For the Nikon shooters

Who has any experience with the 2.8/300 AFS 2..........i have been offered this lens new for not too much. I have the 200/2VR but think i would prefer the slightly longer reach of the 300 for flight shots. Ok i lose VR but dont see that as a showstooper. Any comments appreciated.

Rene de heer

I think a 300mm 2.8 is THE lens for flight photography, low light mammal work and portraiture but unless you can get it really cheap I'd go for VR as I think that is a must these days. I don't own any VR lenses and I see the difference time and time again when I'm up against Canon IS boys. I think that the fact that the image is stationary in the lens is a huge advantage as it allows the camera to keep locked on the target. I wobble all over the place with my gear and I think this causes the camera focus to jump around.

That's just my opinion.

John

£1500 for a brand new lightweight version? That is cheap!
Rene de Heer

Rene

A word of caution

I've been using canon 300f2.8's (on my 3rd one) for flight photography since the late 90's, although they are fabulous lenses even with convertors, hand holding them for long periods puts lots of strain on your wrists, forearm, elbows and shoulders.

If you do purchase and I hope you do as they are such versatile lenses make sure that if you are going to hand hold for flight photography that you strap up your wrist and elbow
and rest your arm during the quiet moments

Rene that really is unbelievably cheap, probably too good to pass up if it is brand new. My best advice is to ask your contact whether they have a similar deal for the 500 or 600 f4 and then let me know about it

Many Regards

John S

Member Colin Pickett has the heavier MK1 AFS but with a AFS 2 motor and I used it earlier in the year with my D200 trying to take photos of Barn Swallows in flight (many of the hand held). The 300 locked on to them very very well even when they were tiny dots in the view finder, so for bigger birds I think the lens will perform beautifully for you!

I'm not sure if VR will be useful for birds in flight or not as with the 200-400 I find I get better results for flight shots with the VR off (and if your tripod mounted the tripod should give you smooth motion needed anyway) although I know they are of course different lenses.

If its a good price I'd go for!

£1500 is very cheap. If you don't get it I will

I've just re read your post and see you have the 200/2 VR Man, that is my most wanted lens. I shoot a lot of fashion, portrait and glamour and the 200/2 would be awesome - it'd be brilliant for badgers too! If you have the 200/2 I don't see why you'd want the 300/2.8 but I do know the 200/2 felt heavier than the 300/2.8

John

Am I the only one smiling at the mention of glamour AND badgers in the same sentence?

Hi Rene I cannot see any advantage over the 200f2 + 1.4tc which will give you a 280 F2.8 although I haven't tested the latest 300vr I bet you would be hard pushed to see any image quality difference.

Phillip.

Ps I still can't believe somebody is selling one for only £1500

I havent made up my mind anyway. I love the 200/2 VR and its very fast. Its the weight...the 300 AFS2 it not so heavy. yes £1500 and its new as well....i will check for other longer lenses...and then sell them to you guys with a premium
Rene de heer

John

Do you shoot glamour and badgers in the same day, if so can you give me a job please. I am very cheap and would work for peanuts, oh sod it for free

Danny

Thanks for the offer Danny, but there's an even bigger queue to be my assistant than there is for January's conference Beavers by day , badgers by night - the life of a wildlife photographer is a hard one I'd post an example of what I'd use the 200/2 for but I fear I'd incur the wrath of Uncle Tom, if he get's in a lather over the word w*rksh*p goodness knows what he'd say about the sultry, dark-eyed stare of Martine
John

John, I take it Martine is the matriach in the Beaver colony

I think you should get the 300mm Rene. I am facing the same problem with my 200mm and 1.4x not being as good as a 300mm.

Rob

Oh my gosh! I got censored for what i thought was light hearted banter I was only joking hence lots of smiley, winky emoticons there was no malice intended.

John

Upon reflection, and since the posts where in light hearted banter and in your name, all the above posts have been reinstated to their original content.

However it would be negligent of me not to point out that all contributors on this forum are, in part, strangers to one another and that anothers perception of you will be formed through your words.

I will therefore leave it up to each author to decide if the above 'uncensored' posts are the what they want to portray as their persona to all UKNP members and guests; but especially the female members, guests and magazine art editors that frequent this forum.

Your call.