?: Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR vs. 300mm f/2.8 VR II

greyhoundrick

New member
Hello everyone,

Thank you in advance for your expertise!


I was wondering what thoughts you have on the 300mm f/4 PF in comparison to the 300mm f/2.8VRII.

Obviously the cost is much lower for the f/4 version, but the thing that interests me the most is overall sharpness given everything else equal. Does the PF version stack up to the f/2.8?

I know sharpness is a large encompassing term and there are many variables (i.e. hand holding skills, subject movement, settings etc.) but do you think that the f/2.8 is priced at its amount due to the fact that it is a faster lens, has better IQ, better build etc? And if so, how would you compare the 2 side by side for IQ?

The only pro lenses I have ever tested side by side were the 70-200mm VR I vs. the 300mm f/2.8non VR and even though the 70-200 was superb, I felt the 300mm overall was just a step up. Was wondering if the same incremental performance might be similar with the 300mm PF VR vs. the 300mm f/2.8VR.

Thanks so much for your opinions! They are very helpful
clear.png


best,

Rick
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
Can't say I've been able to do a side by side comparison of the 300/f4 va the 300/f2.8. I got the 300/f4 specifically for its compact size and easier carrying than the 200-500/5.6, and haven't needed another stop of light from the 300/f4.

I suspect the 300/2.8 is probably a little sharper at f4 than the 300/4 is wide open, but at smaller apertures I'm not sure how much sharper it would be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

lokatz

Senior Member
Hi Rick, German mag ColorFoto, which I like for its diligent and consistent testing, reviewed both this year. They gave the f/2.8 72.5 points, while the f/4 PF received 83.5. Surprisingly, they found that the larger lens was softer wide open. Here are the pics they included in the review (from left-to-right: center, edge, corner):

300mm comp.jpg


More light is always good, but the decision nevertheless seemed pretty clear cut to me.

Lothar
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
The only one I know who has the new 300mm f/4 lens is Jake @BackdoorHippie - I *think* he even uses a teleconverter on it. According to him, it isn't too heavy either, and it looks to be very sharp.
 

greyhoundrick

New member
Can't say I've been able to do a side by side comparison of the 300/f4 va the 300/f2.8. I got the 300/f4 specifically for its compact size and easier carrying than the 200-500/5.6, and haven't needed another stop of light from the 300/f4.

I suspect the 300/2.8 is probably a little sharper at f4 than the 300/4 is wide open, but at smaller apertures I'm not sure how much sharper it would be.

Thank you Charlie! Great info. Can you tell me how your 300/4 compares to other lenses you have with regard to sharpness and IQ?

take care!

rick
 

greyhoundrick

New member
Hi Rick, German mag ColorFoto, which I like for its diligent and consistent testing, reviewed both this year. They gave the f/2.8 72.5 points, while the f/4 PF received 83.5. Surprisingly, they found that the larger lens was softer wide open. Here are the pics they included in the review (from left-to-right: center, edge, corner):

View attachment 270493


More light is always good, but the decision nevertheless seemed pretty clear cut to me.

Lothar

Wow Lothar! That is excellent info. Thanks so much!

I wonder how the 300/4 compares with the 70-200 vr?

best to you,

Rick
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Thanks so much Cindy! Really great input!! :)

I did a little digging to find some of Jake's comments. Rather than to post his direct quotes (don't want him getting a bunch of notifications that he's been quoted), I'll post the threads from where they originated.

Different lens, but my Sigma 150-600mm Sport has gathered far more dust than action since I picked up the 300mm. Sharpness of a prime cannot be matched. That, a 1.4x and a 1.7x in my pocket and I can walk in the woods all day with no shoulder ache - it's lighter than my 24-120mm. Still not sure why I haven't sold the Sigma, but I know I'll need it if I ever get back to Rocky Mt Natl Park.

https://nikonites.com/telephoto/39990-300-pf-versus-200-500-a.html#ixzz4vuAeH6F2

The 300mm f2.8 VRii is an amazing lens. For a pro sports and/or wildlife shooter I believe it's a necessity. I don't know that I'd go with the original non-VR version. The size and weight mean you're never going to be anchored to a monopod with it (not that that's a bad thing).

That said, I can't speak highly enough about the 300mm f4 PF. It's incredibly sharp, and incredible portable. It lives on my D500 and works really well with both the 1.4x and 1.7x TC's (version ii is what I have). It's light enough that it doesn't need a tripod collar and I can walk for hours with it on my shoulder with no fatigue. And its weight makes it incredibly easy to use handheld. Whatever sharpness the pixel peepers will tell me I'm losing to the big lens (I can't see it) is easily made up for by its portability and the weight factor. Absolutely brilliant lens.


https://nikonites.com/prime/38722-300mm-2-8-a.html#ixzz4vuAsQMyD

Then if you go over to this thread, pages 33 & 34 have 4 of Jake's photos that I *think* are taken with his 300mm f/4 PF with a 1.4x teleconverter attached. They all show 420mm as the focal length.

https://nikonites.com/d500/36698-post-your-d500-shots-33.html#axzz4vuC5ABqR
 

lokatz

Senior Member
I wonder how the 300/4 compares with the 70-200 vr?

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 posted 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
 
Last edited:

Iansky

Senior Member
I have the 300mm f4 PF and have to say it is amazing and often shoot wide open without any issues and also at f5.6, I use it with my D500 (450mm equivalent) mostly for car events and very occasional bird shots but due to it being so small and light it is a lens you can have on your camera all day and carry with ease - no tripod or monopod needed.

I have also used it with the 1.4 convertor (630mm equivalent) and have not noticed any loss of performance or quality and still small and light enough to hand carry / shoot all day.

Here are a couple of links to events shot with the lens:

571 Photography: Slimbridge visit

571 Photography: Autumn Classic
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Neither the 300mm f4 PF + 1.4x TCii have been off my D500 since I decided to make the D500 the only camera I took on vacation at the end of August. With just the lens I have no problem shooting wide open, with the TC I stop down one click (f6.3). This shot was taken last week with that combination ... thru my kitchen window.
 

Iansky

Senior Member
Stunning shot there Jake that shows just what that combination can do - Nikon have certainly got it right as a sensibly priced sport / wildlife shooting combo for those of us who could not afford / justify a D5.
 
Top