fcotterill
Well-known member
The 300 f2.8's have done Nikon well as a keystone prime for Pro Sports, especially since the first ED glass version launched in 1975
and then completed redesigned as the first AF-I AF-I Nikkor 300mm f/2.8D IF-ED in 1992:
Nikon announcement tonight
- Thread starter Wes Peterson
- Start date
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).
and then completed redesigned as the first AF-I AF-I Nikkor 300mm f/2.8D IF-ED in 1992:
John Navitsky
Well-known member
i’d say yes on two counts. if 400 is too long, then it’s too long. second, in a lot of poor light situations you really want that f/2.8.
personally i’d be all over an s300 2.8 tc. the 120-300 tempts me, but it’s hard for me to go f-mount at this point
O
Well-known member
Nikon i recall said they were going to focus on the professional photographers market as a priority ? (=Margin with repeat business) but they would have to offer something really special.
The 300 2.8 focal range is not that commonly used today ?, however going forward it depends on the size and weight.
I use 300 2.8 mostly or 600 f4 alternately 200-500
I am hoping its a z8
O
Well-known member
you have the D6 Z9 D850 still ???
John Navitsky
Well-known member
O
Well-known member
It makes sense what your saying.........
I do find UNLESS critical shallow DOF is needed the 200-500 in good conditions delivers for me exceptional results.
I feel if Nikon continues to deliver exceptional performance a 300 2.8 Z with 1.4 Tc built in will be wow...........
I mostly shoot my 300 2.8 VR II at F2.8 90% of the time, the rest at F4 beyond that its the 200-500 as there isnt much in it.
I must build the courage to let go of the things that may be blocking me going forward, Or are they ?
I assume the new 300 2.8 with built in TC will be very expensive and the price may not be justifiable, for me there is a difference between justifiable and affordable.
My next on the list is moving from the Z9 to a Z8 if the Z8 is smaller with higher res around 10 or 12 fps, i am happy, i am not fussed on 20 or 30 FPS or 3 D tracking so much or animal detection etc.
Only an opinion
fcotterill
Well-known member
I understand you! Since the Z9 was announced and I ordered one, I've purchased two F-mount lenses. I got what I considered a very good bargain on both a 600mm f4 G VR and a 200mm f2 G VRII. Each is optically stellar when paired with either my D850, D500 or Z9. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that I'll buy another F-mount lens again unless I can do so at a phenominal bargain.
O
Well-known member
Makes a lot of sense, i think the 200 F2 is just stunning and on 45mp soon top be possibly 60 plus?,
While rare to see them used their worth every cent, especially if their a bargain as well.
The late model 600 F4 in F mount, ok, its not the new 600 with built in TC but you don't need to take out a mortgage on the house to buy one, F mount 600, wow, i missed out on one recently used so cheap totally mint, i didn't drive fast enough i was told.........
The new lenses are very good so i read and am told.....but in the real world i ask myself IS IT WORTH IT, is it 10% better 20% better ?
Remember 90% of what you achieve comes from you.........you cant buy a good photo, you make it.
A Sobering experience for me recently, One of my images just got into a major comp selection, i took it candidly on a D3S and 3002.8 VR II at F2.8, everyone guessed it was on a 600f4 and D850 or Z9, the image is a creative image, one click it was posterised in PS, then i slid the colour to zero, other than that it was straight out of camera.
I think the image quality of the F mount 200 and 600 is still undeniably excellent, image quality wise.
Only an opinion
John Navitsky
Well-known member
to be fair, the 300 2.8 vrii is no slouch
O
Well-known member
Agreed absolutely, i remember the day i bought it,........... i was at Nikon and they brought out the 600 300 200 and the 200-400 and with my D3X i spend a couple of hours A B testing on a telegraph pole and bush across the street.
For me the score card went like this,
The 600 at F4 does basically what the 300 does at F2.8 only at 600mm, the 200 F2 was special and excellent, image quality was very similar if you looked hard it may have been so fractionally sharper zoomed in 200%, but in the lower light shots especially in the shadowed darker areas i didn't need as much ISO compared to the other lenses.
The 200-400 was very nice it took excellent images, really its a great lens, but something just didn't gel...........it didn't have the magic i was looking for.
So the limitations of the 200mm weighed on my mind for what i needed, yes its F2 but it was for what i was doing just a whisker to short, the 600 F4 was excellent and loved it but again limited to 600mm so to say, the compromise was the 300 F2.8 VR II and adding a 1.4 TC, at the time i was using the worlds best high res DSLR the D3X LOL.
From the history as i was told the 300 2.8 was the lens that Nikon developed much of its optical formula on for many lenses and many decades.
Also i was told the 85mm 1.4 was also a key lens for developing lens formulas ? as well as setting production quality control standards.
Bottom line, today there are some spectacular new generation Z or S lenses arriving.........along with equally spectacular prices.........
I wont buy the new super expensive exotics.
The 300 2.8 VR II is for me a stunning lens and fits my current needs, its a lens i shoot 98% of the time at F2.8 or on occasions F4.
I think the lens will still deliver excellent results with the Z8 should it be a 60 plus mp camera equally as it does on the D850 or Z9.
I now rent or borrow the FX 600 F4 only when needed, i use the 300 2.8 VR II where i can, my go to work horse is the stunning 70-200 fl, in general good light the excellent 200-500, and below 70mm where possible its always the 50mm 1.8 S or the very purposeful reliable 24-70 2.8 G, yes i know the newer generation lens line is supposed to be better but nearly AUD $4K for a 24-70 F 2.8 S to view images on Instagram, Face book or a web site..........the current Tamron 24-70 with VR is well not that far behind if at all or different at around 1/3rd the price and seems to have better VR than any Nikon equivilant especially in the 70-200 area..
65% of the global web activity is on a mobile phone or mobile device like an I pad.
I prefer to invest more in my skill sets or how i do things .......and get smarter and closer.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
You want expensive..... AUD$27,450 Aussie banana republic dollarsdunno, they’re already expensive, what’s a little more. i’m just saying a 300 2.8 TC would be a lot handier than a 300 2.8. idk