wich is best 300 mm 2.8

[pierre_levasseur]

<p>Wich lense is best and wich is best regarding quality versus price between :</p>

<p><strong>1- Nikon AF-S 300mm f,2,8 D Mark 1</strong><br>

<strong>2- Nikkor 300 F2.8 D ED INTERNAL FOCUS AF-I</strong><br>

<strong>3- Sigma 300 F2.8 SIGMA APO D EX HSM Nikon mount</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

regards,</p>

<p>pierre</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The "best" one is the most expensive one you can afford. If you cannot afford it, how great its quality may be is moot.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>That would depend on how you define "best". For example, if you buy the Sigma, you'll have enough left over to take it somewhere interesting and shoot it. OK, that aside...</p>

<p>I've owned the AF-S II, I currently own the AF-I, and I have shot the Sigma and the AF-S I. The only differences between the AF-S I and II are mechanical, the optics and the AF motor are the same, so I know a lot about the "look" of the AF-S II that applies to the AF-S I as well, and some observations on the truly intense physical presence of the AF-S I. So, here's some observations (I'll refer to them simply as the AF-I, AF-S, and HSM)...</p>

<p>Image quality: the AF-I, hands down. Sharp, contrasty, and gorgeous bokeh. This lens was designed during the popularity of the 300mm as a "fashion" lens, so it was built to do double duty. It simply takes better pictures than the newer AF-S I or II. I was a little troubled by yhe sharpness of the AF-S (and I tried 3 of them, but other photographers seem to think it was fine) and the bokeh is busier. Don't discount bokeh with a 300mm f2.8. No matter what you shoot with it (sports, wildlife, fashion) it's so long and fast that there's going to be defocused background, so that's a characteristic of every shot you make with the lens. The HSM is more squiffy than either Nikon, really harsh backgrounds, and the one I shot seemed to flare easy.</p>

<p>Autofocus: Either the AF-S or the HSM. The HSM is slightly slower, but they both really move on a big battery camera (D2X, D3, etc) and are quite acceptable on a small battery camera (D90, D7000). They're both quiet, too. The AF-I is another story: insanely slow focusing on a small battery camera, like molasses on my D100 or D90. Nikon never thought people would be shooting $4,000 lenses on $200-300 cameras, and that's what D100 and D90 are inside (N80 and N65, basically). It's acceptable on my D2X or D3. It makes a "whirring" sound when it focuses that's less obnoxious than a "screwdriver" lens, but not as quiet as an AF-S or HSM. And it makes "clunking" noises when focus direction changes. This is normal, I've shot more than one.</p>

<p>Focus override: That's the most annoying thing about the AF-I. It has the worst focus override of any lens I own. The focus selector has 3 positions A/A-M/M. The A-M position is the one that lets you override AF, you can manually focus with the huge focus ring as long as the AF motor is engaged (half press shutter button or holding down the AF-ON button, if you've set your camera that way). Let up, and the focus ring "free wheels" and does nothing. The AF-S and HSM are what you're used to. The HSM focuses backwards (Canon direction) so there's always a mental "what?" the first time you override focus, though.</p>

<p>Size and weight: The HSM, hands down. The lenses go up in both size and weight: HSM, AF-I, AF-S. If you're planning on having it on a tripod full time, this isn't that important, aside from the extra 700g (1.5 lb) in your backpack. If you handhold or use a monopod, it's an issue. A 300mm f2.8 is a "weight on a stick", like a blacksmith's hammer. Most of the weight is in the front, where the elements are huge and the barrel is widest. Take the weight, multiply by gravity and length, and you get torque.</p>

<ul>

<li>HSM - 2.4kg, 215mm long, call it 5.0 N-m of torque to manage</li>

<li>AF-I - 2.95kg, 241mm long, 6.9 N-m of torque</li>

<li>AF-S - 3.1kg, 269mm long, 8.2 N-m of torque</li>

</ul>

<p>OK, that difference doesn't sound like much looking at it on the page, but if you shoot them side by side, the HSM actually feels "light" compared to either Nikon, and the AF-S is especially a killer. That's why Nikon did a total mechanical redesign and made the II, because the I was the heaviest 300mm f2.8 on the market at the time. Canon put stabilization in their 300mm f2.8 at that time, and ended up lighter and shorter. Nikon shooters were going "what? how?"</p>

<p>Age issues: The AF-I is 15 years old. It takes a different polarizer than the more current lenses, and that can be very hard to find. So can a hood. I hate to think about repairs. Mine, knock on wood, has never needed them. The AF-S is 3 generations discontinued, and might also have repair problems.</p>

<p>Note about hoods: make sure your lens comes with one. They're expensive. The AF-S is the worst of all, a new hood is around $400.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The "best" one is the most expensive one you can afford.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd say that, price aside, if your greatest concern is holding it and lugging it around, the HSM is clearly "best". If you're after pure image quality, the AF-I is best. If you're after the fastest AF, the AF-S is best.</p>

<p>wizfaq 300mm</p>

[pierre_levasseur]

<p>thanks</p>

<p>PL</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>Answer: <strong>1- Nikon AF-S 300mm f,2,8 D Mark 1</strong></p>

[joel_blacher]

<p>I've spent a lot of time with all of the Nikkor 2.8's and I concur with Joeseph...AF-I is the nicest 2.8 optically. The MF mechanism? I'm just so used to it that it doesn't bother me anymore. Takes even the 20eII without a hitch, and focus speed is close enough to the AFS lenses for my purpose. I did not care for the Sigma until it was down to 5.6, and that's not why I use a 300/2.8. I think the Nikkor VR version is also fantastic, but out of the group you asked about...the one I kept is the AF-I lens. I'm shooting wildlife from a tripod with this lens using all three Nikkor tc's.</p>

[paul_b.1]

<p>The AF-I is the only Nikkor 300/2,8 (ever) with 4 ED-s , and declared CA free, even at F 2,8 !</p>