Nikon or Canon 300 f2.8 - advice and opinion sought

First off this isn't about bashing either system. My goal is to get the best tool for the job, which in this case is largely flight stuff, with some stalking and shooting from the car too. I have a 300-800 and D2x that I use exclusively for anything at range.
I'm looking at adding a 300 f2.8 to my system. Initially, being Nikon based, I obviously thought immediately of the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8D VR. This would live on my D1x for now but I also intend to replace this with a second D2x soon (xmas bonus time ). However from research around the web I have the impression that the Canon 300mm f2.8 L IS USM is the superior lens and excels in its performance with teleconvertors so I want to be open minded about the decision.
Given that the financial outlay is roughly comparable (assuming I take a 1D Mark IIN body).

I see drawbacks to the Canon solution as being:-
Smaller crop factor.
Fewer megapixels - not sure how relevant this really is.
No backup for the body in my kit.
2 sets of batteries and stuff - I have this now with the D2x and D1x so not really an issue.

On the plus side I see:-
More flexible - 1.4 & 2x perform well whilst only 1.4 on the Nikkor.
Rumored better AF performance - again, I'm not certain of this.
Option is open to access to longer lens IS.

It appears from the flexibility point of view, and discounting the 1.7x on the Nikon, as I'm led to believe it's not so good, I achieve greater flexibility and sharper results with the Canon which is a compelling argument.

Opinions and other considerations would be greatly welcomed, I’m very keen to make the right choice here.

Regards

JohnS

Hi I would be surprised if there is any real difference between the latest nikkor or Canon offering in fact the nikkor may be better optically as it is a very recent design with the latest nano crystal coatings when I looked into buying a 300 f2.8 after doing a lot of research, reading as much about the two systems as I could get hold of and using and renting a few different lenses and bodies from both groups I found the biggest difference was down to the operators skill, as for the two times been better than the 1.7 it is the other way round I found the 1.7 gives very similar image quality to the 1.4 on the 300 whereas the two times you can see the difference wide-open and need to stop down at least one-stop, you've already pointed out the drawbacks in having to different systems .

All the best

Phillip.

Ps I ended up getting something completely different due to the fact of the poor state of my very arthritic hands

John,

When my kit got stolen some time back I had a chance to do a rethink - this rethink was centered around the performance of the glass not the body. I bought into 'glass' as the glass makes the image and you have it longer than a transient body.

I tested 500mm's and there was nothing between the glass between brands, however rhe Canon IS was the defining factor in my choice. I would expect the same to be said of the two 300/2.8's

I have the Canon 300mm F2.8 and would say it is sharper than the 500mm - on a bench test, because it can utilise more cross sensors (its F2.8) can lock on faster ( and hold tracking better) than the 500mm in poor light. I don't have any trouble with a lack of defination when using the X1.4 on either, however (due to the magnification) the 2X on the 500 needs to be used carefully. When shooting against Nikon users I appear to get more 'in focus' shots - don't know if this is the lens/body. It is not the 'user' as I tried the Nikon setup as well.
I know John Gardner has thoughts on this and maybe he will post them.

Now, if I where you what would I do, well that depends upon if you are intending to migrate to Canon.

If you are staying with the Nikon - all those accessories cost a lot of money - carrying a double of everything ( but acheiveing no backup benefit) would appear to be problematic. The weight issue will mean you will possibly not carry both brands hence have the flexibility when you need it most. I have lost count of the amount of time I have brought the 500/300 ad gone back the car for the 300/500.

Now if you are intending to switch - then switch, and as fast as finances allow and sell the Nikon kit - but make the decision on glass not body.

PS I have heard good things about the Nikon X1.7

PPS given Dave Courtneys recent post about agencies and Mega Pixels - I would consider this carefully with respect to your aims.

Can't answer this yet but I'm about to pick up a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 VR lens and 1.7x as soon as the funds clear my account and I can draw out the cash! Both lenses are very good but I have heard that Nikon has the edge and is slightly sharper but I would expect both to be razor. What I would say is that everyone I know (including a couple of well known pros) who has the 1.7x raves about it. I haven't heard anyone say it's poor. Rene may well have the 1.7x for his 200/2 lens so may be able to comment first hand.

Not much help I know, but just my two penneth.

John

Another lens worth considering is the non-is Canon 300mm f4. Takes 1.4 converter and has excellent pedigree. It's so light that IS isn't a must. I've recently bought a secondhand one and plan to sell my 100-400 isl instead. You could have a couple of holidays abroad with the money saved. Peter

Hi John

I use the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS Canon and it is without a doubt the sharpest and fastest focusing lens I own (! have a good range of Canon lenses from 17mm to 500mm). It's performance with both extenders is also very good.

I also have friends who use the Nikon 300 f2.8 and they say they are very pleased with it and say it performs well with the x1.4 and x1.7 but not so good with the x2. My guess is that optically they are very close but from all I have read the Canon edges it - I don't know how the two AF systems compare but I gather at this time Canon still has a very small edge. The Canon also weighs a little less and this can be a consideration. With regard to Canon having fewer pixels I don't see this as a problem because on the plus side the larger pixels produce an overall better file for interpolation if needed.

If you didn't already own the Nikon system I would say go for Canon but working two systems is not good and I speak from experience as I did it for a while.

I don't really think I have been much help - hope you make the right choice!

Regards
David

John,
I would reckon that the difference in optical and mechanical performance between the two would be so marginal that it would only be relevant to a couple of geeks arguing on an internet forum.
The grass always seems greener on the other side of wherever we are.
I use a Canon 300/2.8 a lot and I have friends who use Tokina 300/2.8s and Sigma ones too the difference in our photos is not what lens make we are using, more how we use them.

You could quite easilly lose a flight shot by switching between different camera bodies.....one you will know intuitively and the other you will be fumbling about with until you get to know it a bit better.

This forum does seem a little loaded with Canon gear, but again in the real world most pros I know use Nikon gear, certainly all the AP sports boys I bump into are using Nikon as are a lot of the freelancers.

Stick with what you're comfortable with.

John

Some really good responses there chaps, and I thank you all enormously for taking the time. Just to be clear I'm not thinking of changing system completely as I’m really comfortable with the D2x and 300-800 even though the walk up the hill at Lathkill Dale with the weight nearly killed me! And all things considered I would rather stay with the one system but I do want the best tool for the job.
The access to IS on longer lenses is attractive and the Canon body would open up this option to me, although checking the Grouse shots from the weekend I see that I managed to shoot the 300-800 from the car down to 1/50 at 800mm and still get a sharp image so perhaps not absolutely necessary for the way I work.

JohnG – I’d be really very interested in your practical experience when you get the lens.

Many Regards

JohnS

Have you considered the Nikon 200-400mm AF-S VR Zoom? It is more versatile and lighter for handholding (just). Maybe worth considering given your stated requirements. A lot of Nikon photographers swear by this lens.

I have the Canon setup and would personally go for the 300mm f2.8L IS but if you already have a resonabl Nikon setup I wouldn't be tempted to get a Canon rig as well.

Rob

Hi John,

I had the Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR for a few months and found it to be optically superb and the AF lightning fast with 1.4x and 1.7x converters, 2x tc was still pretty good in bright conditions. However I then sold this and the 2x TC for the 200-400mm VR which in my opinion is the better lens because of the zoom facility. So this coupled with the 300-800mm would make a very versatile kit.

Hope that helps.
Regards Chris
www.c-m-l.com

"So this coupled with the 300-800mm would make a very versatile kit"

And a very heavy one

I'll let you know what I think when I get mine.

John