300 2.8 question

[john_demarco]

I am saving up some cash for a 300 2.8 at the moment, although I would ultimately like to purchase an AF-S version they are still a bit

pricey. I have also been looking around and doing research on the AF-I version, as well as the pre AF-I ED- AF version. I know parts for

the AF-I lenses are virtually extinct, and repairs can be difficult. A thought on the pre AF-I lens is that in theory would they last longer

because they have no internal focus motor?

I know that I would have to use a third party T/C for the motorless version to keep the A/F function. I would love to be able to save some

$, so what is the opinion of you Nikon experts? Should I keep saving for an AF-S, or maybe give an older version a shot and save some

money? I should add that I shoot a lot of sports, and use a monopod so VR Is not too big a deal. I am currently shooting with a D200,

D40X, and a D7100 should be coming for Christmas, yes I am aware that the D40X will not A/F with the old version. That body will be

relegated to an emergency spare. Thank you for any responses, and taking the time to help me out. Happy shooting everyone!

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I hate to even suggest this, but have you checked the Sigma 300 2.8 for Nikon? I had one for Canon that blew my socks off. I was able to get my copy for about $1500 on eBay while it was bringing $2600 new (if memory serves). They are all higher now, of course.</p>

<p>The Sigma required a Sigma teleconverter for fastest possible autofocus. (That was the 1.4x. I never tried the 2x.) It will work with proprietary TCs, but not optimally, I am told.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS - the new one or the previous version.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Agree. The Sigma 300/2.8 is excellent, only drawback is it has no VR. For about the same price you can get the 120-300mm Sigma zoom which has OS. It's really good too, but huge and heavy. The older 120-300mm (non-"Sport") has exactly the same optics and can be picked up for $1000 cheaper. I suggest you consider these options seriously as they are all very good alternatives although they don't have the magic word "Nikon" on them.</p>

[john_demarco]

Thank you very much for the informative responses so far! I never really thought about the Sigmas. To update my original

post, I should have mentioned that I am definitely looking for a prime lens. I have an 80-200 AF-S that works great with

my TC14E. The new lens would be used to supplement my zoom. Best regards, and thanks again!

[nigel_deacon]

<p>If you want to get the full benefit of the 300mm f/2.8 you should buy an AF-S version. Although mine is the VRII version, I would be happy to live without the VR as it doesn't do a lot of good in my action-oriented photography. The AF-I is optically very good, but the AF is pretty slow - very slow compared to the recent AF-S models. For sports use, the AF-S models are definitely to be preferred. The earlier AF-I models will now be more than 20 years old.<br>

The AF-I has an internal motor, so I don't see why it would not focus with the D40x? Only the AF and the AF-N versions need a motor built into the camera body.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Nigel - I think "the old version" meant the pre-AF-I version - which (like the comment about the third-party teleconverter) would be an issue with the D40x. Though with a D7100 coming, I'd not be losing too much sleep over the D40x. :-)</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I had the 300/f4 AFS, then got a deal on the very first version 300/f2.8 AF(screwdriver operation).<br /> IMO, the optics are better in the early 2.8AF than the highly regarded 300/4AFS. I sold my 300/f4 AFS for about what I paid for the 2.8AF without reservation after comparing the two myself.<br /> I use the 300/2.8AF for sports. Tested the AF with my fast running 15 yr old son running straight at me. On the D3s, no problem with tracking. The D7100 is probably better. I do know that the 300/2.8 screw drive AF operation was fine on my D700 (sold) and D600 bodies, as well.</p>

<p>About a year ago, I had a little extra money, bought a first version 300/f2.8AFS, and sold the original AF version. I wish I had my old one back, and had re-sold the AFS.</p>

<p>Advantages original AF version:<br /> 4. Very sharp, beautiful bokeh.<br /> 1. Built like a (real) tank. Since there is no motor in the lens, it is probably less likely to fail or require expensive repairs. The one I had was from the 80's and had never needed service despite obvious "use".<br /> 2. The built in slide up sun shade with the HE-6 extender is much easier to use in practice than the one piece long separate shades in more recent versions. I think it protects the front of the lens better, also. It is much less likely to fall or be knocked off.<br /> 3. Fast enough AF with relatively modern bodies. Probably would not track a race car, but most any running human and animal can be tracked in AFC D9.</p>

<p>Advantages 2.8 AFS:<br /> 1. Very slightly sharper at f/2.8, on a D600. Perfect focus comparisons are required to tell the difference at 100% magnifications on the screen. Bokeh is possibly a little better.<br /> 2. Very fast AF. Not really any better at tracking running people, but noticeable when focus is shifted quickly from a far to close subject.<br /> 3. Can use Nikon teleconvertors.</p>

<p>Both of these Nikon lenses are really f/2.8. I measured close to 1&1/3 stop difference between the 2.8 and f4 versions, the f/4 version was cheating a bit.<br /> I also had the Tokina 300/2.8 AF first version lens. The Tokina was very nicely built and was very sharp, and had fast screw drive AF, but it really was not quite 2.8, and the out of focus color fringing was much worse than the Nikkors.</p>

<p>The Sigmas are supposed to be good. I would want to be sure that they are really fully f/2.8, I am very suspicious that the 120-300/2.8 zoom is really f/3.2 or 3.5. When you need f/2.8, you need all of it! Have to admit that the 120-300 zoom action would be nice to have, if everything else is good.</p>

<p>You will need your monopod, which is a cheap VR system! The lenses are big and heavy.</p>

<p>I will bet that that an old mechanical AF will still be going when my AFS or the Sigma AF lenses have expired and no parts are available. I have not had to enter AF correction values for the two 2.8 Nikkors I have had, which is a statement of quality of the lenses, IMO.</p>

<p>So, at about 60% of the cost of an AF-S, I think the old screw drive version is a bargain. If I had to generate revenue shooting sports, the AFS would be worth the difference, though.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_demarco]

Exactly what I meant Andrew, looking back I could have phrased it so it was easier to understand, sorry about that. Not

going to lose any sleep over the D40X :) although it still works as well as the day I bought it.

[john_demarco]

Thanks Robert, some excellent points, a lot of which I was thinking as well. The A/F motor issue is probably the biggest

one, no chance of motor failure is a huge plus. My budget is only going to permit me to buy used, and the AF-S prices are

still quite high. My early thought is to maybe go for an excellent version of the pre AF-I rather than a beat up AF-I or AF-S.

I use my monopod whenever I am shooting sports anyway, so that's a non issue. I have shot race cars with my AF-S 80-

200/TC-14E combo with no problem either, so VR is not high on my priority list.

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I would not worry too much about the physical condition of the early (or AFS) version, as long as the glass is clean in front and inside, it is not sloppy loose mechanically, and everything works.</p>

<p>The lenses are big and heavy. In practice, It is difficult to use them without generating some cosmetic wear even if you are careful.</p>