Second hand 300mm F2.8

[Lance B]

I had the 300 f2.8G VRII and loved it and if Nikon made a lightweight version similar to the current Sony 300 f2.8 I would buy it in a heartbeat. The Nikon 300 f2.8 was a superb optic, and I wish I didn't have to sell it, but I needed to help fund the 400 f2.8E FL VR that I purchased at the time in 2015. Nikon will probably produce a 300 f2.8 but will more than likely be a 100/120-300 f2.8 and maybe with a TC. I think this may make it too large and heavier than I want - I want to have a lightweight 300 f2.8 as a adjunct to my 600TC. A 300 f2.8 + TC would be an option I would consider if the size and weight was right.

Others have suggested you can adapt the Sony 300 f2.8 and maybe that is a solution. Obviously, the other option is to get a new or secondhand Nikon 300 f2.8G VRII.

 

[Zof9]

I had a 300 f/2.8 II for 12 years and bought it because of its low-light capabilities and focusing speed compared to the original screw-drive 80-400 VR zoom (my house is surrounded by second-growth fir and cedar trees and some days it's pretty dark here in the PNW). A great lens and I used it on the F100 and various DSLRs with the TC-17EII and TC-20EIII; plus the Z6ii and Z8. But, we're no longer constrained by using ISO 400 slide film or sensors that have poor S/N response at high ISO, so I sold it and bought the Z800PF. My other shorter lenses include the Z70-180, Z400 f/4.5, and F-mount 70-300. At least I don't have to decide if I want to get the 100-400. Well, maybe not right now....

Nikon's published weight appears to be for the lens without hood; the 300 mm is listed at 2900 g (6.4 lbs). With caps, RRS foot, and hood mine weighed 3190 g (7 lbs) plus 125 g (0.3 lbs for the FTZii. The Z800 with Hejnar foot, rear cap, and hood is 2700 g (6 lbs).

Good luck with figuring out which lens to complement your 600. There are lots of options (e.g., 200 f/2 with the F teleconverters, 300 f/2.8 or 4, Z70-200 or Z70-180 with TC, Z400 f/4.5).

Thanks.
I do have the Z 70-200 and a 1.4TC.
Will give that a try…

 

[Zof9]

I had the 300 f2.8G VRII and loved it and if Nikon made a lightweight version similar to the current Sony 300 f2.8 I would buy it in a heartbeat. The Nikon 300 f2.8 was a superb optic, and I wish I didn't have to sell it, but I needed to help fund the 400 f2.8E FL VR that I purchased at the time in 2015. Nikon will probably produce a 300 f2.8 but will more than likely be a 100/120-300 f2.8 and maybe with a TC. I think this may make it too large and heavier than I want - I want to have a lightweight 300 f2.8 as a adjunct to my 600TC. A 300 f2.8 + TC would be an option I would consider if the size and weight was right.

Others have suggested you can adapt the Sony 300 f2.8 and maybe that is a solution. Obviously, the other option is to get a new or secondhand Nikon 300 f2.8G VRII.

Thanks Lance.

 

[groob]

FWIW, I’m with some of the others. I don’t think you’re solving any problems with a 300mm f/2.8, unless you can fill the frame at 300mm.

 

[arbitrage]

FWIW, I’m with some of the others. I don’t think you’re solving any problems with a 300mm f/2.8, unless you can fill the frame at 300mm.

This is very true. If you are just cropping to the 600 f/6.3 FOV then you gain nothing from the f/2.8.
I use my 300GM @ 300mm when the FOV is correct, not because it is f/2.8. Like yesterday shooting Barred Owls in tight quarters where I really could have used a 70-200/2.8 instead of the 300 but a 400 or 600 would have been useless.

Steve explains this well in the f/2.8 trap video linked earlier in this thread.

 

[Zof9]

I only plan on using the 2.8 when the light is too low for the 6.3.
It’s a photo not filling the frame, or no photo at all.

 

[Dionigi Colombo]

I owned the 300 vr ii and now the 120-300FL, for me they are 2 very good lenses and in low light they make a difference. As other users have pointed out you have to try to shoot without then cropping otherwise you lose the advantage.
For some of my subjects the 120-300 is the main lens.
Everyone has different needs and ways of photographing animals, but being able to afford it I would have no doubts about the 300

 

[arbitrage]

I only plan on using the 2.8 when the light is too low for the 6.3.
It’s a photo not filling the frame, or no photo at all.

But this is actually not true. This is what groob and others have mentioned. If you haven't watched it yet check out the video linked earlier:

If you can't get closer to the subject with the 300 vs the 600 then after cropping the 300 image you will lose the ISO advantage you think you got from the 2.8 vs 6.3. You will not have a better image with the 300 vs the 600 despite the 2 1/3 ISO advantage (assume shutter speed is kept constant).
The 2.8 will only get the photo if you can get close enough to the subject that the 600mm FOV would actually be too close to frame your ideal frame.

 

[Zof9]

But this is actually not true. This is what groob and others have mentioned. If you haven't watched it yet check out the video linked earlier:

If you can't get closer to the subject with the 300 vs the 600 then after cropping the 300 image you will lose the ISO advantage you think you got from the 2.8 vs 6.3. You will not have a better image with the 300 vs the 600 despite the 2 1/3 ISO advantage (assume shutter speed is kept constant).
The 2.8 will only get the photo if you can get close enough to the subject that the 600mm FOV would actually be too close to frame your ideal frame.

Just watched the vid. Again. Wasn’t really relevant to me the first time I saw it.

Certainly an eye-opener.

Still not sure I properly understand. What if at f6.3 I’m at 256000 ISO. The image is effectively unusable. At f2.8 this equates to 4000 ISO. (According to google)

A usable image even after cropping?

Probably a wider crop than 600 would have given me. I’d still have an image. I’m not only looking for the perfect photo, I sometimes only want enough detail to ID something unusual.

For info, I’m also using dxo pro 4.

Do I still forget the 300mm 2.8 if I can’t fill the frame?

Thank you!