300mm f2 article

[John Koerner]

I looked up this lens online, as it is very interesting optically.

Almost to the last, everyone who owned one complained about the weight, saying the lens isn't very practical for real-world use.

I looked up the weight, and it is 7200g (16 lb / 7.2 kg)

A 16 lb lens?
Is this correct?

My Nikkor 300 f/2.8 VR II is heavy enough @ 2900g (6.4 lb / 2.9kg).

This means the elder f/2 Ai-S is nearly 3x as heavy ... so to bring such a beast out into the field (which also means I will lose AF, just to achieve an f/2) is just not practical IMO.

To show how ridiculous this weight is, even the the Nikkor 800 f/5.6 is only 10 lb (4590g / 4.59kg).

Conceptually, the vintage  300mm f2 seems like a dream lens to own, but those who actually do own it, leave it at home 99.9999% of the time, because it is no fun to actually use.

Seems like Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED VR II lens would be the better choice in every way ... will get you the f/2 ... a decent amount of reach ... will in all probability be optically-superior ... will give you AF ... will cost 1/3rd ... and will weigh 1/3rd.

Jack

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 300/2 Nikkor is one of those lenses that has to be used in order for its qualities and special rendering to be appreciated.

I still regret selling mine many years ago in a period when my finances were a bit stretched.

[John Koerner]

The 300/2 Nikkor is one of those lenses that has to be used in order for its qualities and special rendering to be appreciated.

I can respect this.

I appreciate what you're saying, by viewing some of the photos posted ... that it has beautiful rendering ... which is why I was interested

However, after scouring the net for more information, it seems like most of the owners who made comments in the various forums I viewed complained about the weight and either sold (or almost never used) theirs, because of this.

I have seen many people complain about "lens weight," which I have found to be ridiculous, usually, but after verifying how heavy this lens is ... I see the complaints as justified.

I still regret selling mine many years ago in a period when my finances were a bit stretched.

I can understand this ... the lens is a collector's item. I also understand the "cool" factor, as it has a unique feature in being the only 300 f/2 lens.

However, at the end of the day, this collector's-item lens is simply too heavy for practical use.
It is also a lot of money to have invested into something that will hardly ever get used.

When a person realizes that they could sell this lens, and spend that same money getting a whole bunch of elite lenses (that would give most people more actual enjoyment), the 300 f/2 would be a hard lens to justify hanging onto.

Priced at about $15,000 (on the rare occasion it's available) a person could take that same money and obtain a Zeiss 28mm Otus f/1.4 ... a Zeiss 85mm Otus f/1.4 ... a Nikkor 105mm AF-S ED f/1.4 ... and a Nikkor 200mm f/2 ED VR II ... and have better optics + more options. Each one of these 4 lenses is considered elite and each of these lenses is considered to be very heavy.

The real crazy thing is all 4 of these lenses, put together, don't weigh as much (6405g, combined) as does this 7200g 300mm f/2 beast.

Jack

[Andy]

John,
the size difference between 300mm/f2.8 and f2 (3rd and 4th lens from right).
imho, you are looking at the lens way too much rational. You might want to look more into the emotional side of things.

and there is the perspective of where the reference point is. In my other hobby, I wouldn't be able to move most things without the help of a forklifter. Seen from this PoV, 7kg is not that much

BTW, the forklifter with 3500kg empty weight is a great and stable tripod, in case you are looking for some sturdy lens support  .....

rgds,
Andy

[John Koerner]

John,
the size difference between 300mm/f2.8 and f2 (3rd and 4th lens from right).

Thank you for underscoring my point 

imho, you are looking at the lens way too much rational. You might want to look more into the emotional side of things.

I reiterate what you said, in reverse

and there is the perspective of where the reference point is. In my other hobby, I wouldn't be able to move most things without the help of a forklifter. Seen from this PoV, 7kg is not that much

BTW, the forklifter with 3500kg empty weight is a great and stable tripod, in case you are looking for some sturdy lens support  .....

rgds,
Andy

Not sure how to respond to this ... but I would imagine a forklift, or its equivalent, would be required to wield this beast

Wow. And Wow, again.

My closing comment is, if you have the unlimited funds to justify hanging onto this lens, I am sure that the 00000000001% of your photographic pursuits (which actually involve its use) is quite enjoyable indeed.

If not, then I think there are more practical uses to put the same investment, as described above.

Jack

Confession: If I win the lotto, I will buy one, just so I have it 

[David H. Hartman]

The rasional side here is sports photographers shooting slow transparency film needed an f/2.0 lens to attain higher shutter speeds. Slide films could be pushed but that increased contrast and grain. Even with f/2.0 photographers would push film if the light required it.

It was a time of great tribulation.

Dave Hartman

[chambeshi]

It was a time of great tribulation.

Very true.

In these times of digital sensors with such remarkable ISO windows, it's so easy to forget the environments for which these classic lenses were designed to perform!

[Andy]

Correction to my earlier post: It is of course the 3rd and 4th lens from the left, not right.

Not sure how to respond to this ... but I would imagine a forklift, or its equivalent, would be required to wield this beast

Let me rephrase my earlier comment: If your other hobby is about 180 tons in total, 7.2kg is usually *not* considered to be a "beast". It is rather a "tiny" thing, you need to look conciously for just to find it

Wow. And Wow, again.
My closing comment is, if you have the unlimited funds to justify hanging onto this lens, I am sure that the 00000000001% of your photographic pursuits (which actually involve its use) is quite enjoyable indeed.

I assume you meant 0,00000000001%.
Based on that assumption, I quickly checked my usage %. Based on about 1 million pictures I do have on my server, your percentage is significantly too low.
If I did my math right, actual usage is about 100.000.000x more frequently vs. the number above. See, how useful such a lens is .....

On a serious note:
You are right, there are other lenses with better ROI in Nikon's arsenal, and I would not recommend considering it, if someone want's to limit his/her lens arsenal to 10 or 20 lenses - there better options with probably higher priorities.
But one component is not to be underestimated. It's value doesn't decrease as fast as the value of new gear, for instance a new D5

If not, then I think there are more practical uses to put the same investment, as described above.

Agree to this very "rational" argument It depends on the context - This argument can probably be applied to every single lens in this set of 300mm lenses .....

 

BTW, the "3-d Pop" effect of the 300mm/2 shot wide open is much more pronounced than with the 200mm/2 and the resolution of the 300mm/2 on modern cameras is on a similar level like the AFS 300mm/2.8 VR II, which is not a bad lens in itself.
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2990.msg42612.html#msg42612

Based on simplicity, weight, features, image quality and advanced features, the AFS 300mm/2.8 VR II has the better value, no doubt. But I wouldn't buy it right now if someone is considering an investment in this range. I'd rather wait for the FL version of it.


rgds,
Andy

[chambeshi]

http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2990.msg42612.html#msg42612

the graphed comparison of "Lugging-Factor" on this Thread speaks more than the proverbial 1000 words 

[Andy]

Here we go:

[Erik Lund]

Andy thank you for the comparison images! To see it makes the lens reality - not just a wet dream,,, !

The key to one aspect of the 300mm f/2 is the shear size of the front element as it is designed, that being it is able to make some amazing front Bokeh not just back-ground Bokeh!

Similar to the 200mm f/2 and 500mm f/4 just much better due to the diameter being larger - You can more or less see though objects in the foreground,,,

_EGL2646 by Erik Gunst Lund, on Flickr

500mm f/4,,,

[Frank Fremerey]

http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2990.msg42612.html#msg42612

Now I guess your other hobby is collecting and restoring historic trams, Right???

[Frank Fremerey]

Here we go: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5170.0;attach=22613;image

The 300PF is f/4 and 750 Gramms

[John Koerner]

Correction to my earlier post: It is of course the 3rd and 4th lens from the left, not right.

Understood.

Let me rephrase my earlier comment: If your other hobby is about 180 tons in total, 7.2kg is usually *not* considered to be a "beast". It is rather a "tiny" thing, you need to look conciously for just to find it

Yeah, but you're not hefting 180 tons, carrying the weight; you're operating it, behind controls

I assume you meant 0,00000000001%.
Based on that assumption, I quickly checked my usage %. Based on about 1 million pictures I do have on my server, your percentage is significantly too low.
If

On a serious note:
You are right, there are other lenses with better ROI in Nikon's arsenal, and I would not recommend considering it, if someone want's to limit his/her lens arsenal to 10 or 20 lenses - there better options with probably higher priorities.

Yep, unless one has $15K to spend "just because," there are far better ways to invest that same coin in Nikkor lenses.

Also, other than a minor reach difference, can the $15,000 300mm f/2 really do anything the $5600 200mm f/2 ED VR II can't do?

But one component is not to be underestimated. It's value doesn't decrease as fast as the value of new gear, for instance a new D5

Comparing camera resale values to lens resale values is like comparing apples to oranges, is it not? 

Agree to this very "rational" argument It depends on the context - This argument can probably be applied to every single lens in this set of 300mm lenses .....

Beautiful collection

BTW, the "3-d Pop" effect of the 300mm/2 shot wide open is much more pronounced than with the 200mm/2 and the resolution of the 300mm/2 on modern cameras is on a similar level like the AFS 300mm/2.8 VR II, which is not a bad lens in itself.
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2990.msg42612.html#msg42612

Okay, this answers my question above, thanks.

I'd say, overall, the 300 VR II is the best and most versatile lens I have ever owned in my life.

On my D810 it is a 300mm, or a 600mm, with my 2x TCIII.
On my D500 it is a 450mm, or a 900mm, with my 2x TCIII.

I have taken stunning-bokeh portraits from afar as well, and actually taken butterfly and wasp photos, from 10' back, that were as high-quality as fine macro-lens shots.

I love this lens ... and has a pretty nifty "3D pop" itself, at f/2.8.
It may not have quite the pop of the f/2, but it can do a whole lot of things (more practically, and as high-quality) that the f/2 cannot do.

Based on simplicity, weight, features, image quality and advanced features, the AFS 300mm/2.8 VR II has the better value, no doubt.

Yep.

But I wouldn't buy it right now if someone is considering an investment in this range. I'd rather wait for the FL version of it.
rgds,
Andy

I am glad I got mine, though I wish it were the FL version. Still, I'd rather have mine now, to enjoy, than still be waiting for the FL.

The image quality is already so good in the VR II that I can't imagine the FL version being much better ... and the VR II small enough that lowering the weight with FL isn't as significant as lowering the weight of, say, a 600mm or greater.

In fact, I am saving up for a 600mm FL

Jack

PS: Wonderful collection and images, Andy, thank you.

[chambeshi]

I'd say, overall, the 300 VR II is the best and most versatile lens I have ever owned in my life.

On my D810 it is a 300mm, or a 600mm, with my 2x TCIII.
On my D500 it is a 450mm, or a 900mm, with my 2x TCIII.

I have taken stunning-bokeh portraits from afar as well, and actually taken butterfly and wasp photos, from 10' back, that were as high-quality as fine macro-lens shots.

I love this lens ... and has a pretty nifty "3D pop" itself, at f/2.8.
It may not have quite the pop of the f/2, but it can do a whole lot of things (more practically, and as high-quality) that the f/2 cannot do.

fully agree. The 300 f2.8 VRII is a winner, will never part with mine, but I do see a place in my system for both the 300 f4E PF and 200 f2 VRII

...each in its in complementary role

thanks

woody