agillot

f 5.6 is fast enough , i use a 400mm and 800mm prime , the 400 is 5.6 , the 800 is a f8 , in day light sunny, this work fine , on top of that you usually dont shoot wide open due to the loss of sharpness , so , i shoot at f8 , and f11 with the longer lens , plus that give you some extra dept of field .

GED Loc: North central Pa

The Nikon 300mm 2.8 lenses have all been excellent quality lenses. Yes they are a bit larger and heavier than the f4 variety however in lower light situations be it the jungle or early morning or late afternoon the brighter viewfinder is worth the trade off for me. By adding any of the excellent Nikon teleconverters you have a lot of versatility in a relatively small package.
I understand equipment weight is a determining factor for many people for various reasons, however weight is also an advantage when it comes to dampening vibration. One other consideration is the ability to have nicely diffused backgrounds (bokeh). I would recommend renting one for your trip if you think you might be interested.
I will attempt to include a few photos taken with a Nikon 300mm 2.8 but I have not posted any photos here before so I'll see how it goes. Best of luck to you!

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

I am shooting with a D810 and have a AFS 300mm f/4 in my arsenal. I have very good things to say about it and shoot it with and without a TC17EII. I dumped a AFS 28-300mm to get this (used LNIB). One of my buddies bought the AFS 200-500 before his trip to Africa. The zoom ring failed and would not extend past 450mm. It is now in for repair at Nikon Canada. This lens has decent reviews but is not built to “Gold Ring” standards.

If you’re not afraid of manual focus and can boost contrast in post, then look at the venerable AI-s 300mm f/4.5 This was my first 300mm lens which I bought for US$225, used it for 18 months and sold it for US$250. It is an amazing lens and wins on the value for money scale!

rjandreoff Loc: Hawaii

I bought a "like new" 300 mm, F 4 AFS (no VR) about four years ago for $600. Solid construction. Rockwell has a good write up on it.

www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/300f4afs.htm

It has been used A LOT on a D 4 for nature, wildlife, indoor/outdoor sports. Really sharp! Great results.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I do not have Nikon but use a Canon 100-400. I do not find the speed of the lens to be an issue unless it is very dark.
I would say the 200-500 would be incredible with your camera and many Nikon users on this site love this lens and the great quality they get with the types of photography you do.
So from what is said here look seriously at the excellent 200-500.

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

Not in the same class. Tiny noisy sensor. I love my RX10M4, but it is not a substitute for a full frame camera and a true, sharp 600mm lens.

To the OP - I shoot with a D800, D810, Sigma Sport 150-600 (hand held) and 600mmF4 in low light or when I attach. 1.4TC (on a tripod with a gimbal). Since getting the Sigma I rarely use the big lens and tripod.

If the 6.5 lbs is too heavy, the Tamron G2 is almost two lbs lighter, and matches the Sigma in image and build quality.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Full frame Nikon cameras with long lenses and "light" are a contradiction of terms. Leave the Nikons at home and look at Olympus or Panasonic gear and you may find just what you need. Sure its a compromise but just a small one and the trip will be that much more enjoyable.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 would be great for many things (much more versatile than a 300mm prime). And an APS-C D500 or D7500 to complement it would be ideal (although all would work fine on D750, D810, D850 too). Just increase your ISO to get fast enough shutter speeds to stop movement. Later model DX cameras are pretty darned capable of high ISO... especially the more "modest" 21MP models like the D500 and D750 (versus the 24MP D7200, etc.) Keep in mind that with more distant subjects you may be able to use slightly slower shutter speeds anyway, before motion blur is a problem.

It takes some effort to manage a big lens like the 200-500mm... even more-so on an APS-C camera where it "acts like" a 300 to 750mm lens would on your D750! VR helps A LOT! (I've been using Canon IS lenses for over 15 years and, especially with powerful telephotos, swear by them!)

You're right... f/5.6 is a bit limiting. But that's a necessary trade-off to have a reasonably sized ultra-telephoto.

The $1350 Nikkor 200-500mm is about 10 or 11" long when it's retracted (w/o hood), about 4.25" in diameter (95mm filters), and weighs around 4.5 lb.

In comparison....

Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/2.8 costs $5500, is about the same length (internal focusing or "IF") without hood, but is about 5" diameter (52mm drop-in filters) and weighs close to 6.5 lb.

Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4D costs $1350, is IF, 9" long and 3.5" diameter (77mm filters), weighs around 3 lb.

Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4 "PF" costs $2000, is 6" long and 3.5" diameter (77mm filters), and weighs under 2 lb.

A Nikkor AF-S 200-400mm f/4 is available... for $7000. It's around 15" long and 5" in diameter (uses 52mm drop-in filters), and weighs around 7.5 lb. You'd also need a high quality 1.4X teleconverter to bump it up to a 560mm f/5.6...so figure an additional $400 or so, as well as an add'l 1 lb. or so of weight.

Or, if you really, REALLY want it, Sigma makes a 200-500mm f/2.8.... for $26,000. It's almost 30" long and 10" in diameter (72mm drop in filters), and weighs about 35 lb.

Note: Not recommended for use around airports.... You'd probably get arrested!

I shoot sports and wildlife with Canon gear, with similar challenges and solutions as you using Nikon gear. For lower light conditions and birds in flight, I hand hold a 300mm f/4 quite a bit. I also have and sometimes use 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4 primes, but those are largely "tripod only" lenses (or at least a monopod). They make me a lot less mobile.

But for the past couple years my most frequently used lens is a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom... for it's versatility. It's just a bit limited in low light conditions. Canon has a 200-400mm f/4, too... It has a built-in, matched 1.4X teleconverter, too. Very cool and superb images. But at $11,000, 15" length (w/o hood), 5" diameter and a fairly hefty 8 lb., I'm not running out to buy one any time soon!

For sports/wildlife, the vast majority of the time I use all these lenses on APS-C crop cameras.

btbg

The OP isn't shooting in sunshine. He is talking about shooting under a jungle canopy, which can be quite dark, even in daylight. Even f5.6 would require that he jack the iso up quite a bit.

Basically there are two choices for shooting Monkeys, either shoot them in a captive situation or get a big lens such as the 300 2.8 or a 600 f4 and learn how to hand hold them for wildlife shots.

The OP is going to be shooting either wide open or nearly wide open. For those of us who don't have the money to buy a 600 f4 we have to make compromises. My compromise is a Sigma 150-600 sport and push the ISO like crazy. That puts me at f6.3, with the ISO maybe as high as 4,000 for the situation the OP is talking about. If necessary I will push the ISO even higher, although you pay a price for that as you start getting more noise.

There just is no such thing as a lightweight fast big lens. You either have a slow lens or a heavy lens. If the wildlife is important enough then you will eventually get the fastest and longest lens that you can afford.

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

GED Loc: North central Pa

The OP has received many opinions and much information about his question which is good.

I believe he was headed down the correct path when considering a 300 2.8 lense for the situations he is working under. Having photographed at Conowingo and Muddy Run for Whitetails and birds and working in less than ideal lighting a good portion of the time I would offer a few thoughts. When working in the northeast such as southern Lancaster Co.area a good portion of your days are not cloudless, same as under jungle canopy. I have shot with 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 4, 600 4, and 800 5.6 Nikon lenses and the reason I tell you this is you would not want to hand hold any of these lenses except for the 300mm. The 300mm is hand holdable and will give you 420mm at f4, or 510mm at f4.5, or 600mm at 5.6 in a smaller lighter package than the other lenses I mentioned when using teleconverters. The 300mm 2.8 Nikon lense has VR and internal focusing and is a fantastic lense which will work great with the D850 you mention, I have been using a D810. It is an expensive lense as most things are of high quality. Remember that autofocus systems work best with faster lenses and if you can possibly borrow or rent a 300mm 2.8 and a 200mm-500mm 5.6 zoom and compare your comfort using them and the end results only then will feel totally satisfied with that large of a purchase. Just keep in mind that a f2.8 lense will take in 4 times as much light as a f5.6 lense. If you don't have the light and you need the shutterspeed then your ISO has to increase and with it noise increases and quality goes down. One other factor many fail to consider is as the magnification increases shutter speed becomes more critical to obtain sharp images. Hope this is of some help to you.

Erns Eye

In using the new 300 f4, have you experienced flare when shooting birds on water from the fresnel optics? I saw some samples of the flare which had blown out whites in water pictures. I wasn’t sure if it was shooting with not the best camera settings or a lens issue in that situation. I also plan to shoot in jungles which tend to be shadowy with bright light peeking in between the foliage. It is a high contrast situation. The wildlife moves so I am not sure that VR will help. The bright light filtering through the leaves might create flare, but I am interested to hear what your experience has been.

Erns Eye

Thank you for your reply.

pesfls Loc: Oregon, USA

I own a 300 f4 ED IF and have not had flare issues when shoting birds on water. Certainly not when well exposted & then processed. I haven’t shot in jungles with heavy canopy since film days. It can be so dark you might wish for some highlights. Good luck on your trip.

GED Loc: North central Pa

I have not used a 300 f4 my experience has been with the 300 2.8. and performance of that lense has been stellar. Sometimes when shooting white birds in bright sun on water a polarizer can be helpful but it will cost you some light. This fall I observed several people trying to photograph elk that were in a dark grove of hemlocks with the low early morning sun coming up behind the elk and the photographers shooting straight toward the sun. The result was flare and unhappy elk photographers. When using telephoto lenses my personal habit is to use the hood designed for the lense and I try to set up so direct light creates a shadow over the front element and does not shine directly into the lense. The high contrast situation you refer to is a good place to experiment with the Nikon active D lighting mode which will help to give a more natural contrast range in that example. The d810 has that feature and I'm sure the d850 probably does as well. The dynamic range of the d810 sensor is 14.8 evs which will give you a lot of information to work with later. In situations like yours I will sometimes carry a Minolta 1 degree spot meter and just take several readings to see what the range is as light quality changes. You could have the same result using the spot meter in camera on a long lense but to me it's easier to just use the small spot meter. Best of luck to you Erns Eye sorry if I bored you with things you are already aware of.