-stop, the PF lenses are excellent (and small and light). BTW - the 300 PF with a TC-14 is excellent for dragonflies and butterflies.
 
Member's gallery
I have the 70-200E FL and a 300f2.8 . Both great lenses and different end use in my opinion. It will always be better to shoot a lens without a tele. The world is full of compromise but if you can afford it I would buy the focal length you actually need.

I am going to sell my mint 300 if you are interested :). I just don't use it anymore :(
 
Member's gallery
I used one for a couple years, and took it on safari with me. It is quite probably the sharpest prime period. Fantastic lens. I carried it on a crop frame d7100, and the 70-200 on a full frame body, turned out to be a nice combo for safari. I eventually sold the 300 VRII and bought the 400 f2.8 FL, which is also a nice sharp lens. IMO, it (the 300) is indeed a bulky lens, and not all can hand hold it or the 400 either, but sharper primes will not find. For carrying around and hand holding, consider the new 300 and 500 PF lenses, you will find these light and sharp as a tack, with incredible VR, I have both and love them. I avoid using TCs with zooms, no good reason.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
dtibbals said:
I have the 70-200E FL and a 300f2.8 . Both great lenses and different end use in my opinion. It will always be better to shoot a lens without a tele. The world is full of compromise but if you can afford it I would buy the focal length you actually need.

I am going to sell my mint 300 if you are interested :). I just don't use it anymore :(
Click to expand...
Hi mate, I would be interested in your 300mm, unfortunately I live in NewZealand though..
 
Member's gallery
The 300 mm f2.8 is a wonderfully sharp lens and fine with or without 1.4x extender, if you have tripod or other support preferably. OK for hand holding for short periods. The main consideration is focal length and that depends on the subjects you mainly shoot. If you use it with a crop sensor body that helps, but there can be a compromise on image quality to some extent. I have moved to the 500mm PF lens because I like its versatility for handholding and bird photography, but the 300mm is a delight for the right situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top