Buying a Nikon 300mm f/2.8?

Kauz

TPF Noob!
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
Madison, WI
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Hello Everyone,

I'm writing this time as the editor at a student newspaper at a school of 50,000 approximately, with a daily print run of 10,000. We're looking at buying a few piece of equipment, including a long sought-after Nikon 300mm f/2.8. We're having some trouble justifying the lens to interested alumni members and I want succinct proof/support that this is a better investment in the long-term of the paper over a Nikon 300mm f/4 or even a Sigma (which has been pushed for). From my personal experience and research, Sigma's aren't a long-term investment lens (though I know there will be a small number who will swear by them). Additionally, the fact that we are a top 10 BCS team (perennially in the top 15) who plays feature games at night, and our photographers have access to 70-200 f/2.8 or 80-200 f/2.8 lenses that just don't cut it when we try to get photos of our run game down the center of the field and want them to be sharp.

I shot this past weekend on the setup of a D3/80-200 f/2.8 and a D7000/300mm f/2.8 combo and it was amazing. I also met Heinz Kluetmeier this weekend who recommended at least 300mm f/2.8 for football. Am I off in thinking that for not only football but our volleyball, basketball (another March Madness perennial), softball, and soccer teams, a 300, and particularly a 2.8 is important over a f/4?

Please advise me. We are probably pulling the trigger in the next week and I'm hoping people (who can maybe look past envy ;)) will support my evaluations that I've made after weeks of research and my own personal experience.

Thanks everyone!
 
Sigma's depreciation is always terrible. Terrible. When I was a young PJ student, we had exactly ONE shooter out of about a dozen of us who had a 300/2.8; he shot almost ALL the premier sports assignments, due to his 135/2 and 300/2.8 Canon gear. The difference in focusing performance between the Nikkor 300/4 and the 300/2.8 is quite significant; frankly, the 300 f/4 Nikkor is not a very good-focusing lens for action sports: it is slightly "nervous", and occasionally will lose focus....it's hard to really rely upon it for sports use. The 300/2.8 AFS-II, the one with the magnesium barrel, the one that came out before the VR versions, is the one I own. It is very light, due to the magnesium barrel. It focuses FAST, and reliably--the difference between the 300/2.8 AFS-II and the Nikkor 300mm f/4 is that the 300/4 will let you down once,twice,three, four, five times at a 2-hour track meet, by "blowing focus"..it just is not fast, NOR even worse, is it reliable and dependable...the 2.8 model is a significantly more-expensive, and better-made lens, with a much, well, "different" focusing ability...it really is an amazing lens. Even on a lower-end Nikon body, you can point it and press the button on a lowly D70, and the 2.8 model will SNAP! to focus, and follow focus...the 300/4 is simply nowhere close to the same in terms of fast,reliable focusing; the f/4 is neither fast, nor is it truly "reliable".

For INDOOR sports like volleyball,swimming, basketball,wrestling and so on, the 200mm f/2 is a neat lens, but is rather front-heavy and a bit unbalanced compared to a 300/2.8.

Seriously though: the Nikkor 300/2.8 AFS or AFS-II, or the newer VR Models, is a really good long-term investment in ultra high-quality glass that will last for 15 to 20 years. You can look for a used lens, and save $1,000 to $2,000 over the price of a new lens by buying from a smaller-city dealer, like one in say Seattle, or Portland, or Orlando, or Boulder or Santa Fe, and by NOT buying from The Big Three web based dealers. I am a huge college football fan..I notice that the student newspaper shooters for Oregon, Stanford, Oklahoma, Michigan, LSU, and Alabama are all using 300/2.8 lenses for their school papers. I like to hit up ALL the university newspaper web sites for the top teams in FBS football...300/2.8's have become pretty common among the better student papers across the USA.
 
With low light / floodlit, big-park games of any description you really do need that extra stop a 2.8 gives you, period. Derrel's right in as much as Sigma prices NOSEDIVE after
first-user. As far as image quality goes, i've used both the Canon 300 f/2.8 and the Sigma, and as i've said before, there is little or no difference between the two, across the board. The 200 f/2 would be a help in lower light, but to be honest i've never really wished I had one on any of my shoots. I'm not a Nikon shooter, so i'll defer to those who are for a more detailed synopsis, but from what I hear off other pros the 300 f/2.8 AFS is a fantastic piece of glass.
 
While it's a stop slower, have you thought about the 200-400 f4? I think given the wide range of sports that [I assume] you must cover, the added versatility might well be useful.
 
Lets just say that I cannot beat the price of the 300mm f/2.8 and I very much can't go over that price that I found.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top