300mm f/2.8 AF-S II or VR... optical upgrade or just addition of VR

[BruceLeventhal]

Hello and thanks to anyone who replies.
To those who have owned &/or shot both extensively, I am wondering what I might get from a change in lenses.
Following two years of extensive work with Nikon's 200-400mm f/4 VR1, I sold that lens and replaced it with the 300mm f/2.8 AF-SII w/ 1.4x II and 2x vIII lenses. While I miss the flexibility of the zoom, I do not miss the bulk/weight especially for long hikes and air travel. I have found my 300mm f/2.8 AF-SII to be sharper and faster to focus than the zoom even with the addition of the TC14 ii converter. While I have yet to shoot the lens with the 2x, I know that my current lens should be at least as good (or bad) as my 200-400mmVR was with my 1.4x.

I have attached a long arca-swiss plate to my lens, and while I wish the stock foot was longer (or interchangeable), I have not experienced any stability issues when using my lens w/ a sturdy ball-head (RRS-BH55), Induro Sidekick, or full Induro Gimbal. I am a tripod junky and shoot 95% of my work w/ a 3-series Gitzo leg set. My interest in a new lens would not be based on VR, as I do not shoot anything handheld. I am strictly interested in autofocus speed and optical quality.To be quite honest, I do not see how the lens could be better with my current cameras (D500 and D810), but I would make the investment if there would be a real gain (not theoretical) in image quality.

For the record, my current lens is in great shape (not abused by prior owner and does NOT have an AF squeak).

thanks for your thoughts an regards,
bruce

[Roland Vink]

The optical design of the original AFS 300/2.8 (I and II) is very similar to the AFS 300/2.8 VR (I and II). In fact, I wonder if the original lens was already pre-designed for VR, it just took a few more years for VR to be successfully implemented. The MTF charts are very similar (but not identical), I doubt you would see much difference. Both perform to extremely high levels:

AFS VRII MTF


AFS II MTF


One thing the VR versions have in their favour, is that they also have Nano Crystal Coating (one or two lens surfaces) and a meniscus (slightly curved) front protector plate. These features improve contrast and suppress reflections, especially when shooting into strong light.

On the other hand, your AFS-II version is lighter.

Compare the specifications here: http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#300

I'll leave it to others comment on real-life experience with these models...

[tommiejeep]

Bruce (and Roland)
No help on your question since I've never used the AF-S  II but I shoot my 300 2.8 vr I for handheld action and rarely use the VR.  I use the VR on th 500 f4 from a tripod with the gimbal head loose.
I've discussed with many bird/sports shooters that think the AF-s II is a great lens. One of my concerns is the availability of replacement AF-S motor .  The AF-S II is getting hard to find and prices are holding/going up.  Had I had more experience I probably would have skipped the VR and save some money 

When I bought my 300 2.8 vr I had the money and thought the vr would be a real plus.  I also bought it instead of the 200-400 vr for ease of use and IQ.   I had used the 200-400 and it was on my list. Had I known I would be shooting Soccer with FX I would have bought the 400 2.8 vr instead of the 500 f4 vr (shot them both at the shop when making my purchase) but I was mainly shooting birds and D300/D300s for kids' soccer  .

[chambeshi]

Dear Bruce and All

I upgraded from a 300 f4 AF to the 300 f2.8G VRII (a used lens in mint condition from London for 2600 quid). I changed the tripod foot to the Jobu one with inetgral arca-swiss dovetail : http://www.jobu-design.com/Low-Profile-Foot-for-Nikon-500F4-300F28-200-400_p_54.html  As I use only Sirui heads, recently i removed and threw away the grub screws that are supposed to prevent slippage of the foot off  a tripod head. Sirui has its on safety "spring-button" design which is far superior in use and protecting a loosened lens/camera from catastrophe. See pg 29 on this thread here on my recent harsh lesson (!) http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3440.420.html

 I also added a couple of photos there that show this Jobu foot on my 300 f2.8. And see appended links, in case you missed any. Steve Perry's site and blog is loaded with hard-won advice on using Nikkor telephotos on wildlife. His ebook is well worth the US$12, in fact  - http://backcountrygallery.com/

Hands down! The newer 300 f2.8G is indeed One Superb Optic. And I'm very glad I took the plunge. My only experience has been using it with a D3 and mainly the D7200 and D500. I often reply on the TCE14 II and TCE20 III, and provided one can clinch the focus, it's hard to detect any drop off in quality. Indeed, performance with the TCE14 II is so good I'm in rush to try the latest 1.4. This confirms official claims etc that Nikon designed the latest TCE's for optimal perfomance with the 300 f2.8. cf https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-tc-20e-iii

But all the prime AF G and E versions of the Nikkor super-teles perform very well with TCEs [ see appended www links ]. As does the 70-200 2.8G and 300 f4E PF. I append some links you may not have see on the 300 f2.8 and also performance with TC's. John Koerner has also posted several times here on NG attesting to their performance etc. e.g pg 4 here http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5243.0.html#lastPost

I have only tried the 200-500 f5.6 which I find hard to handhold in full extension, although it has been well received, and the optics are great.

enjoy your lens!

kind regards Woody

http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm

http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses-2.html

http://www.throughthefmount.com/articles_tips_300comp.html

http://www.biglens.com/reviews/nikon300200400.htm
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f2-8g-vr-ii/5
https://photographylife.com/best-nikon-lenses-for-wildlife-photography

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f2-8g-vr-ii

https://photographylife.com/image-degradation-with-nikon-teleconverters

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/499-nikkorafs200f2vrff?start=1

http://nikonrumors.com/2016/11/12/nikon-dx-camera-vs-cropping-or-putting-a-teleconverter-on-a-full-frame-body.aspx/#more-108749

https://photographylife.com/best-nikon-lenses-for-landscape-photography

[Erik Lund]

I would go as far as to say it's difficult to shoot a bad image with any of the 300mm 2.8 lenses

However - The change for the worse in back ground Bokeh with an added TC is often quite apparent,,, Nervous and or double lines - Similar can also be seen as an artifact from VR,,,

[chambeshi]

examples of DX Nikon [7200 or D500] with 300mm f2.8G Nikkor VR II only (my ginger cat / male Klaas's Cuckoo);

and TCE14 II (Black-headed heron / Helmeted Guineafowl)

and TCE20 III (male Southern Red Bishopbird)

[PedroS]

I would go as far as to say it's difficult to shoot a bad image with any of the 300mm 2.8 lenses

However - The change for the worse in back ground Bokeh with an added TC is often quite apparent,,, Nervous and or double lines - Similar can also be seen as an artifact from VR,,,

+1
but you already know that I'm no fan of them... and those photos just confirm it.

[BruceLeventhal]

Thanks to those who have replied so far...
For the record, I do not need to be convinced about the merits of Nikkor 300mm f/2.8's as I have owned an AiS, AF-N, AF-S I, and now AF-S II.
With respect to converters... agreed. There is a "nervous" background in images especially when there is clutter relatively close to subject. The further the background elements are from your subject, the smoother the bokeh becomes. The decision to shift from the 200-400mm VR to the 300 f/2.8 w/ converters was made knowing that both were a compromise (optical and otherwise).

While I appreciate what people have said thus far, it seems that there is no real reason for me to move to the VR lens... at least in terms of image quality gain. With respect to the AFS motor, as far as I can tell, my lens uses the current motor and should not be difficult to repair (should that be necessary), the same can not be said for the older AFi version.

If I have some misconceptions regarding optical differences (nano coat and meniscus filter being noted), please let me know.

thanks again,
bruce

[PedroS]

Bruce, I agree with your points, but one...
I would go to the VR version not because of IQ but as an insurance against AFS motor replacement.
The previous versions could be cheaper but if the motor failed and couldn't be replaced you'll end with a MF with less return in the second-hand market.

[John Koerner]

I have no problem with "nervous" bokehs with my 300 VR II + 2x TC III









And these were all taken at f/8.

[John Koerner]

I don't know what is going on with the blotchiness in the skies of Chambeshi's images.

He has the same camera (D500) and lens (300 VR II) as I do.

I suspect this is a processing issue, not a camera + lens issue.
(I don't know if he shoots straight .jpgs, and then re-processes them again, or what, but I never have blotchiness issues with the sky like this.)

I shoot raw, convert to .tiff, then I convert the finalized image to .jpg.

[MILLIREHM]

There is some considerable points in what Pedro has said, replace the lens to assure that it remains servicable. But I'd recommend you to wait (if just IQ and speed is your issue and not money) until a AF-S 300/2,8 E FL will come out. I would not wonder if that will be part of this years Nikons announcement.

Personally I have the first version of the 300/2,8 AF-S and bought the 200-400 afterwards - which was the reason why my  use of the 300 decreased.
The 400 /2,8 FL is way better than both of these lenses

[PedroS]

The 400 /2,8 FL is way better than both of these lenses

Yes, it is!
The new FL version is from another world 

[chambeshi]

Hi John
yes irksome... it is definitely not in original raw images viewed in Capture NX-D. Obvious in the 2 with blue-sky

I don't know what is going on with the blotchiness in the skies of Chambeshi's images.

He has the same camera (D500) and lens (300 VR II) as I do.

I suspect this is a processing issue, not a camera + lens issue.
(I don't know if he shoots straight .jpgs, and then re-processes them again, or what, but I never have blotchiness issues with the sky like this.)

I shoot raw, convert to .tiff, then I convert the finalized image to .jpg.

I too shoot in RAW - always. These were exported into High res jpgs, to post here I imported into Corel Photopaint and downsized therein so I can upload the smaller files over copper phone line! The high res jpgs are fine

And there is indeed no problem whatsoever with original images from 300 lens/camera :-)

kind regards

woody

[John Koerner]

Hi John
yes irksome... it is definitely not in original raw images viewed in Capture NX-D. Obvious in the 2 with blue-sky

I too shoot in RAW - always. These were exported into High res jpgs, to post here I imported into Corel Photopaint and downsized therein so I can upload the smaller files over copper phone line! The high res jpgs are fine

And there is indeed no problem whatsoever with original images from 300 lens/camera :-)

kind regards

woody

Hi Woody;

In thinking about it, certain websites (which allow uploads) have software rendering built-in, which can affect images also. (Facebook, for example, used to have terrible rendering to its uploads, as did others.)

Part of what their built-in software does to any uploads is down-rez them (from, say a 300-pixel density down to a 72 pixel density), losing a bunch of info, which can often sully the whole image.

I noticed you uploaded your images here, as an attachment, wheres I create a link to my own site, so that the original pixel density remains where I have control of how the uploaded image is rendered.

Not sure what this site here uses to render its uploads (GD, Image-Magik, etc.), but it can make a difference in the outcome. As I am sure you know, jpgs re-saved again as jpegs lose information with every re-save.

If a 300px file gets saved to 72 px, and then gets saved again as a 72 px, it loses a huge portion of the original color information it had.

Nice captures, BTW, I was just curious why yours were rendered differently, given that we shoot with the same gear

Cheers,

Jack