Nikon hasn’t mentioned either an f2.8 or f4 in the Z lineup. There are lots of used, mint condition 300 PF’s on the B&S forum (including mine) for about 40% below a new one. Seems odd to me that what was once a piece of standard equipment for both nature and sports photographers is now ignored and/or lost in the shuffle. Your thoughts?
Its an interesting subject, we hang on to our 300 2.8 VR II for to long, it sits on the shelf as the most least used, its for many big an heavy.
We then question is it worth keeping as its not used that often, we then research for the alternatives lighter faster sharper and find there are either compromises and much higher costs.
So what to do ?
I find with my 300 2.8 VR II, every time i do take it out i simply say i have got to keep this lens its just so good, it has this very special look especially at F2.8.
I needs less iso by far, it certainly dose all i need
even with the Z9 at 20 fps.
It makes my D3X look stunning as it dose the D850 or any other camera i put on it.
I find Unless you use the lens at F2.8 then yes get rid of it as it dose the same as any other high quality lenses, i only use it at F2.8 for everything other than landscapes. I do sports action, portraiture nature, modeling shots, botanical work, wild life, it dose so much so well, it has this look at F2.8 that is just pleasing, the back grounds are superb, it pops the subject beautifully above all naturally, it has great colour, contrast, speed, super low light performance.
It is optically better than the 300 F4. Its the same as the 400 2.8 VR some say there is a difference other say their the same..........
Are there better lenses out there, i imagine so but yet have to find them, warrant the difference in performance, ask is it worth it for the cost difference, and determine is it that newer lenses are just better in the lab than the field.
Pros using the a 120-300 f2.8 or the 400 f2.8 is interesting, i have been told but yet to accept that the 120-300 F2.8 is as good or slightly better better than the 300 2.8 VR II.
120-300 for double the price ! and more weight ?
I think the 120-300 for sports action replaces the 70-200 range is a little short for sports action the 120-300 is a more suitable range.
I cant justify spending the money on a 120-300 2.8 i would rather rent it.
One is a zoom one is a prime....dose that really matter.