NIkon 300mm F2.8 vs. F4 PF

[Lazarus52980]

With the new 300mm F4 PF lens released, I find myself in a conundrum. I have seen a lot of good reviews of the new 300mm F4 and I now find myself wondering if one more full stop of light is really worth $3800... Anyone have any experience with these lenses and/or any thoughts on this?

 

[Anubis]

how much low light shooting are you gonna be doing when you need that extra stop? the other great benefit of the F2.8 is you can use a TC on it and make it a range monster and retain a lower Fstop

really depends on the shooting you are gonna be doing. can you control the light? if yes get the F/4

 

[Lazarus52980]

how much low light shooting are you gonna be doing when you need that extra stop? the other great benefit of the F2.8 is you can use a TC on it and make it a range monster and retain a lower Fstop

really depends on the shooting you are gonna be doing. can you control the light? if yes get the F/4

Only rarely can I control the light, since I mostly shoot outdoors and shoot people. I guess I need to save up.

 

[CuriousMike]

I'd look at this in a few ways.

I think the biggest question should be - how often do you need f/2.8 - do you need that extra few feet of DOF control? Or are you in dim light all the time?

You say you shoot mostly outdoors ( good light ) and people ( unknown light. )

How good is your body? If you have a recent DX or FX body, boost the ISO up a stop or two to regain the f/2.8->f/4.0 you "lose".

You and I are in different econospheres - the fact that you're contemplating a 300 f/2.8 means you could afford it if you need it.

In my econosphere, the loss of DOF and light can be mitigated with framing (to an extent) and pushing the ISO.

If you need reach and add the TC, they all are going to work on the f/4 or the f/2.8 - you're not likely going to want to use more than the 1.4x to preserve detail - so you're shooting f/5.6 and f/4.

 

[imported_Irse]

Buy used. Bought my 300 2.8 from KEH years ago. I forgot how much I paid for it but it was somewhat reasonable.

 

[Paladin3]

I used to carry a 300/4 in my bag on a daily basis and then checked a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 out of the gear locker when needed. I wouldn't consider myself poorly geared with a 300/4, but the 2.8 is a more capable lens when you need the extra stop to make the shot.

Nothing really to consider, other than your budget.

 

[CuriousMike]

The new 300 f/4 has VR, where the previous one did not.

Renting the f/2.8 might be fun.

Hell, that's an idea - why don't you rent both and compare?

 

[tdawg]

If it were me, I go with the new PF f/4 lens. Just the drastic decrease in weight from the f/2.8 version means I'd actually take it with me some place. Plus it's small size won't be as conspicuous in public.

I had the older 300 f/4 D lens back in the day and really enjoyed it, but it was heavy and I didn't quite know what I really wanted to shoot with it (apart from the Blue Angels that came into town each year).

Outdoors I don't think there's a reason to get the 2.8 unless you absolutely need that extra stop and/or you're shooting sports. At the focal length, there's going to be plenty of compression at f/4 so that shouldn't be an issue either. And as others said, on a modern camera, f/4 should be fine since you have more ISO flexibility; I shot a concert in a dark club and captured photos just fine using a 16-35 f/4 lens.

 

[Lazarus52980]

To answer a few of the questions posed, I often shoot sports, but it is mostly my children (all still fairly young) playing sports.

As far as body, I use a Nikon D750, and have a D5200 as a backup

 

[tdawg]

I think you will be more than satisfied with the new f/4. In the dark, put that on the D750 and the ISO capabilities erase the 1-stop advantage of the f/2.8.

That $3800 savings could go towards a couple of speedlights, some fun lens like the 16mm fisheye, or just back in the bank for a future vacation with great landscapes to capture.

 

[CuriousMike]

If your kids are in gym lighting, then get the f/2.8.

If they're outdoors, get the f/4.

I'll be that guy that posts random photos of my 70-200 f/4 that really has nothing to do with the post at hand, but will illustrate my own agenda and children.

D610

D7100

 

[turtile]

You could always get the F4 and upgrade to an F2.8 later. I haven't seen any reviews that test the t-stop of the F4. The difference might not be that bad if the F4 has good transmission.

Do you have a monopod? Shooting with the 2.8 is hard to get stable once your arms are fatigued from holding it for hours!

 

[BarkingGhostar]

One-stop shop ...

How many can say there was no way they couldn't have compensated by shutter or ISO or exposure compensation to make up for one stop of f? Part of being a good photographer is working within the means you have, and having one stop less forces you to rely on the other tools at your disposal.

 

[Lazarus52980]

One-stop shop ...

How many can say there was no way they couldn't have compensated by shutter or ISO or exposure compensation to make up for one stop of f? Part of being a good photographer is working within the means you have, and having one stop less forces you to rely on the other tools at your disposal.

Truth be told, I have never really understood this thought process. Most professions are all about having the right tool for the job, but I have heard this said before about photographers that "making due" with lesser tools makes you better? I guess it leads to a philosophy question of "Is it better to get the shot I want now, or learn to get better shots later".

Am I understanding the idea correctly?

 

[CuriousMike]

I don't have all the tools in my garage.
I'm also not a pro.

Sometimes I have to use an extension-on-an-extension to reach the nut.
I could buy a longer extension, but I don't have it with me.
Good thing I know how to click extensions together.

 

[Lazarus52980]

Based on the info from this article, I think I will get the new 300MM F4 PF lens.

However, I called around and checked all the major sites and everyone is back ordered.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Truth be told, I have never really understood this thought process. Most professions are all about having the right tool for the job, but I have heard this said before about photographers that "making due" with lesser tools makes you better? I guess it leads to a philosophy question of "Is it better to get the shot I want now, or learn to get better shots later".

Am I understanding the idea correctly?

It's not that it makes you better. It's that you do what you have to do to get the shot, with the equipment at hand. A clear shot (i.e. fast-enough shutter speed) with a lot of high ISO grain is better than a blurred shot with less ISO noise. "Can I see grandma's face clearly but with some visible speckling" vs. "Is grandma's face such a motion-blurred mess that it's not even worth keeping this photo"

EVERY shot you take will help you get better shots down the road, whether you then have better equipment or not.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Frankly, with modern DSLR's able to easily shoot at ISO1600 to ISO6400 and beyond the need for an extra stop in the lens isn't really there anymore with the exception of DOF control. For ultimate sharpness you seldom want to shoot wide open anyway.

The new lens with VR will just be that much more useful and having a lens that you don't take with you because it's too big and heavy doesn't buy you much.


Brian