300mm prime

[badpickev]

anyone in the tampa area looking for a 300 f4. lake shore camera on us 19 has a used one. i didint get a good look, but it was a ed lens, i think it was afs, but not real sure. i did not get a price.

[Nikonfreak]

The older, non AF-S 300 f/4 lenses come up on ebay and in stores quite a bit and I've seen them as low as $399.00. It's pretty rare to find the newer AF-S model used anywhere. Both versions are actually excellent.

[D.Rodgers]

I love my af 300f4 ed nikkor no hunting and sharp as a tack my only quirk is the noise when focusing the newer silent lenses are much nicer.
I haven't had any luck with 3rd party lenses they always seem to hunt or the focus is off.
Stick with Nikon for the big glass is my thinking.

[Nikonfreak]

The Sigma 300 f/2.8 HSM is a nice lens though. I've got a buddy that has it. It's not bad at all.

Julio

[SebSays]

Good , bad, or indifferent...? I've only shot my f2.8 120-300 Sigma once at night during a dirt track race hand held with a 2x extender so I had a 240-600 and it worked very well. Cranked up the ISO to make up the difference. Had to make a 40x60 out of a shot and it was fine and brought in $4200.00 and I had a very satisfied client! I will post the shot later.... time for dinner! LOL!!!

[Not4wood]

Originally Posted by SebSays

Good , bad, or indifferent...? I've only shot my f2.8 120-300 Sigma once at night during a dirt track race hand held with a 2x extender so I had a 240-600 and it worked very well. Cranked up the ISO to make up the difference. Had to make a 40x60 out of a shot and it was fine and brought in $4200.00 and I had a very satisfied client! I will post the shot later.... time for dinner! LOL!!!

Oh man, dont tease us its not fair. LOL For the price of that shot it pays for the lens right there.

[patrickph]

An image using the nikon 300mm f2.8 prime --1989 jumped started my career and was used for a Bench (apparel) billboard. Definitely was worth every dollar (about $3000 back then)

[SebSays]

Hey,

Ya got to love what things used to cost when you bought them and have devalued since!!! I just got rid of all my medium format cameras and lenses that cost me $80K and I got a whoppin $1350.00 for it all and I'm sure it's on it's way to Taiwan now!!! I have several Canon 5D's that I bought the week they came out Oct '06 and since they have dropped $1000.00 each new! Do you remember when a Kodak digital was (?) $29K and Fugi said they were coming out with their digital for under $4K and the Kodak instantly dropped $4K and when the Fugi came out they dropped to $9K..... The poor guys that bought them!!!

Seb... let me try to add the shot here of the dirt race car!

[WooD]

I use a 300 f/4 for surf shots, and have good results. When I add the TC 14 II converter it does search a bit thou.

[oposum_2000]

if you notice that your 200mm is too short you must go strait to 400mm otherwise you will find 300mm is short too ... same thing is for me too

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by oposum_2000

if you notice that your 200mm is too short you must go strait to 400mm otherwise you will find 300mm is short too ... same thing is for me too

I can't tell you the debate that I went through when debating on whether to get the 200-400 f/4 Nikon VR or the Nikon 300 f/2.8 VR. I knew the 200 f/2 was going to be too short for what I needed.

The 300 f/2.8 VR has become one of my most used lenses. For nature, I use the 1.7x TC. For some sports and concerts I use it on it's own.

Of course, the problem is that for some things, I'm still short. (I can think of one show where I could have used a darn 600 f/4 given where they put the darn press box at the AAA in Miami. Ugh!)

Soon to come into my fold of equipment is the 400 f/2.8 VR. I don't know if I can totally justify it yet given the kind of work I've been doing lately but I can say that I'm budgeting for it in the near future.

Julio

[Not4wood]

OK Nikonfreak;

I can understand and appreciate all of the rationalizing but why the 1.7 tc? From what I've heard I thought with this lens you would go with the 1.4 But I thought that higher then the 1.4 you get some bad things with the 1.7 or 2 like distortions or less light.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by Not4wood

OK Nikonfreak;

I can understand and appreciate all of the rationalizing but why the 1.7 tc? From what I've heard I thought with this lens you would go with the 1.4 But I thought that higher then the 1.4 you get some bad things with the 1.7 or 2 like distortions or less light.

I opted to buy the 1.7x for a few reasons.

First, the image degredation isn't bad with the 1.4 or 1.7x teleconverters...especially with the optics of this prime lens.

Second, I shoot nature for fun. I'm not selling any nature images at this time. The business end of this lens for me doesn't involve tc use at all.

The 2.0 tc does degrade the image somewhat noticeably, but again, given the optics of this lens, but it's still very good. I'd wager still better and sharper than a consumer grade lens even with the 2.x tc

Julio