Nikon 300mm F2.8 ED AF

<p>I have the chance to pick up one of these, hard case and all. It's 15 years old, in great shape, and seems very sharp. She gave it to me for a few days to test. I was going to purchase the Nikon 300 F4, but I'm leaning towards this 2.8. I'd add the 1.4 teleconverter and shoot birds and wild life. The owner is asking $2100. Any thoughts on this price?</p>

<p>Well, Bjorn Rorslett doesn't rate this model any better than a 4 (out of 5) . . .</p>

<p>http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_tele.html</p>

<p>"More bulky than its MF cousin, does not handle equally well and it cannot quite match its predecessor in optical quality, either. I ended up replacing it with the older MF version. It needs to be stopped down at least to f/4 to give sharp images, wide open it is a bit on the soft side. On the other hand, it takes on the TC-301 teleconverter in a better way than the MF lens."</p>

<p>If you have to stop it down to F4 anyway, save your money and just get the 300 F4. Another thing to consider is repair parts availability. From what I've read, even the AFI lenses can be a paperweight if you run into a problem as Nikon no longer has parts for them. If you want to shoot birds/wildlife, I'd look for an MF 500mm F4P at the price of this woman's lens. I think the 2.8 AF version shouldn't be worth more than 1500 bucks.<br /> </p>

<p>Is this the "screwdriver" AF version? I think the old AF-S version is not that much more expensive. I would check around and see whether you can get an AF-I or AF-S for a little more, as only the AF-I or AF-S are compatible with the TC-14E. Between those, I would favor the AF-S since it is newer.</p>

<p>For the screwdriver AF version, you need to find a 3rd-party TC to maintain AF.</p>

<p>I have the same model. It is the screwdriver version. I disagree about poor optical quality. I find the optical quality outstanding. Generally sharp corner to corner. Very little light fall off in the corners. A little slow in autofocus, but not prohibitively slow. The weakest aspect of the lens is chromatic aberrations in high contrast or backlit scenes. CA's are magnified by the use of teleconverters. Nikon does not make a teleconverter that will maintain autofocus for this lens. I use Tamron teleconverters. I have a 1.4x and 2x. I use the 1.4x on a regular basis and it gives excellent results with little or no negative effect on image quality or sharpness. The lens is heavy and requires a sturdy tripod and head. I bought mine on ebay about 1 year ago and paid $1,580. If you can afford an AF-S version, I would go for that. I use my lens a lot. I love it.</p>

<p>BTW, how accurate is the "15 years old" part?</p>

<p>Nikon introduced the AF-I version in 1992, the AF-S in 1996, AF-S II in 2001, and the AF-S VR around 2004. Any screwdriver AF version should be from prior to 1992.</p>

<p>I just want to verify the exact version, as the features are difference and so is the value.</p>

<p>I just knew she shot with this lens on a safari in 1994. Must be older than 1992 as your facts indicate. Although it is extremely sharp and fun to use, I've decided to go with the Nikon 300 F4. I'll try to sell this one for her. She is an older woman and a friend at the local camera club. It doesn't sound like she can get $2000. Thanks for all the info ... Ray.</p>

<p>Ray<br>

I have the Nikon 300mm 2.8 ED AF you speak of it, is the second version of the AF 300 2.8 that was introduced in 1988, my copy I'm sure is 19-20 years old. The lens is sometimes a little slow and sometimes hunts for focus, which does mean missed shots, but optically it is superb, I still use it all the time and I shoot is wide open quite often, no point in having a 2.8 and not using it.<br>

I think the price asked is too high for this lens, taking in to account the lack of parts and possible break down why spend $2000 on something you might not be able to fix in a year or so. I would never part with my lens unless I won the lottery, mines a beater but I only paid $1300 and have had it 8 years, I'm not sure I would pay $1500 today. Jay is right for bird photography a MF 500mmF4 is a much better bet for similar money or even a MF 400mm 3.5 if I was buying a long lens for under $2000 I would seriously consider a MF lens if this 300mm breaks it probably is unrepairable unlike an MF lens. Locally there is a 300mm F4 AFS-ED in mint condition for $1100 which is a better deal, the problem I find with the 2.8 is size and it is only viable on a monopod not exactly a walk around lens where as the F4 is. I quite often use my 180mm 2.8 with a1.4 converter instead of the 300 just to try and be discreet as there's no discreet with the 2.8 and monopod. </p><div></div>

<p>Steve ... thanks for the info. When you say there is a 300 F4 AFS available, where is local as I would consider a used one. By the way great shot!</p>

<p>Ray look on the C. list Santa Barbara Ca<br>

Steve</p>

<p>I take Bjorn's ratings with a grain of salt. I think there may be sample differences, but two of my best lenses are rated a little lower on his chart.</p>

<p>I agree with Michael. The 400mm F3.5 AIS is constantly given questionable ratings even with more than one sample....mine is simply outstanding with none of the quirks mentioned in the lens reviews by Bjorn. It works great with an F4 as well as D200. I have not used it with the D700 as at the same time I got the camera I got a 300mm F4 AFS new ....and I am spoiled by this really outstanding lightweight lens. What a joy to use on any of the three cameras mentioned. I would recommend to Ray this lens, with optional TC-14EII if necessary.</p>

<p>Here's a shot with the 300 F4 AFS and D700 shot in a "highly mobile" situation this weekend in my backyard....inundated by about 40 of these at once. This shot probably not possible with 400 F3.5 AIS - just to big and unwieldy.</p><div></div>

<p>I've got this lens, and love it. I had one that was in fair condition a couple years ago and sold it - which was a HUGE mistake. I picked up one in mint condition for $1600, and it has yet to give me any reason to want the AF-S version.</p>

<p>In fact, I shot with it tonight under horrible lighting. It performed like a champ, although my skills are a bit rusty. Here's a sample (no processing except for a big crop)...</p>

<p><img src="http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c385/BourbonCowboy/_DSC8342.jpg" alt="" /></p>