Debating between 300mm f/4.0D and 55-300mm 4.5-5.6

[Flower Child]

I have a Nikkor 50mm 1.4 which I love, and a Nikkor 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 lens which was my first lens. I'm ready to add a lens where I can capture birds, wildlife, outdoor sports, and stuff like that.

Anyone know if it would be a good move to go ahead and get the 4.0 or would it make that much of a difference. Are either of these lenses good?

I would like to hear opinions on which I should get, or if you have an idea of one thats better I'd like to hear it!

Thank you!

Nikkor 300mm 4.0
Price: $1,099.00

Nikkor 55-300mm 4.5-5.6
Price: $299.95

 

[PASM]

For little, passerine birds in the bushes and undergrowth, I found 300mm didn't really cut it. I was using a 350 + 2xTC which was very slow and with chromatic aberration. Even that arrangement wasn't getting me 'big' pictures of finches, warblers or wading birds in some situations.

Maybe a spotting scope with camera attachment is the way to go (?)

 

[Flower Child]

Thank you for your reply PASM. I see what you are saying. Of course I would love a 400 or 500 or even 600mm lens but thats just not in my price range at all unfortunately.
This is what I got at 135mm one day, so I feel like a 300 would be sufficient for what I need although I know you're right- a 600 would be much better. With your experiences, do you think either one of those lenses though is better than the other, also taking into consideration the price?

 

[PASM]

I'll leave it to someone here who owns and knows to say That's a good shot at 135. Very nice.

 

[Flower Child]

Okay, I appreciate your help and thank you very much about the shot! It was mostly luck.

 

[PASM]

You're welcome. I didn't mean to be evasive..I would guess the dedicated 4/300 is a better performer at 300mm. But maybe sometimes the flexibility of a zoom is useful. I once looked-up in a tree and there was a beautiful Kestrel, still as a statue above my head - perch-hunting on a windy day. Luckily, I was just a bit more than the 10 or 12 feet away for minimum focus with a 350mm. A zoom would have been perfect

 

[kundalini]

I have the 300mm f/4. It is a fine performer.

The price difference you see between the two lenses in question is usually for a reason.

 

[Formatted]

Just to make your situation more complicated, the 300mm f4 should be getting an update sometime this year to have VR.

 

[Flower Child]

Okay, thanks everyone. Looks like I will be saving up a little longer for the 300/4.

 

[benhasajeep]

The 300 f/4 is a good lens. It's considered slow in AF but I don't find that to be a problem with me (not AF-S model). The 300 f/4 will also take a 1.4x teleconverter as well. The 55-300 is a DX high power zoom. And is a decent general lens. The 70-300 is a full sized lens and has better reviews than the 55-300. Of course its 2x as much. I would still lean towards the 300 f/4.0 as long as you don't need a big zoom for other uses (if your just going to use it for birding). But if your looking for another lens for more than birding. I might look at a 70-300 VR. Refurbished lenses can be had for $400 or less in some places. I don't have a 70-300 but still think of getting one every now and then. Even though I already have 300mm covered. And a good 80-200mm f/2.8. For me it would be a nice longer lens for hiking. Although the 300 f/4.0 is not as heavy as my 300 f/2.8. It still gets heavy in the bag.

Also there is the 80-400?? New is pricey, but they are available on used market.

 

[Flower Child]

Thank you very much for your helpful response ben that has a jeep.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind all of the above lenses. Minimum wage is a gateway drug, especially for a photographer.
I've been thinking about it more, and with the help of your response, I maybe leaning toward a more practical 80-200. I work as a fill-in photojournalist and that lens either the 2.8, or 4, would be very useful, probably more so than a 300. I don't know. I think I just need to get a better job.