Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Roger has nailed all the major points quite accurately. After using the latest versions of both these lenses (with and without the Nikon 1.4x and their latest 2x), there is little to fault with the 300 f2.8 VR I and II (they are virtually identical except noth having the zoom/framing capbilities of the 200-400 f4.This one is easy to describe but difficult to choose. The 300/2.8 VR2 is superior in every measure of IQ either with or without the extenders. In fact the IQ is stunning similar to the 200/2 . This is because the design did not compromise to keep size down .
The 300/2.8 with the newest 2x AF is fast enough to shoot Polo . Its not as strong as the 600/4 but a heck of a lock more versatile and portable . Nikon needs a new 1.4extender as up to date as the 2x .....you would expect a big jump in performance (going from 2x to 1.4X but they seem similar ). I find few if any limitations to the 300/2.8 and the two extenders ......except its darn heavy .
The 200-400/4 handles beautifully and is a joy to use . If you need to be in a fixed position (like a lot of telephoto work ) its pretty great to be able to frame precisely . The IQ is best between 200-300 and at distances short of infinity . It is a great lens for say tennis where you move from 200 on one end to 400 on the other .
I do not like it with either of the extenders and just stop using them. Surfing required from 300mm to 560mm so using a 1.4x seemed perfect . Images just lost too much contrast .
I enjoy the 300/2.8 and the 2 extenders much more than the 200-400. But when you need a zoom to frame ..you need one . The IQ is pretty close comparing the 300 + 1.4X to the 200-400 at 400 ..so you do have a choice.
The problem is that you want the best lens to use for: some landscapes, lifestyle shoots and on occasion wildlife/sports----- no perfect solution. If you remove the wildlife parameter (or only need rarely) then i think the 300/2.8 with the 1.4 and 2.0x TC would be a better choice. Here is my reasoning (not based on actual use).
1) lighter and smaller
2) Gives you f2.8 that might be useful in lifestyle shooting
3) Can always use TC with decent results (as noted) as needed.
4) If you decide you want to consider wildlife in the future add a 500 or 600mm.
Another option would be to get the 300/4 (works well with the 1.4x -- have not tried the 2x yet) and a 500mm/4 VRII. THe 300/4 would work for landscapes (light and can be handheld even without VR), and the 500/4 would work for wildlife.
Hi Joe & All,But the 200mm simply isn't long enough for most wildlife photography. 300-400mm gets you in the game. 600mm is the ultimate tool for the job. And if you're shooting wildlife, you're likely not going to be carrying more than one of these monsters in your bag. Another advantage of the 200-400mm VR II is that it can be shot handheld. I've done it with good results (for a very limited period of time of course).
Joe
LOL! Joe what goes around eventually comes back around (a variation on the usual saying, knowing you used to use lots of long Nikon glass)....and I can fully identify with your enthusiam. As you well know, the 1.4x is a must for ultimate versility of this lens and knowing how much we both generally dislike teleconverters, you won't be disappointed in the use of the 1.4x on the 300 f2.8 VRII. Even the new 2x does well with this lens but then some relatively small to moderate compromises has to be expected.Damn it! Now I'm convinced, too. I just ordered the 300mm f/2.8 VR II. The cash from selling my Leica stuff had to go somewhere. :ROTFL:
Joe