bcbearcatunting Loc: Davidson, NC

Years ago I had an old Nikon 300 2.8 AiS that I loved. Great optics, but heavy as the dickens. Now I'm toting a 300 f/4 as well as a 200-500. And the bag is heavier than ever. I'm thinking about swapping out the 300/f and the 200-500 for a 300 2.8 AF and perhaps a teleconverter or two for those times I really want/need more reach. My question really has to do with what 300 2.8 to get, the slightly older AF II version w/o VR, the slightly newer VR version, or the VR II version and for what reasons. The use would be landscapes, on a D810.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

If you are shooting landscape, why do you need the reach? For landscape, I use between 35mm and 105mm to get as much in the scene as possible. I could see the need for reach if you are shooting wildlife, but if you need a close up of some plants or a specific object, it will not spook if you walk up to it and get as close as you need to.

bcbearcatunting Loc: Davidson, NC

I've used everything from 14mm to my 300, and wanted more from the 300 that day. You never know. But, I agree that most of my work is done with either my 20mm or the 24-70. Sunrises and sunsets often 70-200.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

A 300 2.8 for landscapes ? .......Keep and stick with the 300 f4, TC if you want, get rid of the 200-500 and crop if need be with pixel enlargement.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Ok, next opinion. For a landscape, you really want to capture the maximum amount of the scene that you can, to provide the viewer with the impact of what you saw on site. That being said, I prefer a medium wide angle zoom like the Nikon AF-S 16-35 or a Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art. If there is some component of the scene that you want to capture in more detail, then switch to the 300 mm.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

The VRII version of the 300mm f2.8 may well be the best lens that Nikon has ever made. But it may be more lens than you need for landscapes.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

All of the Nikkor 200 F2.8 lenses are good and will not disappoint. But in many cases, particularly with the AFS I and II, you will need to get a replacement tripod foot since the Nikon one is awful. You probably are already aware of this, given you have a 300mm F4. Another consideration is that the lens is past it's end of life, and getting replacement parts in the event of a mechanical failure is getting to be increasingly difficult.

ELNikkor

You don't need a 2.8 lens for landscapes. (the land doesn't move!) just use a good tripod. Even an f4 lens should be stopped down to get the near and far in focus with 300mm.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Wow, I use a 16-35 mm lens for landscapes. For landscapes your 300 would do great, you don't need speed for landscapes, nothing is moving fast. Your 300 would be the ideal lens.

Jim Bob

At 300, you'd better be back pretty far for many landscapes. Personally, I would use a wider lens. 300 will place severe limitations on your position.

ronichas Loc: Long Island

A friend who works for B&H photo, suggested the Rokinon lenses. They are manual focus, are great lenses, and are very reasonably priced. I now have 2. I have the 14 mm for my Nikon D750 and the 8mm fisheye for my Sony A6500.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

I have a similar question, more for the group, but why would you need f2.8? Seems for a landscape, you would want a lot of depth of field and would be shooting at f8, f11 or higher? In which case, wouldn't a cheaper f4 or f5.6 lens would be just fine?

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

To me this is an unusual question. I would expect a normal to short tele question or perhaps a wide angle lens question to cover landscapes. Most professionals use wide angles although teles are also useful but most teles for landscapes are usually in the 200mm focal length.
I would expect to use a 300mm f2.8 with a tele-converter for sports and wildlife photography.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

There is no "best" lens for landscape. Most folks I know use a wide angle or a wide zoom, but it really depends on the situation you are in. I shoot a lot of landscapes, and I also use a tele in some instances. In short, there is no definitive answer.

bcbearcatunting Loc: Davidson, NC

Thank you, everyone, for your interest, input and time. My focus on a 2.8 was to use TC's for more reach, effectively carrying more reach with nothing more to tote than a small TC. I've too many lenses in my bag as it is, with more still in the cabinet. Trying to pare down the inventory. I do use wides and ultra-wides mostly for landscapes, waterfalls, etc, but also reach out now and then in other situations. I've found that many times as I await a better sun angle or some movement of clouds, there are other things happening around. Birds or other wildlife. Shooting something blooming and wanting to melt the background away, shoot a portrait shot of my wife or one of my daughters, so on and so forth. I always found the old Ai 300 2.8 useful and fun, though a beast to carry. I no longer desire to tote that load and fiddle with manual focus 100% of the time. Did a bunch of years with a Nikkormat and an F3 and back then it was automatic to me. I've been spoiled now with really good AF lenses and zooms.
Again, thank you all. And I'm no closer to making up my mind now than I was before.