Nikon 120-300mm f/2.8. If you like the idea of a 300mm f/2.8G II but in a zoom, this is your lens. Interestingly, it is 3.25kg, which is not much heavier than the 2.9kg of the 300mm f/2.8. I would suggest that for most people, this lens is a little bit short for wildlife, especially at $9500. This is a very specialized tool.

Just as with the 70-200mm Canon lens that I mentioned above, this Nikon F4 constant aperture 70-200mm is a great lens for outdoor (in daylight) sports photography. The biggest advantage that it has over a lens like a 70-200 f/2.8 is the weight and price, the F4 70-200mm’s are significantly cheaper and lighter than their f/2.8 counterparts.

I'm thinking of changing from my Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AF-S VR I to a Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR for reasons of portability, ease of handling and speed when in action. I mostly use the 300mm for Indoor sports (aperture isn't that much an Issue in the venues I shoot) and for event work (if we ever get events ever again).

However, the lack of PF elements doesn’t change the fact that the 400mm f/4.5 is a relatively small, light lens. It slides in nicely with the PF lenses already in Nikon’s lineup. Here’s how it compares to those lenses in weight, length, and front filter thread size: 300mm f/4 PF: 755 grams (1.7 lbs), 148mm long (5.8 inches), 77mm filters.
According to Peter Braczko's guilde: Complete Nikon System. There are two different AI-S versions of the 300mm/f2.8. The first AI-S version differs from the older AI because AI-S version 1 has an additional clear, protection filter in front. AI-S version 2 can focus closer down to 9.8 feet/3 meters. More info on Roland Vink's web site: Nikon
Nikon 300mm f/4D AF-S vs Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Conclusion Although both lenses seem to perform well at 300mm and 420mm focal lengths when stopped down to f/8, as demonstrated in the above charts, I would still recommend the Nikon 300mm f/4D over the 80-400mm lens for two main reasons – autofocus performance/accuracy and better reach.

The Nikon 120-300mm is a 50% longer focal-length version of an 80-200mm f/2.8 lens, with the same fast f/2.8 maximum aperture. Making the focal lengths "just" 50% longer with the same maximum aperture require an inordinate amount of engineering, materials, size, weight and expense.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm F1.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8D ED-IF II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G ED VR II
Mark. Feb 27, 2010. #2. I've owned both and if it was a choice between the two I'd go with the 300/4. If you need the flexibility of a zoom and you're on a budget I'd add a 1.4x TC to your 80-200 AFS. The Sigma 100-300/4 I had was unacceptable at f/4 from 250-300mm and I got better results with the 70-200VR + TC.
LZHxP.
  • wz7h15frkz.pages.dev/450
  • wz7h15frkz.pages.dev/151
  • wz7h15frkz.pages.dev/101
  • wz7h15frkz.pages.dev/156
  • wz7h15frkz.pages.dev/141
  • wz7h15frkz.pages.dev/451
  • wz7h15frkz.pages.dev/44
  • wz7h15frkz.pages.dev/91

    • nikon 300mm f4 vs f2 8