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

[MILLIREHM]

It was me who said way better, not Pedro
And once again, the comparison was against the 300 AFS-1 and the 200-400
and i also made never a secret that this was a purely subjective impression, not mathematically calculated on test results 2 digits after the comma.

Originally i was addressing Bruces question he said he is interested in maximum IQ and speed of the lens thats why I was recommending the FL series
Of course if price is added the result might be different.
In fact there is never one solution but the lens and its  specifications has to meet specific needs

often a lens like  the 80-400 can be the best lens because its easier to carry arround and handhold than the big-glass

[MILLIREHM]

I haven't used either lens. The 400 FL would be fantastic to have but it's not possible for me given financial realities.

However, for what it's worth, in photographylife's MTF tests, the 800/5.6 FL scores a bit higher than the 400/2.8 FL in the center and especially in the corners.  I recall reading that he used flash to prevent vibration from affecting the test result. So these may not be what you see in the real world (without flash) but his findings suggest the 800 may actually be the sharper lens, for what it's worth. Of course, this takes no position in other image quality characteristics that the lenses may have.

What testing I've done of Nikon tripod collars led me to believe they design them to attenuate intermediate speeds such as 1/125s which may just be used for some living subjects but are at the lower edge of shutter speeds for that kind of use. A more rigid tripod collar can help with vibration at still longer exposure times  (e.g. 1/30s, 1/8s etc.) but is not as effective in dampening vibrations at 1/125s (this speed may depend on the lens). I've noticed this with two Nikon collars that I compared with more rigid third party alternatives.

the 800 is a superb lens, my personal impression is that the 400 is sharper, not much but say 5,543%, maybe not reflected in MTF charts but purely subjective
For me the 800 is more useful due to its longer range and the TC800 gives additional range without visible loss. (400 is performing very well with converters)
Lenscore is ranking the 400 as #2 600 FL as #3 and the AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4.0G ED VR (which is also a stellar lens) as #9 whereas the 800 is #14. MTF charts would show the 800 in front, my purely subjective opinion is that the 800 is at least as good as the 600.

Regarding tripod support: When i first used the  AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4.0G ED VR mentioned above using the original collar (Wimberley replacement was ordered but on the way) 2/3rds of the images were unsharp and i thought i am having an AF-issue. The Wimberley food then showed what has been the real reason, and brought my work with this lens to a different sphere. I was not using slow shutter speeds btw

[Andy]

A few images, when I tried to lug the 400mm/500mm/600mm/800mm around for a day, most of them rented (except the 400mm). Did I say "heavy" ?
After this experience, the AFS 300mm/2.8 VR seemed like a pocket lens - light weight, compact, ......

rgds, Andy

[PedroS]

Luxury... 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The poor 500/4 looks so tiny in comparison to its siblings

[John Koerner]

A few images, when I tried to lug the 400mm/500mm/600mm/800mm around for a day, most of them rented (except the 400mm). Did I say "heavy" ?
After this experience, the AFS 300mm/2.8 VR seemed like a pocket lens - light weight, compact, ......

rgds, Andy

You must be a powerlifter to carry all those lenses

[MILLIREHM]

The poor 500/4 looks so tiny in comparison to its siblings

Can be adavantageous
Here we have got an earlier (bigger) version of the 400 wehich makes the 500 look even more tiny

[BruceLeventhal]

A promised picture from yesterday with my humble kit....
I shoot a lot of winter wildlife when I can and rely on kit flexibility and ease of use. It is for this reason that I first opted for the 200-400mm f/4VR1. In Minnesota, our winter morning temperatures vary from -20F (-29C) to 20F (-7C) through February. These cold temperatures are the best times to see and photograph our yearlong winter residents.
The picture here was made yesterday morning. It was about 4F (-16C) with a slight breeze. I love to photograph winter swans because they can contrast with some landscapes and blend in with others. This bird was flying into pool to great another 20 birds or so. I spent an amazing morning shooting everything from social behaviors and tight portraits to fly-ins across a snowy river landscape. After culling 50% of my pics, I had time to process only one before heading back to the grading/marking pile (a teacher's job never stops).
Specs... Nikon D500 ISO800, 1/1250, f/5  Lens: Nikon 300mm f/2.8 + TC14EII

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The bird's behaviour is well captured. However, the picture itself appears to be very richly exposed thus plumage and wings are losing detail. It is likely still possible to get the details back with a redevelopment of the RAW in a good converter.

When the slightly busy background results from the scenery itself or the added TC is impossible to say for a viewer.

[chambeshi]

Wow, Wow - that is one line up of Super lenses!!

A promised picture from yesterday with my humble kit....

Specs... Nikon D500 ISO800, 1/1250, f/5  Lens: Nikon 300mm f/2.8 + TC14EII

well as many - a combo that's very hard to better for flying birds and leaping mammals and breaching whales 

[Erik Lund]

The blur/Bokeh of the snowy areas is a true fingerprint of the 1.4 TC's

[MFloyd]

In the summer of 2014, I had the opportunity to test the 400mm f/2.8 for an entire day, thanks to Nikon Switzerland who was present at Air14, a very big air show which lasted over 10 days.  At that time, the only modern long focal length I had was the Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6.  The 400mm is quality wise probably the best lens I experienced: however, its bulk, cost and area of deployment (most racing, planes) made that I decided to go for the AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR II; together with the TC-20E AF-S III. Now,  about 2 years later, I took about 8'000 pictures in 300mm and 3'000 pictures in 600mm.  The quality of the 300mm is really outstanding; and remains excellent with the TC-20E III.  One of the best purchases I made with a reasonable cost / performance ratio.

Hereunder a couple of pictures, the third one with full aperture, which is my normal working aperture with this lens; it is mounted on a RRS baseplate, quick release clamp and most of the time on a carbon monopod.  Standard modus operandi is "VR ON".

(1) 300mm f/5.6 1/320s  ISO 110
(2) 600mm f/8  1/400s ISO 110
(3) 300mm f/2.8 1/4000s ISO 100
(4) setup D5 / 300mm / RRS / Vectronix
(5) crop 100% (1200x1200px) 300mm f/8

[BruceLeventhal]

The bird's behaviour is well captured. However, the picture itself appears to be very richly exposed thus plumage and wings are losing detail. It is likely still possible to get the details back with a redevelopment of the RAW in a good converter.

When the slightly busy background results from the scenery itself or the added TC is impossible to say for a viewer.

Thank you for your thoughts here Bjorn. While the behavior of this species has become increasingly easy to predict (not just because my former life as a researcher was as a behavior ecologist ), exposing for them has not. The place where I photograph trumpeter swans involves the birds flying from deep shade into bright sun and back to shade for a landing. The flock moves about quite a bit and they tend to hang out on icy and snowy rivers. Since they are about as white as it gets, exposure is a challenge. In addition, I tend to expose to the right so as to avoid noise in the shadow. In the case of this picture, the highlights are not clipped/blown (at least according to LR), and there appears to be detail in the coverts when viewing the wings on my home monitor. I will play with the highlight slider a bit, but I fear that jpg compression can do some nasty things when downsizing an image to present on the web.

thanks again for chiming in.
bruce

[BruceLeventhal]

The blur/Bokeh of the snowy areas is a true fingerprint of the 1.4 TC's

I don't know if what you see actually is a "tell" of teleconverter use, but it could be... In my case, I feel as if I have few options... use a teleconverter or shoot with a bulkier/heavier lens. Having just returned from a 2.5 mile hike through fresh snow to photograph a hibernating black bear that created an accessible nest, I am not sure if my back could have handled another 2kg. I wonder, had I not indicated that the shot was taken with a 1.4x, you might not have noticed the snow... it is tough to avoid one's perception if he or she has already developed a bias.

However,... just to be clear, there is no doubt that a straight 400 f/2.8 will be sharper and have a prettier bokeh than a 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x. The improvement in this quality comes at a cost (financial and physical) that I don't wish to bare... speaking of which, the black bear I "chased" did not make for much a photograph, but it, nonetheless, was quite exciting to see.

bruce

[MFloyd]

I just realise that this thread is a gathering of what our forum counts in eminent bird / naturalists / environmentalists.  I hope that my small contribution of stinking, noisy, polluting subjects didn't disturb you....  A small technical remark about the rather atypical "110 ISO": in situations where I have to control speed (in the aforementioned pictures, to maintain speed blur) AND depth of field, I go as close as possible to the 100 ISO limit (in Auto ISO) but keeping a small margin, not to get overexposed; that's the quid pro quo.