300mm f4 AF-S or 80-400mm VR f4.5-5.6?

[je ne regrette rien]

I use a Nikon F5 film camera, own an 80-200 f 2.8 AF-D zoom and am considering a

longer lens, but not too expensive.

 

The use would be nature photography, maybe sometimes wildlife, furthermore

street photography and on the countryside.

 

Any idea on which lens to prefer between the 80-400 VR zoom and the 300 AF-S?

 

There are the usual elements: speed, weight, zoom versus prime, VR.

 

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

Luca

[ronald_moravec1]

How about the 70/300 VR? The 300 AF-S is a nice lens and easy to travel, but pretty long for a single tele.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

The 300 AF-S is probably going to have higher IQ & as a prime will focus faster. It can also be used with TCs (I use the TC-17E II) well with this lens. I love mine & was recommended it over the 80-400 as the 300 has a constant f/4.

 

Oh, used on a tripod you'll want to get a new lens collar as the original one is not the best.

 

Lil

[erik_loza]

300mm, no brainer.

[arlon]

The big VR is decently sharp for a zoom, slow to focus, very slow, needs a lot of light. Useless for moving subjects unless in broad daylight. It's only virtue is being able to carry one lens when you know you are going to need several focal lengths. If you need really sharp images or images of moving objects, I'd go for the fixed 300. I use a 300 f2.8 a lot more than the zoom. The zoom is handy for hiking or bike riding if you can deal with the weight. It's a fairly heavy lens too. If I could only keep one, it'd be the 300 without a second thought. VR lenses also seem to break when you need them the most..

[Dieter Schaefer]

I own both, but use them exclusively on a DSLR - even 400mm is fairly short on a 35mm camera for wildlife (in my case: birds). I have the 300/4 AF-S most of the time paired with a TC-14E or a TC-17EII - in the latter case AF is usable provided there is enough light. The only thing the 300 is missing is VR. Similarly, the 80-400 VR would really benefit from being upgraded to AF-S. Only you can make the call - VR necessary or not, possibility to attach an extender necessary or not, zoom necessary or not. With your intended use, I'd be favoring the 80-400 zoom.

[Two23]

I've been using the 80-400mm VR almost daily. Not sure why person above thinks it "delicate." It has two plusses. It's very versatile and the VR works well. It has two negatives. The AF is very slow and the lens is f5.6. Lens is very sharp--I've had numerous photos from it published. I bought it to photo from a small boat, where the VR was crucial. If Nikon came out with a 300mm f4 VR I would have to take a very, very serious look at it. Until then, I stick with the 80-400mm VR since fast AF is not something I need. I also own the 70-200mm f2.8 VR. Great lens, but nowhere near long enough for wildlife even on my D80.

 

 

Kent in SD

[wei_who]

I own both lenses.

The 300mm/F4/AFS is simply the best.

The 80-400mmVR is very slow and soft after 340mm (maybe just my sample).

If you?re happy with your 80-200mm the choices are:

* with VR, slow AF: 80-340mmVR

* without VR but extra 1.7 times (TC-17EII), fast AF: 80-200,300, 510mm

[eddy_clerx]

Recently bought this zoom. So it soft?..I think I agree. Although the lens can compete with my old 300mm f/4,5Ais-mf-EDIF, but I think the new 300af f/4 is more crisp. VR works great! For nature snapshots the zoom super.

Eddy