Nikon 300PF vs Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

[Rogereh]

I've been shooting birds with my Nikon D500 with the Nikon 200-500mm since that lens came out. Now I'm mostly using the Nikon 500mm PF with the D500, D850 and Z7. I find that I really miss the ability to zoom out to 200mm like I could with the 200-500mm. So I'm considering carrying a 2nd camera with a wider view. I'm wanting a 300mm PF f4, but wondering if the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II might be a better choice? They are both about the same price (2K). I have a Tamron 70-200mm (G1) that works great but a Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 would let me use my 1.4 TC and be somewhat better than the 300 PF in low light. I'm thinking the 300 PF would matchup great on my Z7 because it is light weight and small?? Any opinions from users of both of the Nikon lenses?

 

[ButlerKid]

I use the 70-200/2.8 for landscape and architecture. For me, it's way too short for wildlife.

I shoot a D5 and D850. My main wildlife lens - on tripod or bean bag - is a 600mm f4. My back up lens is the Nikon 80-400 AF-S, a severely underrated lens IMHO. I have captured a sequence of a diving kingfisher and his emergence from the water with the 80-400 AF-S. It handles and focuses that well. The 600mm and the 80-400 AF-S are my go to lenses for wildlife, Africa, etc.

I have the 300m PF. It stayed home on my recent trip to Africa, and I did NOT miss it. I also have the 500 PF and will use that for a walk around lens. But it doesn't zoom, which is fine for me.

Hope this helps.

 

[Rogereh]

I use the 70-200/2.8 for landscape and architecture. For me, it's way too short for wildlife.

I shoot a D5 and D850. My main wildlife lens - on tripod or bean bag - is a 600mm f4. My back up lens is the Nikon 80-400 AF-S, a severely underrated lens IMHO. I have captured a sequence of a diving kingfisher and his emergence from the water with the 80-400 AF-S. It handles and focuses that well. The 600mm and the 80-400 AF-S are my go to lenses for wildlife, Africa, etc.

I have the 300m PF. It stayed home on my recent trip to Africa, and I did NOT miss it. I also have the 500 PF and will use that for a walk around lens. But it doesn't zoom, which is fine for me.

Hope this helps.

I had a 80-400 for several years but never really like it, it was the older model. Too slow for me, but photos were okay. I agree with your statement about a 200mm is too short for wildlife but I've had several occasions where the 500mm PF was too long. I've also had a few occasions where I was our early in the morning and there was a great sunrise scene that I was wishing that I had a wider lens instead of the 500mm. that's where my thoughts were starting to move towards a 70-200 instead of the 300 PF. I've also read many 500 PF users that no longer used their 300 PF lens. I'm not a pro shooter so 2K is a lot of money to make the wrong choice. Thanks for your comment. (I'd love to have that 600mm but at 75 it's just too much for me to lug around anymore.)

 

[BillW]

Depending on circumstances, I have paired the 70-200 f2.8E, 70-300 AF-P FX, or 300 mm PF on a second body to have shorter focal lengths, when I am using the 500 mm PF. You could also put a 1.4x TCIII on the 70-200 for a bit more reach. (The 1.4x TCIII also works nicely on the 300 mm PF, but would defeat the shorter focal length goal here).

I am planning on shooting the 500 mm PF on my Z7II (with or without a 1.4x TCIII) with the 70-200 f2.8 S and 1.4x TC (both in Z mount) on a Z6II or Z7 this spring to test it out. I like the idea of having a 98-280 mm f4 lens on my second body when using the 500 mm PF.

 

[ButlerKid]

I had a 80-400 for several years but never really like it, it was the older model. Too slow for me, but photos were okay. I agree with your statement about a 200mm is too short for wildlife but I've had several occasions where the 500mm PF was too long. I've also had a few occasions where I was our early in the morning and there was a great sunrise scene that I was wishing that I had a wider lens instead of the 500mm. that's where my thoughts were starting to move towards a 70-200 instead of the 300 PF. I've also read many 500 PF users that no longer used their 300 PF lens. I'm not a pro shooter so 2K is a lot of money to make the wrong choice. Thanks for your comment. (I'd love to have that 600mm but at 75 it's just too much for me to lug around anymore.)

The 80-400 AF-S is night and day better than the old one. I had the old one and was not impressed. Check out images 2-7 HERE......

or this....80-400 AF-S, 380mm, f6.3, 1/2500, ISO 640

I only take my best gear to Africa....and the 70-200/2.8, 300 PF and 500 PF stay home.

 

[Jerry Heitschmidt]

Rogereh, there probably is no easy answer as there are always tradeoffs with lenses and bodies. I can tell you the 300mm PF does pair very nicely with the Z bodies. Compared to your old 200-500mm combined with a D500 or D850, they will seem featherweight and a joy to take along on a hike. Having the option to either carry two cameras, one with a 300mm PF and the other with a 500mm PF, or just to select one or the other depending on use case, would be ideal, at least in my world. I have carried a 70-200mm f/2.8E with me on many occasions for low light scenarios and have found I almost never use it, so I've have stopped taking it into the field. We just returned from a trip to Jekyll Island where I took the 200-500mm somewhat reluctantly because of it's bulk and weight, thinking I really wished I owned the 500mm PF instead. What I rediscovered is that there are times when the flexibility of a zoom lens just can't be beat...unless maybe you have a second camera handy with a 300mm PF.

 

[Glen]

The 80-400 AF-S is night and day better than the old one. I had the old one and was not impressed. Check out images 2-7 HERE......

or this....80-400 AF-S, 380mm, f6.3, 1/2500, ISO 640

I only take my best gear to Africa....and the 70-200/2.8, 300 PF and 500 PF stay home.

Beautiful tack sharp 80-400 AF-S photo portfolio. Nicely done. Very helpful and appreciated old version versus new one comment. This gets lost in the lens decision debate so you having used both versions is good heads up. I have the Trinity but looking for more reach with zoom capability so was hesitant on 500 PF. Thanks for posting.

 

[ButlerKid]

Beautiful tack sharp 80-400 AF-S photo portfolio. Nicely done. Very helpful and appreciated old version versus new one comment. This gets lost in the lens decision debate so you having used both versions is good heads up. I have the Trinity but looking for more reach with zoom capability so was hesitant on 500 PF. Thanks for posting.

The 500mm PF is also a very fine lens with more reach. I like the 80-400 AF-S zoom to cover a wider focal length when shooting my 600mm. The 80-400 AF-S does not take a tele well at all. I've heard mix results about the 500 PF taking a tele. I've only tried the 500 + tele a few times.....and although more testing is needed...I'll be hesitant to put a tele on it. The 300 PF does take a 1.4 tele well and the 70-200/f2.8 is very very good with teles. Of course, YMMV.....

 

[Rogereh]

The 500mm PF is also a very fine lens with more reach. I like the 80-400 AF-S zoom to cover a wider focal length when shooting my 600mm. The 80-400 AF-S does not take a tele well at all. I've heard mix results about the 500 PF taking a tele. I've only tried the 500 + tele a few times.....and although more testing is needed...I'll be hesitant to put a tele on it. The 300 PF does take a 1.4 tele well and the 70-200/f2.8 is very very good with teles. Of course, YMMV.....

I've used the 1.4 III several times. It can be very good with good light and just OK with not good light. My 1.7 TC works, but really needs good light as it's shooting at F/9.5. It works but only for emergencies. I gave my 2.0 TC away as useless. The 1.4 TC works fair on my 200-500 also but I prefer to just crop with that lens. My 70-200 is a Tamron and I do have an older Tamron 1.4 TC but it's not very good so I don't use it at all. I seldom use my 70-200 f2.8 so I'm kind of hesitant in investing in another one. I personally think the Tamrons G2 lenses are as good as the Nikons (sometimes better). I'm still leaning towards the Nikon 300 PF. If the mirrorless cameras were better I'd consider the Z 70-200. It's suppose to be the best one out there. But, I don't trust my Z7 too much for wildlife so If I buy a new Nikon 70-200 it will be an F-mount so I can use it on all my Nikon cameras.

 

[Marcus Slade]

I've been shooting birds with my Nikon D500 with the Nikon 200-500mm since that lens came out. Now I'm mostly using the Nikon 500mm PF with the D500, D850 and Z7. I find that I really miss the ability to zoom out to 200mm like I could with the 200-500mm. So I'm considering carrying a 2nd camera with a wider view. I'm wanting a 300mm PF f4, but wondering if the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II might be a better choice? They are both about the same price (2K). I have a Tamron 70-200mm (G1) that works great but a Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 would let me use my 1.4 TC and be somewhat better than the 300 PF in low light. I'm thinking the 300 PF would matchup great on my Z7 because it is light weight and small?? Any opinions from users of both of the Nikon lenses?

Like many, I've shot extensively with the 200-500 (and I still love it) and I have a Tamron 70-200 f 2.8 G2 which I also love. However, I don't often shoot birds with the 70-200, typically needing a bit more reach. I do have a 300mm PF which I'm using more and more, in no small part because I'm consistently pleased with the results. My dilemma may be a bit the inverse of yours as I do use my 1.4TC III mostly on my 300mmPF or my 600mm f4 G. The attached pic here I shot last weekend with the 300PF (+1.4TC) on my D6, handheld, while I had my D850/600G tripod/gimbal mounted. This shot is modestly cropped, 1/2500, f 5.6, ISO 2800. Much as I prefer to work without using TCs I find it works very well on the 300PF and with it being effectively 420mm f 5.6, that's pretty much the only reason I haven't yet sprung for a 500mmPF (that may well change before the year is up). IMHO I believe the 300mm PF will be more additive to your kit.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Steve W]

The trouble when you gave too many lenses and bodies is that you have too many options. If I’m not talking everything I’ll put the 500 PF on the D500 and the 70-200 on the D810 with the TC14-III in bag or pocket. If I toss in the 16-35 I have pretty much all covered.
If I’m going even lighter, I’ll sub the 300 PF for the 500 and the 70-200 f4 for the f2.8.

 

[FB101]

It really depends on what and where you shoot. In Africa, I loved having a 70-200 f:2.8 in addition to a 500mm to give me flexibility to create environmental portraits of the bigger mammals And deal with the lowest lights.
With birds in Florida over the last 2 weeks, the 500pf was at times too much lens and I switched to the 300pf but I’d still say I got 90% of my shots with the 500mm. I never used the 70-200.
At home, with small birds, I go to 500 on DX and that’s still short most days.

All that said with the high resolutions bodies you use, I am thinking the 70/200 f:2.8 would be my pick +/- converter if you need 300mm. The zoom combo is more flexible but as importantly, the 300pf has a flaw for my shooting style that I did not expect - it flares significantly when shooting backlit (which I love to do but may not be an issue for you). The 500pf is quite flare resistant but unfortunately I am finding more and more that the 300pf is quite sensitive to flare. Now with the light at your back the 300pf is optically superb and there is nothing to complain about.
Although a bit more expensive i’d jump to the Z mount zoom and slap it on your Z7 - that lens is superb by all accounts. With or without converter you’d have a very flexible tool and an easy access to video if that’s of interest to you.

 

[Rogereh]

All that said with the high resolutions bodies you use, I am thinking the 70/200 f:2.8 would be my pick +/- converter if you need 300mm. The zoom combo is more flexible but as importantly, the 300pf has a flaw for my shooting style that I did not expect - it flares significantly when shooting backlit (which I love to do but may not be an issue for you). The 500pf is quite flare resistant but unfortunately I am finding more and more that the 300pf is quite sensitive to flare. Now with the light at your back the 300pf is optically superb and there is nothing to complain about.
Although a bit more expensive i’d jump to the Z mount zoom and slap it on your Z7 - that lens is superb by all accounts. With or without converter you’d have a very flexible tool and an easy access to video if that’s of interest to you.

Kind of what I've been doing, but I have the Z 24-200mm on my Z7. The combo is adequate, short and light weight so it's not a chore to carry it as a second camera on my BR dual harness. I almost bought a Z6II yesterday thinking it would be a nice setup with the 500mmPF and my Z7 with the 24-200mmZ

 

[Hawkeshead]

FWIW, it depends on the environment, how you are getting around and what you are after. a 300mm on its own is useful for the larger subjects but may be a challenge for birds, I carry two bodies, one for long, one for short pretty much as FB1010 has mentioned. The subject matter will influence the lens combo ie.e. if my trip is bird orientated then the longer lenses combo goes on the D500 to take advantage of the DX format with the D850 having a shorter lens for near subjects / landscapes. Having used the 200-500 for a couple of years, I do find a zoom feature useful if I have limited control over where I can position. Additionally, if light is an issue then I would drift to the wider glass with an option to add a TC. It depends on whether I am after lightness, portability, reach or position flexibility.

You have a 500 so the longer range is covered, I would look to having range flexibility on the shorter lens so I would plump for a zoom. I am finding that I whilst I am choosing to leave either the 200-500 or 300 2.8 and 2 x TC behind, I always have the 70-200 with a 1.4 TC to hand that gives me fast AF at either F2,8 or F4. I am finding that using a 300 2.8D with a 2 x TC gives me 600 or 900 at F5.6 which occaisisionally trumps the 200-500 option which is not that tolerant to a TC. (I do wish I could afford the 400 2.8 but that's a little rich for me)

 

[Calson]

I owned the 200-500mm lens for a time and always ended up carrying another lens, either the 70-200mm or the 80-400mm, to compensate for the relatively long 200mm end of its zoom range. Most of the time the 80-400mm was the better choice as it reduced the lens changes I needed to make out in the field and so less worry about dirt getting insdie the camera.

I find the 500mm PF along with the 80-400mm zoom to be a great combination. I can put both lenses with D850 cameras attached into a moderate size backpack. Shooting from a boat these are the two lenses I always take as they can be used without need for a tripod or a monopod (unless I add a TC-14).

The advantage of the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens over the 80-400mm is for landscape photography where it provides superior image quality at the edges of the frame. It is also a better choice for use indoors where it provides twice as much light to the camera's autofocus sensors.

 

[ButlerKid]

The 70-200 with 1.4 tele is still only 280mm. As Calson indicated, for me the 70-200 is best for landscapes or architecture. Being in the field with two lenses that cover 1) 80 - 400m (AF-S) and 2) 600 & 840mm (600mm+1.4 tele) is perfect. Of course, this works for me since I have two bodies......

 

[Rogereh]

The 70-200 with 1.4 tele is still only 280mm. As Calson indicated, for me the 70-200 is best for landscapes or architecture. Being in the field with two lenses that cover 1) 80 - 400m (AF-S) + 2) 600 & 840mm (600mm+1.4 tele) is perfect. Of course, this works for me since I have two bodies......

I'm not happy with the 80-400mm. I'm leaning towards the 300pf

 

[ButlerKid]

I'm not happy with the 80-400mm. I'm leaning towards the 300pf

That's fine. I"ll not comment further. But folks should understand that you have the older version, which is not nearly as good as the current version.

 

[sinewsworn]

I shoot my D500 with a 500pF attached. I use my 300pF on my D7200-reach. I also use my 300pF on my D850. If I am out for BIF I bring the D850 with my 70-200 f 2.8 attached along with my D500, 500pF and D7200 with the 300pF attached. Whew a bunch of camera gear to tote around but it covers most of whatI might wish to shoot on a given trip. On those occasions where a high pixel count is called for I use any of these three lenses on my D850! I cover from 70mm to 750mm!

 

[Hawkeshead]

The 80-400 AFS certainly covers a lot of bases. Jen Rockwell has given a thorough review that look at a number of options in this ducal range,

TINikon 80-400mm AF-S Review by Ken RockwellTLE

Nikon 80-400mm AF-S Review by Ken Rockwell

www.kenrockwell.com

I understood that Rogereh has a D500, D850 and Z7 and has a500mm. Using the advantages offered by FX and DX in combination with the relevant lens for the anticipated scenario provides a very flexible set of options. The D500 with the 70-200 gives an equivalent of 105-300 or 147-420 with the TC. Using a 300pf in the D500 would virtually duplicate the range of the 500mm on the D850.
As always it’s a personal choice, One route to consider is to go used which would be about half the cost.

 

[Rogereh]

The 80-400 AFS certainly covers a lot of bases. Jen Rockwell has given a thorough review that look at a number of options in this ducal range,

TINikon 80-400mm AF-S Review by Ken RockwellTLE

Nikon 80-400mm AF-S Review by Ken Rockwell

www.kenrockwell.com

I understood that Rogereh has a D500, D850 and Z7 and has a500mm. Using the advantages offered by FX and DX in combination with the relevant lens for the anticipated scenario provides a very flexible set of options. The D500 with the 70-200 gives an equivalent of 105-300 or 147-420 with the TC. Using a 300pf in the D500 would virtually duplicate the range of the 500mm on the D850.
As always it’s a personal choice, One route to consider is to go used which would be about half the cost.

I also have a D5 and D810. I'm currently shooting with the D5 and the 200-500 with the Z7 and 24-200Z. Almost bought a Z6II this morning, but don't know why . I'm been considering using the Z6Ii with the 500pf and the Z7 with the 300pf.