Super sharp at f2.8 on D850. With TC 1.4III – need about 0.3EV stop down, to catch full sharpness. With TC 2.0III – need about 1EV stop down, to catch optimal sharpness. Testing with d850 body (jets and wildlife).
Burghclerebilly
December 30, 2019 7:27 am
Although the 300mm F2.8 vrii is a wonderful lens, and follows the Nikon tradition of superlatives in the super-tele prime realm; I really do think that, Nasim, you need to step up to the 200mm F2 vri/ii to complete your analyses. Make sure you have a colleague at hand, because you are likely to get giddy with palpitations as you enter another world of portrait perfection. On the other hand perhaps it’s better you don’t, because it doesn’t look like you have room for 6-stars in your rating system and I wouldn’t want to see others suddenly having to be relegated. BTW, it really is that good.
Rupert
July 31, 2019 3:21 am
Hi Nasim – great review of the Nikon 300mm f2.8G VRII lens, but how come all the pics on the ‘more image samples’ page are captioned as being shot at 500mm ?
That’s because they were all shot with a teleconverter…
Franck Avril
January 16, 2019 10:30 am
First of all, wonderful review and supportive (beautiful) photos, as well as many thoughtful comments. Love it ! I’ve used the 200-400mm (version 1) for some time, now, either on a D700 (‘love the color spectrum it produces), where it’s much sharper than on my D500, but the DX allows me a lot more reach. I have a gimbal head that allows me to track animals easily, even with a 1.4x or 1.7x converter, and the zoom allows me to locate birds — even hummingbirds — quickly and then Zoom-in for the desired shot.
I shot Fleet Week in S.F. using the 200-400mm handheld from a boat in the bay, and it worked beautifully there, too, as well as handheld for Birding and wildlife and flower photography. My preferred lenses for the latter are the 105mm macro (original version) and the 200-400mm for isolating flowers, incl. those that are located on private property. The same is true with photographing dragonflies or other subjects that tend to not want to be approached easily…and I prefer both the compression of the field of view and the lower angle (i.e. slope) to the subject with longer lenses.
But one advantage of the 200-400, as with all zoom lenses, is that if you do video-photography on the fly as well, that you have much more interesting footage and capabilities, obviously, than with a fixed focal length…and there, the 200-400mm focus on my D500 is SUPERB.
FYI, using teleconverters, for me, reduces the min. focal distance to even closer-in more practical distances, rather than keep it the same as the orig. specs as your article indicates (I do the same with my 700-200mm zoom, with a 1.4x, to reduce the min focusing distance to focus on something otherwise too close).
In a perfect world, I’d own the 200-400 and the 300mm, since one can’t always be changing teleconverters on the fly to accommodate what one runs into, and weather / dust etc. are often a concern, depending on the location, etc.
But again, thanks for al your work and photos !! Best to all,
James
November 24, 2018 1:18 pm
I have used the 300 f2.8 vr2 for the past 8 yrs mostly with 1.4 TC’s. I currently use it with a D5 and D500. The lens is sharp from close distance to infinity. Never experienced any issues with infinity focus. In Africa 400 mm is the sweetspot for animal photography. I have recently added the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 Sport and use it with the 1.4 TC. The zoom flexibility is fantastic and on the D5 my go to wildlife lens for animals. The 300 with 1.4 on the D500 has is now my Bird combination. But both are stunning lenses.
Hi James, Do you recommend 300mm f2.8 to use with D500 for All type of Wildlife Photography.
Scott
November 24, 2018 11:49 am
I have been considering the 300/2.8 lens over the past year or so, I’m scheduled for an African safari next fall. I have read several reviews regarding this lens; however, your‘s was by far the best. One review did mention an issue with the lens focusing at infinity, any comment on that?
david
May 1, 2018 11:13 am
How does nikon 300 2.8 VR2 compare to nikon 200 2.0 VR2+Tele 1.4
The TC 1.4iii have a negligible impact on the big primes. If you need the 200f2 for your work as a key lens then adding converters is a great solution even the TC 2.0. However if your need is for 300 mm plus then buy a 300f2.8 and with the TC 1.4 you have a fantastic 420mm f4 but with the 200 with 2.0 you get a 400 f4 but the TC2.0 impacts the focus speed a lot more. Plus you loose acuity with the 2.0. Bot are great lenses and naked the 200 is the top Nikon lens. However, 300 is very close in sharpness but give a lot more flexibility. I sold my 200 f4 for the exact reasons.
Hi James, thank you very much for your reply. Im planning an Africa trip. I would have 200 2.0 vr2+600 4.0 FL for the trip. Im just wondering whether I could fill up 300-400mm using teleconverters or I need to buy new lens. If new lens is necessary, which one you recommend? 300 2.8, 400 2.8, new 200-400 4.0 1.4x.
John Sciacchitano
February 6, 2018 6:37 pm
hello Nasim Mansurov and friends, since we are on the subject of 300mm lenses, I was hoping someone could share their wisdom on a comparison of image quality (sharpness, contrast, saturation) between Nikons older 300mm f2.8 ai, ais, and the first generation 300mm f2.8 AF-S (non vr). this is important to me because i am going to buy a very used copy of one of them. I would just like to know about the image quality difference and how much of it exists. thanks!!!
Burghclerebilly
January 20, 2018 1:52 pm
I was pleasantly surprised to see this wonderful lens in my small local shop today, which was a treat because normally only the consumer Nikons are available there. I had on hand my trusty old AF-S 300/2.8 IF-ED (the first AF-S version), so a quick comparison on a D810 was in order. Of course the VRii is a bit sharper and quicker to focus, but the old model is still impressively fast and accurate too. What struck me is that despite this ‘latest’ model being called VRii, its version of VR is certainly not the latest, being 8 years old now. Compared to the 70-200/4 or 200-500/5.6, the VR is not particularly good. Additionally, the weight is basically the same as the old model I’ve got, i.e. it’s a bit of a beast!
Hence, I got to thinking why Nikon has not updated this model to a FL (Fluorite lens) version yet? If you extrapolate the weight savings achieved on the 400/2.8 and 500/4 considering the front element diameters, Nikon should still be able to shave 600g from a new 300/2.8FL. Combined with the latest version of VR, such a lens would be the first hand-holdable 300/2.8, and therefore extremely successful in my opinion. Does anyone know why Nikon are not moving forward with this FL version, which has been patented for at least a couple of years? I’ve got 4 old lenses ready to trade in if it appears at less than 2.5kg
I just noticed that the only criticism Nasim had with this lens was the potential to inadvertently adjust focus when supporting the lens. It is interesting that the previous versions of the 300/2.8 had focus switches M-A/M-A, where the A setting was autofocus only, so if you jogged the focus barrel nothing would happen. I wish they would bring that back as many lenses have the focus ring near to your natural grip location.
Excellent Review! Chapeau!!!
Stunning lens!
Super sharp at f2.8 on D850.
With TC 1.4III – need about 0.3EV stop down, to catch full sharpness.
With TC 2.0III – need about 1EV stop down, to catch optimal sharpness.
Testing with d850 body (jets and wildlife).
Although the 300mm F2.8 vrii is a wonderful lens, and follows the Nikon tradition of superlatives in the super-tele prime realm; I really do think that, Nasim, you need to step up to the 200mm F2 vri/ii to complete your analyses. Make sure you have a colleague at hand, because you are likely to get giddy with palpitations as you enter another world of portrait perfection. On the other hand perhaps it’s better you don’t, because it doesn’t look like you have room for 6-stars in your rating system and I wouldn’t want to see others suddenly having to be relegated. BTW, it really is that good.
Hi Nasim – great review of the Nikon 300mm f2.8G VRII lens, but how come all the pics on the ‘more image samples’ page are captioned as being shot at 500mm ?
That’s because they were all shot with a teleconverter…
First of all, wonderful review and supportive (beautiful) photos, as well as many thoughtful comments. Love it ! I’ve used the 200-400mm (version 1) for some time, now, either on a D700 (‘love the color spectrum it produces), where it’s much sharper than on my D500, but the DX allows me a lot more reach. I have a gimbal head that allows me to track animals easily, even with a 1.4x or 1.7x converter, and the zoom allows me to locate birds — even hummingbirds — quickly and then Zoom-in for the desired shot.
I shot Fleet Week in S.F. using the 200-400mm handheld from a boat in the bay, and it worked beautifully there, too, as well as handheld for Birding and wildlife and flower photography. My preferred lenses for the latter are the 105mm macro (original version) and the 200-400mm for isolating flowers, incl. those that are located on private property. The same is true with photographing dragonflies or other subjects that tend to not want to be approached easily…and I prefer both the compression of the field of view and the lower angle (i.e. slope) to the subject with longer lenses.
But one advantage of the 200-400, as with all zoom lenses, is that if you do video-photography on the fly as well, that you have much more interesting footage and capabilities, obviously, than with a fixed focal length…and there, the 200-400mm focus on my D500 is SUPERB.
FYI, using teleconverters, for me, reduces the min. focal distance to even closer-in more practical distances, rather than keep it the same as the orig. specs as your article indicates (I do the same with my 700-200mm zoom, with a 1.4x, to reduce the min focusing distance to focus on something otherwise too close).
In a perfect world, I’d own the 200-400 and the 300mm, since one can’t always be changing teleconverters on the fly to accommodate what one runs into, and weather / dust etc. are often a concern, depending on the location, etc.
But again, thanks for al your work and photos !! Best to all,
I have used the 300 f2.8 vr2 for the past 8 yrs mostly with 1.4 TC’s. I currently use it with a D5 and D500. The lens is sharp from close distance to infinity. Never experienced any issues with infinity focus. In Africa 400 mm is the sweetspot for animal photography. I have recently added the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 Sport and use it with the 1.4 TC. The zoom flexibility is fantastic and on the D5 my go to wildlife lens for animals. The 300 with 1.4 on the D500 has is now my Bird combination. But both are stunning lenses.
Hi James, Do you recommend 300mm f2.8 to use with D500 for All type of Wildlife Photography.
I have been considering the 300/2.8 lens over
the past year or so, I’m scheduled for an
African safari next fall. I have read several
reviews regarding this lens; however, your‘s
was by far the best. One review did
mention an issue with the lens focusing at
infinity, any comment on that?
How does nikon 300 2.8 VR2 compare to nikon 200 2.0 VR2+Tele 1.4
The TC 1.4iii have a negligible impact on the big primes. If you need the 200f2 for your work as a key lens then adding converters is a great solution even the TC 2.0. However if your need is for 300 mm plus then buy a 300f2.8 and with the TC 1.4 you have a fantastic 420mm f4 but with the 200 with 2.0 you get a 400 f4 but the TC2.0 impacts the focus speed a lot more. Plus you loose acuity with the 2.0. Bot are great lenses and naked the 200 is the top Nikon lens. However, 300 is very close in sharpness but give a lot more flexibility. I sold my 200 f4 for the exact reasons.
Hi James, thank you very much for your reply. Im planning an Africa trip. I would have 200 2.0 vr2+600 4.0 FL for the trip. Im just wondering whether I could fill up 300-400mm using teleconverters or I need to buy new lens. If new lens is necessary, which one you recommend? 300 2.8, 400 2.8, new 200-400 4.0 1.4x.
hello Nasim Mansurov and friends,
since we are on the subject of 300mm lenses, I was hoping someone could share their wisdom on a comparison of image quality (sharpness, contrast, saturation) between Nikons older 300mm f2.8 ai, ais, and the first generation 300mm f2.8 AF-S (non vr). this is important to me because i am going to buy a very used copy of one of them. I would just like to know about the image quality difference and how much of it exists. thanks!!!
I was pleasantly surprised to see this wonderful lens in my small local shop today, which was a treat because normally only the consumer Nikons are available there. I had on hand my trusty old AF-S 300/2.8 IF-ED (the first AF-S version), so a quick comparison on a D810 was in order. Of course the VRii is a bit sharper and quicker to focus, but the old model is still impressively fast and accurate too. What struck me is that despite this ‘latest’ model being called VRii, its version of VR is certainly not the latest, being 8 years old now. Compared to the 70-200/4 or 200-500/5.6, the VR is not particularly good. Additionally, the weight is basically the same as the old model I’ve got, i.e. it’s a bit of a beast!
Hence, I got to thinking why Nikon has not updated this model to a FL (Fluorite lens) version yet? If you extrapolate the weight savings achieved on the 400/2.8 and 500/4 considering the front element diameters, Nikon should still be able to shave 600g from a new 300/2.8FL. Combined with the latest version of VR, such a lens would be the first hand-holdable 300/2.8, and therefore extremely successful in my opinion. Does anyone know why Nikon are not moving forward with this FL version, which has been patented for at least a couple of years? I’ve got 4 old lenses ready to trade in if it appears at less than 2.5kg
I just noticed that the only criticism Nasim had with this lens was the potential to inadvertently adjust focus when supporting the lens. It is interesting that the previous versions of the 300/2.8 had focus switches M-A/M-A, where the A setting was autofocus only, so if you jogged the focus barrel nothing would happen. I wish they would bring that back as many lenses have the focus ring near to your natural grip location.