nikon 300mm 2.8 vr

[golunvolo]

I always wanted to have one of those. I have a chance to get one very nice looking copy of the vr -not vrII- for 2850€ 


  What do you think?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

It is a nice lens, perhaps a little on the expensive side for such a veteran model?

[Erik Lund]

I would say 2000€ for a Mint,,,, or just get the new 300mm 4 AFS E much more portable!

[golunvolo]

     Thanks for your advice. I will gladly take one for 2000 €  in mint condition. I'm afraid I do need the extra light gathering for stage work.

   This was found in a second hand site in Spain. Were will you look for one?

[BruceLeventhal]

Interesting, in the US $3100 (US dollars... about the same as 2850Euro) would be a good (not great) price for a very clean 300mm f/2.8VR... there is not a huge difference between this and the current model.

cheers,
bruce

[Akira]

The current 300/2.8 VR II was released in January 2010, so it's been seven years since the first VR model was discontinued.  I would doubt if the lens is still reparable when the super sonic motor fails...

[chambeshi]

The current 300/2.8 VR II was released in January 2010, so it's been seven years since the first VR model was discontinued.  I would doubt if the lens is still reparable when the super sonic motor fails...

Yes could be troublesome and expensive. I found my Used 300 2.8G VRII - Mint in London for 2600 pounds. A most solid investment for outdoor photography, and especially it's one powerful optic coupled with TC1.4 or 2x (there's much about this combo on NG). For stage work, there's also the 200 f2G VR II. It performs very well both optics and AF with the new Nikkor TCEs. Both rank among the top optics available for any system

here's a bit more on the WWW ....actually for first VR version of the 200 f2:

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-200mm-f2-lens-review.htm

"....I'm quite pleased with all the results I've shot with this lens [200mm f2 Nikkor VR I ], even with teleconverters. With the TC-14E on and stopped down, it's mighty close in performance to the venerable 300mm f/2.8, and still highly usable wide open. The TC-17E and TC-20E III are also very usable on the lens. It isn't far behind the 200-400mm f/4 with the TC-20E III stopped down a stop...."

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

Used 200 f2G copies are rare compared to the 300 f2.8G VR2. In the US, check B&H and KEH. In UK, well there's GoW but pricey (!)  Aperture in Soho are far better... Also Ldn Camera Exchange or Wex

kind regards

Woody

[Erik Lund]

You have a choice in life regarding camera equipment; Either use and enjoy your camera gear or sit in front of the computer and fear that the camera gear will break down,,, You make that decision.

There are no spare parts for the build in motor of the AF-I lenses (Pre AFS)

[Ilkka Nissilä]

It used to be the case that Nikon stored spare parts for 10 years of service since a lens is discontinued. But of course this depends on being able to plan accurately how the failure rates for different components will turn out to be.

I thought the 300/2.8 VR I and II are quite similar with VR system upgraded and some new AF mode (M/A and A/M priority?) in the II version. Perhaps the AF-S motor is the same in the two models. Nikon made a big deal about developing a new ring motor for the 24-70/2.8E ... I would think that there is no such effort in a minor upgrade as the 300/2.8 going from VR I to II. If the cost of developing each different ring SWM is high then surely they would not do it just for sport, to keep designers occupied. If the motor is the same then there should not be a parts issue since the VR II is current model.

For this type of expensive lens, I would expect a working life of 20-30 years, in normal (not especially rough) use. The optics surely can take that, but VR and SWM perhaps can require service. To allow an expensive lens to  be unrepairable due to lack of some electronic parts in a relatively short time would seem very un-ecological if the glass can be used for a much longer time.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I own the pre-VR 300/2.8 Nikkor and had it repaired just one year ago. Thus, if you are lucky, spare parts will be available for much longer than the standard 10 years. However, as Ilkka points out, predicting the failure rates of components in the future is not simple, and some parts might well run out of stock even before the grace repair period is elapsed.

If one should increase the odds of having a functional lens for a life-time, getting a purely manual lens is the wiser option. Or just buy your dream lens now, use it, and worry later.

[chambeshi]

If one should increase the odds of having a functional lens for a life-time, getting a purely manual lens is the wiser option. Or just buy your dream lens now, use it, and worry later.

Agree fully. Complimentary Tactics :-)

[chambeshi]

Does the encircled '10' on current G and E Nikkors denote expected/average lifespan?

For this type of expensive lens, I would expect a working life of 20-30 years, in normal (not especially rough) use. The optics surely can take that, but VR and SWM perhaps can require service.

[Erik Lund]

No.

It's a RoHS marking for China,,,

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Does the encircled '10' on current G and E Nikkors denote expected/average lifespan?

No this is explained in the 300/2.8 manual (Chinese section).

http://download.nikonimglib.com/archive2/ZOWsw00D70R5024aAVT45RU7hn33/AFS300_2.8GEDVRII_(E3_DL)09.pdf

See page 176 top of the page contains a table regarding which hazardous substances the product contains, which are thought to stay inert at least for 10 years without being released. It seems the product contains a bit of lead (Pb), my guess is that it is in the plastic. I have no idea how they estimate the duration in which the substance is not released or in what quantity or what effects it might have. Perhaps someone who speaks Chinese could translate this page.

The next RoHS symbol upwards is 25 so I guess Nikon could not guarantee that none of the lead is released in a period of 25 years of use. So they have to use the symbol 10.

[Akira]

See page 176 top of the page contains a table regarding which hazardous substances the product contains, which are thought to stay inert at least for 10 years without being released. It seems the product contains a bit of lead (Pb), my guess is that it is in the plastic. I have no idea how they estimate the duration in which the substance is not released or in what quantity or what effects it might have. Perhaps someone who speaks Chinese could translate this page.

Apparently the lead is contained in the mechanical parts (gears or something like that) and the electronic parts (perhaps the solder).