300mm prime

[sean_buerger]

TEXT REMOVED

[cyclohexane]

The 300mm f/4 models might be a better choice for portability.

[Not4wood]

I use a D80 and I've also been looking at the 300mm, but is the f:4 fast enough? Or is a faster lens too much money?

I know this guy who is using the Canon 5d and he has trouble focusing in low light levels with his 300mm f:4 says it also hunts around and takes too long when he is doing his wildlife shots out on Location in the deep woods. Any comments??

[rootrider]

a 300mm f/4 is definitely hard to hand hold on a cloudy day before sunset, if that's what you mean. But in general it's not a big deal. Now if you're shooting a 300mm f/4 with a TC it starts to become an issue. Even on my (cheap) tripod it's hard to get a sharp photo in low light.

The Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-D and AF-S lenses are both very good lenses. I'm incredibly impressed with the IQ of my lens.

From what I've read, if you want an f/2.8 prime the Tokina is supposed to be a nice, cheaper alternative to the Nikon 300mm f/2.8. If you can afford an f/2.8 prime and you want to hand hold a lot then it's probably worth it.

[INSOMNIAC269]

I had the Tokina 300mm 2.8 It's a great lens, well built and very sharp. Great for sports, with it's fast aperture. Be prepared though, it is by no means a compact lens, with the lens hood on it's a monster. Of course it has a tripod collar. I think the filter size was 101mm to give you an idea. I sold mine to a guy that had a Tamron he didn't like. I wouldn't hesitate to buy it over the Nikon for the money.

[rootrider]

filter size of the tokina 300mm f/2.8 is 112mm.. but it's only ~8" long from what I read (though the hood alone is 10" iirc). Could be worse

[Not4wood]

Originally Posted by rootrider

a 300mm f/4 is definitely hard to hand hold on a cloudy day before sunset, if that's what you mean. But in general it's not a big deal. Now if you're shooting a 300mm f/4 with a TC it starts to become an issue. Even on my (cheap) tripod it's hard to get a sharp photo in low light.

The Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-D and AF-S lenses are both very good lenses. I'm incredibly impressed with the IQ of my lens.

From what I've read, if you want an f/2.8 prime the Tokina is supposed to be a nice, cheaper alternative to the Nikon 300mm f/2.8. If you can afford an f/2.8 prime and you want to hand hold a lot then it's probably worth it.

Rootrider,
I wasn't even talking hand held. I was talking Autofocus on my friends lens. He was complaining big time when he came back from his last trip to South Georgia Island. He said he was in the trees set up to try and get some bird shots. The light level was so low, that this Auto Focus couldn't lock onto to anything it was so dark.

[sean_buerger]

TEXT REMOVED

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by sean_buerger

Thanks for the interesting input so far. I was planning to mainly use the lens with a monopod. That should give me a bit more reserve on the shutter speed.

I'd love to have more comments on image quality of various lenses here (I'm picky on that). From my experience with other Nikon lenses it seems their getting stronger the longer the lens is. They really seem to be excellent telephoto lens makers. Can the 3rd party manufacturers compete?

Thanks. Sean.

The 300 f/2.8 is probably one of the most versatile lenses out there. It's image quality is nothing short of excellent. I use the 300 f/2.8 VR on a regular basis and it really is one of those lenses where if it were destroyed this morning, I'd be shopping for another one immediately. It's an invaluable part of my kit.

It's what you'd expect it to be in lower light situations. It locks on quickly and accurately. I turn off VR on a tripod most of the time and leave it on when using it on a monopod.

There are less expensive alternatives out there. There is a Sigma 300 f/2.8, which is very good from what I understand. There's a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 which is really a versatile optic and there's the Tokina 300 f/2.8 if memory serves me right.

Anything that's a 300mm with an aperature faster than f/4 is going to be pricey. If you can live with the 2/3 stop loss there's the 300 f/4 Nikon. It's an excellent lens as well but will probably behave a little less favorably under lower light conditions. Still, an excellent optic.

Julio

[rootrider]

Originally Posted by Not4wood

I wasn't even talking hand held. I was talking Autofocus on my friends lens. He was complaining big time when he came back from his last trip to South Georgia Island. He said he was in the trees set up to try and get some bird shots. The light level was so low, that this Auto Focus couldn't lock onto to anything it was so dark.

I haven't noticed any real problem with autofocus on my 300mm. In fact I've been surprised at how quickly and accurately the autofocus works on my D70, and I would only expect the AF-S to work better still. Obviously an f/2.8 lens will be noticably better, but I've never had a problem with AF on the f/4 even with the 1.4x TC. I even used a Kenko MC7 2x TC on my 300mm f/4 to shoot the moon and it managed to autofocus. Of course the moon is quite bright and provides a nice contrast against the dark sky, but it worked none-the-less.

[INSOMNIAC269]

Here is a picture of my Tokina 300mm 2.8 on my D200



This was taken with it on my D100. 1/1000 at F4 hand held.

[Not4wood]

Oh my, thats one monster lens..........

I've been hearing a lot lately on the Tokina 2.8 300 thats is still a great sharp lens w/good quality for a lot less in the pocket. But, I haven't seen any shots from it can anybody post anything from this lens if you see this??

That is one great Football shot. Love it.......... I found myself studying it and just looking around at all the details after Last Nights Game. I was actually thinking of calling in Sick and taking my camera for a little spin tomorrow morning for the Parade. But to sit there in the Rain with my camera........ Nah, I dont think so. I think I would rather go to work, and I work outside. Go figure.....

[sean_buerger]

TEXT REMOVED

[cyclohexane]

I haven't seen any shots from it can anybody post anything from this lens if you see this??

Ken (KABeach) uses this lens; look for his field sports photos (football, soccer) in our very own Sports/Action section.

[Winnie]

I can highly recommend the 300mm f4 afs Nikkor. It's my favourite lens and with the TC-14e it shows next to no loss of IQ and makes a nice 420mm f/5.6 lens.

Alex

[sean_buerger]

TEXT REMOVED

[sean_buerger]

TEXT REMOVED

[Jose]

Long experience with long lenses and particularly with the 300 mm. I would stick to a Canon/Nikon lens since other models by independents are not usually fully compatible with the brand names particularly as new camera bodies are introduced. I will go with a f 2.8 simply for the fact that the cameras autofocus more accurate than with slower lenses. Granted that an f 4 is cheaper, smaller and lighter but at the price of performance. Think of prime top lenses as investments.