Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Prime
?: Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR vs. 300mm f/2.8 VR II
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lokatz" data-source="post: 643436" data-attributes="member: 43924"><p>Hi Rick, </p><p></p><p>I compared those two a few months ago, but only for wildlife, meaning I only looked at the long end and scaled up the 70-200 (@ 200) image accordingly. The 70-200 is a great lens, but in that comparison, it was bound to lose (and did) because the 300/4 PF is no slouch, either.</p><p></p><p>I also <a href="https://nikonites.com/telephoto/39990-300-pf-versus-200-500-a.html?highlight=300+pf#axzz4vwNbUFwx" target="_blank">posted </a>the results of my (limited) eval of the 300/4 PF against the Nikon 200-500 a while ago. </p><p></p><p>Hope this helps! I am waiting for a Tamron 150-500 G2 and will take it through the same tests, which will become the basis of my decision whether to buy this Tamron or the Nikon 200-500, in addition to my 300/4 PF, which I will still keep. I am eyeing the Tamron for its lower weight and longer reach, so if it is close to the Nikon, as some reports suggest, I'll go with that one.</p><p></p><p>Lothar</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lokatz, post: 643436, member: 43924"] Hi Rick, I compared those two a few months ago, but only for wildlife, meaning I only looked at the long end and scaled up the 70-200 (@ 200) image accordingly. The 70-200 is a great lens, but in that comparison, it was bound to lose (and did) because the 300/4 PF is no slouch, either. I also [URL="https://nikonites.com/telephoto/39990-300-pf-versus-200-500-a.html?highlight=300+pf#axzz4vwNbUFwx"]posted [/URL]the results of my (limited) eval of the 300/4 PF against the Nikon 200-500 a while ago. Hope this helps! I am waiting for a Tamron 150-500 G2 and will take it through the same tests, which will become the basis of my decision whether to buy this Tamron or the Nikon 200-500, in addition to my 300/4 PF, which I will still keep. I am eyeing the Tamron for its lower weight and longer reach, so if it is close to the Nikon, as some reports suggest, I'll go with that one. Lothar [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Prime
?: Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR vs. 300mm f/2.8 VR II
Top